XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:19:56 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
      
   >On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:02:40 -0400, the following appeared   
   >in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:   
   >   
   >>On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:08:25 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, the following appeared   
   >>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared   
   >>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik :   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert    
   >>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same   
   >>>>>error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which   
   are of   
   >>>>negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some   
   grass   
   >>>>raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value   
   to   
   >>>>them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of   
   positive   
   >>>>value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and   
   can   
   >>>>only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life   
   can be   
   >>>>of positive value to a being without actually being "good".   
   >>>   
   >>>Maybe the reason he "can't comprehend it" is the fact that   
   >>>"positive value", "good", "negative value" and "bad" are all   
   >>>subjective value judgements, and as such have no intrinsic   
   >>>meaning, something he appears to know and you don't.   
   >>   
   >>    In contrast to that I TOLD him we all must decide for ourselves which   
   lives   
   >>seem to be of positive value and which do not, but he still couldn't get it   
   and   
   >>afaik he still can't. BTW it's easy for me to understand that a life of   
   positive   
   >>value still can not be "good", but it can be average without being truly   
   good or   
   >>bad. A life of negative value can't be average though, but instead has to be   
   >>bad. That's the way I interpret it anyway. Rupert can't interpret it at all   
   much   
   >>less appreciate distinctions between different situations like that, and it's   
   >>likely that you can't comprehend what I'm referring to in any way at all.   
   >   
   >You're right   
      
       The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a   
   truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has   
   positive value to them even though they don't feel that their particular life   
   is   
   actually "good". The same sorts of conditions apply to some other types of   
   animals besides humans, though you and Rupert can't appreciate the fact even in   
   regards to humans much less to other types of animals as well.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)