7ebbe87d
XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,
rec.food.cooking
XPost: alt.gothic
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:
>On Oct 16, 7:25 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.
>>
>> >I am doing a post-doc at the University of M nster.
>>
>> Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about the
results.
>> Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the distinction between
lives
>> which are of positive value and lives which are of negative value for
different
>> beings.
>
>It's a bit difficult to do that. I don't have any teaching duties and
>I don't speak German very well. Would you like me to ask some of my
>colleagues?
Yes please. And if they can come up with a better definition than mine I'd
like to learn about that too, but so far I believe mine covers it as well as it
can without causing excessive restrictions on the idea. No offense, but I
consider "good" to be an excessive restriction.
>> The distinction applies to humans as well as other animals, and wildlife
>> as well as domestic animals. See if any of the subjects are unable to
relate to
>> the distinction in ANY group of animals or humans. If they say that they
have no
>> problem with it in any group as I expect, then you might tell them that you
>> still can't appreciate it for any creatures at all and see what they say
about
>> that. Their reaction to you telling them that is something I'm quite
interested
>> in, as you should be too. The people I've discussed it with have never had
any
>> problem with the concept and agree that someone who has a problem with it is
>> extremely unlikely to be able to obtain a PhD, and possibly even a driver's
>> license.
>
>I've never tried to get a driver's license.
And that doesn't slow you down?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
