7405de60   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,   
   rec.food.cooking   
   XPost: alt.gothic   
      
   On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:31:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Oct 24, 12:08 am, dh@. wrote:   
   >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> >On Oct 22, 8:02 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert    
   >> >> wrote:   
   >> >> >On Oct 18, 8:14 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> >> 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.   
   >>   
   >> >> >I asked Petra and Stefan. Petra said "What does he mean by positive   
   >> >> >value?" I tried to give them some idea of what I thought you meant by   
   >> >> >it.   
   >>   
   >> >> What did you tell them?   
   >>   
   >> >I told them that I think it's got something to do with the idea of a   
   >> >life which contains a balance of pleasant experiences over aversive   
   >> >experiences.   
   >>   
   >>     Not enough suffering to make it of negative value is my answer. From   
   there   
   >> they would need to figure out what it means to them if they can. Just   
   because   
   >> you can't doesn't mean other people can't. Remember we were doing it in   
   grade   
   >> school, so it seems ANYONE in high school or above should certainly be able   
   to   
   >> do it as wall.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Presumably here "figure out what it means to them" means "make up your   
   >own criteria for how to determine whether the concept applies or not".   
   >Obviously I would be capable of formulating such criteria, but that's   
   >not my job. It's your phrase, and it's your job to specify the   
   >criteria for evaluating whether or not the phrase applies to an actual   
   >situation.   
      
       In the end each person must decide for himself as I've pointed out to you   
   from the start. Here's an obvious clue for you that MIGHT help you finally   
   learn   
   to comprehend the fact and maybe even eventually learn to appreciate it. Here's   
   the clue: Some people believe elimination is the best approach, while others   
   believe that providing decent AW is the best approach. Each person must decide   
   for himself... It's the same with lives we consider to be of positive value.   
   For   
   example so far from what you've told me the only creatures on the planet you   
   think might have lives of positive value are SOME grass raised cattle. In   
   contrast to that I believe most cattle do including those fed grain, and that   
   most broiler chickens and their parents do, and that even the parents of caged   
   laying hens do. There are others too of course, but that alone is more than you   
   could ever learn to appreciate during your entire life while I've been able to   
   appreciate them for decades.   
      
   >> >> >They both seemed to think it would be pretty hard to determine   
   >> >> >whether a cow has a life of positive value,   
   >>   
   >> >> Not for a person who is familiar with the cow and its life. You can bet   
   >> >> there are lots of farmers who have a pretty good idea about how their   
   animals   
   >> >> are doing and whether they are overly stressed or not. Here's something   
   I feel   
   >> >> sure you've heard before but can't afford to appreciate: Cow produce   
   milk a lot   
   >> >> better when they aren't stressed and unhappy.   
   >>   
   >> >The measures which the modern dairy industry take to ensure that cows   
   >> >produce milk most certainly make them very stressed and unhappy. I've   
   >> >already given you information about that.   
   >>   
   >>     I've spent hundreds of hours on dairy farms and the cows all seemed   
   happy   
   >> enough. The only time they acted stressed at all was when the farmer was a   
   >> little bit late with feeding. That's not enough to make their lives of   
   negative   
   >> value instead of positive value imo. In fact since anticipation is something   
   >> humans enjoy, it might add positive value to cows' lives as well even if   
   they   
   >> can't appreciate it.   
   >   
   >When did you have occasion to visit dairy farms? Were you working   
   >there? Where were these farms?   
      
       From about fifth grade through seventh grade in PA I spent time on a dairy   
   farm almost every day. The farmers knew me well and sometimes would rag me a   
   little when I was "late". A farmer's son showed me how to trap muskrats and I   
   spent quite a few hours doing that. I saw calves born and saw them taken away   
   from their mothers. The first time it was done the new mother was very upset   
   for   
   a few days, but the older cows usually didn't seem to mind much because that's   
   what they got used to. My brother and I were disturbed when one calf we became   
   especially fond of was taken away, but the farmers did make us understand the   
   situation and that a farm is a business so they can't afford to have a bunch of   
   pet calves around drinking milk for no return. The cattle in general all seemed   
   to be content with their position in life, which makes sense because they never   
   learned about anything different. They couldn't want much more than what they   
   had anyway. They were put out to pasture in good days and kept in on bad days,   
   like snowing days. During the summer they were outside all day until time for   
   the evening milking when they were fed hay and grain, and then they went back   
   out to pasture for the night.   
      
       On a farm we hung out on in NC the cattle stayed out all the time winter   
   and   
   summer though they had a barn they could get in when they wanted to. They only   
   had to come in to be milked, into a milk house that only held three cows at a   
   time. After being milked and eating whatever grain they could during the   
   process, they went back out to pasture.   
      
       Both situations seemed good for the animals, and were good to the animals   
   considering the outside environment in the area where they were living.   
      
   >Do you think that the information that I have provided about welfare   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)