18e93be6   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,   
   rec.food.cooking   
   XPost: alt.gothic   
      
   On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:53:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Oct 24, 9:44 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >> 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    
   rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>   
   >> >> >> >> >> 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.   
   >   
   >Why?   
      
       Because some things are just that way. It's exactly the same as what types   
   of food you like and don't like, but you have a tremendous mental handicap in   
   that area. The question on that is: Are you mentally handicapped because you're   
   a vegan, or are you a vegan because of the handicap? My guess is it's a   
   combination. Regardless, you can NOT appreciate any distinction between lives   
   of   
   positive value and those of negative value whatever the fault, so you're   
   handicapped in that area. You can't appreciate any distinction between   
   conditions where veggies contribute to more deaths than animal products and   
   when   
   it's the other way around either, again being what I consider a very   
   significant   
   mental handicap.   
      
   >Why can't I just say "It's a meaningless phrase"?   
      
       You can but it's a lie, so every time you say it you're lying. I told you   
   what it means but you can't appreciate that. You're cognitive dissonance won't   
   allow you to accept it because it conflicts with what you want to believe. So   
   something that you WANT TO believe conflicts with the idea that it means lives   
   in which there's not enough suffering to make them of negative value.   
      
   >The evidence   
   >for that conclusion would appear to be pretty strong, if you can give   
   >no guidance at all on how to interpret the phrase.   
      
       That's a lie every time you tell it as well. So you have at least two lies   
   that you repeat frequently, like a Goober.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >Actually, I've told you no such thing.   
      
       Since you're backing down away from it again we will agree that you have NO   
   appreciation for the lives of any creatures including grass raised cattle,   
   yourself, your friends and your family. If you want to change what we agree on   
   in that regard then YOU say what you have any appreciation for and how you   
   think   
   you do.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   >And what are the objective criteria which make your view superior?   
      
       I've been in chicken houses and I've raised hundreds of my own chickens,   
   giving me a lot more personal experience.   
      
   >What objective evidence is it based on?   
      
       Thousands of chickens, several chicken houses, a good number of other   
   people's yards and farms where they raised their birds in different ways, plus   
   the discussions I've had with them as well as first hand observation. Plus   
   there's all the time on the dairy farms, and the discussions with the farmers,   
   and with other people who have had first hand experience. I raised a sow for   
   several years as well, and she had at least four litters of pigs, and I got to   
   see at least some of them born from each litter. We always kept two and killed   
   them to eat which is how I paid for her feed because I was still in high school   
   and didn't work enough to always be buying hog feed. We always killed and   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)