3e4ebd8a   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,   
   rec.food.cooking   
   XPost: alt.gothic   
      
   On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 01:22:29 -0700 (PDT), Rupert    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 29 Okt., 23:06, dh@. wrote:   
   >> 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    
   rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>   
   >> >> >> >> >> 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.   
   >>   
   >> >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.   
   >>   
   >   
   >So it looks like you agree that the correct application of the phrase   
   >is a completely subjective matter.   
      
       I've been telling you you have to decide for yourself. Did you forget about   
   that part?   
      
   >> >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.   
   >>   
   >   
   >You pretty much conceded it, above. The question of whether or not the   
   >phrase has been applied correctly is by your own admission entirely a   
   >matter of personal preference.   
      
       I've told you that a number of times.   
      
   >> >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.   
   >   
   >It`s not a lie.   
      
      It is, and saying it's not a lie is yet another lie.   
      
   >> >> 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.   
   >   
   >You`re   
      
       Then as yet we agree that you have NO appreciation for the lives of any   
   creatures including grass raised cattle,  yourself, your friends and your   
   family. If you ever want to try changing that feel free. It would be an   
   improvement if you ever could learn to imo.   
   . . .   
   >> >> In   
   >> >> contrast to that I believe most cattle do including those fed grain, and   
   that   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)