7c500c1c   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,   
   rec.food.cooking   
   XPost: alt.gothic   
   From: rupertmccallum@yahoo.com   
      
   On 1 Nov., 16:55, dh@. wrote:   
   > >> >> >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?   
   >   
      
   That's pretty much identical to what I just said, actually.   
      
   > >> >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.   
   >   
      
   That's pretty much the same as conceding that it's a meaningless   
   phrase.   
      
   > >> >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.   
   >   
      
   So you have given guidance about how to interpret the phrase, have   
   you?   
      
   > >> >> 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.   
   > . . .   
   >   
      
   No. We do not agree on that point.   
      
   > >> >> 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.   
   >   
   > >Be specific. What did you observe that led you to conclude that they   
   > >had lives of positive value?   
   >   
   >     The animals themselves are bred to do well in confinement for one thing.   
   > When birds get out of the cage somehow, they often/usually spend the   
   majority of   
   > their time of freedom trying to get back in. They act content and like   
   they're   
   > enjoying life in general. What do you want people to think instead? We know   
   you   
   > want everyone to think all chickens are suffering, but from what? Not the   
   caged   
   > hens, but all the rest of them. BTW did you know the caged hens' parents are   
   > raised in cage free houses? And that so are broilers and their parents?   
   >   
      
   http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/w/welfare   
   of_broilers_in_the_eu_2005.pdf   
      
   > >> 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   
   > >> butchered them ourselves, so that's a good bit of experience you didn't   
   have   
   > >> even if you were around other pigs that you raised and butchered   
   yourself. Maybe   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)