7c500c1c   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,   
   rec.food.cooking   
   XPost: alt.gothic   
      
   On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:13:29 -0700 (PDT), Rupert    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
       Did you finally learn that what I've been telling you is true, or do you   
   still not believe it or whatever? If not, why do you bring it up?   
      
   >> >> >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.   
      
       Certainly not the least bit more meaningless than to say they have "good"   
   lives, and you pretend to be able to have some slight comprehension of what   
   that   
   means.   
      
   >> >> >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?   
      
       I've told you a number of times, though possibly not as many as you've   
   dishonestly acted as though I have not. Did you forget about that part too?   
      
   >> >> >> 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.   
      
       We will until YOU provide examples to indicate that you have some   
   appreciation for the lives of some creature(s). Try doing it now if you think   
   you can.   
      
   >> >> >> 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/welfar   
   _of_broilers_in_the_eu_2005.pdf   
      
       Did you know the caged hens' parents are raised in cage free houses? And   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)