057a78df   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,   
   rec.food.cooking   
   XPost: alt.gothic   
   From: rupertmccallum@yahoo.com   
      
   On Nov 5, 9:53 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   > 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?   
   >   
      
   I've repeatedly said that the phrase has no real meaning, and you've   
   pretty much confirmed that.   
      
   > >> >> >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.   
   >   
      
   Yes, a lot more meaningless. There would be widespread agreement about   
   what constitutes a good life. There is no widespread agreement about   
   what counts as a "life of positive value". If you want to introduce   
   such a phrase you have to give criteria for when the phrase is   
   applicable, and you're basically conceding that there are no criteria   
   at all.   
      
   > >> >> >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?   
   >   
      
   I have no recollection of your giving any useful guidance about how to   
   interpret the phrase, and I bet you cannot show me where you have done   
   so.   
      
   > >> >> >> 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.   
   >   
      
   I have no interest in playing your stupid games.   
      
   > >> >> >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)