057a78df   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,   
   rec.food.cooking   
   XPost: alt.gothic   
      
   On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:24:56 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   wrote:   
      
   >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,   
      
       It has as much meaning as "good".   
      
   >and you've   
   >pretty much confirmed that.   
      
       By that pov there's no such thing as good music, or good food, or good   
   scultpure, or good painting, or good clothing, or.... There are lots of things   
   each of us must decide for ourself.   
      
   >> >> >> >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.   
      
       Define what you want us to think is so widely agreed upon.   
      
   >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.   
      
       I told you what it means but you can't comprehend. I also explained why   
   it's   
   a better term than good since life doesn't necessarily have to be good in order   
   to be of positive value.   
      
       Give the widely agreed upon criteria for when the phrase "good" life is   
   applicable, and also for when it's not.   
   . . .   
   >> >>as yet we [STILL!] 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   
      
       Then we STILL agree that you have NO appreciation for the lives of any   
   creatures including grass raised cattle, yourself, your friends and your   
   family.   
   Only you are in the position to change that but it would require you giving   
   examples, and apparently there are none for you to give.   
   . . .   
   >>     Did you know the caged hens' parents are raised in cage free houses? And   
   >> that so are broilers and their parents?   
   >>   
   >   
   >What do you mean by "the caged hens"? Which caged hens? All hens that   
   >are kept in cages?   
      
       Most commercial laying hens in the US are kept in small cages with wire   
   floors. I thought you were well familiar with that.   
      
   >> >> >> 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   
   >> >> >> you don't think first hand experience around them means anything   
   though?   
   >> >> >> Then there's the general way which is that I can recognise that some   
   >> >> >> situations appear to provide lives of positive value and some do not,   
   while you   
   >> >> >> can't even comprehend what the distinction means much less ever make   
   it for   
   >> >> >> yourself.   
   >>   
   >> >> >You`ve pretty much conceded that it doesn't mean anything; that it`s   
   >> >> >entrely a matter of personal preference how the distinction is to be   
   >> >> >interpreted.   
   >>   
   >> >> How else do you think it possibly could be? Do you actually think there's   
   >> >> one true meaning for it that applies to ever situation and condition?   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)