10717d45   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,   
   rec.food.cooking   
   XPost: alt.gothic   
      
   On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:22:26 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Nov 13, 11:09 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:41:57 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >On 6 Nov., 18:10, dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> 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".   
   >>   
   >> >Wrong.   
   >>   
   >>     Well, actually it has more since it certainly includes lives which are   
   >> actually "good" as well as those that are not good but still of positive   
   rather   
   >> than negative value to the individual. "Good" of course does not include   
   those   
   >> lives, meaning it doesn't involve all that are of positive value to the   
   >> individual without being necessarily "good".   
   >>   
   >   
   >When you speak of lives that are "not good but still of positive   
   >rather than negative value to the individual", what is it exactly that   
   >makes you believe you are saying anything meaningful.   
      
       Because I believe it's the case for many beings so I like to take that type   
   situation into consideration with the others.   
      
   >You certainly   
   >have shown yourself completely unable to give *any explanation at all*   
   >of what you mean.   
   >   
   >Do you think that, in principle, a scientist would be able to design   
   >tests that would determine whether an individual is having a life of   
   >positive or negative value to that individual?   
      
       There's one test for humans I can think of. That would be to ask them. Of   
   course they may be too stupid to comprehend the question. You are for example.   
   You would fail that test horribly, but it doesn't mean you would have a life of   
   negative value as a result of your complete failure. It would just show that   
   you're too stupid to have any idea whether your own life is of positive or   
   negative value to you.   
      
   >> >> >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.   
   >>   
   >> >Well, actually, it would be pretty reasonable to say that all there is   
   >> >in reality is us holding favourable attitudes towards various   
   >> >instances of music, food, etc.   
   >>   
   >>     Those of us who are able make the decision for ourselves.   
   >   
   >And also those who, like the rest of the human race, hold various   
   >favourable attitudes or disfavourable attitudes towards music, food,   
   >sculpture, and so forth, but don't think that those attitudes reflect   
   >any reality over and above the attitudes themselves.   
   >   
   >>  If you honestly   
   >> can't make it between lives of positive and negative value then you have a   
   >> severe mental handicap in that area from my pov since I've been able to do   
   it   
   >> since at least the sixth grade.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Tell us more about your thought processes in the sixth grade. You   
   >formulated the idea of "positive or negative value" for yourself, did   
   >you? Even though your teacher didn't use that phrase?   
      
       When questioned how slaves could have good lives the teacher had to make us   
   aware that what seems good and bad is a matter of personal opinion, and we   
   learned to form our own interpretation. Maybe you'll learn to as well some day,   
   but it seems you're not mentally capable. You would probably have been in the   
   special ed class at that school I suppose, since you would have been so very   
   far   
   below everyone else.   
      
   >> >> >> >> >> >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.   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)