193cfa8d   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,   
   rec.food.cooking   
   XPost: alt.gothic   
   From: rupertmccallum@yahoo.com   
      
   On Dec 12, 9:40 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   > On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:17:59 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   > >I don't claim to be too stupid to comprehend anything. I claim that   
   > >you haven't offered a definition of the phrase "life of positive   
   > >value" which conveys any useful information.   
   >   
   >     I haven't offered a definition of a good life, yet you pretend you're not   
   > too stupid to comprehend what that means. If you're not so stupid that you   
   > depend on me for your own definition of what good means, why ARE you so   
   stupid   
   > that you're dependant on me for what positive value means?   
      
   It can be taken for granted that every native English speaker   
   understands the phrase "a good life" to some extent at least, even if   
   it's not precisely defined. It's a commonly understood concept. That's   
   not the case with the phrase "life of positive value". That phrase   
   only makes sense in the context of some set of background assumptions   
   about the nature of value, and you have to make explicit what your   
   background assumptions are.   
      
   > Of course I also have   
   > to wonder why you're too stupid to comprehend the defintion I gave you,   
      
   I comprehend it perfectly well, but it conveys no useful information.   
      
   > and of   
   > course have to wonder why you're too stupid to comprehend why all lives of   
   > positive value are not good. Those are all easy concepts we understood and   
   > discussed in class by the time I was in sixth grade,   
      
   This isn't true. You did not discuss the phrase "life of positive   
   value" in sixth grade.   
      
   You have given no evidence that your belief that you understand the   
   concept of "life of positive value" isn't simply a delusion.   
      
   > yet you act like you're too   
   > stupid to comprehend them at your age and you act like you're so stupid   
   you'll   
   > never be able to comprehend them at any point during your entire life.   
   >   
   > >Suppose that you were a scientist trying to work out whether a   
   > >particular organism has a life of positive value. What tests would you   
   > >perform?   
   >   
   >     I'd observe the animal and how it behaves, as I've done with countless   
   > animals over the years and still do today.   
      
   And what would be the criteria for determining whether its life had   
   positive value?   
      
   > It's hard to believe anyone is too   
   > stupid to comprehend that, and again that's something I've been doing since   
   > grade school. The cows at the dairy farm I hung out at seemed to have lives   
   of   
   > positive value, for example.   
      
   So what were your grounds for coming to that conclusion?   
      
   > That value changed for some of them sometimes, and   
   > I was aware of that too. In general all of the different types of creatures   
   > appeared to have lives of positive value imo, except for some of the cats.   
   There   
   > were hundreds of feral cats running around, and some of them didn't appear to   
   > have lives of positive value.   
      
   What were the grounds for coming to that conclusion?   
      
   > Most of the other animals not only appeared to   
   > have lives of positive value, but also relatively good lives, imo. You of   
   course   
   > will probably never be able to make such a distinction, but I've been doing   
   it   
   > for decades. It's especially pathetic in your case too, which is more   
   evidence   
   > you couldn't do anything like obtain a PhD. For a normal person to be unable   
   to   
   > comprehend it's still pathetic, but normal people are not in favor of the   
   > elimination of domestic animals. For a person to wish their elimination as   
   you   
   > do, you SHOULD HAVE thought it through and decided that not a high enough   
   > percentage of them have lives of positive value to make it worthwhile for   
   > domestic animals in general to exist, from their pov. To do that   
   realistically   
   > you would need to factor in the fact that they don't suffer from the   
   knowledge   
   > of their own deaths because there's no way for them to find out about them,   
   but   
   > such details as that are WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYY beyond the mental abilities of   
   someone   
   > who can't comprehend how the distinction between lives of positive value and   
   > lives of negative value means anything.>> as I've pointed out in the past.   
   I've also pointed out that   
   > >> your cognitive dissonance would NOT want you to learn to actually believe   
   that:   
   >   
   > >> "there exist some farmed animals such that it would be   
   > >> a better outcome for them to live the life they do rather   
   > >> than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live   
   > >> in their place."   
   >   
   > >> Since in general you're in favor of the elimination of domestic animals   
   you   
   > >> would HAVE TO be able to appreciate the distinction IF you could honestly   
   feel   
   > >> the way you described.   
      
   What distinction do you have in mind here?   
      
   > But that works against your desire to eliminate them all,   
   > >> making you not want to comprehend the concept.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)