XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,   
   rec.food.cooking   
   XPost: alt.gothic   
   From: ei@o.com   
      
   Long after I'm dead, this thread will commerate my time on the usnet.   
   And one of my grandkids will think, "Damn, Grandpa was a top-posting   
   bozo!"   
      
   --Tedward   
      
    wrote in message news:1hekc89qqethphkupk95b9j4mnhthok1sq@4ax.com...   
      
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>   
   >>A "life of positive value" is anything other than the guy or gal who   
   >>puts a bomb in the center of the earth and blows it apart.  He or she is   
   >>living a life of "negative value" .   
   >   
   >    We're talking about value of life to the individual living it. Some   
   > livestock animals have lives of negative value and some of positive value.   
   > That's true of all beings, including humans. Rupert thinks he can comprehend   
   > what a "good" life is, but not one of positive value. Hilarious for a guy   
   > claiming to have a PhD in math, but also absolutely pathetic. I've pointed   
   out   
   > to him that life doesn't necessarily have to be good in order to be of   
   positive   
   > value, but just not involve enough suffering to be of negative value. That's   
   so   
   > obvious and easy to understand that we discussed it in regards to slavery in   
   > grade school and no one had any problem with it. Rupert would have been the   
   only   
   > person in the class who could not comprehend. If he honestly is too stupid to   
   > comprehend, I can only believe he necessarily must be lying about having   
   > obtained a PhD. If he really is that stupid I doubt he could even obtain a   
   > driver's license, and in fact he does not have one. I don't doubt that he   
   could   
   > lie about having a PhD though, and I've seen his hero Goo do it more than   
   once.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)