193cfa8d   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,   
   rec.food.cooking   
   XPost: alt.gothic   
      
   On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:43:12 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
       LOL...you claim you don't have to define your favorite term but I have to   
   define mine...LOL!!!   
      
   >It's a commonly understood concept.   
      
       It's meaningless unless YOU can define it. Try defining it. Go:   
      
   >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.   
      
       That's easy. As long as the being wishes to remain alive life is of   
   positive   
   value.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
       You really probably are too stupid for this, but a variation would be to   
   say   
   that it's of positive value as long as the being would rather remain alive than   
   never have been born. There really is significant difference between the two,   
   but you probably could never appreciate anything about any of it. If you think   
   you can then try and we'll see how you do with it.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
       In fact it's very likely my dad used that phrase and is the one who pointed   
   out the difference between just being of positive value and the higher luxury   
   of   
   actually being good. I've been aware of the concept, the differences, and that   
   term for as long as I can remember, and I never think of the distinction using   
   any other term. LOL....it's amusing that you think sixth graders couldn't   
   comprehend something so obvious and easy to understand... Maybe you really ARE   
   that stupid....   
      
   >> 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?   
      
       If it seemed content and not to be afraid, uncomfortable, overly hungry,   
   overly thirsty, sick, tired, scared, etc.... Meaning if there wasn't enough   
   suffering FROM WHATEVER to make it of negative value. It's easy to comprehend,   
   so maybe you really are too stupid for the easiest of aspects of this issue.   
   That could explain why you took refuge in the misnomer...because you're just   
   too   
   stupid to recognise how anything could be better than nothing. Amusing, but   
   sad.   
      
   >> 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?   
      
       Because some of them seemed to spend most if not all of their life overly   
   hungry and scared, and often in pain and often cold. It was in PA. In a similar   
   situation in GA it might seem a lot different. Remember that to me in general   
   all the rest of the animals appeared to have lives of positive value. The cats   
   were a misfit sort of thing, and that particular problem happens frequently   
   with   
   cats and sometimes dogs.   
      
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)