a790a5ba   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,   
   rec.food.cooking   
   XPost: alt.gothic   
      
   On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:57:10 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Dec 13, 9:27 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >> 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!!!   
   >>   
   >   
   >This is a term *you* were using, remember. I was happy to accept you   
   >using this term without giving a precise definition because it can be   
   >taken as given that most native English speakers would have at least   
   >some idea of what it means.   
      
       Anyone who isn't too mentally challenged is able to develop their own   
   interpretation of what it means. You didn't like mine, and still can't   
   comprehend how life can be of positive value without actually being "good".   
   You're below the level of the average sixth grade child in that regard, unless   
   you're lying blatantly. It's one or the other. There are no other alternatives.   
      
   >In the case of the term "life of positive   
   >value" I think that it is your obligation to give some explanation of   
   >what it means, one which actually conveys some useful information,   
   >unlike your previous attempts.   
   >   
   >> >It's a commonly understood concept.   
   >>   
   >>     It's meaningless unless YOU can define it. Try defining it. Go:   
   >>   
   >   
   >There are different possible ways to spell out what a "good life"   
   >involves, which could be the subject of reasonable debate. Some would   
   >say that it involves one's life having a strong balance of hedonically   
   >pleasant experiences over aversive ones, some would say that it   
   >involves a strong balance of desire-satisfaction over desire-   
   >frustration, some would say that it consists in the achievement of   
   >"objective goods" like attainment of knowledge, awareness of true   
   >beauty, loving and being loved by other people, and so forth. However,   
   >there would be a significant degree of convergence among people when   
   >it came to judging which lives were in fact reasonably good (both in   
   >the cases of humans and nonhuman animals). It involves reference to   
   >the level of well-being experienced by the individual. The notion of   
   >"well-being" probably cannot be helpfully defined in other terms, but   
   >it can be explained by giving examples of things which could be   
   >plausibly thought to contribute to well-being. You could also define   
   >it as involving being in a state that you have self-interested reasons   
   >to want to be in.   
      
       That sucked. You're not as good at defining what a good life is as I am at   
   defining what a life of positive value is. You're so all over the place with it   
   that what you maundered conveys no worthwhile way of distinguishing a life   
   that's good from one that's not, and of course you STILL can't comprehend how a   
   life could be of positive value without being litterally "good".   
      
   >> >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.   
   >>   
   >   
   >But we are talking about nonhuman animals who arguably cannot   
   >conceptualize such issues.   
      
       As long as they struggle to survive it's safe to say they wish to continue   
   living. And when the no longer struggle to it's safe to say they don't care any   
   more. It seems even a guy with a PhD should be able to figure that out.   
      
   >> >> 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.   
   >   
   >But as I say, a nonhuman animal would arguably not be able to   
   >formulate such a question.   
      
       Until they give up it's safe to say life still has some degree of positive   
   value left to them, even though you insist you're clueless as to what that   
   could   
   mean.   
      
   >> 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...   
   >   
   >If it's so easy to understand, then why are you unable to give an   
   >explanation of what you mean that conveys any useful information?   
      
       I'm not, but you might honestly be too stupid to appreciate what the   
   information means. You're either too stupid to comprehend the easy concept, or   
   you're blatantly dishonestly pretending you are because appreciating it works   
   AGAINST your elimination objective. So far I still believe you're more   
   dishonest   
   than stupid, much as you try to pretend otherwise. I still believe you're too   
   stupid to be able to obtain a PhD, but I don't believe you're too stupid to   
   dishonestly make it appear that you managed to get one.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)