XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,   
   rec.food.cooking   
   XPost: alt.gothic   
      
   On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:41:21 -0500, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy"    
   wrote:   
      
   >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   
      
       Good luck with that. I wonder if they'll think anything about the value of   
   life for livestock animals too.   
      
   > 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)