XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,   
   rec.food.cooking   
   XPost: alt.gothic   
      
   On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:05:39 -0800, Goo lied again for his brother Rupert:   
      
   >On 12/17/2012 12:15 PM, dh@. wrote:   
   >> 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:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >   
   >No.   
      
       It sure did Goo. There is no definition at all, in fact. His attempt to   
   provide a definition is nowhere near as good as the definition that I provide.   
   . . .   
   >>> I was speaking of the outcome   
   >>> being better from the perspective of an impartial observer.   
   >>   
   >>      LOL!!! That is your most pathetic yet!   
   >   
   >It's a little bit better than what you've done   
      
       LOL!!!!! Goober he isn't even able to attempt considering anything from the   
   animals' pov, which is what determines whether or not something is cruel. The   
   question is whether or not things are cruel TO THE ANIMALS Goob. You   
   eliminationists think the question is what's cruel to those of you who are   
   horribly disturbed by the fact that other people eat meat...LOL...but in fact   
   it   
   doesn't have a damn thing to do with whether you people like it or not, Goo.   
   It's just very surprising that he would admit he doesn't care about the   
   animals.   
   I expect him to try lying that he actually does at some point, but then again   
   he   
   might be afraid to say anything more about it at all. No doubt he doesn't want   
   to and that's why you being his brother have taken over for his lame ass. You   
   people are pathetic Goob...amusing, but pathetic.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)