XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,
rec.food.cooking
XPost: alt.gothic
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:09:49 -0800, Goo wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:43:15 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>No. He very well, if too wordily, explained what "a good life" means.
Present the part(s) you think actually did explain it Goo. Go:
(prediction: the Goober can't present anything other than possibly a lame
excuse
about why he can't present anything)
>>. . .
>>>>> 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.
>
>The animals don't have a 'pov'
They do Goob, even though they're not aware of the position they're in.
LOL...and that particular fact is a very significant part OF their pov Goo. If
they were aware of their own position it would be a lot different but they're
not and you couldn't make them aware of it even if you tried, Goober.
>>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)
|
