On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:00:38 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>
>> When a being has a life of positive value it is "good" because
>> we consider things of positive value to be good, Goo.
>
>A good life is good *for them*

Yet when considering them you insanely insist we disregard
that very significant aspect of the situation.

>provided and because they exist,

Not because they exist but because we consider things of
positive value to be good. If they exist and their life is of negative
value, people who can make a distinction wouldn't consider the
lives of negative value to be good FOR THE ANIMALS. You
can NOT make such a distinction because doing so makes you
feel dirty, and you think considering the animals themselves is
"sick".

>better than a shit life,

Since you can't take good lives into consideration, you can't
consider the difference between good lives and bad without
feeling dirty and sick.

>you have not shown it to be *just good, per se*,

A life of positive value is good because we consider things
of positive value to be "good". It's fairly simple: good=good

>you can't.

The purity of your selfishness prevents you from considering
what's good for beings other than yourself, restricting you from
being able to appreciate when animals have lives of positive
value and from making a distinction between when they do
and when they don't. People who aren't so mentally
challenged can easily do what is impossible for you.