<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> 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.

Not at all.
>
>>provided and because they exist,
>
> Not because they exist

Yes, only because they exist.

> but because we consider things of
> positive value to be good.

Good *for them* only if they exist.

> 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.

Right, for them, always *for them*, it has nothing to do with us.

You
> can NOT make such a distinction because doing so makes you
> feel dirty, and you think considering the animals themselves is
> "sick".

No, you don't have it yet.

>
>>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.

No, you still aren't getting it.

>
>>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

Nope, you don't have it yet.