On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:16:09 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:35:58 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Good *for them* only if they exist.

Duh, you poor idiot.

>>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".
>
>No, you don't have it yet.

That IS it, as I've been pointing out for years.

>>>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.
>
>Nope, you don't have it yet.

That IS it, as I've been pointing out for years.