<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:40:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 11:07:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 02:03:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>And the fact that billions experience lives of negative value works
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>AR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Who wins?
>>>>>
>>>>> Livestock who get to experience decent lives of positive
>>>>> value and humane deaths appear to win
>>>>
>>>>Does it really?
>>>
>>> Yes THEY do. You just can't allow yourself to comprehend the
>>> fact any more, IF you were ever able to at all.
>>>
>>>>How did you figure that?
>>>
>>> It appears to be true for all sentient creatures.
>>>
>>>>How many many decent animal lives
>>>>does it take to cancel a bleak, miserable life?
>>>
>>> That's a different subject, and one you can't begin to
>>> consider in any detail until you get more comfortable admitting
>>> that some livestock do have lives of positive value. Remember
>>> that up until this point you couldn't even consider that aspect
>>> for humans or anything else, but if you can now consider it for
>>> any creatures at all then try to get somewhere with it.....
>>
>>We are morally culpable for causing animals to suffer, we're not entitled
>>to
>>moral credit because they "experience life", the fact has no moral
>>significance.
>
> You failed entirely. Again I encourage you to try to get
> somewhere...

I failed as I always do when I attempt to communicate an idea with nuance to
a being who doesn't even know what nuance means.

Doesn't seem like I need encouragement to keep doing it though, after a
decade.