On 4/13/2010 8:53 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:02:35 -0700, > wrote:
>
>>
>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:40:31 -0700, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 11:07:39 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 02:03:29 -0700, > 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.

He didn't. He spotlighted the huge flaw in your shabby argument. He
has done so quite literally hundreds of times.


>>> 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.
>
> You lied to me,

He didn't. You are the one who lied.