On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:02:40 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:08:25 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>>On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik >:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>>
>>>>>I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>>>
>>>>Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
>>>>error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.
>>>
>>> Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
>>>negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
>>>raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
>>>them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
>>>value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
>>>only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
>>>of positive value to a being without actually being "good".
>>
>>Maybe the reason he "can't comprehend it" is the fact that
>>"positive value", "good", "negative value" and "bad" are all
>>subjective value judgements, and as such have no intrinsic
>>meaning, something he appears to know and you don't.
>
> In contrast to that I TOLD him we all must decide for ourselves which lives
>seem to be of positive value and which do not, but he still couldn't get it and
>afaik he still can't. BTW it's easy for me to understand that a life of positive
>value still can not be "good", but it can be average without being truly good or
>bad. A life of negative value can't be average though, but instead has to be
>bad. That's the way I interpret it anyway. Rupert can't interpret it at all much
>less appreciate distinctions between different situations like that, and it's
>likely that you can't comprehend what I'm referring to in any way at all.

You're right; my comprehension of illogic and irrationality
is sorely lacking. And you're still conflating distinct
ideas.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless