View Single Post
  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
George Plimpton George Plimpton is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 7/12/2012 12:06 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:19:56 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>> 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.

>
> The fact


Not a fact.