On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:06:22 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>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 that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>positive value to them even though they don't feel that their particular life is
>actually "good". The same sorts of conditions apply to some other types of
>animals besides humans, though you and Rupert can't appreciate the fact even in
>regards to humans much less to other types of animals as well.

Still can't quite grasp it, and have no recourse but to post
irrelevancies, huh? OK; HANL.
--

Bob C.

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