On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:55:40 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>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?

That is the position Rupert and you are in apparently.

>OK; HANL.