dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
> goddess" > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
>> Dutch > wrote:
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>> It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated by
>> negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).
>
> It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.
>
>>> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
>>> exist.
>>
>> That's a logical point.
>
> It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
> that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago

It is not a mistake in terminology, it is a fundamental error in logic
which persists in your arguments to this day.

and some people referred
> to as the goos still dishonestly insist that I believe unconceived potential
> future "beings" can somehow "suffer a loss" if "they" never experience life.
> It's a lie, though I do consider the possibility that there could be multiple
> lives somehow. I don't have a true belief, but do NOT believe unconceived
> potential beings experience any sort of loss for not being born as livestock.
> That doesn't mean I can't appreciate it when they are and experience decent
> lives of positive value TO THEM. Eliminationists can't afford to consider that
> aspect of human influence on animals, but anyone who favors decent AW over
> elimination certainly should both consider and appreciate it. Appreciation for
> that aspect is something eliminationists are opposed to, as you can see by the
> goos' behavior. There are three goos, which include Goo himself, his boy "Dutch"
> and his boy "Derek". In this thread we only have Goo and "Dutch", both of whom
> are maniacally opposed to taking decent lives of livestock into consideration.
> "Dutch" claims to have tried it once, and it made him feel "dirty". It made him
> feel dirty to have appreciation for lives of positive value for the animals he
> claims to consume. That's one of the ways he reveals that he does NOT favor AW
> over elimination.

That's a lie, and you KNOW it, both of us favor continuing to raise
livestock (over the elimination of livestock) AND we both favor the
provision of good welfare over the neglect or abuse of animals (TWO
separate and distinct choices)