On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>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

That's a blatant lie.

>, 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,

YOU claimed that it made you feel dirty, and if it really did then the fact
that it made you feel dirty is what reveals that you favor AW over elimination.
If you did not, then there would be no reason for it to make you feel dirty.
Instead you would be glad for the animals when they have lives of positive
value, not feel dirty for thinking about it. The only reason to feel dirty would
be if you're opposed to them having those lives of positive value, which
apparently you are. Duh!

>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)

You certainly act like you favor elimination over AW by opposing
appreciation for when livestock experience lives of positive value. ONLY
eliminationists have reason to do that.

You know that the elimination position is not respected by people who truly
favor AW and you know eliminationists are not respected by us. THAT is why the
Goober and you pretend (very very poorly) that you're elimination opponents.
Trying to win the respect which you don't deserve, of people who truly do favor
AW over elimination. It doesn't work with me because I see ways you reveal
yourself, plus I've been on to your lame game since you first started trying to
pretend to be an elimination opponent and first began claiming to eat meat. You
honestly admitted you were an eliminationist to begin with, and then later began
to pretend that you eat meat and have a completely different pov.