On 5/19/2016 7:03 PM, mur@. wrote:
> On 5/12/2016 6:09 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 5/12/2016 5:31 PM, mur@. wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2016 9:17 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 4/29/2016 9:03 AM, ****wit David Harrison - just "****wit" as he's
>>>> usually known - bullshitted:
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I do have to agree with them in that eating
>>>>>> meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if livestock
>>>>>> farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
>>>>> . . .
>>>>>> Unlike me they intuitively believe
>>>>>> that the best policy is one that can bring about the most happiness in the
>>>>>> world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery, because that
>>>>>> misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be disregarded.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life I'm curious if
>>>>> any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>>>>>
>>>>> "don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of
>>>>> negative value" means anything."
>>>>>
>>>>> It's an easy concept to understand and so far I've never discussed it with
>>>>> anyone in person who had the slightest problem comprehending or recognising the
>>>>> significance of that aspect of the situation.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! "Aspect of the situation" - you just sound
>>>
>>> Only to someone who can't comprehend or recognise the significance of the
>>> aspects of any situations, Goo.
>>
>> There is no "significance" to any "aspects" of any "situation" you
>> bullshit about, ****wit.
>>
>> It is not morally "significant" in any way that livestock animals "get
>> to experience life." Only the products matter.
>
> For you people not to anything that supports lives of positive value for any

There is no "significance" to any "aspects" of any "situation" you
bullshit about, ****wit.