<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 11:32:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:20:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 10:34:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>>>>>I know what the dictionary definition of consideration is, I am
>>>>>>requiring
>>>>>>that you define rigorously exactly what and in what fashion you are
>>>>>>demanding we "consider" instead of wildly equivocating between
>>>>>>consideration
>>>>>>of "existence" and "coming into existence".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>not existing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I consider their lives, and you admittedly can not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Describe that process of consideration in detail, and I don't mean
>>>>>>quote
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>dictionary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Think about what the animals lives are like, and consider whether
>>>>> or not we believe the experiences they have would be more likely
>>>>> to give life a positive or a negative value to them.
>>>>
>>>>That is one meaning of "life", considering the quality of their lives,
>>>>aka
>>>>AW,
>>>
>>> So do you only have trouble understanding the other meaning that
>>> I've pointed out to you?
>>
>>I have no trouble understanding the meanings of the word life,
>
> You can only understand one.

Nope, I know the two that you equivocate on constantly. You equivocate
between life itself, existence, and the series of (positive or negative)
experiences that one has during that life.

>>and I have no trouble seeing you equivocate among them.
>
> You're only aware of one.

You're pounding sand ****wit.

>> >>it doesn't imply the LoL.
>>>
>>> The LoL requires it. There's more to it, but that much alone is more
>>> than you'll ever be able to appreciate or be honest enough to
>>> acknowledge.
>>
>>The LoL requires that you look at the lives of lifestock
>
> and also that "their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt
>
> That much alone is more than you'll ever be able to appreciate or be
> honest enough to acknowledge, as I have already correctly pointed out.

You don't know if the lives of the animals you eat are "fairly happy" or
not. How can you base your philosophy on something you give no definition
for and have no knowledge of?