On Oct 24, 12:32*am, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:41:24 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 22, 8:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:34:53 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 18, 8:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >On 16 Okt., 18:38, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:06:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Oct 11, 10:55 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:42:06 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 10, 9:58 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:24:24 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 9, 8:06 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 09:37:18 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888 >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 8, 9:01 am, Rupert > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 8, 5:45 pm, spamtrap1888 > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Oct 8, 4:50 am, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > On Sep 21, 8:00 am, Goo wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > On 9/20/2012 3:04 PM, Just.Some.guy wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Check this out Its great
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >http://youtu.be/1LIyVBWaE_A
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > It's shit. It's unpalatable shit.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > How would you be in a position to know?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Why are "vegans" continually trying to make stuff look like and taste
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > like meat? *Extremely* suspicious.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Why?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Why do you think they call vegan meat Satan?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I didn't realize they did call it that.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >They changed the spelling to throw people off the track.:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >http://www.vrg.org/recipes/vjseitan.htm
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> It almost certainly involves more animal deaths than grass raised beef, and
> >> >> >> >> >> >> in some cases grain fed beef. Not as bad as rice based products, but still worse
> >> >> >> >> >> >> than grass raised beef if not grain fed as well.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >How do you know?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> The only way it could not is if there are no wildlife in the area where the
> >> >> >> >> >> grain is grown. Of course with rice it's not a question due to the flooding and
> >> >> >> >> >> draining in addition to all the machinery and chemical deaths.
>
> >> >> >> >> >I don't really find your remarks convincing. We did an examination of
> >> >> >> >> >one estimate for the expected collateral death rate associated with a
> >> >> >> >> >serving of tofu in the past, and it turned out to be less than the
> >> >> >> >> >corresponding estimate for grass-fed beef.
>
> >> >> >> >> I don't remember that, but feel that an estimate for number of deaths per
> >> >> >> >> serving of grass raised beef should be much less than one.
>
> >> >> >> >Yes, we did agree on that point.
>
> >> >> >> The only way the average for tofu could be less than for beef would be if
> >> >> >> there are no wildlife in the fields. That's not true with the cattle. Many
> >> >> >> wildlife that would die in soybean fields thrive and do well in grazing areas.
> >> >> >> It's another one of those things you don't like apparently, but it's true none
> >> >> >> the less. Maybe you could learn to appreciate this one, and accept it? Or no?
>
> >> >> >We've been through this before. We did an estimate both for the tofu
> >> >> >and the beef.
>
> >> >> I remember something about the beef and nothing about the tofu. It would
> >> >> depend on how much wildlife is around with the soy.
>
> >> >We did an estimate for the collateral death toll associated with one
> >> >serving of tofu, based on Matheny's estimates for the death toll
> >> >associated with one acre of corn and soy.
>
> >> You can't do any better with that than with the number of species in the
> >> universe who might be better at representing math than humans on Earth.. In many
> >> places the wildlife has been pretty much wiped out for years, so there would be
> >> no cds to speak of. But in other areas where there are other fields and woods
> >> around there would be places outside of the crop fields for wildlife to live,
> >> then at some point enter the crop fields and end up dying from machinery or
> >> chemicals or whatever...
>
> >Well, do you know of any estimates that you think are better than
> >Matheny's?
>
> * * Probably what would be best would be to learn what percentage of which type
> animals are killed by growing soy. Then by cows eating grass. Even though it
> seems obvious the number would be much lower for the cattle, you could never
> learn to appreciate it or probably even accept it. It would probably be another
> one of those things your brain can only interpret as "nonsense".

You've got to take into account the death of the cow when it is
slaughtered as well.

On Oct 24, 12:38*am, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:42:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 22, 8:12 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:36:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Oct 18, 8:23 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:06:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >My assertion
> >> >> >that the dairy industry inflicts considerable suffering and premature
> >> >> >death on a large number of cows was factual
>
> >> >> No it's not since as I pointed out you can't inflict premature death when
> >> >> the only option is no life at all.
>
> >> >Of course you can, you stupid fool.
>
> >> >> Since we know you have no grounds to complain
> >> >> about that aspect it makes it seem likely that the suffering you're referring to
> >> >> may not be enough to make their lives of negative value to them either. So, what
> >> >> sort of suffering are you referring to?
>
> >> >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/...re_issues.aspx
>
> >> It doesn't seem to give their lives negative value from my pov, so you have
> >> no argument from my pov.
>
> >How would you go about justifying a decision about whether a life has
> >"positive value" or "negative value"?
>
> * * Unless the animals are obviously suffering due to overly confining
> conditions or physical pain caused by whatever, there's no reason to believe
> they're suffering from lives of negative value.

I gave you a link to information which made it clear that dairy cows
do suffer in those ways.

On Oct 24, 12:53*am, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:47:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 22, 8:16 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >I'm talking about doing what I can to make the outcome better.
>
> >> You're doing nothing for any livestock with your lifestyle, and you should
> >> either accept it and be proud of it because that's your deliberate intent, of
> >> finally do something after however many years of deliberately doing nothing.
>
> >I've told you what my goals are. You've given me no reason to think
> >that my strategy for pursuing these goals is irrational.
>
> >> >> There are things you could do
> >> >> to contribute to decent lives for livestock without spending a lot of money but
> >> >> it would still be doing more than nothing like you're doing now. If you buy cage
> >> >> free eggs and give them to someone who buys battery farmed eggs then you'll be
> >> >> doing a couple of things instead of nothing, and if you can persuade some people
> >> >> to buy cage free instead of battery farmed you'd be doing that much more than
> >> >> nothing.
>
> >> >Or I could donate to Vegan Outreach, as I sometimes do, which tries to
> >> >persuade people to give up animal products or at least cut down on
> >> >them.
>
> >> That does nothing to help any livestock, so even when you pretend to do
> >> something you are still doing nothing.
>
> >It reduces suffering.
>
> * *Nope.
>

Why do you think that?

> >> Doing the thing with cage free eggs I
> >> suggested WOULD BE doing something,
>
> >By donating to Vegan Outreach I am almost certainly helping to
> >persuade some people to switch to cage free eggs.
>
> * * How do you think that could possibly be the case?
>

It's obvious. Not everyone who read the leaflets will give up eggs
completely. Of those who don't give up eggs completey, some will at
least take the step of switching to cage free eggs.

> >> but for years you have done nothing. You
> >> should either accept it and be proud of it, or move on and do something as I've
> >> been encouraging you for how many years now? Several, no doubt, but still you do
> >> nothing.
>
> >It is not true that I am doing nothing.
>
> * * Your GOAL is to do nothing. Were you unaware of that?

It's nonsense.

> If not, you should
> become aware of it. Here's a clue for you: People who want to help livestock
> with their lifestyle become conscientious consumers of animal products. People
> who want to do nothing for livestock with their lifestyles avoid animals
> products instead. That's a basic you should really learn to comprehend, and if
> you don't like your position then you should move on to a more AW approach as
> I've been encourageing you to do for years.
>

Taking steps to reduce the amount of suffering experienced by
livestock is not "doing nothing" for livestock.

> >> >This will no doubt have the result that some people move from
> >> >battery cage eggs to free-range eggs.
>
> >> LOL! It's dishonestly on a Goobal level to blatanly lie that encouraging
> >> veganism will promote cage free egg purchases. I don't believe you're stupid
> >> enough to think it somehow could either, meaning you're being deliberately
> >> dishonest. Why would you even want people to think you're supporting ANY kind of
> >> egg production when you're opposed to every bit of it entirely?
>
> >Vegan Outreach promotes veganism as the ideal, but it also encourages
> >people to adopt compromises if they're not ready for full veganism.
>
> * * I'm in favor of that INSTEAD OF full veganism, not as a lame step in that
> direction. Why go from contributing to decent conditions for livestock to doing
> nothing, and do it deliberately???
>

The rationale for going completely vegan is that it is the best way to
reduce suffering.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> And from the
> >> >> >> animals' position having that done would be priceless. We're talking about
> >> >> >> doubling, tripling, or whatever the lives of the animals so from their position
> >> >> >> the cost could never enter into it.
>
> >> >> >But the same might be said of the potential malaria victim in the
> >> >> >Third World whose life I can save. So I have to make the decision
> >> >> >based on something or other, and one of the relevant factors is how
> >> >> >much each option costs, so that I can make the outcome better in the
> >> >> >most economically efficient way possible.
>
> >> >> We're discussing whether it might be ok for you to contribute to decent
> >> >> lives for livestock or better to do nothing as you're doing now. What you do in
> >> >> regards to OTHER animals doesn't enter into it, and sadly it's really a form of
> >> >> dishonesty for you to try pretending otherwise.
>
> >> >And why would that be, exactly?
>
> >> Because what you do in regards to other animals doesn't enter into it at
> >> all, meaning you're dishonest for trying to dishonestly pretend it does. That
> >> one's so obvious even a misnomer hugger should be able to figure it out.

On Oct 24, 12:55*am, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:50:28 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 22, 8:16 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Oct 18, 8:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:26:15 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >On Oct 16, 7:24 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:14:09 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Oct 11, 10:57 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:17:44 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 10, 9:56 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:33:24 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 10, 4:28 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> Check this out Its great
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >>http://youtu.be/1LIyVBWaE_A
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > It's shit. It's unpalatable shit.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Why are "vegans" continually trying to make stuff look like and taste like meat? *Extremely* suspicious.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > It's mostly for people who like meat but are trying to eat "healthy".
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > No one likes "vegan" food - no one.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Some actually do, the problem is none of them are healthy.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> This isn't true. Just about everyone enjoys some food which is
> >> >> >> >> >> >> suitable for vegans. And a significant majority of those people are
> >> >> >> >> >> >> healthy. Furthermore a significant majority of those who consume an
> >> >> >> >> >> >> exclusively vegan diet are quite healthy. The American Dietetic
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Association has endorsed the position that appropriately-planned vegan
> >> >> >> >> >> >> diets are nutritionally adequate at all stages of life, and carry many
> >> >> >> >> >> >> significant health benefits.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> I was talking about vegans. While technically you and the ADD are
> >> >> >> >> >> >> correct, it's like claiming unicorn farts are part of your diet. Show
> >> >> >> >> >> >> me the vegan who can appropriate plan a diet at all stages of life,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> and I'll show you a unicorn because people need meat and dairy.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >I know plenty of vegans who have well-planned diets and are perfectly
> >> >> >> >> >> >healthy, and at least two doctors have told me that it is a very good
> >> >> >> >> >> >thing that I am vegan.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Why would a doctor tell you it's good you're a vegan?
>
> >> >> >> >> >Presumably because they believed it to be the case.
>
> >> >> >> >> Being a vegan isn't only about your health.
>
> >> >> >> >Indeed. Obviously I never said it was.
>
> >> >> >> I won't just take your word that you've never said it, but I pointed the
> >> >> >> fact out for anyone else who might be unfamiliar with it. For some reason one of
> >> >> >> the dishonest things I've seen veg*ns do is try to persuade people to believe
> >> >> >> that sometimes veganism is just for health reasons, though we know it's not.
>
> >> >> >It is sometimes, just not usually.
>
> >> >> Some types of vegetarianism yes, but not full veganism.
>
> >> >No, sometimes full veganism as well.
>
> >> There's no reason why it ever would be, but since you seem to want to
> >> pretend there is then try pretending you can think of some example(s). Go:
>
> >http://veeg.org/wp/veganismforhealthreasons/
>
> * * Nothing on that page suggests full veganism has anything to do with health
> issues. Only some parts of it, like diet.

Fair enough. I said "full veganism" when I should have said "full
dietary veganism".

On Oct 24, 12:08*am, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 22, 8:02 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 18, 8:14 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >On Oct 16, 7:25 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, Goo wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.
>
> >> >> >> >I am doing a post-doc at the University of M nster.
>
> >> >> >> Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about the results.
> >> >> >> Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the distinction between lives
> >> >> >> which are of positive value and lives which are of negative value for different
> >> >> >> beings.
>
> >> >> >It's a bit difficult to do that. I don't have any teaching duties and
> >> >> >I don't speak German very well. Would you like me to ask some of my
> >> >> >colleagues?
>
> >> >> Yes please. And if they can come up with a better definition than mine I'd
> >> >> like to learn about that too, but so far I believe mine covers it as well as it
> >> >> can without causing excessive restrictions on the idea. No offense, but I
> >> >> consider "good" to be an excessive restriction.
>
> >> >I asked Petra and Stefan. Petra said "What does he mean by positive
> >> >value?" I tried to give them some idea of what I thought you meant by
> >> >it.
>
> >> What did you tell them?
>
> >I told them that I think it's got something to do with the idea of a
> >life which contains a balance of pleasant experiences over aversive
> >experiences.
>
> * * Not enough suffering to make it of negative value is my answer. From there
> they would need to figure out what it means to them if they can. Just because
> you can't doesn't mean other people can't. Remember we were doing it in grade
> school, so it seems ANYONE in high school or above should certainly be able to
> do it as wall.
>

Presumably here "figure out what it means to them" means "make up your
own criteria for how to determine whether the concept applies or not".
Obviously I would be capable of formulating such criteria, but that's
not my job. It's your phrase, and it's your job to specify the
criteria for evaluating whether or not the phrase applies to an actual
situation.

> >> >They both seemed to think it would be pretty hard to determine
> >> >whether a cow has a life of positive value,
>
> >> Not for a person who is familiar with the cow and its life. You can bet
> >> there are lots of farmers who have a pretty good idea about how their animals
> >> are doing and whether they are overly stressed or not. Here's something I feel
> >> sure you've heard before but can't afford to appreciate: Cow produce milk a lot
> >> better when they aren't stressed and unhappy.
>
> >The measures which the modern dairy industry take to ensure that cows
> >produce milk most certainly make them very stressed and unhappy. I've
> >already given you information about that.
>
> * * I've spent hundreds of hours on dairy farms and the cows all seemed happy
> enough. The only time they acted stressed at all was when the farmer was a
> little bit late with feeding. That's not enough to make their lives of negative
> value instead of positive value imo. In fact since anticipation is something
> humans enjoy, it might add positive value to cows' lives as well even if they
> can't appreciate it.

When did you have occasion to visit dairy farms? Were you working
there? Where were these farms?

Do you think that the information that I have provided about welfare
issues for dairy cows is just factually mistaken?

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:50:12 -0600, "!@#$%&*(The Shyftyng Nym)*&%$#@!"
> wrote:

>On 10/23/2012 4:07 PM, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 22, 8:02 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 18, 8:14 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 7:25 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am doing a post-doc at the University of M nster.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about the results.
>>>>>>>> Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the distinction between lives
>>>>>>>> which are of positive value and lives which are of negative value for different
>>>>>>>> beings.
>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a bit difficult to do that. I don't have any teaching duties and
>>>>>>> I don't speak German very well. Would you like me to ask some of my
>>>>>>> colleagues?
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes please. And if they can come up with a better definition than mine I'd
>>>>>> like to learn about that too, but so far I believe mine covers it as well as it
>>>>>> can without causing excessive restrictions on the idea. No offense, but I
>>>>>> consider "good" to be an excessive restriction.
>>>>
>>>>> I asked Petra and Stefan. Petra said "What does he mean by positive
>>>>> value?" I tried to give them some idea of what I thought you meant by
>>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> What did you tell them?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I told them that I think it's got something to do with the idea of a
>>> life which contains a balance of pleasant experiences over aversive
>>> experiences.
>>
>> Not enough suffering to make it of negative value is my answer. From there
>> they would need to figure out what it means to them if they can. Just because
>> you can't doesn't mean other people can't. Remember we were doing it in grade
>> school, so it seems ANYONE in high school or above should certainly be able to
>> do it as wall.
>>
>>>>> They both seemed to think it would be pretty hard to determine
>>>>> whether a cow has a life of positive value,
>>>>
>>>> Not for a person who is familiar with the cow and its life. You can bet
>>>> there are lots of farmers who have a pretty good idea about how their animals
>>>> are doing and whether they are overly stressed or not. Here's something I feel
>>>> sure you've heard before but can't afford to appreciate: Cow produce milk a lot
>>>> better when they aren't stressed and unhappy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The measures which the modern dairy industry take to ensure that cows
>>> produce milk most certainly make them very stressed and unhappy. I've
>>> already given you information about that.
>>
>> I've spent hundreds of hours on dairy farms and the cows all seemed happy
>> enough. The only time they acted stressed at all was when the farmer was a
>> little bit late with feeding. That's not enough to make their lives of negative
>> value instead of positive value imo. In fact since anticipation is something
>> humans enjoy, it might add positive value to cows' lives as well even if they
>> can't appreciate it.
>>
>
>Would you say that if the farmer was any epsilon such that epsilon < k,
>where k is a real value late that the cows would begin to stress? Was
>their stress a delta function or a step function, or some other stable
>function of time and the exact moment R of feeding? How does time of
>negative value stack up to pay down value of lives, is it cumulative, or
>merely arithmetic?

It's only of negative value during the time that the animals are waiting
beyond the normal feeding time. But the gratification might be enough better
because of the anticipation that overall the late feedings really add to the
positive value more than they detract from the negative value. It would be
different if they went for long periods like days of course, but just late for
an hour or so once in a while it could overall add to the positive value.

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:31:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Oct 24, 12:08*am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 22, 8:02 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 18, 8:14 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Oct 16, 7:25 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.
>>
>> >> >> >> >I am doing a post-doc at the University of M nster.
>>
>> >> >> >> Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about the results.
>> >> >> >> Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the distinction between lives
>> >> >> >> which are of positive value and lives which are of negative value for different
>> >> >> >> beings.
>>
>> >> >> >It's a bit difficult to do that. I don't have any teaching duties and
>> >> >> >I don't speak German very well. Would you like me to ask some of my
>> >> >> >colleagues?
>>
>> >> >> Yes please. And if they can come up with a better definition than mine I'd
>> >> >> like to learn about that too, but so far I believe mine covers it as well as it
>> >> >> can without causing excessive restrictions on the idea. No offense, but I
>> >> >> consider "good" to be an excessive restriction.
>>
>> >> >I asked Petra and Stefan. Petra said "What does he mean by positive
>> >> >value?" I tried to give them some idea of what I thought you meant by
>> >> >it.
>>
>> >> What did you tell them?
>>
>> >I told them that I think it's got something to do with the idea of a
>> >life which contains a balance of pleasant experiences over aversive
>> >experiences.
>>
>> * * Not enough suffering to make it of negative value is my answer. From there
>> they would need to figure out what it means to them if they can. Just because
>> you can't doesn't mean other people can't. Remember we were doing it in grade
>> school, so it seems ANYONE in high school or above should certainly be able to
>> do it as wall.
>>
>
>Presumably here "figure out what it means to them" means "make up your
>own criteria for how to determine whether the concept applies or not".
>Obviously I would be capable of formulating such criteria, but that's
>not my job. It's your phrase, and it's your job to specify the
>criteria for evaluating whether or not the phrase applies to an actual
>situation.

In the end each person must decide for himself as I've pointed out to you
from the start. Here's an obvious clue for you that MIGHT help you finally learn
to comprehend the fact and maybe even eventually learn to appreciate it. Here's
the clue: Some people believe elimination is the best approach, while others
believe that providing decent AW is the best approach. Each person must decide
for himself... It's the same with lives we consider to be of positive value. For
example so far from what you've told me the only creatures on the planet you
think might have lives of positive value are SOME grass raised cattle. In
contrast to that I believe most cattle do including those fed grain, and that
most broiler chickens and their parents do, and that even the parents of caged
laying hens do. There are others too of course, but that alone is more than you
could ever learn to appreciate during your entire life while I've been able to
appreciate them for decades.

>> >> >They both seemed to think it would be pretty hard to determine
>> >> >whether a cow has a life of positive value,
>>
>> >> Not for a person who is familiar with the cow and its life. You can bet
>> >> there are lots of farmers who have a pretty good idea about how their animals
>> >> are doing and whether they are overly stressed or not. Here's something I feel
>> >> sure you've heard before but can't afford to appreciate: Cow produce milk a lot
>> >> better when they aren't stressed and unhappy.
>>
>> >The measures which the modern dairy industry take to ensure that cows
>> >produce milk most certainly make them very stressed and unhappy. I've
>> >already given you information about that.
>>
>> * * I've spent hundreds of hours on dairy farms and the cows all seemed happy
>> enough. The only time they acted stressed at all was when the farmer was a
>> little bit late with feeding. That's not enough to make their lives of negative
>> value instead of positive value imo. In fact since anticipation is something
>> humans enjoy, it might add positive value to cows' lives as well even if they
>> can't appreciate it.
>
>When did you have occasion to visit dairy farms? Were you working
>there? Where were these farms?

From about fifth grade through seventh grade in PA I spent time on a dairy
farm almost every day. The farmers knew me well and sometimes would rag me a
little when I was "late". A farmer's son showed me how to trap muskrats and I
spent quite a few hours doing that. I saw calves born and saw them taken away
from their mothers. The first time it was done the new mother was very upset for
a few days, but the older cows usually didn't seem to mind much because that's
what they got used to. My brother and I were disturbed when one calf we became
especially fond of was taken away, but the farmers did make us understand the
situation and that a farm is a business so they can't afford to have a bunch of
pet calves around drinking milk for no return. The cattle in general all seemed
to be content with their position in life, which makes sense because they never
learned about anything different. They couldn't want much more than what they
had anyway. They were put out to pasture in good days and kept in on bad days,
like snowing days. During the summer they were outside all day until time for
the evening milking when they were fed hay and grain, and then they went back
out to pasture for the night.

On a farm we hung out on in NC the cattle stayed out all the time winter and
summer though they had a barn they could get in when they wanted to. They only
had to come in to be milked, into a milk house that only held three cows at a
time. After being milked and eating whatever grain they could during the
process, they went back out to pasture.

Both situations seemed good for the animals, and were good to the animals
considering the outside environment in the area where they were living.

>Do you think that the information that I have provided about welfare
>issues for dairy cows is just factually mistaken?

You didn't provide any information just a link, and nothing I read there
caused me to believe most dairy cattle don't have lives of positive value. The
situation with veal calves could often be improved imo, but in general dairy
farming seems like it's pretty good for the cattle involved.

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:59:03 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:44:43 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:21:55 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On 10/22/2012 9:37 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:39:57 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that both homosexual and non-homosexual vegan
>>>>>>> guys suck
>>>>>>> cock?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't pretend you don't remember what Ron Hamilton has taught you.
>>>>>
>>>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:18:30 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:39:57 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> Are you suggesting that both homosexual and non-homosexual vegan guys suck
>>>>>> cock?
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't pretend you don't remember what Ron Hamilton has taught you.
>>>>
>>>>> He has helped me get a better appreciation for how dishonest you are and how
>>>>>stupid you and the Goober are, but what do you want people to think that has to
>>>>>do with what Rupert had to say?
>>>>
>>>> whoo hoo!
>>>
>>>Yikes! Did he really write that? That's even worse than I thought
>>
>> As much as you both lie blatantly and display your stupidities as you do
>>Goober, you must be especially stupid not to have "thought" other people had
>>noticed it and discussed it. It's very possible that he and I both learn how to
>>appreciate how stupid you are even more from each other than we learn on our own
>>Goob. We share your stupidities and your dishonesties, and those of your boy as
>>well, with anyone who's willing to enjoy them with us, Goo.
>
>No.

LOL! Yes we do Goo. Not all of them of course, but we do share some.

>"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit. Proved.

Where and when Goobs?

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:27:37 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Oct 24, 12:53*am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:47:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 22, 8:16 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >I'm talking about doing what I can to make the outcome better.
>>
>> >> You're doing nothing for any livestock with your lifestyle, and you should
>> >> either accept it and be proud of it because that's your deliberate intent, of
>> >> finally do something after however many years of deliberately doing nothing.
>>
>> >I've told you what my goals are. You've given me no reason to think
>> >that my strategy for pursuing these goals is irrational.
>>
>> >> >> There are things you could do
>> >> >> to contribute to decent lives for livestock without spending a lot of money but
>> >> >> it would still be doing more than nothing like you're doing now. If you buy cage
>> >> >> free eggs and give them to someone who buys battery farmed eggs then you'll be
>> >> >> doing a couple of things instead of nothing, and if you can persuade some people
>> >> >> to buy cage free instead of battery farmed you'd be doing that much more than
>> >> >> nothing.
>>
>> >> >Or I could donate to Vegan Outreach, as I sometimes do, which tries to
>> >> >persuade people to give up animal products or at least cut down on
>> >> >them.
>>
>> >> That does nothing to help any livestock, so even when you pretend to do
>> >> something you are still doing nothing.
>>
>> >It reduces suffering.
>>
>> * *Nope.
>>
>
>Why do you think that?
>
>> >> Doing the thing with cage free eggs I
>> >> suggested WOULD BE doing something,
>>
>> >By donating to Vegan Outreach I am almost certainly helping to
>> >persuade some people to switch to cage free eggs.
>>
>> * * How do you think that could possibly be the case?
>>
>
>It's obvious. Not everyone who read the leaflets will give up eggs
>completely. Of those who don't give up eggs completey, some will at
>least take the step of switching to cage free eggs.

Do vegan leaflets encourage people to buy cage free eggs?

>> >> but for years you have done nothing. You
>> >> should either accept it and be proud of it, or move on and do something as I've
>> >> been encouraging you for how many years now? Several, no doubt, but still you do
>> >> nothing.
>>
>> >It is not true that I am doing nothing.
>>
>> * * Your GOAL is to do nothing. Were you unaware of that?
>
>It's nonsense.

It's another fact that you don't like, but it's obviously true. But! If you
want to pretend you're doing something to help some livestock with your
lifestyle, then what livestock do you think it's helping and how do you think it
helps? And btw encouraging other people to go vegan and do nothing is NOT an
example of you doing something, even when the people you encourage don't do as
you suggest. Now if you suggested that people who buy cage raised eggs buy cage
free THEN you would be doing something, but NOT when you encourage vaganism.

>> If not, you should
>> become aware of it. Here's a clue for you: People who want to help livestock
>> with their lifestyle become conscientious consumers of animal products. People
>> who want to do nothing for livestock with their lifestyles avoid animals
>> products instead. That's a basic you should really learn to comprehend, and if
>> you don't like your position then you should move on to a more AW approach as
>> I've been encourageing you to do for years.
>
>Taking steps to reduce the amount of suffering experienced by
>livestock is not "doing nothing" for livestock.

Vegans do no more than dead people, so maybe we should try to persuade
ourselves to believe dead people help livestock? Maybe you should since they
"help" them as much as you do, but I won't be fooled into it. They don't, just
as vegans don't.

>> >> >This will no doubt have the result that some people move from
>> >> >battery cage eggs to free-range eggs.
>>
>> >> LOL! It's dishonestly on a Goobal level to blatanly lie that encouraging
>> >> veganism will promote cage free egg purchases. I don't believe you're stupid
>> >> enough to think it somehow could either, meaning you're being deliberately
>> >> dishonest. Why would you even want people to think you're supporting ANY kind of
>> >> egg production when you're opposed to every bit of it entirely?
>>
>> >Vegan Outreach promotes veganism as the ideal, but it also encourages
>> >people to adopt compromises if they're not ready for full veganism.
>>
>> * * I'm in favor of that INSTEAD OF full veganism, not as a lame step in that
>> direction. Why go from contributing to decent conditions for livestock to doing
>> nothing, and do it deliberately???
>>
>
>The rationale for going completely vegan is that it is the best way to
>reduce suffering.

That's a matter of opinion. There's nothing wrong with the opinion that
contributing to decent lives for livestock might be as good or better an
approach than doing nothing.

>> >> >> >> And from the
>> >> >> >> animals' position having that done would be priceless. We're talking about
>> >> >> >> doubling, tripling, or whatever the lives of the animals so from their position
>> >> >> >> the cost could never enter into it.
>>
>> >> >> >But the same might be said of the potential malaria victim in the
>> >> >> >Third World whose life I can save. So I have to make the decision
>> >> >> >based on something or other, and one of the relevant factors is how
>> >> >> >much each option costs, so that I can make the outcome better in the
>> >> >> >most economically efficient way possible.
>>
>> >> >> We're discussing whether it might be ok for you to contribute to decent
>> >> >> lives for livestock or better to do nothing as you're doing now. What you do in
>> >> >> regards to OTHER animals doesn't enter into it, and sadly it's really a form of
>> >> >> dishonesty for you to try pretending otherwise.
>>
>> >> >And why would that be, exactly?
>>
>> >> Because what you do in regards to other animals doesn't enter into it at
>> >> all, meaning you're dishonest for trying to dishonestly pretend it does. That
>> >> one's so obvious even a misnomer hugger should be able to figure it out.
>>
>> >You're a fool.
>>
>> * * You're the fool for being unable to appreciate it even after it has been
>> pointed out for you. It's your cognitive dissonance again IF you really can't
>> comprehend, trying to protect you from facts you don't want to believe even
>> though from my position they are so absurd as to be unbelievable.
>>
>
>If I decided that I wanted to "contribute to decent lives for
>livestock", I would have to weigh up any opportunity costs of doing
>so, in particular opportunity costs that would prevent me from making
>the outcome better in other ways. Such considerations clearly *do*
>"enter into it". You are a fool for thinking otherwise.

Apparently there's no condition in which you can comprehend that it might be
better to contribute to decent lives for livestock than to do nothing, making
you very much the fool from my position. In part that's because such a
restriction necessarily makes you unable to distinguish between which lives
would be worth contributing to and which not, since you feel that none are.

>> >> >> So far it still appears that you
>> >> >> do hate them btw, even the grass raised cattle you've acted like you could
>> >> >> appreciate. If you didn't there would be no reason for you to try changing the
>> >> >> subject to humans and away from livestock.
>>
>> >> >You're an idiot.
>>
>> >> What I said is a fact and IF you can't appreciate it that means YOU are the
>> >> idiot, not me for presenting it.
>>
>> >What you said is laughable nonsense.
>>
>> * * It's a fact you can't refute, but which you apparently hate and wish that
>> you could.
>>
>
>It's obvious nonsense. You have no rational grounds at all for
>thinking I hate livestock, just because I take into account the
>interests of other beings as well. Do *you* hate livestock? If not,
>then why don't you yourself put into practice the plan that you
>suggest?

A number of reasons but one is that I feel regular grain fed beef cattle in
general have lives I shouldn't be ashamed to contribute to.

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:28:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Oct 24, 12:55*am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:50:28 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 22, 8:16 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Oct 18, 8:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:26:15 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Oct 16, 7:24 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:14:09 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Oct 11, 10:57 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:17:44 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 10, 9:56 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:33:24 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 10, 4:28 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> Check this out Its great
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >>http://youtu.be/1LIyVBWaE_A
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > It's shit. It's unpalatable shit.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Why are "vegans" continually trying to make stuff look like and taste like meat? *Extremely* suspicious.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > It's mostly for people who like meat but are trying to eat "healthy".
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > No one likes "vegan" food - no one.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Some actually do, the problem is none of them are healthy.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> This isn't true. Just about everyone enjoys some food which is
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> suitable for vegans. And a significant majority of those people are
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> healthy. Furthermore a significant majority of those who consume an
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> exclusively vegan diet are quite healthy. The American Dietetic
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Association has endorsed the position that appropriately-planned vegan
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> diets are nutritionally adequate at all stages of life, and carry many
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> significant health benefits.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> I was talking about vegans. While technically you and the ADD are
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> correct, it's like claiming unicorn farts are part of your diet. Show
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> me the vegan who can appropriate plan a diet at all stages of life,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> and I'll show you a unicorn because people need meat and dairy.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >I know plenty of vegans who have well-planned diets and are perfectly
>> >> >> >> >> >> >healthy, and at least two doctors have told me that it is a very good
>> >> >> >> >> >> >thing that I am vegan.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Why would a doctor tell you it's good you're a vegan?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Presumably because they believed it to be the case.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Being a vegan isn't only about your health.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Indeed. Obviously I never said it was.
>>
>> >> >> >> I won't just take your word that you've never said it, but I pointed the
>> >> >> >> fact out for anyone else who might be unfamiliar with it. For some reason one of
>> >> >> >> the dishonest things I've seen veg*ns do is try to persuade people to believe
>> >> >> >> that sometimes veganism is just for health reasons, though we know it's not.
>>
>> >> >> >It is sometimes, just not usually.
>>
>> >> >> Some types of vegetarianism yes, but not full veganism.
>>
>> >> >No, sometimes full veganism as well.
>>
>> >> There's no reason why it ever would be, but since you seem to want to
>> >> pretend there is then try pretending you can think of some example(s). Go:
>>
>> >http://veeg.org/wp/veganismforhealthreasons/
>>
>> * * Nothing on that page suggests full veganism has anything to do with health
>> issues. Only some parts of it, like diet.
>
>Fair enough. I said "full veganism" when I should have said "full
>dietary veganism".

Then we agree on something. That's weird.

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:19:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Oct 24, 12:32*am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:41:24 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 22, 8:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:34:53 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 18, 8:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >On 16 Okt., 18:38, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:06:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Oct 11, 10:55 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:42:06 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 10, 9:58 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:24:24 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 9, 8:06 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 09:37:18 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888 >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 8, 9:01 am, Rupert > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 8, 5:45 pm, spamtrap1888 > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Oct 8, 4:50 am, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > On Sep 21, 8:00 am, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > On 9/20/2012 3:04 PM, Just.Some.guy wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Check this out Its great
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >http://youtu.be/1LIyVBWaE_A
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > It's shit. It's unpalatable shit.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > How would you be in a position to know?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Why are "vegans" continually trying to make stuff look like and taste
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > like meat? *Extremely* suspicious.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Why?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Why do you think they call vegan meat Satan?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I didn't realize they did call it that.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >They changed the spelling to throw people off the track.:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >http://www.vrg.org/recipes/vjseitan.htm
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> It almost certainly involves more animal deaths than grass raised beef, and
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> in some cases grain fed beef. Not as bad as rice based products, but still worse
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> than grass raised beef if not grain fed as well.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >How do you know?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> The only way it could not is if there are no wildlife in the area where the
>> >> >> >> >> >> grain is grown. Of course with rice it's not a question due to the flooding and
>> >> >> >> >> >> draining in addition to all the machinery and chemical deaths.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >I don't really find your remarks convincing. We did an examination of
>> >> >> >> >> >one estimate for the expected collateral death rate associated with a
>> >> >> >> >> >serving of tofu in the past, and it turned out to be less than the
>> >> >> >> >> >corresponding estimate for grass-fed beef.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> I don't remember that, but feel that an estimate for number of deaths per
>> >> >> >> >> serving of grass raised beef should be much less than one.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Yes, we did agree on that point.
>>
>> >> >> >> The only way the average for tofu could be less than for beef would be if
>> >> >> >> there are no wildlife in the fields. That's not true with the cattle. Many
>> >> >> >> wildlife that would die in soybean fields thrive and do well in grazing areas.
>> >> >> >> It's another one of those things you don't like apparently, but it's true none
>> >> >> >> the less. Maybe you could learn to appreciate this one, and accept it? Or no?
>>
>> >> >> >We've been through this before. We did an estimate both for the tofu
>> >> >> >and the beef.
>>
>> >> >> I remember something about the beef and nothing about the tofu. It would
>> >> >> depend on how much wildlife is around with the soy.
>>
>> >> >We did an estimate for the collateral death toll associated with one
>> >> >serving of tofu, based on Matheny's estimates for the death toll
>> >> >associated with one acre of corn and soy.
>>
>> >> You can't do any better with that than with the number of species in the
>> >> universe who might be better at representing math than humans on Earth. In many
>> >> places the wildlife has been pretty much wiped out for years, so there would be
>> >> no cds to speak of. But in other areas where there are other fields and woods
>> >> around there would be places outside of the crop fields for wildlife to live,
>> >> then at some point enter the crop fields and end up dying from machinery or
>> >> chemicals or whatever...
>>
>> >Well, do you know of any estimates that you think are better than
>> >Matheny's?
>>
>> * * Probably what would be best would be to learn what percentage of which type
>> animals are killed by growing soy. Then by cows eating grass. Even though it
>> seems obvious the number would be much lower for the cattle, you could never
>> learn to appreciate it or probably even accept it. It would probably be another
>> one of those things your brain can only interpret as "nonsense".
>
>You've got to take into account the death of the cow when it is
>slaughtered as well.

With the cow its life and death both need to be considered, while with the
CDs only their deaths since they weren't raised deliberately to be killed for
human food production. And remember that even you have once in a while felt the
lives of some grass raised cattle might be "good".

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:08:17 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:36:35 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:16:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> The male calves are used in the veal industry. I'm sure some females are for
>>>>>> some reasons sometimes, but it's mainly what they do to get the most out of
>>>>>> basically useless male dairy cattle. As long as they're treated decently there
>>>>>> should be nothing wrong with them experiencing life as a veal calf, afaWk.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But their lives are
>>>>> NOT a *gift* to them in the sense that humans get to consider themselves
>>>>> to be their benefactors. That argument, called "The Logic of the Larder"
>>>>> is circular and illegitimate.
>>>>
>>>> Taking the lives of livestock into consideration is ONLY called that by
>>>> eliminationists.
>>>
>>> That is a falsehood. You know the list of antis who have challenged the
>>> Larder argument.
>>
>> No true antis have challenged it.
>
>That's a lie,

That's a lie.

>they were all true antis,

That of course is an even bigger lie. Much bigger, though both are lies.

>including Ball and me.

IF you honestly favor AW over elimination you are the worst AW supporter you
could possibly be, to the point of working against it as I've pointed out for
you a number of times.

> Two said they didn't agree but gave no
>> reaon at all. One person claiming to be an anti presented mostly if not entirely
>> eliminationist arguments against it. In contrast to that, ALL of the people who
>> honestly supported AW like didderot, the girl from the ag college, and the woman
>> from an AW organization up north have all agreed that the lives should be taken
>> into consideration.
>
>No they didn't.

That's a horribly blatant lie, and you're extremely stupid for telling it.

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 23:34:45 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
> wrote:

>On Oct 23, 11:25*pm, Goo wrote:
>> On 10/23/2012 5:08 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:36:35 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>> >>> dh@. wrote:
>> >>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:16:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> dh@. wrote:
>> >>>>>> * * The male calves are used in the veal industry. I'm sure some
>> >>>>>> females are for
>> >>>>>> some reasons sometimes, but it's mainly what they do to get the
>> >>>>>> most out of
>> >>>>>> basically useless male dairy cattle. As long as they're treated
>> >>>>>> decently there
>> >>>>>> should be nothing wrong with them experiencing life as a veal
>> >>>>>> calf, afaWk.
>>
>> >>>>> I agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But their lives
>> >>>>> are
>> >>>>> NOT a *gift* to them in the sense that humans get to consider
>> >>>>> themselves
>> >>>>> to be their benefactors. That argument, called "The Logic of the
>> >>>>> Larder"
>> >>>>> is circular and illegitimate.
>>
>> >>>> * * * Taking the lives of livestock into consideration is ONLY
>> >>>> called that by
>> >>>> eliminationists.
>>
>> >>> That is a falsehood. You know the list of antis who have challenged the
>> >>> Larder argument.
>>
>> >> * * *No true antis have challenged it.
>>
>> > That's a lie, they were all true antis, including Ball and me.
>>
>> > * Two said they didn't agree but gave no
>> >> reaon at all. One person claiming to be an anti presented mostly if
>> >> not entirely
>> >> eliminationist arguments against it. In contrast to that, ALL of the
>> >> people who
>> >> honestly supported AW like didderot, the girl from the ag college, and
>> >> the woman
>> >> from an AW organization up north have all agreed that the lives should
>> >> be taken
>> >> into consideration.
>>
>> > No they didn't. You don't appear capable of grasping why "considering
>> > their lives" is meaningless drivel.
>>
>> >>>> People who actually favor decent AW over elimination think of
>> >>>> taking the lives of livestock into consideration as taking the lives of
>> >>>> livestock into consideration.
>>
>> >>> x=x that is true, but not worth mentioning.
>>
>> >>>> Try to explain how you want us to think the vegan
>> >>>> larder is ethically superior to those of *people who contribute to
>> >>>> the lives of
>> >>>> livestock with their lifestyle, since you want us to think about the
>> >>>> larder
>> >>>> aspect. Go:
>>
>> >>> I don't think that, and livestock's "lives" contribute nothing to that
>> >>> decision. You think the "Larder" argument strengthens your moral
>> >>> position as a consumer of animal products. You're wrong, it doesn't, it
>> >>> makes it weaker.
>>
>> >> * * *Only to people who favor elimination over AW. You just can't get
>> >> over it
>> >> even IF!!!!!!! you honestly feel that you have.
>>
>> > Wrong, I don't favor "elimination", nor does Ball and you know it.
>>
>> He does know it. *****wit knows that for certain.
>
>
>Ease up, you two goos. You're getting hysterical.

Challenge them to present their supposed opposition if you want to defeat
them again. I've challenged them so many times by now I know they can't produce
any examples, but maybe you could coax some sort of an attempt out of them.
Probably not because I don't believe they have it in them, but it would be good
fun to see them maundering and puling around trying to make an attempt if you
could get the pitiful wusses to try. They've been boasting about being misnomer
opponents all these years, yet when challenged to present their opposition they
never have been able to. They just try to wuss out of it in whatever pathetic
way(s) they can think of.

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:20:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Oct 24, 12:38*am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:42:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 22, 8:12 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:36:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Oct 18, 8:23 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:06:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >My assertion
>> >> >> >that the dairy industry inflicts considerable suffering and premature
>> >> >> >death on a large number of cows was factual
>>
>> >> >> No it's not since as I pointed out you can't inflict premature death when
>> >> >> the only option is no life at all.
>>
>> >> >Of course you can, you stupid fool.
>>
>> >> >> Since we know you have no grounds to complain
>> >> >> about that aspect it makes it seem likely that the suffering you're referring to
>> >> >> may not be enough to make their lives of negative value to them either. So, what
>> >> >> sort of suffering are you referring to?
>>
>> >> >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/...re_issues.aspx
>>
>> >> It doesn't seem to give their lives negative value from my pov, so you have
>> >> no argument from my pov.
>>
>> >How would you go about justifying a decision about whether a life has
>> >"positive value" or "negative value"?
>>
>> * * Unless the animals are obviously suffering due to overly confining
>> conditions or physical pain caused by whatever, there's no reason to believe
>> they're suffering from lives of negative value.
>
>I gave you a link to information which made it clear that dairy cows
>do suffer in those ways.

Which ways? You always want me to be specific, so try it yourself. Which
ways are you referring to?

On 10/24/2012 12:44 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:31:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 24, 12:08 am, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Oct 22, 8:02 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 18, 8:14 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 7:25 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am doing a post-doc at the University of M nster.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about the results.
>>>>>>>>> Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the distinction between lives
>>>>>>>>> which are of positive value and lives which are of negative value for different
>>>>>>>>> beings.
>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a bit difficult to do that. I don't have any teaching duties and
>>>>>>>> I don't speak German very well. Would you like me to ask some of my
>>>>>>>> colleagues?
>>>
>>>>>>> Yes please. And if they can come up with a better definition than mine I'd
>>>>>>> like to learn about that too, but so far I believe mine covers it as well as it
>>>>>>> can without causing excessive restrictions on the idea. No offense, but I
>>>>>>> consider "good" to be an excessive restriction.
>>>
>>>>>> I asked Petra and Stefan. Petra said "What does he mean by positive
>>>>>> value?" I tried to give them some idea of what I thought you meant by
>>>>>> it.
>>>
>>>>> What did you tell them?
>>>
>>>> I told them that I think it's got something to do with the idea of a
>>>> life which contains a balance of pleasant experiences over aversive
>>>> experiences.
>>>
>>> Not enough suffering to make it of negative value is my answer.

Not an answer; it's a tautology.


>>>
>>
>> Presumably here "figure out what it means to them" means "make up your
>> own criteria for how to determine whether the concept applies or not".
>> Obviously I would be capable of formulating such criteria, but that's
>> not my job. It's your phrase, and it's your job to specify the
>> criteria for evaluating whether or not the phrase applies to an actual
>> situation.
>
> In the end each person must decide for himself as

The phrase is bullshit.

On 10/24/2012 12:44 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:59:03 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:44:43 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:21:55 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/22/2012 9:37 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:39:57 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that both homosexual and non-homosexual vegan
>>>>>>>> guys suck
>>>>>>>> cock?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't pretend you don't remember what Ron Hamilton has taught you.
>>>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:18:30 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:39:57 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that both homosexual and non-homosexual vegan guys suck
>>>>>>> cock?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't pretend you don't remember what Ron Hamilton has taught you.
>>>>>
>>>>>> He has helped me get a better appreciation for how dishonest you are and how
>>>>>> stupid you and the Goober are, but what do you want people to think that has to
>>>>>> do with what Rupert had to say?
>>>>>
>>>>> whoo hoo!
>>>>
>>>> Yikes! Did he really write that? That's even worse than I thought
>>>
>>> As much as you both lie blatantly and display your stupidities as you do
>>> Goober, you must be especially stupid not to have "thought" other people had
>>> noticed it and discussed it. It's very possible that he and I both learn how to
>>> appreciate how stupid you are even more from each other than we learn on our own
>>> Goob. We share your stupidities and your dishonesties, and those of your boy as
>>> well, with anyone who's willing to enjoy them with us, Goo.
>>
>> No.
>
> LOL! Yes we

No.


>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit. Proved.
>
> Where and when

Dozens of times in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. You've read them,
dozens of times, and been defeated by them each time.

On 10/24/2012 12:50 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:08:17 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:36:35 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:16:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> The male calves are used in the veal industry. I'm sure some females are for
>>>>>>> some reasons sometimes, but it's mainly what they do to get the most out of
>>>>>>> basically useless male dairy cattle. As long as they're treated decently there
>>>>>>> should be nothing wrong with them experiencing life as a veal calf, afaWk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But their lives are
>>>>>> NOT a *gift* to them in the sense that humans get to consider themselves
>>>>>> to be their benefactors. That argument, called "The Logic of the Larder"
>>>>>> is circular and illegitimate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Taking the lives of livestock into consideration is ONLY called that by
>>>>> eliminationists.
>>>>
>>>> That is a falsehood. You know the list of antis who have challenged the
>>>> Larder argument.
>>>
>>> No true antis have challenged it.

*Every* real "anti" challenged it. All of them. You can't name one who
accepted it.


>>
>> That's a lie,
>
> That's a lie.

No, you lied.


>> they were all true antis,
>
> That of course is an even bigger lie.

Not a lie.


>> including Ball and me.
>
> IF you honestly favor AW over elimination

He does. He rejects your logic-of-the-larder bullshit, as every true
"anti" does.


>> Two said they didn't agree but gave no
>>> reaon at all.

I gave the reasons your specious bullshit is specious bullshit.


>>
>> No they didn't.
>
> That's a horribly blatant lie,

Not a lie.

On 10/24/2012 2:07 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 10/24/2012 12:44 PM, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:31:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 24, 12:08 am, dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 22, 8:02 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 18, 8:14 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 7:25 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am doing a post-doc at the University of M nster.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about
>>>>>>>>>> the results.
>>>>>>>>>> Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the
>>>>>>>>>> distinction between lives
>>>>>>>>>> which are of positive value and lives which are of negative
>>>>>>>>>> value for different
>>>>>>>>>> beings.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's a bit difficult to do that. I don't have any teaching
>>>>>>>>> duties and
>>>>>>>>> I don't speak German very well. Would you like me to ask some
>>>>>>>>> of my
>>>>>>>>> colleagues?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes please. And if they can come up with a better definition
>>>>>>>> than mine I'd
>>>>>>>> like to learn about that too, but so far I believe mine covers
>>>>>>>> it as well as it
>>>>>>>> can without causing excessive restrictions on the idea. No
>>>>>>>> offense, but I
>>>>>>>> consider "good" to be an excessive restriction.
>>>>
>>>>>>> I asked Petra and Stefan. Petra said "What does he mean by positive
>>>>>>> value?" I tried to give them some idea of what I thought you
>>>>>>> meant by
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>>>> What did you tell them?
>>>>
>>>>> I told them that I think it's got something to do with the idea of a
>>>>> life which contains a balance of pleasant experiences over aversive
>>>>> experiences.
>>>>
>>>> Not enough suffering to make it of negative value is my answer.
>
> Not an answer; it's a tautology.
>
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Presumably here "figure out what it means to them" means "make up your
>>> own criteria for how to determine whether the concept applies or not".
>>> Obviously I would be capable of formulating such criteria, but that's
>>> not my job. It's your phrase, and it's your job to specify the
>>> criteria for evaluating whether or not the phrase applies to an actual
>>> situation.
>>
>> In the end each person must decide for himself as
>
> The phrase is bullshit.

From now on, when someone calls bullshit the thread has to be abandoned
and possible restarted elsewhere.

//
--
Did I kill?
Some of your people, Mirneaux?
Did I kill? Did I kill?
I can't remember.

On 10/24/2012 1:39 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:50:12 -0600, "!@#$%&*(The Shyftyng Nym)*&%$#@!"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 10/23/2012 4:07 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 22, 8:02 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 18, 8:14 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 7:25 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am doing a post-doc at the University of M nster.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about the results.
>>>>>>>>> Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the distinction between lives
>>>>>>>>> which are of positive value and lives which are of negative value for different
>>>>>>>>> beings.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a bit difficult to do that. I don't have any teaching duties and
>>>>>>>> I don't speak German very well. Would you like me to ask some of my
>>>>>>>> colleagues?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes please. And if they can come up with a better definition than mine I'd
>>>>>>> like to learn about that too, but so far I believe mine covers it as well as it
>>>>>>> can without causing excessive restrictions on the idea. No offense, but I
>>>>>>> consider "good" to be an excessive restriction.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I asked Petra and Stefan. Petra said "What does he mean by positive
>>>>>> value?" I tried to give them some idea of what I thought you meant by
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> What did you tell them?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I told them that I think it's got something to do with the idea of a
>>>> life which contains a balance of pleasant experiences over aversive
>>>> experiences.
>>>
>>> Not enough suffering to make it of negative value is my answer. From there
>>> they would need to figure out what it means to them if they can. Just because
>>> you can't doesn't mean other people can't. Remember we were doing it in grade
>>> school, so it seems ANYONE in high school or above should certainly be able to
>>> do it as wall.
>>>
>>>>>> They both seemed to think it would be pretty hard to determine
>>>>>> whether a cow has a life of positive value,
>>>>>
>>>>> Not for a person who is familiar with the cow and its life. You can bet
>>>>> there are lots of farmers who have a pretty good idea about how their animals
>>>>> are doing and whether they are overly stressed or not. Here's something I feel
>>>>> sure you've heard before but can't afford to appreciate: Cow produce milk a lot
>>>>> better when they aren't stressed and unhappy.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The measures which the modern dairy industry take to ensure that cows
>>>> produce milk most certainly make them very stressed and unhappy. I've
>>>> already given you information about that.
>>>
>>> I've spent hundreds of hours on dairy farms and the cows all seemed happy
>>> enough. The only time they acted stressed at all was when the farmer was a
>>> little bit late with feeding. That's not enough to make their lives of negative
>>> value instead of positive value imo. In fact since anticipation is something
>>> humans enjoy, it might add positive value to cows' lives as well even if they
>>> can't appreciate it.
>>>
>>
>> Would you say that if the farmer was any epsilon such that epsilon < k,
>> where k is a real value late that the cows would begin to stress? Was
>> their stress a delta function or a step function, or some other stable
>> function of time and the exact moment R of feeding? How does time of
>> negative value stack up to pay down value of lives, is it cumulative, or
>> merely arithmetic?
>
> It's only of negative value during the time that the animals are waiting
> beyond the normal feeding time. Bu

Get the **** out of here. We have better time than to watch some
ignorant template build lincoln logs.


ll add to the positive value.
>
'
"
--
Did I kill?
Some of your people, Mirneaux?
Did I kill? Did I kill?
I can't remember.

dh@. wrote:
> IF you honestly favor AW over elimination

Those are not the alternatives, you are collapsing two decisions into
one. By doing so you make your argument nonsensical.

1. I favor continuation (of livestock breeding) over elimination (of
domestic livestock species).

2. I favor "AW" over neglect of animal needs or outright abuse.

People who do not say yes to 1. are not faced with decision 2. at all.
They cannot be accused of "not supporting AW", because, first, their
lifestyles don't introduce the possibility of animal neglect or abuse,
and secondly, they may well be an advocate and supporter of "AW" by
means of deliberate third party actions, which many are.

Of course you've seen this indisputable argument a hundred times at
least and you never get it, so you won't now.

On Oct 24, 9:50*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:19:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 24, 12:32 am, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:41:24 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Oct 22, 8:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:34:53 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >On Oct 18, 8:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On 16 Okt., 18:38, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:06:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 11, 10:55 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:42:06 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 10, 9:58 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:24:24 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 9, 8:06 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 09:37:18 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888 >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 8, 9:01 am, Rupert > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 8, 5:45 pm, spamtrap1888 > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Oct 8, 4:50 am, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > On Sep 21, 8:00 am, Goo wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > On 9/20/2012 3:04 PM, Just.Some.guy wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Check this out Its great
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >http://youtu.be/1LIyVBWaE_A
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > It's shit. It's unpalatable shit.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > How would you be in a position to know?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Why are "vegans" continually trying to make stuff look like and taste
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > like meat? *Extremely* suspicious.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Why?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Why do you think they call vegan meat Satan?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I didn't realize they did call it that.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >They changed the spelling to throw people off the track.:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >http://www.vrg.org/recipes/vjseitan.htm
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It almost certainly involves more animal deaths than grass raised beef, and
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in some cases grain fed beef. Not as bad as rice based products, but still worse
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> than grass raised beef if not grain fed as well.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >How do you know?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> The only way it could not is if there are no wildlife in the area where the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> grain is grown. Of course with rice it's not a question due to the flooding and
> >> >> >> >> >> >> draining in addition to all the machinery and chemical deaths.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >I don't really find your remarks convincing. We did an examination of
> >> >> >> >> >> >one estimate for the expected collateral death rate associated with a
> >> >> >> >> >> >serving of tofu in the past, and it turned out to be less than the
> >> >> >> >> >> >corresponding estimate for grass-fed beef.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> I don't remember that, but feel that an estimate for number of deaths per
> >> >> >> >> >> serving of grass raised beef should be much less than one.
>
> >> >> >> >> >Yes, we did agree on that point.
>
> >> >> >> >> The only way the average for tofu could be less than for beef would be if
> >> >> >> >> there are no wildlife in the fields. That's not true with the cattle. Many
> >> >> >> >> wildlife that would die in soybean fields thrive and do well in grazing areas.
> >> >> >> >> It's another one of those things you don't like apparently, but it's true none
> >> >> >> >> the less. Maybe you could learn to appreciate this one, and accept it? Or no?
>
> >> >> >> >We've been through this before. We did an estimate both for the tofu
> >> >> >> >and the beef.
>
> >> >> >> I remember something about the beef and nothing about the tofu. It would
> >> >> >> depend on how much wildlife is around with the soy.
>
> >> >> >We did an estimate for the collateral death toll associated with one
> >> >> >serving of tofu, based on Matheny's estimates for the death toll
> >> >> >associated with one acre of corn and soy.
>
> >> >> You can't do any better with that than with the number of species in the
> >> >> universe who might be better at representing math than humans on Earth. In many
> >> >> places the wildlife has been pretty much wiped out for years, so there would be
> >> >> no cds to speak of. But in other areas where there are other fields and woods
> >> >> around there would be places outside of the crop fields for wildlife to live,
> >> >> then at some point enter the crop fields and end up dying from machinery or
> >> >> chemicals or whatever...
>
> >> >Well, do you know of any estimates that you think are better than
> >> >Matheny's?
>
> >> Probably what would be best would be to learn what percentage of which type
> >> animals are killed by growing soy. Then by cows eating grass. Even though it
> >> seems obvious the number would be much lower for the cattle, you could never
> >> learn to appreciate it or probably even accept it. It would probably be another
> >> one of those things your brain can only interpret as "nonsense".
>
> >You've got to take into account the death of the cow when it is
> >slaughtered as well.
>
> * * With the cow its life and death both need to be considered, while with the
> CDs only their deaths since they weren't raised deliberately to be killed for
> human food production. And remember that even you have once in a while felt the
> lives of some grass raised cattle might be "good".

Your original remark was "It [seitan] almost certainly involves more
animal deaths than grass raised beef". This remark was unfounded.

On Oct 24, 9:54*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:20:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 24, 12:38 am, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:42:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Oct 22, 8:12 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:36:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Oct 18, 8:23 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:06:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >My assertion
> >> >> >> >that the dairy industry inflicts considerable suffering and premature
> >> >> >> >death on a large number of cows was factual
>
> >> >> >> No it's not since as I pointed out you can't inflict premature death when
> >> >> >> the only option is no life at all.
>
> >> >> >Of course you can, you stupid fool.
>
> >> >> >> Since we know you have no grounds to complain
> >> >> >> about that aspect it makes it seem likely that the suffering you're referring to
> >> >> >> may not be enough to make their lives of negative value to them either. So, what
> >> >> >> sort of suffering are you referring to?
>
> >> >> >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/...e_issues..aspx
>
> >> >> It doesn't seem to give their lives negative value from my pov, so you have
> >> >> no argument from my pov.
>
> >> >How would you go about justifying a decision about whether a life has
> >> >"positive value" or "negative value"?
>
> >> Unless the animals are obviously suffering due to overly confining
> >> conditions or physical pain caused by whatever, there's no reason to believe
> >> they're suffering from lives of negative value.
>
> >I gave you a link to information which made it clear that dairy cows
> >do suffer in those ways.
>
> * * Which ways? You always want me to be specific, so try it yourself.. Which
> ways are you referring to?

You want me to post the link again? Surely you can find it.

On Oct 24, 9:48*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:27:37 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 24, 12:53 am, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:47:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Oct 22, 8:16 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >I'm talking about doing what I can to make the outcome better.
>
> >> >> You're doing nothing for any livestock with your lifestyle, and you should
> >> >> either accept it and be proud of it because that's your deliberate intent, of
> >> >> finally do something after however many years of deliberately doing nothing.
>
> >> >I've told you what my goals are. You've given me no reason to think
> >> >that my strategy for pursuing these goals is irrational.
>
> >> >> >> There are things you could do
> >> >> >> to contribute to decent lives for livestock without spending a lot of money but
> >> >> >> it would still be doing more than nothing like you're doing now. If you buy cage
> >> >> >> free eggs and give them to someone who buys battery farmed eggs then you'll be
> >> >> >> doing a couple of things instead of nothing, and if you can persuade some people
> >> >> >> to buy cage free instead of battery farmed you'd be doing that much more than
> >> >> >> nothing.
>
> >> >> >Or I could donate to Vegan Outreach, as I sometimes do, which tries to
> >> >> >persuade people to give up animal products or at least cut down on
> >> >> >them.
>
> >> >> That does nothing to help any livestock, so even when you pretend to do
> >> >> something you are still doing nothing.
>
> >> >It reduces suffering.
>
> >> Nope.
>
> >Why do you think that?
>
> >> >> Doing the thing with cage free eggs I
> >> >> suggested WOULD BE doing something,
>
> >> >By donating to Vegan Outreach I am almost certainly helping to
> >> >persuade some people to switch to cage free eggs.
>
> >> How do you think that could possibly be the case?
>
> >It's obvious. Not everyone who read the leaflets will give up eggs
> >completely. Of those who don't give up eggs completey, some will at
> >least take the step of switching to cage free eggs.
>
> * * Do vegan leaflets encourage people to buy cage free eggs?
>
> >> >> but for years you have done nothing. You
> >> >> should either accept it and be proud of it, or move on and do something as I've
> >> >> been encouraging you for how many years now? Several, no doubt, but still you do
> >> >> nothing.
>
> >> >It is not true that I am doing nothing.
>
> >> Your GOAL is to do nothing. Were you unaware of that?
>
> >It's nonsense.
>
> * * It's another fact that you don't like, but it's obviously true.

Actually, it's obviously complete nonsense... to any person of normal
cognitive ability.

> But! If you
> want to pretend you're doing something to help some livestock with your
> lifestyle, then what livestock do you think it's helping and how do you think it
> helps? And btw encouraging other people to go vegan and do nothing is NOT an
> example of you doing something, even when the people you encourage don't do as
> you suggest. Now if you suggested that people who buy cage raised eggs buy cage
> free THEN you would be doing something, but NOT when you encourage vaganism.
>

Going vegan is taking steps to reduce the amount of suffering
experienced by farm animals. So is donating money to organizations
which encourage other people to be vegan.

> >> If not, you should
> >> become aware of it. Here's a clue for you: People who want to help livestock
> >> with their lifestyle become conscientious consumers of animal products.. People
> >> who want to do nothing for livestock with their lifestyles avoid animals
> >> products instead. That's a basic you should really learn to comprehend, and if
> >> you don't like your position then you should move on to a more AW approach as
> >> I've been encourageing you to do for years.
>
> >Taking steps to reduce the amount of suffering experienced by
> >livestock is not "doing nothing" for livestock.
>
> * * Vegans do no more than dead people, so maybe we should try to persuade
> ourselves to believe dead people help livestock?

Dead people don't perform any actions.

> Maybe you should since they
> "help" them as much as you do, but I won't be fooled into it. They don't, just
> as vegans don't.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >This will no doubt have the result that some people move from
> >> >> >battery cage eggs to free-range eggs.
>
> >> >> LOL! It's dishonestly on a Goobal level to blatanly lie that encouraging
> >> >> veganism will promote cage free egg purchases. I don't believe you're stupid
> >> >> enough to think it somehow could either, meaning you're being deliberately
> >> >> dishonest. Why would you even want people to think you're supporting ANY kind of
> >> >> egg production when you're opposed to every bit of it entirely?
>
> >> >Vegan Outreach promotes veganism as the ideal, but it also encourages
> >> >people to adopt compromises if they're not ready for full veganism.
>
> >> I'm in favor of that INSTEAD OF full veganism, not as a lame step in that
> >> direction. Why go from contributing to decent conditions for livestock to doing
> >> nothing, and do it deliberately???
>
> >The rationale for going completely vegan is that it is the best way to
> >reduce suffering.
>
> * * That's a matter of opinion. There's nothing wrong with the opinion that
> contributing to decent lives for livestock might be as good or better an
> approach than doing nothing.
>

You would need to be specific about the approach you would take, and
provide evidence that it is as good or better than being vegan.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> And from the
> >> >> >> >> animals' position having that done would be priceless. We're talking about
> >> >> >> >> doubling, tripling, or whatever the lives of the animals so from their position
> >> >> >> >> the cost could never enter into it.
>
> >> >> >> >But the same might be said of the potential malaria victim in the
> >> >> >> >Third World whose life I can save. So I have to make the decision
> >> >> >> >based on something or other, and one of the relevant factors is how
> >> >> >> >much each option costs, so that I can make the outcome better in the
> >> >> >> >most economically efficient way possible.
>
> >> >> >> We're discussing whether it might be ok for you to contribute to decent
> >> >> >> lives for livestock or better to do nothing as you're doing now. What you do in
> >> >> >> regards to OTHER animals doesn't enter into it, and sadly it's really a form of
> >> >> >> dishonesty for you to try pretending otherwise.
>
> >> >> >And why would that be, exactly?
>
> >> >> Because what you do in regards to other animals doesn't enter into it at
> >> >> all, meaning you're dishonest for trying to dishonestly pretend it does. That
> >> >> one's so obvious even a misnomer hugger should be able to figure it out.
>
> >> >You're a fool.
>
> >> You're the fool for being unable to appreciate it even after it has been
> >> pointed out for you. It's your cognitive dissonance again IF you really can't
> >> comprehend, trying to protect you from facts you don't want to believe even
> >> though from my position they are so absurd as to be unbelievable.
>
> >If I decided that I wanted to "contribute to decent lives for
> >livestock", I would have to weigh up any opportunity costs of doing
> >so, in particular opportunity costs that would prevent me from making
> >the outcome better in other ways. Such considerations clearly *do*
> >"enter into it". You are a fool for thinking otherwise.
>
> * * Apparently there's no condition in which you can comprehend that it might be
> better to contribute to decent lives for livestock than to do nothing, making
> you very much the fool from my position. In part that's because such a
> restriction necessarily makes you unable to distinguish between which lives
> would be worth contributing to and which not, since you feel that none are.
>

You're an idiot.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> So far it still appears that you
> >> >> >> do hate them btw, even the grass raised cattle you've acted like you could
> >> >> >> appreciate. If you didn't there would be no reason for you to try changing the
> >> >> >> subject to humans and away from livestock.
>
> >> >> >You're an idiot.
>
> >> >> What I said is a fact and IF you can't appreciate it that means YOU are the
> >> >> idiot, not me for presenting it.
>
> >> >What you said is laughable nonsense.
>
> >> It's a fact you can't refute, but which you apparently hate and wish that
> >> you could.
>
> >It's obvious nonsense. You have no rational grounds at all for
> >thinking I hate livestock, just because I take into account the
> >interests of other beings as well. Do *you* hate livestock? If not,
> >then why don't you yourself put into practice the plan that you
> >suggest?
>
> * * A number of reasons but one is that I feel regular grain fed beef cattle in
> general have lives I shouldn't be ashamed to contribute to.

On Oct 24, 9:44*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:31:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 24, 12:08*am, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Oct 22, 8:02 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >On Oct 18, 8:14 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Oct 16, 7:25 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, Goo wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.
>
> >> >> >> >> >I am doing a post-doc at the University of M nster.
>
> >> >> >> >> Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about the results.
> >> >> >> >> Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the distinction between lives
> >> >> >> >> which are of positive value and lives which are of negative value for different
> >> >> >> >> beings.
>
> >> >> >> >It's a bit difficult to do that. I don't have any teaching duties and
> >> >> >> >I don't speak German very well. Would you like me to ask some of my
> >> >> >> >colleagues?
>
> >> >> >> Yes please. And if they can come up with a better definition than mine I'd
> >> >> >> like to learn about that too, but so far I believe mine covers it as well as it
> >> >> >> can without causing excessive restrictions on the idea. No offense, but I
> >> >> >> consider "good" to be an excessive restriction.
>
> >> >> >I asked Petra and Stefan. Petra said "What does he mean by positive
> >> >> >value?" I tried to give them some idea of what I thought you meant by
> >> >> >it.
>
> >> >> What did you tell them?
>
> >> >I told them that I think it's got something to do with the idea of a
> >> >life which contains a balance of pleasant experiences over aversive
> >> >experiences.
>
> >> * * Not enough suffering to make it of negative value is my answer.. From there
> >> they would need to figure out what it means to them if they can. Just because
> >> you can't doesn't mean other people can't. Remember we were doing it in grade
> >> school, so it seems ANYONE in high school or above should certainly be able to
> >> do it as wall.
>
> >Presumably here "figure out what it means to them" means "make up your
> >own criteria for how to determine whether the concept applies or not".
> >Obviously I would be capable of formulating such criteria, but that's
> >not my job. It's your phrase, and it's your job to specify the
> >criteria for evaluating whether or not the phrase applies to an actual
> >situation.
>
> * * In the end each person must decide for himself as I've pointed out to you
> from the start.

Why? Why can't I just say "It's a meaningless phrase"? The evidence
for that conclusion would appear to be pretty strong, if you can give
no guidance at all on how to interpret the phrase.

> Here's an obvious clue for you that MIGHT help you finally learn
> to comprehend the fact and maybe even eventually learn to appreciate it. Here's
> the clue: Some people believe elimination is the best approach, while others
> believe that providing decent AW is the best approach. Each person must decide
> for himself... It's the same with lives we consider to be of positive value. For
> example so far from what you've told me the only creatures on the planet you
> think might have lives of positive value are SOME grass raised cattle.

Actually, I've told you no such thing.

> In
> contrast to that I believe most cattle do including those fed grain, and that
> most broiler chickens and their parents do, and that even the parents of caged
> laying hens do. There are others too of course, but that alone is more than you
> could ever learn to appreciate during your entire life while I've been able to
> appreciate them for decades.
>

And what are the objective criteria which make your view superior?
What objective evidence is it based on?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >They both seemed to think it would be pretty hard to determine
> >> >> >whether a cow has a life of positive value,
>
> >> >> Not for a person who is familiar with the cow and its life. You can bet
> >> >> there are lots of farmers who have a pretty good idea about how their animals
> >> >> are doing and whether they are overly stressed or not. Here's something I feel
> >> >> sure you've heard before but can't afford to appreciate: Cow produce milk a lot
> >> >> better when they aren't stressed and unhappy.
>
> >> >The measures which the modern dairy industry take to ensure that cows
> >> >produce milk most certainly make them very stressed and unhappy. I've
> >> >already given you information about that.
>
> >> * * I've spent hundreds of hours on dairy farms and the cows all seemed happy
> >> enough. The only time they acted stressed at all was when the farmer was a
> >> little bit late with feeding. That's not enough to make their lives of negative
> >> value instead of positive value imo. In fact since anticipation is something
> >> humans enjoy, it might add positive value to cows' lives as well even if they
> >> can't appreciate it.
>
> >When did you have occasion to visit dairy farms? Were you working
> >there? Where were these farms?
>
> * * From about fifth grade through seventh grade in PA I spent time on a dairy
> farm almost every day. The farmers knew me well and sometimes would rag me a
> little when I was "late". A farmer's son showed me how to trap muskrats and I
> spent quite a few hours doing that. I saw calves born and saw them taken away
> from their mothers. The first time it was done the new mother was very upset for
> a few days, but the older cows usually didn't seem to mind much because that's
> what they got used to. My brother and I were disturbed when one calf we became
> especially fond of was taken away, but the farmers did make us understand the
> situation and that a farm is a business so they can't afford to have a bunch of
> pet calves around drinking milk for no return. The cattle in general all seemed
> to be content with their position in life, which makes sense because they never
> learned about anything different. They couldn't want much more than what they
> had anyway. They were put out to pasture in good days and kept in on bad days,
> like snowing days. During the summer they were outside all day until time for
> the evening milking when they were fed hay and grain, and then they went back
> out to pasture for the night.
>
> * * On a farm we hung out on in NC the cattle stayed out all the time winter and
> summer though they had a barn they could get in when they wanted to. They only
> had to come in to be milked, into a milk house that only held three cows at a
> time. After being milked and eating whatever grain they could during the
> process, they went back out to pasture.
>
> * * Both situations seemed good for the animals, and were good to the animals
> considering the outside environment in the area where they were living.
>
> >Do you think that the information that I have provided about welfare
> >issues for dairy cows is just factually mistaken?
>
> * * You didn't provide any information just a link, and nothing I read there
> caused me to believe most dairy cattle don't have lives of positive value..

I don't know what your criteria are for what counts as a "life of
positive value".

> The
> situation with veal calves could often be improved imo, but in general dairy
> farming seems like it's pretty good for the cattle involved.

On 10/25/2012 2:53 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Oct 24, 9:44 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:31:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 24, 12:08 am, dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Oct 22, 8:02 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 18, 8:14 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 7:25 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am doing a post-doc at the University of M nster.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about the results.
>>>>>>>>>> Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the distinction between lives
>>>>>>>>>> which are of positive value and lives which are of negative value for different
>>>>>>>>>> beings.
>>
>>>>>>>>> It's a bit difficult to do that. I don't have any teaching duties and
>>>>>>>>> I don't speak German very well. Would you like me to ask some of my
>>>>>>>>> colleagues?
>>
>>>>>>>> Yes please. And if they can come up with a better definition than mine I'd
>>>>>>>> like to learn about that too, but so far I believe mine covers it as well as it
>>>>>>>> can without causing excessive restrictions on the idea. No offense, but I
>>>>>>>> consider "good" to be an excessive restriction.
>>
>>>>>>> I asked Petra and Stefan. Petra said "What does he mean by positive
>>>>>>> value?" I tried to give them some idea of what I thought you meant by
>>>>>>> it.
>>
>>>>>> What did you tell them?
>>
>>>>> I told them that I think it's got something to do with the idea of a
>>>>> life which contains a balance of pleasant experiences over aversive
>>>>> experiences.
>>
>>>> Not enough suffering to make it of negative value is my answer. From there
>>>> they would need to figure out what it means to them if they can. Just because
>>>> you can't doesn't mean other people can't. Remember we were doing it in grade
>>>> school, so it seems ANYONE in high school or above should certainly be able to
>>>> do it as wall.
>>
>>> Presumably here "figure out what it means to them" means "make up your
>>> own criteria for how to determine whether the concept applies or not".
>>> Obviously I would be capable of formulating such criteria, but that's
>>> not my job. It's your phrase, and it's your job to specify the
>>> criteria for evaluating whether or not the phrase applies to an actual
>>> situation.
>>
>> In the end each person must decide for himself as I've pointed out to you
>> from the start.
>
> Why? Why can't I just say "It's a meaningless phrase"? The evidence
> for that conclusion would appear to be pretty strong, if you can give
> no guidance at all on how to interpret the phrase.
>
>> Here's an obvious clue for you that MIGHT help you finally learn
>> to comprehend the fact and maybe even eventually learn to appreciate it. Here's
>> the clue: Some people believe elimination is the best approach, while others
>> believe that providing decent AW is the best approach. Each person must decide
>> for himself... It's the same with lives we consider to be of positive value. For
>> example so far from what you've told me the only creatures on the planet you
>> think might have lives of positive value are SOME grass raised cattle.
>
> Actually, I've told you no such thing.
>
>> In
>> contrast to that I believe most cattle do including those fed grain, and that
>> most broiler chickens and their parents do, and that even the parents of caged
>> laying hens do. There are others too of course, but that alone is more than you
>> could ever learn to appreciate during your entire life while I've been able to
>> appreciate them for decades.
>>
>
> And what are the objective criteria which make your view superior?
> What objective evidence is it based on?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> They both seemed to think it would be pretty hard to determine
>>>>>>> whether a cow has a life of positive value,
>>
>>>>>> Not for a person who is familiar with the cow and its life. You can bet
>>>>>> there are lots of farmers who have a pretty good idea about how their animals
>>>>>> are doing and whether they are overly stressed or not. Here's something I feel
>>>>>> sure you've heard before but can't afford to appreciate: Cow produce milk a lot
>>>>>> better when they aren't stressed and unhappy.
>>
>>>>> The measures which the modern dairy industry take to ensure that cows
>>>>> produce milk most certainly make them very stressed and unhappy. I've
>>>>> already given you information about that.
>>
>>>> I've spent hundreds of hours on dairy farms and the cows all seemed happy
>>>> enough. The only time they acted stressed at all was when the farmer was a
>>>> little bit late with feeding. That's not enough to make their lives of negative
>>>> value instead of positive value imo. In fact since anticipation is something
>>>> humans enjoy, it might add positive value to cows' lives as well even if they
>>>> can't appreciate it.
>>
>>> When did you have occasion to visit dairy farms? Were you working
>>> there? Where were these farms?
>>
>> From about fifth grade through seventh grade in PA I spent time on a dairy
>> farm almost every day. The farmers knew me well and sometimes would rag me a
>> little when I was "late". A farmer's son showed me how to trap muskrats and I
>> spent quite a few hours doing that. I saw calves born and saw them taken away
>> from their mothers. The first time it was done the new mother was very upset for
>> a few days, but the older cows usually didn't seem to mind much because that's
>> what they got used to. My brother and I were disturbed when one calf we became
>> especially fond of was taken away, but the farmers did make us understand the
>> situation and that a farm is a business so they can't afford to have a bunch of
>> pet calves around drinking milk for no return. The cattle in general all seemed
>> to be content with their position in life, which makes sense because they never
>> learned about anything different. They couldn't want much more than what they
>> had anyway. They were put out to pasture in good days and kept in on bad days,
>> like snowing days. During the summer they were outside all day until time for
>> the evening milking when they were fed hay and grain, and then they went back
>> out to pasture for the night.
>>
>> On a farm we hung out on in NC the cattle stayed out all the time winter and
>> summer though they had a barn they could get in when they wanted to. They only
>> had to come in to be milked, into a milk house that only held three cows at a
>> time. After being milked and eating whatever grain they could during the
>> process, they went back out to pasture.
>>
>> Both situations seemed good for the animals, and were good to the animals
>> considering the outside environment in the area where they were living.
>>
>>> Do you think that the information that I have provided about welfare
>>> issues for dairy cows is just factually mistaken?
>>
>> You didn't provide any information just a link, and nothing I read there
>> caused me to believe most dairy cattle don't have lives of positive value.
>
> I don't know what your criteria are for what counts as a "life of
> positive value".
>
>> The
>> situation with veal calves could often be improved imo, but in general dairy
>> farming seems like it's pretty good for the cattle involved.
>

general dairy explodes in highly combustible milk. The explosion rocks
a tectonic plate. Backspac X 9.

//
--
Did you get your satisfaction?

satisfaction

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:42:46 -0600, "!@#$%&*(The Shyftyng Nym)*&%$#@!"
> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:39:55 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:50:12 -0600, "!@#$%&*(The Shyftyng Nym)*&%$#@!"
> wrote:
>>
>>>On 10/23/2012 4:07 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 22, 8:02 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 18, 8:14 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 7:25 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am doing a post-doc at the University of M nster.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about the results.
>>>>>>>>>> Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the distinction between lives
>>>>>>>>>> which are of positive value and lives which are of negative value for different
>>>>>>>>>> beings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's a bit difficult to do that. I don't have any teaching duties and
>>>>>>>>> I don't speak German very well. Would you like me to ask some of my
>>>>>>>>> colleagues?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes please. And if they can come up with a better definition than mine I'd
>>>>>>>> like to learn about that too, but so far I believe mine covers it as well as it
>>>>>>>> can without causing excessive restrictions on the idea. No offense, but I
>>>>>>>> consider "good" to be an excessive restriction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I asked Petra and Stefan. Petra said "What does he mean by positive
>>>>>>> value?" I tried to give them some idea of what I thought you meant by
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What did you tell them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I told them that I think it's got something to do with the idea of a
>>>>> life which contains a balance of pleasant experiences over aversive
>>>>> experiences.
>>>>
>>>> Not enough suffering to make it of negative value is my answer. From there
>>>> they would need to figure out what it means to them if they can. Just because
>>>> you can't doesn't mean other people can't. Remember we were doing it in grade
>>>> school, so it seems ANYONE in high school or above should certainly be able to
>>>> do it as wall.
>>>>
>>>>>>> They both seemed to think it would be pretty hard to determine
>>>>>>> whether a cow has a life of positive value,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not for a person who is familiar with the cow and its life. You can bet
>>>>>> there are lots of farmers who have a pretty good idea about how their animals
>>>>>> are doing and whether they are overly stressed or not. Here's something I feel
>>>>>> sure you've heard before but can't afford to appreciate: Cow produce milk a lot
>>>>>> better when they aren't stressed and unhappy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The measures which the modern dairy industry take to ensure that cows
>>>>> produce milk most certainly make them very stressed and unhappy. I've
>>>>> already given you information about that.
>>>>
>>>> I've spent hundreds of hours on dairy farms and the cows all seemed happy
>>>> enough. The only time they acted stressed at all was when the farmer was a
>>>> little bit late with feeding. That's not enough to make their lives of negative
>>>> value instead of positive value imo. In fact since anticipation is something
>>>> humans enjoy, it might add positive value to cows' lives as well even if they
>>>> can't appreciate it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Would you say that if the farmer was any epsilon such that epsilon < k,
>>>where k is a real value late that the cows would begin to stress? Was
>>>their stress a delta function or a step function, or some other stable
>>>function of time and the exact moment R of feeding? How does time of
>>>negative value stack up to pay down value of lives, is it cumulative, or
>>>merely arithmetic?
>>
>> It's only of negative value during the time that the animals are waiting
>>beyond the normal feeding time. But the gratification might be enough better
>>because of the anticipation that overall the late feedings really add to the
>>positive value more than they detract from the negative value. It would be
>>different if they went for long periods like days of course, but just late for
>>an hour or so once in a while it could overall add to the positive value.
>
>Get the **** out of here.

It may or may not, but it's certainly not something bad enough to give their
lives in general negative value. Are you some sort of veg*n?

>We have better time than to watch some
>ignorant template build lincoln logs.

What better time do you have?

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:53:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Oct 24, 9:44*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:31:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>> >On Oct 24, 12:08*am, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Oct 22, 8:02 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Oct 18, 8:14 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Oct 16, 7:25 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >I am doing a post-doc at the University of M nster.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about the results.
>> >> >> >> >> Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the distinction between lives
>> >> >> >> >> which are of positive value and lives which are of negative value for different
>> >> >> >> >> beings.
>>
>> >> >> >> >It's a bit difficult to do that. I don't have any teaching duties and
>> >> >> >> >I don't speak German very well. Would you like me to ask some of my
>> >> >> >> >colleagues?
>>
>> >> >> >> Yes please. And if they can come up with a better definition than mine I'd
>> >> >> >> like to learn about that too, but so far I believe mine covers it as well as it
>> >> >> >> can without causing excessive restrictions on the idea. No offense, but I
>> >> >> >> consider "good" to be an excessive restriction.
>>
>> >> >> >I asked Petra and Stefan. Petra said "What does he mean by positive
>> >> >> >value?" I tried to give them some idea of what I thought you meant by
>> >> >> >it.
>>
>> >> >> What did you tell them?
>>
>> >> >I told them that I think it's got something to do with the idea of a
>> >> >life which contains a balance of pleasant experiences over aversive
>> >> >experiences.
>>
>> >> * * Not enough suffering to make it of negative value is my answer. From there
>> >> they would need to figure out what it means to them if they can. Just because
>> >> you can't doesn't mean other people can't. Remember we were doing it in grade
>> >> school, so it seems ANYONE in high school or above should certainly be able to
>> >> do it as wall.
>>
>> >Presumably here "figure out what it means to them" means "make up your
>> >own criteria for how to determine whether the concept applies or not".
>> >Obviously I would be capable of formulating such criteria, but that's
>> >not my job. It's your phrase, and it's your job to specify the
>> >criteria for evaluating whether or not the phrase applies to an actual
>> >situation.
>>
>> * * In the end each person must decide for himself as I've pointed out to you
>> from the start.
>
>Why?

Because some things are just that way. It's exactly the same as what types
of food you like and don't like, but you have a tremendous mental handicap in
that area. The question on that is: Are you mentally handicapped because you're
a vegan, or are you a vegan because of the handicap? My guess is it's a
combination. Regardless, you can NOT appreciate any distinction between lives of
positive value and those of negative value whatever the fault, so you're
handicapped in that area. You can't appreciate any distinction between
conditions where veggies contribute to more deaths than animal products and when
it's the other way around either, again being what I consider a very significant
mental handicap.

>Why can't I just say "It's a meaningless phrase"?

You can but it's a lie, so every time you say it you're lying. I told you
what it means but you can't appreciate that. You're cognitive dissonance won't
allow you to accept it because it conflicts with what you want to believe. So
something that you WANT TO believe conflicts with the idea that it means lives
in which there's not enough suffering to make them of negative value.

>The evidence
>for that conclusion would appear to be pretty strong, if you can give
>no guidance at all on how to interpret the phrase.

That's a lie every time you tell it as well. So you have at least two lies
that you repeat frequently, like a Goober.

>> Here's an obvious clue for you that MIGHT help you finally learn
>> to comprehend the fact and maybe even eventually learn to appreciate it. Here's
>> the clue: Some people believe elimination is the best approach, while others
>> believe that providing decent AW is the best approach. Each person must decide
>> for himself... It's the same with lives we consider to be of positive value. For
>> example so far from what you've told me the only creatures on the planet you
>> think might have lives of positive value are SOME grass raised cattle.
>
>Actually, I've told you no such thing.

Since you're backing down away from it again we will agree that you have NO
appreciation for the lives of any creatures including grass raised cattle,
yourself, your friends and your family. If you want to change what we agree on
in that regard then YOU say what you have any appreciation for and how you think
you do.

>> In
>> contrast to that I believe most cattle do including those fed grain, and that
>> most broiler chickens and their parents do, and that even the parents of caged
>> laying hens do. There are others too of course, but that alone is more than you
>> could ever learn to appreciate during your entire life while I've been able to
>> appreciate them for decades.
>>
>
>And what are the objective criteria which make your view superior?

I've been in chicken houses and I've raised hundreds of my own chickens,
giving me a lot more personal experience.

>What objective evidence is it based on?

Thousands of chickens, several chicken houses, a good number of other
people's yards and farms where they raised their birds in different ways, plus
the discussions I've had with them as well as first hand observation. Plus
there's all the time on the dairy farms, and the discussions with the farmers,
and with other people who have had first hand experience. I raised a sow for
several years as well, and she had at least four litters of pigs, and I got to
see at least some of them born from each litter. We always kept two and killed
them to eat which is how I paid for her feed because I was still in high school
and didn't work enough to always be buying hog feed. We always killed and
butchered them ourselves, so that's a good bit of experience you didn't have
even if you were around other pigs that you raised and butchered yourself. Maybe
you don't think first hand experience around them means anything though?
Then there's the general way which is that I can recognise that some
situations appear to provide lives of positive value and some do not, while you
can't even comprehend what the distinction means much less ever make it for
yourself. That necessarily puts you way below, so you asking me about this is
like a blind person asking why someone who can see might have a superior
interpretion about a photograph or a slide show. But! I encourage you to move on
and try to appreciate "good" lives for any creatures at all to start with. Maybe
someone you know has a "good" life but you just never noticed before. Then see
if you notice someone else does too...and several more... Then if you ever get
so you can do that with humans try it with a different animal. Maybe you could
try those grass raised cattle again. Anything would be a step up for you, so you
really don't have anything to lose. Do you? If so, what do you think it is?

>> >> >> >They both seemed to think it would be pretty hard to determine
>> >> >> >whether a cow has a life of positive value,
>>
>> >> >> Not for a person who is familiar with the cow and its life. You can bet
>> >> >> there are lots of farmers who have a pretty good idea about how their animals
>> >> >> are doing and whether they are overly stressed or not. Here's something I feel
>> >> >> sure you've heard before but can't afford to appreciate: Cow produce milk a lot
>> >> >> better when they aren't stressed and unhappy.
>>
>> >> >The measures which the modern dairy industry take to ensure that cows
>> >> >produce milk most certainly make them very stressed and unhappy. I've
>> >> >already given you information about that.
>>
>> >> * * I've spent hundreds of hours on dairy farms and the cows all seemed happy
>> >> enough. The only time they acted stressed at all was when the farmer was a
>> >> little bit late with feeding. That's not enough to make their lives of negative
>> >> value instead of positive value imo. In fact since anticipation is something
>> >> humans enjoy, it might add positive value to cows' lives as well even if they
>> >> can't appreciate it.
>>
>> >When did you have occasion to visit dairy farms? Were you working
>> >there? Where were these farms?
>>
>> * * From about fifth grade through seventh grade in PA I spent time on a dairy
>> farm almost every day. The farmers knew me well and sometimes would rag me a
>> little when I was "late". A farmer's son showed me how to trap muskrats and I
>> spent quite a few hours doing that. I saw calves born and saw them taken away
>> from their mothers. The first time it was done the new mother was very upset for
>> a few days, but the older cows usually didn't seem to mind much because that's
>> what they got used to. My brother and I were disturbed when one calf we became
>> especially fond of was taken away, but the farmers did make us understand the
>> situation and that a farm is a business so they can't afford to have a bunch of
>> pet calves around drinking milk for no return. The cattle in general all seemed
>> to be content with their position in life, which makes sense because they never
>> learned about anything different. They couldn't want much more than what they
>> had anyway. They were put out to pasture in good days and kept in on bad days,
>> like snowing days. During the summer they were outside all day until time for
>> the evening milking when they were fed hay and grain, and then they went back
>> out to pasture for the night.
>>
>> * * On a farm we hung out on in NC the cattle stayed out all the time winter and
>> summer though they had a barn they could get in when they wanted to. They only
>> had to come in to be milked, into a milk house that only held three cows at a
>> time. After being milked and eating whatever grain they could during the
>> process, they went back out to pasture.
>>
>> * * Both situations seemed good for the animals, and were good to the animals
>> considering the outside environment in the area where they were living.
>>
>> >Do you think that the information that I have provided about welfare
>> >issues for dairy cows is just factually mistaken?
>>
>> * * You didn't provide any information just a link, and nothing I read there
>> caused me to believe most dairy cattle don't have lives of positive value.
>
>I don't know what your criteria are for what counts as a "life of
>positive value".

From my pov if true it means you have a VERY significant mental handicap. So
you have at least two lies that you repeat, and you tell me that you have a very
significant mental handicap. But, why? Why do you do stuff like that?

>> The
>> situation with veal calves could often be improved imo, but in general dairy
>> farming seems like it's pretty good for the cattle involved.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:50:47 -0600, Ri3852 kllllng 4975
> wrote:

>On 10/25/2012 2:53 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>> I don't know what your criteria are for what counts as a "life of
>> positive value".
>>
>>> The
>>> situation with veal calves could often be improved imo, but in general dairy
>>> farming seems like it's pretty good for the cattle involved.
>>
>
>general dairy explodes in highly combustible milk. The explosion rocks
>a tectonic plate.

Maybe not. You can't believe everything you hear or read you know. Here's a
good one though: The guy who can't comprehend any distinction between lives of
positive value for individuals and lives of negative value for individuals,
claims to have a PhD in math. We were discussing the distinction I mentioned in
regards to slavery by the time I was in sixth grade and no one in the class had
any problem with it, yet this guy claiming to be a doctor can't comprehend what
it means. Considering his mental handicap in the one area, the PhD part is
almost as hard to believe as your milk explosion.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:44:53 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Oct 24, 9:50*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:19:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>> >On Oct 24, 12:32 am, dh@. wrote:
>> >
>> >> Probably what would be best would be to learn what percentage of which type
>> >> animals are killed by growing soy. Then by cows eating grass. Even though it
>> >> seems obvious the number would be much lower for the cattle, you could never
>> >> learn to appreciate it or probably even accept it. It would probably be another
>> >> one of those things your brain can only interpret as "nonsense".
>>
>> >You've got to take into account the death of the cow when it is
>> >slaughtered as well.
>>
>> * * With the cow its life and death both need to be considered, while with the
>> CDs only their deaths since they weren't raised deliberately to be killed for
>> human food production. And remember that even you have once in a while felt the
>> lives of some grass raised cattle might be "good".
>
>Your original remark was "It [seitan] almost certainly involves more
>animal deaths than grass raised beef". This remark was unfounded.

It could only be untrue if there are no wildlife to speak of in the soy
fields.

On 29 Okt., 23:07, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:44:53 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 24, 9:50 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:19:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 24, 12:32 am, dh@. wrote:
>
> >> >> Probably what would be best would be to learn what percentage of which type
> >> >> animals are killed by growing soy. Then by cows eating grass. Even though it
> >> >> seems obvious the number would be much lower for the cattle, you could never
> >> >> learn to appreciate it or probably even accept it. It would probably be another
> >> >> one of those things your brain can only interpret as "nonsense".
>
> >> >You've got to take into account the death of the cow when it is
> >> >slaughtered as well.
>
> >> With the cow its life and death both need to be considered, while with the
> >> CDs only their deaths since they weren't raised deliberately to be killed for
> >> human food production. And remember that even you have once in a while felt the
> >> lives of some grass raised cattle might be "good".
>
> >Your original remark was "It [seitan] almost certainly involves more
> >animal deaths than grass raised beef". This remark was unfounded.
>
> * * It could only be untrue if there are no wildlife to speak of in the soy
> fields.

That`s false. We have done a comparative analysis of the death toll
caused by soy products and beef elsewhere in this thread.

On 29 Okt., 23:06, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:53:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 24, 9:44 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:31:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 24, 12:08 am, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Oct 22, 8:02 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Oct 18, 8:14 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 16, 7:25 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, Goo wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present..
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >I am doing a post-doc at the University of M nster.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about the results.
> >> >> >> >> >> Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the distinction between lives
> >> >> >> >> >> which are of positive value and lives which are of negative value for different
> >> >> >> >> >> beings.
>
> >> >> >> >> >It's a bit difficult to do that. I don't have any teaching duties and
> >> >> >> >> >I don't speak German very well. Would you like me to ask some of my
> >> >> >> >> >colleagues?
>
> >> >> >> >> Yes please. And if they can come up with a better definition than mine I'd
> >> >> >> >> like to learn about that too, but so far I believe mine covers it as well as it
> >> >> >> >> can without causing excessive restrictions on the idea. No offense, but I
> >> >> >> >> consider "good" to be an excessive restriction.
>
> >> >> >> >I asked Petra and Stefan. Petra said "What does he mean by positive
> >> >> >> >value?" I tried to give them some idea of what I thought you meant by
> >> >> >> >it.
>
> >> >> >> What did you tell them?
>
> >> >> >I told them that I think it's got something to do with the idea of a
> >> >> >life which contains a balance of pleasant experiences over aversive
> >> >> >experiences.
>
> >> >> Not enough suffering to make it of negative value is my answer. From there
> >> >> they would need to figure out what it means to them if they can. Just because
> >> >> you can't doesn't mean other people can't. Remember we were doing it in grade
> >> >> school, so it seems ANYONE in high school or above should certainly be able to
> >> >> do it as wall.
>
> >> >Presumably here "figure out what it means to them" means "make up your
> >> >own criteria for how to determine whether the concept applies or not"..
> >> >Obviously I would be capable of formulating such criteria, but that's
> >> >not my job. It's your phrase, and it's your job to specify the
> >> >criteria for evaluating whether or not the phrase applies to an actual
> >> >situation.
>
> >> In the end each person must decide for himself as I've pointed out to you
> >> from the start.
>
> >Why?
>
> * * Because some things are just that way. It's exactly the same as what types
> of food you like and don't like, but you have a tremendous mental handicap in
> that area. The question on that is: Are you mentally handicapped because you're
> a vegan, or are you a vegan because of the handicap? My guess is it's a
> combination. Regardless, you can NOT appreciate any distinction between lives of
> positive value and those of negative value whatever the fault, so you're
> handicapped in that area. You can't appreciate any distinction between
> conditions where veggies contribute to more deaths than animal products and when
> it's the other way around either, again being what I consider a very significant
> mental handicap.
>

So it looks like you agree that the correct application of the phrase
is a completely subjective matter.

> >Why can't I just say "It's a meaningless phrase"?
>
> * * You can but it's a lie, so every time you say it you're lying. I told you
> what it means but you can't appreciate that. You're cognitive dissonance won't
> allow you to accept it because it conflicts with what you want to believe.. So
> something that you WANT TO believe conflicts with the idea that it means lives
> in which there's not enough suffering to make them of negative value.
>

You pretty much conceded it, above. The question of whether or not the
phrase has been applied correctly is by your own admission entirely a
matter of personal preference.

> >The evidence
> >for that conclusion would appear to be pretty strong, if you can give
> >no guidance at all on how to interpret the phrase.
>
> * * That's a lie every time you tell it as well. So you have at least two lies
> that you repeat frequently, like a Goober.
>

It`s not a lie.

> >> Here's an obvious clue for you that MIGHT help you finally learn
> >> to comprehend the fact and maybe even eventually learn to appreciate it. Here's
> >> the clue: Some people believe elimination is the best approach, while others
> >> believe that providing decent AW is the best approach. Each person must decide
> >> for himself... It's the same with lives we consider to be of positive value. For
> >> example so far from what you've told me the only creatures on the planet you
> >> think might have lives of positive value are SOME grass raised cattle.
>
> >Actually, I've told you no such thing.
>
> * * Since you're backing down away from it again we will agree that you have NO
> appreciation for the lives of any creatures including grass raised cattle,
> yourself, your friends and your family. If you want to change what we agree on
> in that regard then YOU say what you have any appreciation for and how you think
> you do.
>

You`re a fool.

> >> In
> >> contrast to that I believe most cattle do including those fed grain, and that
> >> most broiler chickens and their parents do, and that even the parents of caged
> >> laying hens do. There are others too of course, but that alone is more than you
> >> could ever learn to appreciate during your entire life while I've been able to
> >> appreciate them for decades.
>
> >And what are the objective criteria which make your view superior?
>
> * * I've been in chicken houses and I've raised hundreds of my own chickens,
> giving me a lot more personal experience.
>
> >What objective evidence is it based on?
>
> * * Thousands of chickens, several chicken houses, a good number of other
> people's yards and farms where they raised their birds in different ways, plus
> the discussions I've had with them as well as first hand observation.

Be specific. What did you observe that led you to conclude that they
had lives of positive value?

> Plus
> there's all the time on the dairy farms, and the discussions with the farmers,
> and with other people who have had first hand experience. I raised a sow for
> several years as well, and she had at least four litters of pigs, and I got to
> see at least some of them born from each litter. We always kept two and killed
> them to eat which is how I paid for her feed because I was still in high school
> and didn't work enough to always be buying hog feed. We always killed and
> butchered them ourselves, so that's a good bit of experience you didn't have
> even if you were around other pigs that you raised and butchered yourself.. Maybe
> you don't think first hand experience around them means anything though?
> * * Then there's the general way which is that I can recognise that some
> situations appear to provide lives of positive value and some do not, while you
> can't even comprehend what the distinction means much less ever make it for
> yourself.

You`ve pretty much conceded that it doesn't mean anything; that it`s
entrely a matter of personal preference how the distinction is to be
interpreted.

> That necessarily puts you way below, so you asking me about this is
> like a blind person asking why someone who can see might have a superior
> interpretion about a photograph or a slide show. But! I encourage you to move on
> and try to appreciate "good" lives for any creatures at all to start with.. Maybe
> someone you know has a "good" life but you just never noticed before. Then see
> if you notice someone else does too...and several more... Then if you ever get
> so you can do that with humans try it with a different animal. Maybe you could
> try those grass raised cattle again. Anything would be a step up for you, so you
> really don't have anything to lose. Do you? If so, what do you think it is?
>
> >> >> >> >They both seemed to think it would be pretty hard to determine
> >> >> >> >whether a cow has a life of positive value,
>
> >> >> >> Not for a person who is familiar with the cow and its life. You can bet
> >> >> >> there are lots of farmers who have a pretty good idea about how their animals
> >> >> >> are doing and whether they are overly stressed or not. Here's something I feel
> >> >> >> sure you've heard before but can't afford to appreciate: Cow produce milk a lot
> >> >> >> better when they aren't stressed and unhappy.
>
> >> >> >The measures which the modern dairy industry take to ensure that cows
> >> >> >produce milk most certainly make them very stressed and unhappy. I've
> >> >> >already given you information about that.
>
> >> >> I've spent hundreds of hours on dairy farms and the cows all seemed happy
> >> >> enough. The only time they acted stressed at all was when the farmer was a
> >> >> little bit late with feeding. That's not enough to make their lives of negative
> >> >> value instead of positive value imo. In fact since anticipation is something
> >> >> humans enjoy, it might add positive value to cows' lives as well even if they
> >> >> can't appreciate it.
>
> >> >When did you have occasion to visit dairy farms? Were you working
> >> >there? Where were these farms?
>
> >> From about fifth grade through seventh grade in PA I spent time on a dairy
> >> farm almost every day. The farmers knew me well and sometimes would rag me a
> >> little when I was "late". A farmer's son showed me how to trap muskrats and I
> >> spent quite a few hours doing that. I saw calves born and saw them taken away
> >> from their mothers. The first time it was done the new mother was very upset for
> >> a few days, but the older cows usually didn't seem to mind much because that's
> >> what they got used to. My brother and I were disturbed when one calf we became
> >> especially fond of was taken away, but the farmers did make us understand the
> >> situation and that a farm is a business so they can't afford to have a bunch of
> >> pet calves around drinking milk for no return. The cattle in general all seemed
> >> to be content with their position in life, which makes sense because they never
> >> learned about anything different. They couldn't want much more than what they
> >> had anyway. They were put out to pasture in good days and kept in on bad days,
> >> like snowing days. During the summer they were outside all day until time for
> >> the evening milking when they were fed hay and grain, and then they went back
> >> out to pasture for the night.
>
> >> On a farm we hung out on in NC the cattle stayed out all the time winter and
> >> summer though they had a barn they could get in when they wanted to. They only
> >> had to come in to be milked, into a milk house that only held three cows at a
> >> time. After being milked and eating whatever grain they could during the
> >> process, they went back out to pasture.
>
> >> Both situations seemed good for the animals, and were good to the animals
> >> considering the outside environment in the area where they were living..
>
> >> >Do you think that the information that I have provided about welfare
> >> >issues for dairy cows is just factually mistaken?
>
> >> You didn't provide any information just a link, and nothing I read there
> >> caused me to believe most dairy cattle don't have lives of positive value.
>
> >I don't know what your criteria are for what counts as a "life of
> >positive value".
>
> * * From my pov if true it means you have a VERY significant mental handicap. So
> you have at least two lies that you repeat, and you tell me that you have a very
> significant mental handicap. But, why? Why do you do stuff like that?

I don`t lie, and I don't tell you I have a significant mental handicap.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 01:22:29 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On 29 Okt., 23:06, dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:53:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Oct 24, 9:44 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:31:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 24, 12:08 am, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >On Oct 22, 8:02 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Oct 18, 8:14 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 16, 7:25 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >I am doing a post-doc at the University of M nster.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about the results.
>> >> >> >> >> >> Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the distinction between lives
>> >> >> >> >> >> which are of positive value and lives which are of negative value for different
>> >> >> >> >> >> beings.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >It's a bit difficult to do that. I don't have any teaching duties and
>> >> >> >> >> >I don't speak German very well. Would you like me to ask some of my
>> >> >> >> >> >colleagues?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Yes please. And if they can come up with a better definition than mine I'd
>> >> >> >> >> like to learn about that too, but so far I believe mine covers it as well as it
>> >> >> >> >> can without causing excessive restrictions on the idea. No offense, but I
>> >> >> >> >> consider "good" to be an excessive restriction.
>>
>> >> >> >> >I asked Petra and Stefan. Petra said "What does he mean by positive
>> >> >> >> >value?" I tried to give them some idea of what I thought you meant by
>> >> >> >> >it.
>>
>> >> >> >> What did you tell them?
>>
>> >> >> >I told them that I think it's got something to do with the idea of a
>> >> >> >life which contains a balance of pleasant experiences over aversive
>> >> >> >experiences.
>>
>> >> >> Not enough suffering to make it of negative value is my answer. From there
>> >> >> they would need to figure out what it means to them if they can. Just because
>> >> >> you can't doesn't mean other people can't. Remember we were doing it in grade
>> >> >> school, so it seems ANYONE in high school or above should certainly be able to
>> >> >> do it as wall.
>>
>> >> >Presumably here "figure out what it means to them" means "make up your
>> >> >own criteria for how to determine whether the concept applies or not".
>> >> >Obviously I would be capable of formulating such criteria, but that's
>> >> >not my job. It's your phrase, and it's your job to specify the
>> >> >criteria for evaluating whether or not the phrase applies to an actual
>> >> >situation.
>>
>> >> In the end each person must decide for himself as I've pointed out to you
>> >> from the start.
>>
>> >Why?
>>
>> * * Because some things are just that way. It's exactly the same as what types
>> of food you like and don't like, but you have a tremendous mental handicap in
>> that area. The question on that is: Are you mentally handicapped because you're
>> a vegan, or are you a vegan because of the handicap? My guess is it's a
>> combination. Regardless, you can NOT appreciate any distinction between lives of
>> positive value and those of negative value whatever the fault, so you're
>> handicapped in that area. You can't appreciate any distinction between
>> conditions where veggies contribute to more deaths than animal products and when
>> it's the other way around either, again being what I consider a very significant
>> mental handicap.
>>
>
>So it looks like you agree that the correct application of the phrase
>is a completely subjective matter.

I've been telling you you have to decide for yourself. Did you forget about
that part?

>> >Why can't I just say "It's a meaningless phrase"?
>>
>> * * You can but it's a lie, so every time you say it you're lying. I told you
>> what it means but you can't appreciate that. You're cognitive dissonance won't
>> allow you to accept it because it conflicts with what you want to believe. So
>> something that you WANT TO believe conflicts with the idea that it means lives
>> in which there's not enough suffering to make them of negative value.
>>
>
>You pretty much conceded it, above. The question of whether or not the
>phrase has been applied correctly is by your own admission entirely a
>matter of personal preference.

I've told you that a number of times.

>> >The evidence
>> >for that conclusion would appear to be pretty strong, if you can give
>> >no guidance at all on how to interpret the phrase.
>>
>> * * That's a lie every time you tell it as well. So you have at least two lies
>> that you repeat frequently, like a Goober.
>
>It`s not a lie.

It is, and saying it's not a lie is yet another lie.

>> >> Here's an obvious clue for you that MIGHT help you finally learn
>> >> to comprehend the fact and maybe even eventually learn to appreciate it. Here's
>> >> the clue: Some people believe elimination is the best approach, while others
>> >> believe that providing decent AW is the best approach. Each person must decide
>> >> for himself... It's the same with lives we consider to be of positive value. For
>> >> example so far from what you've told me the only creatures on the planet you
>> >> think might have lives of positive value are SOME grass raised cattle.
>>
>> >Actually, I've told you no such thing.
>>
>> * * Since you're backing down away from it again we will agree that you have NO
>> appreciation for the lives of any creatures including grass raised cattle,
>> yourself, your friends and your family. If you want to change what we agree on
>> in that regard then YOU say what you have any appreciation for and how you think
>> you do.
>
>You`re

Then as yet we agree that you have NO appreciation for the lives of any
creatures including grass raised cattle, yourself, your friends and your
family. If you ever want to try changing that feel free. It would be an
improvement if you ever could learn to imo.
.. . .
>> >> In
>> >> contrast to that I believe most cattle do including those fed grain, and that
>> >> most broiler chickens and their parents do, and that even the parents of caged
>> >> laying hens do. There are others too of course, but that alone is more than you
>> >> could ever learn to appreciate during your entire life while I've been able to
>> >> appreciate them for decades.
>>
>> >And what are the objective criteria which make your view superior?
>>
>> * * I've been in chicken houses and I've raised hundreds of my own chickens,
>> giving me a lot more personal experience.
>>
>> >What objective evidence is it based on?
>>
>> * * Thousands of chickens, several chicken houses, a good number of other
>> people's yards and farms where they raised their birds in different ways, plus
>> the discussions I've had with them as well as first hand observation.
>
>Be specific. What did you observe that led you to conclude that they
>had lives of positive value?

The animals themselves are bred to do well in confinement for one thing.
When birds get out of the cage somehow, they often/usually spend the majority of
their time of freedom trying to get back in. They act content and like they're
enjoying life in general. What do you want people to think instead? We know you
want everyone to think all chickens are suffering, but from what? Not the caged
hens, but all the rest of them. BTW did you know the caged hens' parents are
raised in cage free houses? And that so are broilers and their parents?

>> Plus
>> there's all the time on the dairy farms, and the discussions with the farmers,
>> and with other people who have had first hand experience. I raised a sow for
>> several years as well, and she had at least four litters of pigs, and I got to
>> see at least some of them born from each litter. We always kept two and killed
>> them to eat which is how I paid for her feed because I was still in high school
>> and didn't work enough to always be buying hog feed. We always killed and
>> butchered them ourselves, so that's a good bit of experience you didn't have
>> even if you were around other pigs that you raised and butchered yourself. Maybe
>> you don't think first hand experience around them means anything though?
>> * * Then there's the general way which is that I can recognise that some
>> situations appear to provide lives of positive value and some do not, while you
>> can't even comprehend what the distinction means much less ever make it for
>> yourself.
>
>You`ve pretty much conceded that it doesn't mean anything; that it`s
>entrely a matter of personal preference how the distinction is to be
>interpreted.

How else do you think it possibly could be? Do you actually think there's
one true meaning for it that applies to ever situation and condition? The one I
gave you is flexible enough, but your "good" description is not. If you think
there truly is one explanation that covers all situations and conditions, then
see if you can find it and let me know what it is. Until then I'll stick with
the one I give you unless you can come up with something better. Again "good" is
not it. However, it all comes down to each individual person's interpretation
and feelings about a situation just as it does about whether or not a person
likes a song, or a flavor of food, or a smell, or anything else a person has to
decide for himself. It really seems that you should have been able to figure all
that out for yourself at some point in your life WHILE YOU WERE STILL IN GRADE
SCHOOL!!!

>> That necessarily puts you way below, so you asking me about this is
>> like a blind person asking why someone who can see might have a superior
>> interpretion about a photograph or a slide show. But! I encourage you to move on
>> and try to appreciate "good" lives for any creatures at all to start with. Maybe
>> someone you know has a "good" life but you just never noticed before. Then see
>> if you notice someone else does too...and several more... Then if you ever get
>> so you can do that with humans try it with a different animal. Maybe you could
>> try those grass raised cattle again. Anything would be a step up for you, so you
>> really don't have anything to lose. Do you? If so, what do you think it is?
>>
>> >> >> >> >They both seemed to think it would be pretty hard to determine
>> >> >> >> >whether a cow has a life of positive value,
>>
>> >> >> >> Not for a person who is familiar with the cow and its life. You can bet
>> >> >> >> there are lots of farmers who have a pretty good idea about how their animals
>> >> >> >> are doing and whether they are overly stressed or not. Here's something I feel
>> >> >> >> sure you've heard before but can't afford to appreciate: Cow produce milk a lot
>> >> >> >> better when they aren't stressed and unhappy.
>>
>> >> >> >The measures which the modern dairy industry take to ensure that cows
>> >> >> >produce milk most certainly make them very stressed and unhappy. I've
>> >> >> >already given you information about that.
>>
>> >> >> I've spent hundreds of hours on dairy farms and the cows all seemed happy
>> >> >> enough. The only time they acted stressed at all was when the farmer was a
>> >> >> little bit late with feeding. That's not enough to make their lives of negative
>> >> >> value instead of positive value imo. In fact since anticipation is something
>> >> >> humans enjoy, it might add positive value to cows' lives as well even if they
>> >> >> can't appreciate it.
>>
>> >> >When did you have occasion to visit dairy farms? Were you working
>> >> >there? Where were these farms?
>>
>> >> From about fifth grade through seventh grade in PA I spent time on a dairy
>> >> farm almost every day. The farmers knew me well and sometimes would rag me a
>> >> little when I was "late". A farmer's son showed me how to trap muskrats and I
>> >> spent quite a few hours doing that. I saw calves born and saw them taken away
>> >> from their mothers. The first time it was done the new mother was very upset for
>> >> a few days, but the older cows usually didn't seem to mind much because that's
>> >> what they got used to. My brother and I were disturbed when one calf we became
>> >> especially fond of was taken away, but the farmers did make us understand the
>> >> situation and that a farm is a business so they can't afford to have a bunch of
>> >> pet calves around drinking milk for no return. The cattle in general all seemed
>> >> to be content with their position in life, which makes sense because they never
>> >> learned about anything different. They couldn't want much more than what they
>> >> had anyway. They were put out to pasture in good days and kept in on bad days,
>> >> like snowing days. During the summer they were outside all day until time for
>> >> the evening milking when they were fed hay and grain, and then they went back
>> >> out to pasture for the night.
>>
>> >> On a farm we hung out on in NC the cattle stayed out all the time winter and
>> >> summer though they had a barn they could get in when they wanted to. They only
>> >> had to come in to be milked, into a milk house that only held three cows at a
>> >> time. After being milked and eating whatever grain they could during the
>> >> process, they went back out to pasture.
>>
>> >> Both situations seemed good for the animals, and were good to the animals
>> >> considering the outside environment in the area where they were living.
>>
>> >> >Do you think that the information that I have provided about welfare
>> >> >issues for dairy cows is just factually mistaken?
>>
>> >> You didn't provide any information just a link, and nothing I read there
>> >> caused me to believe most dairy cattle don't have lives of positive value.
>>
>> >I don't know what your criteria are for what counts as a "life of
>> >positive value".
>>
>> * * From my pov if true it means you have a VERY significant mental handicap. So
>> you have at least two lies that you repeat, and you tell me that you have a very
>> significant mental handicap. But, why? Why do you do stuff like that?
>
>I don`t lie,

You should be able to figure out what I think about that claim.

>and I don't tell you I have a significant mental handicap.

IF you could appreciate the distinction between lives of positive and
negative value as pretty much everyone else can, and you encountered an adult
who could not, you would have good reason to believe they have a significant
mental handicap.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 01:16:15 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On 29 Okt., 23:07, dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:44:53 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>> >On Oct 24, 9:50 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:19:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 24, 12:32 am, dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Probably what would be best would be to learn what percentage of which type
>> >> >> animals are killed by growing soy. Then by cows eating grass. Even though it
>> >> >> seems obvious the number would be much lower for the cattle, you could never
>> >> >> learn to appreciate it or probably even accept it. It would probably be another
>> >> >> one of those things your brain can only interpret as "nonsense".
>>
>> >> >You've got to take into account the death of the cow when it is
>> >> >slaughtered as well.
>>
>> >> With the cow its life and death both need to be considered, while with the
>> >> CDs only their deaths since they weren't raised deliberately to be killed for
>> >> human food production. And remember that even you have once in a while felt the
>> >> lives of some grass raised cattle might be "good".
>>
>> >Your original remark was "It [seitan] almost certainly involves more
>> >animal deaths than grass raised beef". This remark was unfounded.
>>
>> * * It could only be untrue if there are no wildlife to speak of in the soy
>> fields.
>
>That`s false.

You're being dishonest again. How do you suggest that we could try to
pretend the number of animals in the fields has nothing to do with it?

>We have done a comparative analysis of the death toll
>caused by soy products and beef elsewhere in this thread.

Nothing worthwhile if at all. Do one now if you want. Good luck.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:45:23 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Oct 24, 9:54*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:20:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>> >On Oct 24, 12:38 am, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:42:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Oct 22, 8:12 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:36:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >On Oct 18, 8:23 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:06:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >My assertion
>> >> >> >> >that the dairy industry inflicts considerable suffering and premature
>> >> >> >> >death on a large number of cows was factual
>>
>> >> >> >> No it's not since as I pointed out you can't inflict premature death when
>> >> >> >> the only option is no life at all.
>>
>> >> >> >Of course you can, you stupid fool.
>>
>> >> >> >> Since we know you have no grounds to complain
>> >> >> >> about that aspect it makes it seem likely that the suffering you're referring to
>> >> >> >> may not be enough to make their lives of negative value to them either. So, what
>> >> >> >> sort of suffering are you referring to?
>>
>> >> >> >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/...re_issues.aspx
>>
>> >> >> It doesn't seem to give their lives negative value from my pov, so you have
>> >> >> no argument from my pov.
>>
>> >> >How would you go about justifying a decision about whether a life has
>> >> >"positive value" or "negative value"?
>>
>> >> Unless the animals are obviously suffering due to overly confining
>> >> conditions or physical pain caused by whatever, there's no reason to believe
>> >> they're suffering from lives of negative value.
>>
>> >I gave you a link to information which made it clear that dairy cows
>> >do suffer in those ways.
>>
>> * * Which ways? You always want me to be specific, so try it yourself. Which
>> ways are you referring to?
>
>You want me to post the link again?

I want you to tell me which particular things you think make their lives
"bad" to the point that they are not worth living (of negative value).

>Surely you can find it.

Finding it won't tell me what YOU think makes their lives of...I mean what
YOU think makes their lives "bad". Maybe you don't have any idea?

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:10:58 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On 10/24/2012 12:50 PM, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:08:17 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:36:35 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:16:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> The male calves are used in the veal industry. I'm sure some females are for
>>>>>>>> some reasons sometimes, but it's mainly what they do to get the most out of
>>>>>>>> basically useless male dairy cattle. As long as they're treated decently there
>>>>>>>> should be nothing wrong with them experiencing life as a veal calf, afaWk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But their lives are
>>>>>>> NOT a *gift* to them in the sense that humans get to consider themselves
>>>>>>> to be their benefactors. That argument, called "The Logic of the Larder"
>>>>>>> is circular and illegitimate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taking the lives of livestock into consideration is ONLY called that by
>>>>>> eliminationists.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a falsehood. You know the list of antis who have challenged the
>>>>> Larder argument.
>>>>
>>>> No true antis have challenged it.
>
>*Every* real "anti" challenged it. All of them. You can't name one who
>accepted it.

That's a lie Goo. Polly from an AW organization up north did, and so did the
girl from the ag college, and so did Marl, and so did didderot. In fact Marl
told you specifically that what I'm referring to is so far over your head you
can't comprehend, which of course certainly seems to be the case from my pov.
Every person who specifically favored AW has agreed with me Goober. Ward Clark
and Rich Etter never specifically favored AW, which is why those two couldn't
appreciate what I point out imo. They don't really care about the AW part Goob,
just the anti-elimination part. And in fact that particular distinction between
those two and all of the AW people is ANOTHER reason why you clearly seem to be
an eliminationist.

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:30:52 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> IF you honestly favor AW over elimination
>
>Those are not the alternatives, you are collapsing two decisions into
>one. By doing so you make your argument nonsensical.
>
>1. I favor continuation (of livestock breeding) over elimination (of
>domestic livestock species).
>
>2. I favor "AW" over neglect of animal needs or outright abuse.
>
>People who do not say yes to 1. are not faced with decision 2. at all.
>They cannot be accused of "not supporting AW", because, first, their
>lifestyles don't introduce the possibility of animal neglect or abuse,
>and secondly, they may well be an advocate and supporter of "AW" by
>means of deliberate third party actions, which many are.
>
>Of course you've seen this indisputable argument a hundred times at
>least and you never get it, so you won't now.

Of course I do get it which is why I say they don't support it with their
lifestlye which they don't. Try explaining why you want people to think they
would contribute to things through financial donations that they deliberately
avoid contributing to with their lifestyle.

On 1 Nov., 16:55, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 01:16:15 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 29 Okt., 23:07, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:44:53 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 24, 9:50 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:19:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >On Oct 24, 12:32 am, dh@. wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Probably what would be best would be to learn what percentage of which type
> >> >> >> animals are killed by growing soy. Then by cows eating grass. Even though it
> >> >> >> seems obvious the number would be much lower for the cattle, you could never
> >> >> >> learn to appreciate it or probably even accept it. It would probably be another
> >> >> >> one of those things your brain can only interpret as "nonsense".
>
> >> >> >You've got to take into account the death of the cow when it is
> >> >> >slaughtered as well.
>
> >> >> With the cow its life and death both need to be considered, while with the
> >> >> CDs only their deaths since they weren't raised deliberately to be killed for
> >> >> human food production. And remember that even you have once in a while felt the
> >> >> lives of some grass raised cattle might be "good".
>
> >> >Your original remark was "It [seitan] almost certainly involves more
> >> >animal deaths than grass raised beef". This remark was unfounded.
>
> >> It could only be untrue if there are no wildlife to speak of in the soy
> >> fields.
>
> >That`s false.
>
> * * You're being dishonest again. How do you suggest that we could try to
> pretend the number of animals in the fields has nothing to do with it?
>

Obviously I didn't say any such thing.

> >We have done a comparative analysis of the death toll
> >caused by soy products and beef elsewhere in this thread.
>
> * * Nothing worthwhile if at all. Do one now if you want. Good luck.

If you look at Gaverick Matheny's article "Least Harm", you see that
it requires slightly less than 0.001 deaths to produce the daily
requirement of protein from soy products. On the other hand, if we
assume that one quarter of a pound of beef gives you the daily
requirement of protein from beef, then by your own estimate that
requires 0.0005 deaths from slaughter alone, and you also need to take
into account the fact that the farmer needs to kill predators to
protect the cattle.

On 1 Nov., 16:56, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:45:23 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 24, 9:54 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:20:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 24, 12:38 am, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:42:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Oct 22, 8:12 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:36:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >On Oct 18, 8:23 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:06:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >My assertion
> >> >> >> >> >that the dairy industry inflicts considerable suffering and premature
> >> >> >> >> >death on a large number of cows was factual
>
> >> >> >> >> No it's not since as I pointed out you can't inflict premature death when
> >> >> >> >> the only option is no life at all.
>
> >> >> >> >Of course you can, you stupid fool.
>
> >> >> >> >> Since we know you have no grounds to complain
> >> >> >> >> about that aspect it makes it seem likely that the suffering you're referring to
> >> >> >> >> may not be enough to make their lives of negative value to them either. So, what
> >> >> >> >> sort of suffering are you referring to?
>
> >> >> >> >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/...re_issues.aspx
>
> >> >> >> It doesn't seem to give their lives negative value from my pov, so you have
> >> >> >> no argument from my pov.
>
> >> >> >How would you go about justifying a decision about whether a life has
> >> >> >"positive value" or "negative value"?
>
> >> >> Unless the animals are obviously suffering due to overly confining
> >> >> conditions or physical pain caused by whatever, there's no reason to believe
> >> >> they're suffering from lives of negative value.
>
> >> >I gave you a link to information which made it clear that dairy cows
> >> >do suffer in those ways.
>
> >> Which ways? You always want me to be specific, so try it yourself. Which
> >> ways are you referring to?
>
> >You want me to post the link again?
>
> * * I want you to tell me which particular things you think make their lives
> "bad" to the point that they are not worth living (of negative value).
>
> >Surely you can find it.
>
> * * Finding it won't tell me what YOU think makes their lives of...I mean what
> YOU think makes their lives "bad". Maybe you don't have any idea?

Yes, it will. The link is quite specific. Here it is again.

http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/...re_issues.aspx

On 1 Nov., 16:55, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >Presumably here "figure out what it means to them" means "make up your
> >> >> >own criteria for how to determine whether the concept applies or not".
> >> >> >Obviously I would be capable of formulating such criteria, but that's
> >> >> >not my job. It's your phrase, and it's your job to specify the
> >> >> >criteria for evaluating whether or not the phrase applies to an actual
> >> >> >situation.
>
> >> >> In the end each person must decide for himself as I've pointed out to you
> >> >> from the start.
>
> >> >Why?
>
> >> � � Because some things are just that way. It's exactly the same as what types
> >> of food you like and don't like, but you have a tremendous mental handicap in
> >> that area. The question on that is: Are you mentally handicapped because you're
> >> a vegan, or are you a vegan because of the handicap? My guess is it's a
> >> combination. Regardless, you can NOT appreciate any distinction between lives of
> >> positive value and those of negative value whatever the fault, so you're
> >> handicapped in that area. You can't appreciate any distinction between
> >> conditions where veggies contribute to more deaths than animal products and when
> >> it's the other way around either, again being what I consider a very significant
> >> mental handicap.
>
> >So it looks like you agree that the correct application of the phrase
> >is a completely subjective matter.
>
> * * I've been telling you you have to decide for yourself. Did you forget about
> that part?
>

That's pretty much identical to what I just said, actually.

> >> >Why can't I just say "It's a meaningless phrase"?
>
> >> � � You can but it's a lie, so every time you say it you're lying. I told you
> >> what it means but you can't appreciate that. You're cognitive dissonance won't
> >> allow you to accept it because it conflicts with what you want to believe. So
> >> something that you WANT TO believe conflicts with the idea that it means lives
> >> in which there's not enough suffering to make them of negative value.
>
> >You pretty much conceded it, above. The question of whether or not the
> >phrase has been applied correctly is by your own admission entirely a
> >matter of personal preference.
>
> * * I've told you that a number of times.
>

That's pretty much the same as conceding that it's a meaningless
phrase.

> >> >The evidence
> >> >for that conclusion would appear to be pretty strong, if you can give
> >> >no guidance at all on how to interpret the phrase.
>
> >> � � That's a lie every time you tell it as well. So you have at least two lies
> >> that you repeat frequently, like a Goober.
>
> >It`s not a lie.
>
> * *It is, and saying it's not a lie is yet another lie.
>

So you have given guidance about how to interpret the phrase, have
you?

> >> >> Here's an obvious clue for you that MIGHT help you finally learn
> >> >> to comprehend the fact and maybe even eventually learn to appreciate it. Here's
> >> >> the clue: Some people believe elimination is the best approach, while others
> >> >> believe that providing decent AW is the best approach. Each person must decide
> >> >> for himself... It's the same with lives we consider to be of positive value. For
> >> >> example so far from what you've told me the only creatures on the planet you
> >> >> think might have lives of positive value are SOME grass raised cattle.
>
> >> >Actually, I've told you no such thing.
>
> >> � � Since you're backing down away from it again we will agree that you have NO
> >> appreciation for the lives of any creatures including grass raised cattle,
> >> yourself, your friends and your family. If you want to change what we agree on
> >> in that regard then YOU say what you have any appreciation for and how you think
> >> you do.
>
> >You`re
>
> * * Then as yet we agree that you have NO appreciation for the lives of any
> creatures including grass raised cattle, *yourself, your friends and your
> family. If you ever want to try changing that feel free. It would be an
> improvement if you ever could learn to imo.
> . . .
>

No. We do not agree on that point.

> >> >> In
> >> >> contrast to that I believe most cattle do including those fed grain, and that
> >> >> most broiler chickens and their parents do, and that even the parents of caged
> >> >> laying hens do. There are others too of course, but that alone is more than you
> >> >> could ever learn to appreciate during your entire life while I've been able to
> >> >> appreciate them for decades.
>
> >> >And what are the objective criteria which make your view superior?
>
> >> � � I've been in chicken houses and I've raised hundreds of my own chickens,
> >> giving me a lot more personal experience.
>
> >> >What objective evidence is it based on?
>
> >> � � Thousands of chickens, several chicken houses, a good number of other
> >> people's yards and farms where they raised their birds in different ways, plus
> >> the discussions I've had with them as well as first hand observation.
>
> >Be specific. What did you observe that led you to conclude that they
> >had lives of positive value?
>
> * * The animals themselves are bred to do well in confinement for one thing.
> When birds get out of the cage somehow, they often/usually spend the majority of
> their time of freedom trying to get back in. They act content and like they're
> enjoying life in general. What do you want people to think instead? We know you
> want everyone to think all chickens are suffering, but from what? Not the caged
> hens, but all the rest of them. BTW did you know the caged hens' parents are
> raised in cage free houses? And that so are broilers and their parents?
>

http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/docu...he_eu_2005.pdf

> >> Plus
> >> there's all the time on the dairy farms, and the discussions with the farmers,
> >> and with other people who have had first hand experience. I raised a sow for
> >> several years as well, and she had at least four litters of pigs, and I got to
> >> see at least some of them born from each litter. We always kept two and killed
> >> them to eat which is how I paid for her feed because I was still in high school
> >> and didn't work enough to always be buying hog feed. We always killed and
> >> butchered them ourselves, so that's a good bit of experience you didn't have
> >> even if you were around other pigs that you raised and butchered yourself. Maybe
> >> you don't think first hand experience around them means anything though?
> >> � � Then there's the general way which is that I can recognise that some
> >> situations appear to provide lives of positive value and some do not, while you
> >> can't even comprehend what the distinction means much less ever make it for
> >> yourself.
>
> >You`ve pretty much conceded that it doesn't mean anything; that it`s
> >entrely a matter of personal preference how the distinction is to be
> >interpreted.
>
> * * How else do you think it possibly could be? Do you actually think there's
> one true meaning for it that applies to ever situation and condition?

If the phrase meant something, then you would be able to give guidance
as to how to interpret it. By your own admission you can't.

> The one I
> gave you is flexible enough, but your "good" description is not. If you think
> there truly is one explanation that covers all situations and conditions, then
> see if you can find it and let me know what it is. Until then I'll stick with
> the one I give you unless you can come up with something better. Again "good" is
> not it. However, it all comes down to each individual person's interpretation
> and feelings about a situation just as it does about whether or not a person
> likes a song, or a flavor of food, or a smell, or anything else a person has to
> decide for himself. It really seems that you should have been able to figure all
> that out for yourself at some point in your life WHILE YOU WERE STILL IN GRADE
> SCHOOL!!!
>

You did not encounter the phrase "life of positive value" when you
were in grade school. Most people when first encountering that phrase,
in grade school or not, would ask "What does it mean?" My colleague
Petra asked that, for example.

> >> That necessarily puts you way below, so you asking me about this is
> >> like a blind person asking why someone who can see might have a superior
> >> interpretion about a photograph or a slide show. But! I encourage you to move on
> >> and try to appreciate "good" lives for any creatures at all to start with. Maybe
> >> someone you know has a "good" life but you just never noticed before. Then see
> >> if you notice someone else does too...and several more... Then if you ever get
> >> so you can do that with humans try it with a different animal. Maybe you could
> >> try those grass raised cattle again. Anything would be a step up for you, so you
> >> really don't have anything to lose. Do you? If so, what do you think it is?
>
> >> >> >> >> >They both seemed to think it would be pretty hard to determine
> >> >> >> >> >whether a cow has a life of positive value,
>
> >> >> >> >> Not for a person who is familiar with the cow and its life. You can bet
> >> >> >> >> there are lots of farmers who have a pretty good idea about how their animals
> >> >> >> >> are doing and whether they are overly stressed or not. Here's something I feel
> >> >> >> >> sure you've heard before but can't afford to appreciate: Cow produce milk a lot
> >> >> >> >> better when they aren't stressed and unhappy.
>
> >> >> >> >The measures which the modern dairy industry take to ensure that cows
> >> >> >> >produce milk most certainly make them very stressed and unhappy.. I've
> >> >> >> >already given you information about that.
>
> >> >> >> I've spent hundreds of hours on dairy farms and the cows all seemed happy
> >> >> >> enough. The only time they acted stressed at all was when the farmer was a
> >> >> >> little bit late with feeding. That's not enough to make their lives of negative
> >> >> >> value instead of positive value imo. In fact since anticipation is something
> >> >> >> humans enjoy, it might add positive value to cows' lives as well even if they
> >> >> >> can't appreciate it.
>
> >> >> >When did you have occasion to visit dairy farms? Were you working
> >> >> >there? Where were these farms?
>
> >> >> From about fifth grade through seventh grade in PA I spent time on a dairy
> >> >> farm almost every day. The farmers knew me well and sometimes would rag me a
> >> >> little when I was "late". A farmer's son showed me how to trap muskrats and I
> >> >> spent quite a few hours doing that. I saw calves born and saw them taken away
> >> >> from their mothers. The first time it was done the new mother was very upset for
> >> >> a few days, but the older cows usually didn't seem to mind much because that's
> >> >> what they got used to. My brother and I were disturbed when one calf we became
> >> >> especially fond of was taken away, but the farmers did make us understand the
> >> >> situation and that a farm is a business so they can't afford to have a bunch of
> >> >> pet calves around drinking milk for no return. The cattle in general all seemed
> >> >> to be content with their position in life, which makes sense because they never
> >> >> learned about anything different. They couldn't want much more than what they
> >> >> had anyway. They were put out to pasture in good days and kept in on bad days,
> >> >> like snowing days. During the summer they were outside all day until time for
> >> >> the evening milking when they were fed hay and grain, and then they went back
> >> >> out to pasture for the night.
>
> >> >> On a farm we hung out on in NC the cattle stayed out all the time winter and
> >> >> summer though they had a barn they could get in when they wanted to.. They only
> >> >> had to come in to be milked, into a milk house that only held three cows at a
> >> >> time. After being milked and eating whatever grain they could during the
> >> >> process, they went back out to pasture.
>
> >> >> Both situations seemed good for the animals, and were good to the animals
> >> >> considering the outside environment in the area where they were living.
>
> >> >> >Do you think that the information that I have provided about welfare
> >> >> >issues for dairy cows is just factually mistaken?
>
> >> >> You didn't provide any information just a link, and nothing I read there
> >> >> caused me to believe most dairy cattle don't have lives of positive value.
>
> >> >I don't know what your criteria are for what counts as a "life of
> >> >positive value".
>
> >> � � From my pov if true it means you have a VERY significant mental handicap. So
> >> you have at least two lies that you repeat, and you tell me that you have a very
> >> significant mental handicap. But, why? Why do you do stuff like that?
>
> >I don`t lie,
>
> * * You should be able to figure out what I think about that claim.
>
> >and I don't tell you I have a significant mental handicap.
>
> * * IF you could appreciate the distinction between lives of positive and
> negative value as pretty much everyone else can,

Actually, most people don't know what the distinction is, and you've
pretty much conceded that it's not a meaningful distinction in any
case.

> and you encountered an adult
> who could not, you would have good reason to believe they have a significant
> mental handicap.

False. I have no reason at all to believe that my colleague Petra has
a significant mental handicap. Nor do I have any mental handicap.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:49:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Oct 24, 9:48*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:27:37 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>> >On Oct 24, 12:53 am, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:47:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Oct 22, 8:16 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >I'm talking about doing what I can to make the outcome better.
>>
>> >> >> You're doing nothing for any livestock with your lifestyle, and you should
>> >> >> either accept it and be proud of it because that's your deliberate intent, of
>> >> >> finally do something after however many years of deliberately doing nothing.
>>
>> >> >I've told you what my goals are. You've given me no reason to think
>> >> >that my strategy for pursuing these goals is irrational.
>>
>> >> >> >> There are things you could do
>> >> >> >> to contribute to decent lives for livestock without spending a lot of money but
>> >> >> >> it would still be doing more than nothing like you're doing now. If you buy cage
>> >> >> >> free eggs and give them to someone who buys battery farmed eggs then you'll be
>> >> >> >> doing a couple of things instead of nothing, and if you can persuade some people
>> >> >> >> to buy cage free instead of battery farmed you'd be doing that much more than
>> >> >> >> nothing.
>>
>> >> >> >Or I could donate to Vegan Outreach, as I sometimes do, which tries to
>> >> >> >persuade people to give up animal products or at least cut down on
>> >> >> >them.
>>
>> >> >> That does nothing to help any livestock, so even when you pretend to do
>> >> >> something you are still doing nothing.
>>
>> >> >It reduces suffering.
>>
>> >> Nope.
>>
>> >Why do you think that?
>>
>> >> >> Doing the thing with cage free eggs I
>> >> >> suggested WOULD BE doing something,
>>
>> >> >By donating to Vegan Outreach I am almost certainly helping to
>> >> >persuade some people to switch to cage free eggs.
>>
>> >> How do you think that could possibly be the case?
>>
>> >It's obvious. Not everyone who read the leaflets will give up eggs
>> >completely. Of those who don't give up eggs completey, some will at
>> >least take the step of switching to cage free eggs.
>>
>> * * Do vegan leaflets encourage people to buy cage free eggs?
>>
>> >> >> but for years you have done nothing. You
>> >> >> should either accept it and be proud of it, or move on and do something as I've
>> >> >> been encouraging you for how many years now? Several, no doubt, but still you do
>> >> >> nothing.
>>
>> >> >It is not true that I am doing nothing.
>>
>> >> Your GOAL is to do nothing. Were you unaware of that?
>>
>> >It's nonsense.
>>
>> * * It's another fact that you don't like, but it's obviously true.
>
>Actually, it's obviously complete nonsense... to any person of normal
>cognitive ability.

By deliberately avoiding animal products you are trying NOT TO have an
influence. You can't trick me into believing that's not the case either, even if
you truly are gullible enough to have somehow been tricked into believing it's
not yourself. How were you, if you were?

>> But! If you
>> want to pretend you're doing something to help some livestock with your
>> lifestyle, then what livestock do you think it's helping and how do you think it
>> helps? And btw encouraging other people to go vegan and do nothing is NOT an
>> example of you doing something, even when the people you encourage don't do as
>> you suggest. Now if you suggested that people who buy cage raised eggs buy cage
>> free THEN you would be doing something, but NOT when you encourage vaganism.
>>
>
>Going vegan is taking steps to reduce the amount of suffering
>experienced by farm animals.

It's an attempt to do nothing in regards to farm animals, and you can't even
pretend that it's not an attempt to do nothing. You do no more than people do
when they die. Less actually, since you still make plenty of contributions to
animal deaths with the by-products you contribute to, and the veggies you eat.

>So is donating money to organizations
>which encourage other people to be vegan.

By doing that you encourage other people to do nothing LIKE YOU. It's only
when they DO NOT do what you encourage that they would possibly buy cage free
eggs. It seems even a guy with a PhD in math should be able to figure that one
out.

>> >> If not, you should
>> >> become aware of it. Here's a clue for you: People who want to help livestock
>> >> with their lifestyle become conscientious consumers of animal products. People
>> >> who want to do nothing for livestock with their lifestyles avoid animals
>> >> products instead. That's a basic you should really learn to comprehend, and if
>> >> you don't like your position then you should move on to a more AW approach as
>> >> I've been encourageing you to do for years.
>>
>> >Taking steps to reduce the amount of suffering experienced by
>> >livestock is not "doing nothing" for livestock.
>>
>> * * Vegans do no more than dead people, so maybe we should try to persuade
>> ourselves to believe dead people help livestock?
>
>Dead people don't perform any actions.

You don't perform any actions that contribute to better or decent lives for
livestock with your lifestyle, but only to the deaths of wildlife. IF you make
financial contributions deliberately to help livestock, tell us what kind you
make and why you contribute to them through donations while deliberately
avoiding contributing to them with your lifestlyle.

>> Maybe you should since they
>> "help" them as much as you do, but I won't be fooled into it. They don't, just
>> as vegans don't.
>>
>> >> >> >This will no doubt have the result that some people move from
>> >> >> >battery cage eggs to free-range eggs.
>>
>> >> >> LOL! It's dishonestly on a Goobal level to blatanly lie that encouraging
>> >> >> veganism will promote cage free egg purchases. I don't believe you're stupid
>> >> >> enough to think it somehow could either, meaning you're being deliberately
>> >> >> dishonest. Why would you even want people to think you're supporting ANY kind of
>> >> >> egg production when you're opposed to every bit of it entirely?
>>
>> >> >Vegan Outreach promotes veganism as the ideal, but it also encourages
>> >> >people to adopt compromises if they're not ready for full veganism.
>>
>> >> I'm in favor of that INSTEAD OF full veganism, not as a lame step in that
>> >> direction. Why go from contributing to decent conditions for livestock to doing
>> >> nothing, and do it deliberately???
>>
>> >The rationale for going completely vegan is that it is the best way to
>> >reduce suffering.
>>
>> * * That's a matter of opinion. There's nothing wrong with the opinion that
>> contributing to decent lives for livestock might be as good or better an
>> approach than doing nothing.
>>
>
>You would need to be specific about the approach you would take, and
>provide evidence that it is as good or better than being vegan.

Buying grass raised dairy and even grain fed contributes to fewer deaths
than buying rice milk imo, since cattle don't flood and drain fields nor do
farmers in order to raise cattle....unless they feed them rice of course. Also
buying grass raised beef over buying tofu, and buying wild caught seafood over
tofu because the beef contributes to far less than one death per serving and the
seafood to one death or less per serving, while the tofu is likely to contribute
to several deaths per serving. Also it's very good to contribute to the cage
free method of egg production in the USA imo, which means it's better than NOT!
Those are some ways. So from my pov encouraging someone to buy cage free eggs is
admirable, while encouraging them to go vegan and do nothing is pathetic.

>> >> >> >> >> And from the
>> >> >> >> >> animals' position having that done would be priceless. We're talking about
>> >> >> >> >> doubling, tripling, or whatever the lives of the animals so from their position
>> >> >> >> >> the cost could never enter into it.
>>
>> >> >> >> >But the same might be said of the potential malaria victim in the
>> >> >> >> >Third World whose life I can save. So I have to make the decision
>> >> >> >> >based on something or other, and one of the relevant factors is how
>> >> >> >> >much each option costs, so that I can make the outcome better in the
>> >> >> >> >most economically efficient way possible.
>>
>> >> >> >> We're discussing whether it might be ok for you to contribute to decent
>> >> >> >> lives for livestock or better to do nothing as you're doing now. What you do in
>> >> >> >> regards to OTHER animals doesn't enter into it, and sadly it's really a form of
>> >> >> >> dishonesty for you to try pretending otherwise.
>>
>> >> >> >And why would that be, exactly?
>>
>> >> >> Because what you do in regards to other animals doesn't enter into it at
>> >> >> all, meaning you're dishonest for trying to dishonestly pretend it does. That
>> >> >> one's so obvious even a misnomer hugger should be able to figure it out.
>>
>> >> >You're a fool.
>>
>> >> You're the fool for being unable to appreciate it even after it has been
>> >> pointed out for you. It's your cognitive dissonance again IF you really can't
>> >> comprehend, trying to protect you from facts you don't want to believe even
>> >> though from my position they are so absurd as to be unbelievable.
>>
>> >If I decided that I wanted to "contribute to decent lives for
>> >livestock", I would have to weigh up any opportunity costs of doing
>> >so, in particular opportunity costs that would prevent me from making
>> >the outcome better in other ways. Such considerations clearly *do*
>> >"enter into it". You are a fool for thinking otherwise.
>>
>> * * Apparently there's no condition in which you can comprehend that it might be
>> better to contribute to decent lives for livestock than to do nothing, making
>> you very much the fool from my position. In part that's because such a
>> restriction necessarily makes you unable to distinguish between which lives
>> would be worth contributing to and which not, since you feel that none are.
>>
>
>You're an idiot.

What I said is true. If your brain interpreted it as "idiocy" then it's your
cognitive dissonance AGAIN trying to protect your feeble mind from FACTS that
are in conflict with what it WANTS TO believe. Notice also that you can't even
pretend that I'm wrong, because I'm not. So you again come up as the fool, and
also the idiot.

>> >> >> >> So far it still appears that you
>> >> >> >> do hate them btw, even the grass raised cattle you've acted like you could
>> >> >> >> appreciate. If you didn't there would be no reason for you to try changing the
>> >> >> >> subject to humans and away from livestock.
>>
>> >> >> >You're an idiot.
>>
>> >> >> What I said is a fact and IF you can't appreciate it that means YOU are the
>> >> >> idiot, not me for presenting it.
>>
>> >> >What you said is laughable nonsense.
>>
>> >> It's a fact you can't refute, but which you apparently hate and wish that
>> >> you could.
>>
>> >It's obvious nonsense. You have no rational grounds at all for
>> >thinking I hate livestock, just because I take into account the
>> >interests of other beings as well. Do *you* hate livestock? If not,
>> >then why don't you yourself put into practice the plan that you
>> >suggest?
>>
>> * * A number of reasons but one is that I feel regular grain fed beef cattle in
>> general have lives I shouldn't be ashamed to contribute to.