Goo ****wit Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:10:58 -0700, George Plimpton, Goo ****wit Harrison's superior in *every* way, wrote:
>
>> Goo ****wit Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:08:17 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo ****wit Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:36:35 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo ****wit Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:16:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Goo ****wit Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>>>>>>>>> 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

It's not a lie, ****wit.

On 11/1/2012 8:58 AM, dh@. wrote:
> 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.

Meaningless. No one is obliged to buy animal products. Not buying them
has no ethical meaning.

On 11/1/2012 9:17 AM, dh@. wrote:
> 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.

False.

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

Not a lie. You're the one lying - repeatedly. *ALL* "antis" rejected
your bullshit "getting to experience life" version of the (il)Logic of
the Larder - every single one.


>
>> 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

False choice. I have already instructed you in this.

On Nov 1, 5:17*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> 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.

I've explained the motivation for avoiding animal products many times.
It's to reduce the amount of suffering that takes place. This really
shouldn't be too hard to grasp.

> 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.
>

This is correct.

> * * 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.
>

So is this.

> * * 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,

I've made a change in my lifestyle which reduces my contribution to
the amount of suffering that livestock experience.

> 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.

We've been through this before. It's 0.001 deaths per serving, where
by "serving" we mean something that gives you the daily requirement of
protein.

You haven't provided conclusive evidence that these changes you
suggest would be improvements.

> 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!

Why?

> 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 why do you think that?

> >> >> >> >> >> 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.

No.

> 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.

No, actually, it was just a common-sense observation: you're an idiot.

> 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.

On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:13:29 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>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.

Did you finally learn that what I've been telling you is true, or do you
still not believe it or whatever? If not, why do you bring it up?

>> >> >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.

Certainly not the least bit more meaningless than to say they have "good"
lives, and you pretend to be able to have some slight comprehension of what that
means.

>> >> >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?

I've told you a number of times, though possibly not as many as you've
dishonestly acted as though I have not. Did you forget about that part too?

>> >> >> 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.

We will until YOU provide examples to indicate that you have some
appreciation for the lives of some creature(s). Try doing it now if you think
you can.

>> >> >> 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

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?
>
>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.

I've guided you and you act too stupid to appreciate what it means, even to
yourself. You've shown that to be the case at least, even if you're not honestly
too stupid in reality YOU have consistently presented the impression that you
are.

>> 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.

I understood the concept none the less, so of course if that particular
phrase was referred to I would have understood what it was referring to and so
would all the other kids in the class.

>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.

And is he so stupid that he still hasn't been able to figure out what it
could mean, even to himself?

>> >> 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.

So you want me to believe that you are actually so stupid that even though
you don't believe there's any difference between lives of positive and negative
value, you still want all livestock eliminated but not wildlife even without
being able to comprehend any such distinction?

If you truly can't comprehend a distinction, then why do you want to see
livestock eliminated if not because you believe they live lives of negative
value???

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

LOL! You're not in a position to know whether it is or not...LOL...

>I have no reason at all to believe that my colleague Petra has
>a significant mental handicap.

I do, if he's really too stupid to comprehend.

>Nor do I have any mental handicap.

You buddy Petra might have figured it out by now, or might within the next
few day, weeks or months. You on the other hand claim you haven't been able to
figure it out in years, meaning that if you're honest about that you DO have a
mental handicap. And if you're not honestly that stupid then you STILL have a
mental handicap or you wouldn't think you have good reason to lie that you are,
from my pov. Severe cognitive dissonance like yours is the mental handicap which
prevents you from comprehending IF you honestly can't comprehend. Because if you
COULD comprehend then you would no longer have reason to wish for the
elimination of all livestock animals, but instead you'd have reason to wish for
decent lives for millions/billions of them, like what's already going on. There
are bad ones too so you might still want to see them eliminated, but you would
be able to appreciate the "good" ones as well as being opposed to the bad,
instead of being opposed to the lives of every single one that's ever been born
as you are now.

On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:04:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>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.

Anyone who doesn't understand that that depends VERY MUCH on how much
wildlife is in the area doesn't have any clue about the subject at all.

>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.

For one thing it would depend on whether or not there are any predators that
are killed to protect a particular group of animals. For another the deaths of
any predators would need to be averaged out amoung all the animals that don't
get killed by that particular predator, including wildlife. That means that
killing the predator results in LESS DEATHS overall, not more, so it also means
LESS DEATHS because of the cattle, not more. You so far still have no argument
and it appears you're at a dead end. For some reason it seems to be too bad for
you but grass raised beef still comes up less deaths than soy, and a lot less
than rice. It's too bad you hate that, because you would be a better person if
you could appreciate it since it's the way it is. Maybe Goo will help you keep
denying it to yourself though....or maybe he already has through email....

On Nov 5, 9:54*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:04:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >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.
>
> * * Anyone who doesn't understand that that depends VERY MUCH on how much
> wildlife is in the area doesn't have any clue about the subject at all.
>

So there is variation, so in order to make decisions about what to eat
you go by the average. So we go with our best guess as to what the
average is. You haven't offered any better estimate.

> >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.
>
> * * For one thing it would depend on whether or not there are any predators that
> are killed to protect a particular group of animals. For another the deaths of
> any predators would need to be averaged out amoung all the animals that don't
> get killed by that particular predator, including wildlife. That means that
> killing the predator results in LESS DEATHS overall, not more, so it also means
> LESS DEATHS because of the cattle, not more. You so far still have no argument
> and it appears you're at a dead end. For some reason it seems to be too bad for
> you but grass raised beef still comes up less deaths than soy, and a lot less
> than rice. It's too bad you hate that, because you would be a better person if
> you could appreciate it since it's the way it is. Maybe Goo will help you keep
> denying it to yourself though....or maybe he already has through email.....

It may very well be that grass-raised beef involves fewer deaths than
soy or rice products; my mind has always been perfectly open on that
issue, I've simply been pointing out that it's a complex question, and
also the difference is not by a factor of hundreds as you repeatedly
claim.

On Nov 5, 9:53*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:13:29 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> * * Did you finally learn that what I've been telling you is true, or do you
> still not believe it or whatever? If not, why do you bring it up?
>

I've repeatedly said that the phrase has no real meaning, and you've
pretty much confirmed that.

> >> >> >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.
>
> * * Certainly not the least bit more meaningless than to say they have "good"
> lives, and you pretend to be able to have some slight comprehension of what that
> means.
>

Yes, a lot more meaningless. There would be widespread agreement about
what constitutes a good life. There is no widespread agreement about
what counts as a "life of positive value". If you want to introduce
such a phrase you have to give criteria for when the phrase is
applicable, and you're basically conceding that there are no criteria
at all.

> >> >> >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?
>
> * * I've told you a number of times, though possibly not as many as you've
> dishonestly acted as though I have not. Did you forget about that part too?
>

I have no recollection of your giving any useful guidance about how to
interpret the phrase, and I bet you cannot show me where you have done
so.

> >> >> >> 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.
>
> * * We will until YOU provide examples to indicate that you have some
> appreciation for the lives of some creature(s). Try doing it now if you think
> you can.
>

I have no interest in playing your stupid games.

> >> >> >> 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.

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:24:56 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Nov 5, 9:53*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:13:29 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> * * Did you finally learn that what I've been telling you is true, or do you
>> still not believe it or whatever? If not, why do you bring it up?
>>
>
>I've repeatedly said that the phrase has no real meaning,

It has as much meaning as "good".

>and you've
>pretty much confirmed that.

By that pov there's no such thing as good music, or good food, or good
scultpure, or good painting, or good clothing, or.... There are lots of things
each of us must decide for ourself.

>> >> >> >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.
>>
>> * * Certainly not the least bit more meaningless than to say they have "good"
>> lives, and you pretend to be able to have some slight comprehension of what that
>> means.
>>
>
>Yes, a lot more meaningless. There would be widespread agreement about
>what constitutes a good life.

Define what you want us to think is so widely agreed upon.

>There is no widespread agreement about
>what counts as a "life of positive value". If you want to introduce
>such a phrase you have to give criteria for when the phrase is
>applicable, and you're basically conceding that there are no criteria
>at all.

I told you what it means but you can't comprehend. I also explained why it's
a better term than good since life doesn't necessarily have to be good in order
to be of positive value.

Give the widely agreed upon criteria for when the phrase "good" life is
applicable, and also for when it's not.
.. . .
>> >>as yet we [STILL!] 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.
>>
>> * * We will until YOU provide examples to indicate that you have some
>> appreciation for the lives of some creature(s). Try doing it now if you think
>> you can.
>>
>
>I have no

Then we STILL agree that you have NO appreciation for the lives of any
creatures including grass raised cattle, yourself, your friends and your family.
Only you are in the position to change that but it would require you giving
examples, and apparently there are none for you to give.
.. . .
>> * * Did you know the caged hens' parents are raised in cage free houses? And
>> that so are broilers and their parents?
>>
>
>What do you mean by "the caged hens"? Which caged hens? All hens that
>are kept in cages?

Most commercial laying hens in the US are kept in small cages with wire
floors. I thought you were well familiar with that.

>> >> >> 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.
>>
>> * * I've guided you and you act too stupid to appreciate what it means, even to
>> yourself.
>
>It doesn't mean anything. If it meant something, you would be able to
>specify what.

I've told you it means a life that doesn't involve enough suffering to make
it of negative value for the individual, even if it's not pleasant enough to be
thought of as "good". I don't always add that last part, but since you can't
comprehend the basic concept itself a detail like that is necessarily beyond
your mental ability. It could only be interpreted as nonsense by your
handicapped mind. If you could comprehend the meaning and appreciate the
distinction then it [your overly challenged mind] would have to try to consider
which lives it feels are of positive value and which of negative, meaning it
would have to accept the fact that some are positive which would show how
inferior your elimination desire is to a desire for decent lives for billions of
future animals. Your brain can't accept that, and interprets everything about
that aspect of human influence on animals to be nonsense. It almost allowed you
a very tiny sliver of appreciation one time when you thought some grass raised
cattle might possibly have "good" lives, but then it shut you down completely
and you can no longer relate at all. That is IF you ever actually could, which I
doubt. It's not something you unlearn. You'll probably never learn it, but if
you actually ever do I doubt you'll unlearn it.

>> You've shown that to be the case at least, even if you're not honestly
>> too stupid in reality YOU have consistently presented the impression that you
>> are.
>>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> * * I understood the concept none the less, so of course if that particular
>> phrase was referred to I would have understood what it was referring to and so
>> would all the other kids in the class.
>>
>
>You have no evidence for that claim.

I've understood the concept since grade school and been thinking about it
ever since. That's evidence. You're like the person who can't see stereograms so
doesn't believe there's anything there, even when people are telling him what IS
there. I knew one girl who would say it's been shown that people who don't
believe there's anying there are more intelligent. You can't get much more
stupid than that. Then there's a guy I knew who knew there has to be something
there or people wouldn't be telling him what's there, but he could never see one
and bring it into focus because one of his eyes was a lot worse than the other.
But he would sit there and try and try and try.... You're like the stupid girl,
which is the opposite of the guy who kept trying but physically couldn't do it
imo. But, maybe you just mentally can't do it at all. I've been doing it since
grade school and remember going over it specifically in class, while you STILL
can't get it today even at this point in your life.

>> >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.
>>
>> * *And is he so stupid that he still hasn't been able to figure out what it
>> could mean, even to himself?
>>
>
>Petra is female. Petra is a girl's name.
>
>I gave Petra some clarification of what I thought you meant by the
>phrase. I don't know whether she currently regards it as an especially
>meaningful phrase. I would imagine she probably hasn't given the issue
>too much thought.

No one else I've mentioned it to has ever had a problem with it. You're the
only one. Even your brother "Dutch" can comprehend....or at least he could at
one point in time.

"I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"

"The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"

"Dutch" is really really bad about unlearning things but he might still be able
to help you get some clue if you ever want to learn, and if he hasn't unlearned
himself. Even the Goober has acted like he has some clue about the distinction,
though I don't have any examples of it and he might have unlearned it too. You
often don't know with Goo what he unlearned, or what he's likely to lie about
next, or how he wants people to think he disagrees with himself.
.. . .
>> * * So you want me to believe that you are actually so stupid that even though
>> you don't believe there's any difference between lives of positive and negative
>> value, you still want all livestock eliminated but not wildlife even without
>> being able to comprehend any such distinction?
>>
>> * * If you truly can't comprehend a distinction, then why do you want to see
>> livestock eliminated if not because you believe they live lives of negative
>> value???
>>
>
>I've told you what my goal is: to reduce suffering.

What exactly are you doing to reduce it, and how is what you're doing
causing the supposed reduction?

>> >> and you encountered an adult
>> >> who could not, you would have good reason to believe they have a significant
>> >> mental handicap.
>>
>> >False.
>>
>> * * LOL! You're not in a position to know whether it is or not...LOL...
>
>False.

You would necessarily have to be able to comprehend to be in the position of
someone who can comprehend. It seems even you should be able to figure that one
out.

>> >I have no reason at all to believe that my colleague Petra has
>> >a significant mental handicap.
>>
>> * * I do, if he's really too stupid to comprehend.
>>
>
>She has a PhD in mathematics and a research position, so it's pretty
>safe to say that she's a lot smarter than you.

She should be smarter than "Dutch" too, but he can or at least could
comprehend. If she can't comprehend the distinction between lives of positive
and negative value, maybe she would have a good idea about something else:

Light from space arrives at the Earth and everywhere humans have been able to
test so far at about 186K miles per second. Since that's the velocity it leaves
an emitter at in vacuum, and since all emitters in space have a velocity
relative to the Earth, what does she think adjusts the velocity of all incoming
light so it all reaches this area at the same velocity relative to the area and
regarless of the emitter's velocity relative to the area? Why does she think it
adjusts velocity but not frequency which allows red and blue shifting? What do
you think about it?

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:15:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Nov 5, 9:54*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:04:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>> >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.
>>
>> * * Anyone who doesn't understand that that depends VERY MUCH on how much
>> wildlife is in the area doesn't have any clue about the subject at all.
>>
>
>So there is variation, so in order to make decisions about what to eat
>you go by the average. So we go with our best guess as to what the
>average is. You haven't offered any better estimate.

On average cattle eating grass kill less than farm machines and chemicals
do. Also on average wildlife thrives much better in grazing areas than it does
in crop fields. Then there's the part you especially can't appreciate or even
acknowledge, which is that grazing areas provide good lives for billions of
livestock animals. In contrast to that crop fields do not. So right there we see
three ways livestock raising is better than crop farming for wildlife and
livestock, yet you can't appreciate any and possibly can't even comprehend any.
And IF you can, I doubt you could acknowledge it.

>> >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.
>>
>> * * For one thing it would depend on whether or not there are any predators that
>> are killed to protect a particular group of animals. For another the deaths of
>> any predators would need to be averaged out amoung all the animals that don't
>> get killed by that particular predator, including wildlife. That means that
>> killing the predator results in LESS DEATHS overall, not more, so it also means
>> LESS DEATHS because of the cattle, not more. You so far still have no argument
>> and it appears you're at a dead end. For some reason it seems to be too bad for
>> you but grass raised beef still comes up less deaths than soy, and a lot less
>> than rice. It's too bad you hate that, because you would be a better person if
>> you could appreciate it since it's the way it is. Maybe Goo will help you keep
>> denying it to yourself though....or maybe he already has through email....
>
>It may very well be that grass-raised beef involves fewer deaths than
>soy or rice products; my mind has always been perfectly open on that
>issue,

Uh huh.

>I've simply been pointing out that it's a complex question, and
>also the difference is not by a factor of hundreds as you repeatedly
>claim.

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's not. The only times it would not be would be
when the wildlife has already been killed off in the area and there's no longer
any living to kill in the crop fields.

On Nov 6, 5:15*am, Rupert > wrote:
> On Nov 5, 9:54*pm, dh@. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:04:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> > wrote:
>
> > >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.
>
> > * * Anyone who doesn't understand that that depends VERY MUCH on how much
> > wildlife is in the area doesn't have any clue about the subject at all.
>
> So there is variation, so in order to make decisions about what to eat
> you go by the average. So we go with our best guess as to what the
> average is. You haven't offered any better estimate.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >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.
>
> > * * For one thing it would depend on whether or not there are any predators that
> > are killed to protect a particular group of animals. For another the deaths of
> > any predators would need to be averaged out amoung all the animals that don't
> > get killed by that particular predator, including wildlife. *That means that
> > killing the predator results in LESS DEATHS overall, not more, so it also means
> > LESS DEATHS because of the cattle, not more. You so far still have no argument
> > and it appears you're at a dead end. For some reason it seems to be too bad for
> > you but grass raised beef still comes up less deaths than soy, and a lot less
> > than rice. It's too bad you hate that, because you would be a better person if
> > you could appreciate it since it's the way it is. Maybe Goo will help you keep
> > denying it to yourself though....or maybe he already has through email.....
>
> It may very well be that grass-raised beef involves fewer deaths than
> soy or rice products; my mind has always been perfectly open on that
> issue, I've simply been pointing out that it's a complex question, and
> also the difference is not by a factor of hundreds as you repeatedly
> claim.


I'm thinking there should be some photographic evidence of all these
collateral deaths but so far no one has come up with any.

On 6 Nov., 18:11, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:15:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 5, 9:54*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:04:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
> >> >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.
>
> >> * * Anyone who doesn't understand that that depends VERY MUCH on how much
> >> wildlife is in the area doesn't have any clue about the subject at all..
>
> >So there is variation, so in order to make decisions about what to eat
> >you go by the average. So we go with our best guess as to what the
> >average is. You haven't offered any better estimate.
>
> * * On average cattle eating grass kill less than farm machines and chemicals
> do. Also on average wildlife thrives much better in grazing areas than it does
> in crop fields. Then there's the part you especially can't appreciate or even
> acknowledge, which is that grazing areas provide good lives for billions of
> livestock animals. In contrast to that crop fields do not. So right there we see
> three ways livestock raising is better than crop farming for wildlife and
> livestock, yet you can't appreciate any and possibly can't even comprehend any.
> And IF you can, I doubt you could acknowledge it.
>

It may or may not be. I don't really think I'm in a position to know.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >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.
>
> >> * * For one thing it would depend on whether or not there are any predators that
> >> are killed to protect a particular group of animals. For another the deaths of
> >> any predators would need to be averaged out amoung all the animals that don't
> >> get killed by that particular predator, including wildlife. *That means that
> >> killing the predator results in LESS DEATHS overall, not more, so it also means
> >> LESS DEATHS because of the cattle, not more. You so far still have no argument
> >> and it appears you're at a dead end. For some reason it seems to be too bad for
> >> you but grass raised beef still comes up less deaths than soy, and a lot less
> >> than rice. It's too bad you hate that, because you would be a better person if
> >> you could appreciate it since it's the way it is. Maybe Goo will help you keep
> >> denying it to yourself though....or maybe he already has through email.....
>
> >It may very well be that grass-raised beef involves fewer deaths than
> >soy or rice products; my mind has always been perfectly open on that
> >issue,
>
> * * Uh huh.
>
> >I've simply been pointing out that it's a complex question, and
> >also the difference is not by a factor of hundreds as you repeatedly
> >claim.
>
> * * Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's not. The only times it would not be would be
> when the wildlife has already been killed off in the area and there's no longer
> any living to kill in the crop fields.

What's your evidence for that claim?

On 6 Nov., 18:10, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:24:56 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 5, 9:53*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:13:29 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >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.
>
> >> * * Did you finally learn that what I've been telling you is true, or do you
> >> still not believe it or whatever? If not, why do you bring it up?
>
> >I've repeatedly said that the phrase has no real meaning,
>
> * * It has as much meaning as "good".
>

Wrong.

> >and you've
> >pretty much confirmed that.
>
> * * By that pov there's no such thing as good music, or good food, or good
> scultpure, or good painting, or good clothing, or.... There are lots of things
> each of us must decide for ourself.
>

Well, actually, it would be pretty reasonable to say that all there is
in reality is us holding favourable attitudes towards various
instances of music, food, etc.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >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.
>
> >> * * Certainly not the least bit more meaningless than to say they have "good"
> >> lives, and you pretend to be able to have some slight comprehension of what that
> >> means.
>
> >Yes, a lot more meaningless. There would be widespread agreement about
> >what constitutes a good life.
>
> * * Define what you want us to think is so widely agreed upon.
>

I'm not interested in playing your stupid, pointless games.

> >There is no widespread agreement about
> >what counts as a "life of positive value". If you want to introduce
> >such a phrase you have to give criteria for when the phrase is
> >applicable, and you're basically conceding that there are no criteria
> >at all.
>
> * * I told you what it means but you can't comprehend. I also explained why it's
> a better term than good since life doesn't necessarily have to be good in order
> to be of positive value.
>

You didn't tell me what it means.

> * * Give the widely agreed upon criteria for when the phrase "good" life is
> applicable, and also for when it's not.
> . . .
>
> >> >>as yet we [STILL!] 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.
>
> >> * * We will until YOU provide examples to indicate that you have some
> >> appreciation for the lives of some creature(s). Try doing it now if you think
> >> you can.
>
> >I have no
>
> * * Then we STILL agree that you have NO appreciation for the lives of any
> creatures including grass raised cattle, yourself, your friends and your family.

Wrong.

> Only you are in the position to change that but it would require you giving
> examples, and apparently there are none for you to give.
> . . .
>
> >> * * Did you know the caged hens' parents are raised in cage free houses? And
> >> that so are broilers and their parents?
>
> >What do you mean by "the caged hens"? Which caged hens? All hens that
> >are kept in cages?
>
> * * Most commercial laying hens in the US are kept in small cages with wire
> floors. I thought you were well familiar with that.
>

And their parents are raised in cage free houses, are they?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> 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.
>
> >> * * I've guided you and you act too stupid to appreciate what it means, even to
> >> yourself.
>
> >It doesn't mean anything. If it meant something, you would be able to
> >specify what.
>
> * * I've told you it means a life that doesn't involve enough suffering to make
> it of negative value for the individual, even if it's not pleasant enough to be
> thought of as "good".

Which doesn't tell me anything because I have no way of knowing what
the threshold level of suffering would be for making a life of
"negative value".

> I don't always add that last part, but since you can't
> comprehend the basic concept itself a detail like that is necessarily beyond
> your mental ability. It could only be interpreted as nonsense by your
> handicapped mind. If you could comprehend the meaning and appreciate the
> distinction then it [your overly challenged mind] would have to try to consider
> which lives it feels are of positive value and which of negative, meaning it
> would have to accept the fact that some are positive which would show how
> inferior your elimination desire is to a desire for decent lives for billions of
> future animals. Your brain can't accept that, and interprets everything about
> that aspect of human influence on animals to be nonsense. It almost allowed you
> a very tiny sliver of appreciation one time when you thought some grass raised
> cattle might possibly have "good" lives, but then it shut you down completely
> and you can no longer relate at all. That is IF you ever actually could, which I
> doubt. It's not something you unlearn. You'll probably never learn it, but if
> you actually ever do I doubt you'll unlearn it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> You've shown that to be the case at least, even if you're not honestly
> >> too stupid in reality YOU have consistently presented the impression that you
> >> are.
>
> >> >> 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.
>
> >> * * I understood the concept none the less, so of course if that particular
> >> phrase was referred to I would have understood what it was referring to and so
> >> would all the other kids in the class.
>
> >You have no evidence for that claim.
>
> * * I've understood the concept since grade school and been thinking about it
> ever since. That's evidence.

Wrong.

> You're like the person who can't see stereograms ...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:37:20 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
wrote:

>On 6 Nov., 18:11, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:15:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>> >On Nov 5, 9:54*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:04:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >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.
>>
>> >> * * Anyone who doesn't understand that that depends VERY MUCH on how much
>> >> wildlife is in the area doesn't have any clue about the subject at all.
>>
>> >So there is variation, so in order to make decisions about what to eat
>> >you go by the average. So we go with our best guess as to what the
>> >average is. You haven't offered any better estimate.
>>
>> * * On average cattle eating grass kill less than farm machines and chemicals
>> do. Also on average wildlife thrives much better in grazing areas than it does
>> in crop fields. Then there's the part you especially can't appreciate or even
>> acknowledge, which is that grazing areas provide good lives for billions of
>> livestock animals. In contrast to that crop fields do not. So right there we see
>> three ways livestock raising is better than crop farming for wildlife and
>> livestock, yet you can't appreciate any and possibly can't even comprehend any.
>> And IF you can, I doubt you could acknowledge it.
>>
>
>It may or may not be. I don't really think I'm in a position to know.

You don't want to know about situations like that because they work against
what you want to believe, which in part is that they don't exist. They do exist
though.

>> >> >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.
>>
>> >> * * For one thing it would depend on whether or not there are any predators that
>> >> are killed to protect a particular group of animals. For another the deaths of
>> >> any predators would need to be averaged out amoung all the animals that don't
>> >> get killed by that particular predator, including wildlife. *That means that
>> >> killing the predator results in LESS DEATHS overall, not more, so it also means
>> >> LESS DEATHS because of the cattle, not more. You so far still have no argument
>> >> and it appears you're at a dead end. For some reason it seems to be too bad for
>> >> you but grass raised beef still comes up less deaths than soy, and a lot less
>> >> than rice. It's too bad you hate that, because you would be a better person if
>> >> you could appreciate it since it's the way it is. Maybe Goo will help you keep
>> >> denying it to yourself though....or maybe he already has through email....
>>
>> >It may very well be that grass-raised beef involves fewer deaths than
>> >soy or rice products; my mind has always been perfectly open on that
>> >issue,
>>
>> * * Uh huh.
>>
>> >I've simply been pointing out that it's a complex question, and
>> >also the difference is not by a factor of hundreds as you repeatedly
>> >claim.
>>
>> * * Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's not. The only times it would not be would be
>> when the wildlife has already been killed off in the area and there's no longer
>> any living to kill in the crop fields.
>
>What's your evidence for that claim?

Their absence when they're absent for one since it means they've all been
killed off. But when the fields are beside other areas where wildlife can
survive then new animals can move into the crop fields after others have been
killed off by machinery and chemicals and loss of habitat after harvest. Cows
don't do that stuff to wildlife in their pastures. If you could advance to an AW
position you would be in a position to appreciate things like that, rather than
being in an eliminationist position so you not only can't appreciate things like
that but have to try to deny them to yourself. It seems there are a few ways you
could become a better person if you moved on from the misnomer.

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:41:57 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
wrote:

>On 6 Nov., 18:10, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:24:56 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>> >On Nov 5, 9:53*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:13:29 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >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.
>>
>> >> * * Did you finally learn that what I've been telling you is true, or do you
>> >> still not believe it or whatever? If not, why do you bring it up?
>>
>> >I've repeatedly said that the phrase has no real meaning,
>>
>> * * It has as much meaning as "good".
>
>Wrong.

Well, actually it has more since it certainly includes lives which are
actually "good" as well as those that are not good but still of positive rather
than negative value to the individual. "Good" of course does not include those
lives, meaning it doesn't involve all that are of positive value to the
individual without being necessarily "good".

>> >and you've
>> >pretty much confirmed that.
>>
>> * * By that pov there's no such thing as good music, or good food, or good
>> scultpure, or good painting, or good clothing, or.... There are lots of things
>> each of us must decide for ourself.
>>
>
>Well, actually, it would be pretty reasonable to say that all there is
>in reality is us holding favourable attitudes towards various
>instances of music, food, etc.

Those of us who are able make the decision for ourselves. If you honestly
can't make it between lives of positive and negative value then you have a
severe mental handicap in that area from my pov since I've been able to do it
since at least the sixth grade.

>> >> >> >> >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.
>>
>> >> * * Certainly not the least bit more meaningless than to say they have "good"
>> >> lives, and you pretend to be able to have some slight comprehension of what that
>> >> means.
>>
>> >Yes, a lot more meaningless. There would be widespread agreement about
>> >what constitutes a good life.
>>
>> * * Define what you want us to think is so widely agreed upon.
>
>I'm not interested in playing your stupid, pointless games.

LOL!!! Goo has taught you to wuss totally from your own stupid claims, which
is exactly what you did. I challenge you again to try to defend your claim, and
when you can't it will be a clear demonstration that you're lying to the point
of being unable to even attempt to back yourself up. Your admiration for and
desire to please the Goober has caused you to sink to a most pathetic level.

>> >There is no widespread agreement about
>> >what counts as a "life of positive value". If you want to introduce
>> >such a phrase you have to give criteria for when the phrase is
>> >applicable, and you're basically conceding that there are no criteria
>> >at all.
>>
>> * * I told you what it means but you can't comprehend. I also explained why it's
>> a better term than good since life doesn't necessarily have to be good in order
>> to be of positive value.
>>
>
>You didn't tell me what it means.

That's a blatant lie and we know it. You're pretty much on the bottom.

>> * * Give the widely agreed upon criteria for when the phrase "good" life is
>> applicable, and also for when it's not.
>> . . .
>>
>> >> >>as yet we [STILL!] 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.
>>
>> >> * * We will until YOU provide examples to indicate that you have some
>> >> appreciation for the lives of some creature(s). Try doing it now if you think
>> >> you can.
>>
>> >I have no
>>
>> * * Then we STILL agree that you have NO appreciation for the lives of any
>> creatures including grass raised cattle, yourself, your friends and your family.
>> Only you are in the position to change that but it would require you giving
>> examples, and apparently there are none for you to give.
>
>Wrong.

LOL!!! You have made it OBVIOUS that there are none for you to give. I again
challenge you to try to present some. Go:

(correct prediction: you must necessarily fail the challenge each time it's
presented because there are no examples for you to possibly give)

>> . . .
>>
>> >> * * Did you know the caged hens' parents are raised in cage free houses? And
>> >> that so are broilers and their parents?
>>
>> >What do you mean by "the caged hens"? Which caged hens? All hens that
>> >are kept in cages?
>>
>> * * Most commercial laying hens in the US are kept in small cages with wire
>> floors. I thought you were well familiar with that.
>>
>
>And their parents are raised in cage free houses, are they?

Yes they are. Not out of consideration for the value of life to the birds
though. Only because they don't breed well in the cages. If they did, the
parents would be screwed just like their daughters (pullets), though in
different ways than their sons (stags).

>> >> >> >> 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.
>>
>> >> * * I've guided you and you act too stupid to appreciate what it means, even to
>> >> yourself.
>>
>> >It doesn't mean anything. If it meant something, you would be able to
>> >specify what.
>>
>> * * I've told you it means a life that doesn't involve enough suffering to make
>> it of negative value for the individual, even if it's not pleasant enough to be
>> thought of as "good".
>
>Which doesn't tell me anything because I have no way of knowing what
>the threshold level of suffering would be for making a life of
>"negative value".

That's because of a mental limitation on your part, and no one can help you
with that. I can tell you that you appear to have a life of positive value since
you haven't killed yourself yet for example, but if you can't comprehend what
that means then it's a mental restriction that YOU HAVE but I do not.

>> I don't always add that last part, but since you can't
>> comprehend the basic concept itself a detail like that is necessarily beyond
>> your mental ability. It could only be interpreted as nonsense by your
>> handicapped mind. If you could comprehend the meaning and appreciate the
>> distinction then it [your overly challenged mind] would have to try to consider
>> which lives it feels are of positive value and which of negative, meaning it
>> would have to accept the fact that some are positive which would show how
>> inferior your elimination desire is to a desire for decent lives for billions of
>> future animals. Your brain can't accept that, and interprets everything about
>> that aspect of human influence on animals to be nonsense. It almost allowed you
>> a very tiny sliver of appreciation one time when you thought some grass raised
>> cattle might possibly have "good" lives, but then it shut you down completely
>> and you can no longer relate at all. That is IF you ever actually could, which I
>> doubt. It's not something you unlearn. You'll probably never learn it, but if
>> you actually ever do I doubt you'll unlearn it.
>>
>> >> You've shown that to be the case at least, even if you're not honestly
>> >> too stupid in reality YOU have consistently presented the impression that you
>> >> are.
>>
>> >> >> 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.
>>
>> >> * * I understood the concept none the less, so of course if that particular
>> >> phrase was referred to I would have understood what it was referring to and so
>> >> would all the other kids in the class.
>>
>> >You have no evidence for that claim.
>>
>> * * I've understood the concept since grade school and been thinking about it
>> ever since. That's evidence.
>
>Wrong.

That's a blatant lie. Actually I believe I remember my dad specifically
referring to the distinction between the restriction of "good" and the broader
reference to being of positive value to the individual. And also pointing out
that some things that seemed good to American slaves in those days might not
seem quite so good to free white people living in America today. Such details
are probably beyond you, and certainly appear to be so far, but my dad discussed
things like that with us all our lives and as I said we discussed that aspect in
grade school as well. In fact from my pov it seems very strange that your dad
never discussed things like that with you and you never discussed them in any
class you're ever taken in your life. It seems damned strange IF it's true.

>> You're like the person who can't see stereograms ...

On Nov 13, 11:09*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:41:57 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
> >On 6 Nov., 18:10, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:24:56 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 5, 9:53 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:13:29 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >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.
>
> >> >> Did you finally learn that what I've been telling you is true, or do you
> >> >> still not believe it or whatever? If not, why do you bring it up?
>
> >> >I've repeatedly said that the phrase has no real meaning,
>
> >> It has as much meaning as "good".
>
> >Wrong.
>
> * * Well, actually it has more since it certainly includes lives which are
> actually "good" as well as those that are not good but still of positive rather
> than negative value to the individual. "Good" of course does not include those
> lives, meaning it doesn't involve all that are of positive value to the
> individual without being necessarily "good".
>

When you speak of lives that are "not good but still of positive
rather than negative value to the individual", what is it exactly that
makes you believe you are saying anything meaningful. You certainly
have shown yourself completely unable to give *any explanation at all*
of what you mean.

Do you think that, in principle, a scientist would be able to design
tests that would determine whether an individual is having a life of
positive or negative value to that individual?

> >> >and you've
> >> >pretty much confirmed that.
>
> >> By that pov there's no such thing as good music, or good food, or good
> >> scultpure, or good painting, or good clothing, or.... There are lots of things
> >> each of us must decide for ourself.
>
> >Well, actually, it would be pretty reasonable to say that all there is
> >in reality is us holding favourable attitudes towards various
> >instances of music, food, etc.
>
> * * Those of us who are able make the decision for ourselves.

And also those who, like the rest of the human race, hold various
favourable attitudes or disfavourable attitudes towards music, food,
sculpture, and so forth, but don't think that those attitudes reflect
any reality over and above the attitudes themselves.

> If you honestly
> can't make it between lives of positive and negative value then you have a
> severe mental handicap in that area from my pov since I've been able to do it
> since at least the sixth grade.
>

Tell us more about your thought processes in the sixth grade. You
formulated the idea of "positive or negative value" for yourself, did
you? Even though your teacher didn't use that phrase?

> >> >> >> >> >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.
>
> >> >> Certainly not the least bit more meaningless than to say they have "good"
> >> >> lives, and you pretend to be able to have some slight comprehension of what that
> >> >> means.
>
> >> >Yes, a lot more meaningless. There would be widespread agreement about
> >> >what constitutes a good life.
>
> >> Define what you want us to think is so widely agreed upon.
>
> >I'm not interested in playing your stupid, pointless games.
>
> * * LOL!!! Goo has taught you to wuss totally from your own stupid claims, which
> is exactly what you did. I challenge you again to try to defend your claim, and
> when you can't it will be a clear demonstration that you're lying to the point
> of being unable to even attempt to back yourself up. Your admiration for and
> desire to please the Goober has caused you to sink to a most pathetic level.
>

The claim that "there would be widespread agreement about what
constitutes a good life" is not a stupid claim. For example, it would
be widely agreed that access to food and drink that tastes good, and
adequate medical care, and remaining in reasonably good health over a
long period of time, and having the liberty to pursue happiness in the
form that you most prefer and being reasonably successful at doing so,
are elements which contribute towards having a good life. It would
also be widely agreed that things such as mental illness, or accident
causing serious injury, or serious poverty, make it more difficult to
have a good life. Having a fulfilling romantic relationship is one
thing that can contribute towards having a good life. Having a desire
to have such a relationship but not being able to find one probably
means your life is less good. And so on and so forth. If we presented
people with information about various people's lives and asked them to
rate how good their life was, it is likely that there would be a
significant degree of convergence in their ratings, at least so far as
making comparisons go. We don't have absolutely precise criteria for
what constitutes a good life, but we understand the notion
sufficiently well that it is likely that there would be significant
convergence in our ratings of how good people's lives are.

This is all of course completely obvious, and it is silly to argue
about it, which is why I didn't wish to waste my time explaining the
perfectly obvious.

Your references to my "admiration for" and "desire to please" Ball are
the product of a deluded mind.

> >> >There is no widespread agreement about
> >> >what counts as a "life of positive value". If you want to introduce
> >> >such a phrase you have to give criteria for when the phrase is
> >> >applicable, and you're basically conceding that there are no criteria
> >> >at all.
>
> >> I told you what it means but you can't comprehend. I also explained why it's
> >> a better term than good since life doesn't necessarily have to be good in order
> >> to be of positive value.
>
> >You didn't tell me what it means.
>
> * * That's a blatant lie and we know it. You're pretty much on the bottom.
>

You have never told me what "life of positive value" means in any
satisfactory way that conveys any meaningful information. You have
offered definitions but they are completely circular and convey no
useful information, over and above the fact that the quantity of
suffering in an individual's life is a relevant consideration. This is
not a lie. It is the truth.

> >> Give the widely agreed upon criteria for when the phrase "good" life is
> >> applicable, and also for when it's not.
> >> . . .
>
> >> >> >>as yet we [STILL!] 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.
>
> >> >> We will until YOU provide examples to indicate that you have some
> >> >> appreciation for the lives of some creature(s). Try doing it now if you think
> >> >> you can.
>
> >> >I have no
>
> >> Then we STILL agree that you have NO appreciation for the lives of any
> >> creatures including grass raised cattle, yourself, your friends and your family.
> >> Only you are in the position to change that but it would require you giving
> >> examples, and apparently there are none for you to give.
>
> >Wrong.
>
> * * LOL!!! You have made it OBVIOUS that there are none for you to give. I again
> challenge you to try to present some. Go:
>

What does "appreciation for the lives of creatures" mean, anyway? I
need to understand what you mean by the phrase before I can say
anything meaningful about it. Do you honestly think that I cannot
appreciate the good things about the lives of my parents and my
sister?

> (correct prediction: you must necessarily fail the challenge each time it's
> presented because there are no examples for you to possibly give)
>
> >> . . .
>
> >> >> Did you know the caged hens' parents are raised in cage free houses? And
> >> >> that so are broilers and their parents?
>
> >> >What do you mean by "the caged hens"? Which caged hens? All hens that
> >> >are kept in cages?
>
> >> Most commercial laying hens in the US are kept in small cages with wire
> >> floors. I thought you were well familiar with that.
>
> >And their parents are raised in cage free houses, are they?
>
> * * Yes they are. Not out of consideration for the value of life to the birds
> though. Only because they don't breed well in the cages. If they did, the
> parents would be screwed just like their daughters (pullets), though in
> different ways than their sons (stags).
>

Ok. So, what of it?

> >> >> >> >> 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.
>
> >> >> I've guided you and you act too stupid to appreciate what it means, even to
> >> >> yourself.
>
> >> >It doesn't mean anything. If it meant something, you would be able to
> >> >specify what.
>
> >> I've told you it means a life that doesn't involve enough suffering to make
> >> it of negative value for the individual, even if it's not pleasant enough to be
> >> thought of as "good".
>
> >Which doesn't tell me anything because I have no way of knowing what
> >the threshold level of suffering would be for making a life of
> >"negative value".
>
> * * That's because of a mental limitation on your part, and no one can help you
> with that.

No. It is not because of any mental limitation on my part. It is
because you have said absolutely nothing informative about the matter.
It would be possible for me to make up my own story about what the
threshold level of suffering would be. But that would not alter the
fact that you have given me absolutely no useful information about it,
and any decision I would make would be completely arbitrary.

> I can tell you that you appear to have a life of positive value since
> you haven't killed yourself yet for example, but if you can't comprehend what
> that means then it's a mental restriction that YOU HAVE but I do not.
>

Ok, well that's a bit more information. A person who has made no
suicide attempts is likely to have a life of positive value, are they?
Are there any exceptions to that? How about people who become sex
slaves during childhood, but still do not wish to commit suicide? Do
they have lives of positive value? How would you know; what are the
criteria for making the decision?

> >> I don't always add that last part, but since you can't
> >> comprehend the basic concept itself a detail like that is necessarily beyond
> >> your mental ability. It could only be interpreted as nonsense by your
> >> handicapped mind. If you could comprehend the meaning and appreciate the
> >> distinction then it [your overly challenged mind] would have to try to consider
> >> which lives it feels are of positive value and which of negative, meaning it
> >> would have to accept the fact that some are positive which would show how
> >> inferior your elimination desire is to a desire for decent lives for billions of
> >> future animals. Your brain can't accept that, and interprets everything about
> >> that aspect of human influence on animals to be nonsense. It almost allowed you
> >> a very tiny sliver of appreciation one time when you thought some grass raised
> >> cattle might possibly have "good" lives, but then it shut you down completely
> >> and you can no longer relate at all. That is IF you ever actually could, which I
> >> doubt. It's not something you unlearn. You'll probably never learn it, but if
> >> you actually ever do I doubt you'll unlearn it.
>
> >> >> You've shown that to be the case at least, even if you're not honestly
> >> >> too stupid in reality YOU have consistently presented the impression that you
> >> >> are.
>
> >> >> >> 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.
>
> >> >> I understood the concept none the less, so of course if that particular
> >> >> phrase was referred to I would have understood what it was referring to and so
> >> >> would all the other kids in the class.
>
> >> >You have no evidence for that claim.
>
> >> I've understood the concept since grade school and been thinking about it
> >> ever since. That's evidence.
>
> >Wrong.
>
> * * That's a blatant lie.

It is not a blatant lie. It is the truth. The fact that you think you
had an understanding of the concept in grade school is not evidence
that all the other children in your class thought similarly.

> Actually I believe I remember my dad specifically
> referring to the distinction between the restriction of "good" and the broader
> reference to being of positive value to the individual.

And you think that failing to immediately have an intuition about what
this means without being given any definition is evidence of a mental
handicap?

> And also pointing out
> that some things that seemed good to American slaves in those days might not
> seem quite so good to free white people living in America today. Such details
> are probably beyond you, and certainly appear to be so far, but my dad discussed
> things like that with us all our lives and as I said we discussed that aspect in
> grade school as well. In fact from my pov it seems very strange that your dad
> never discussed things like that with you and you never discussed them in any
> class you're ever taken in your life. It seems damned strange IF it's true.>> You're like the person who can't see stereograms ...

You're a nitwit.

On Nov 13, 10:51*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:37:20 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 6 Nov., 18:11, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:15:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 5, 9:54 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:04:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >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.
>
> >> >> Anyone who doesn't understand that that depends VERY MUCH on how much
> >> >> wildlife is in the area doesn't have any clue about the subject at all.
>
> >> >So there is variation, so in order to make decisions about what to eat
> >> >you go by the average. So we go with our best guess as to what the
> >> >average is. You haven't offered any better estimate.
>
> >> On average cattle eating grass kill less than farm machines and chemicals
> >> do. Also on average wildlife thrives much better in grazing areas than it does
> >> in crop fields. Then there's the part you especially can't appreciate or even
> >> acknowledge, which is that grazing areas provide good lives for billions of
> >> livestock animals. In contrast to that crop fields do not. So right there we see
> >> three ways livestock raising is better than crop farming for wildlife and
> >> livestock, yet you can't appreciate any and possibly can't even comprehend any.
> >> And IF you can, I doubt you could acknowledge it.
>
> >It may or may not be. I don't really think I'm in a position to know.
>
> * * You don't want to know about situations like that because they work against
> what you want to believe, which in part is that they don't exist. They do exist
> though.
>

That is false. I would like to be in a position to know how the harm
caused by the production of grass-fed beef and the harm caused by the
production of soy products compare, and I have no reason to prefer the
outcome to be one way or the other, but I think that it is a complex
issue and I don't think I am in a position to know. I don't think that
the evidence you have offered about the matter gives conclusive
grounds for making a decision, one would need to do more to make sure
that one had taken into account all the relevant factors. I am quite
open to investigating the matter further.

One thing that we can definitely say is false is the assertion which
you still repeatedly make that soy products are likely to cause more
deaths than grass-fed beef by a factor of hundreds. This assertion has
been shown to be false but you still keep making it over and over
again.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >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.
>
> >> >> For one thing it would depend on whether or not there are any predators that
> >> >> are killed to protect a particular group of animals. For another the deaths of
> >> >> any predators would need to be averaged out amoung all the animals that don't
> >> >> get killed by that particular predator, including wildlife. That means that
> >> >> killing the predator results in LESS DEATHS overall, not more, so it also means
> >> >> LESS DEATHS because of the cattle, not more. You so far still have no argument
> >> >> and it appears you're at a dead end. For some reason it seems to be too bad for
> >> >> you but grass raised beef still comes up less deaths than soy, and a lot less
> >> >> than rice. It's too bad you hate that, because you would be a better person if
> >> >> you could appreciate it since it's the way it is. Maybe Goo will help you keep
> >> >> denying it to yourself though....or maybe he already has through email....
>
> >> >It may very well be that grass-raised beef involves fewer deaths than
> >> >soy or rice products; my mind has always been perfectly open on that
> >> >issue,
>
> >> Uh huh.
>
> >> >I've simply been pointing out that it's a complex question, and
> >> >also the difference is not by a factor of hundreds as you repeatedly
> >> >claim.
>
> >> Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's not. The only times it would not be would be
> >> when the wildlife has already been killed off in the area and there's no longer
> >> any living to kill in the crop fields.
>
> >What's your evidence for that claim?
>
> * * Their absence when they're absent for one since it means they've all been
> killed off. But when the fields are beside other areas where wildlife can
> survive then new animals can move into the crop fields after others have been
> killed off by machinery and chemicals and loss of habitat after harvest. Cows
> don't do that stuff to wildlife in their pastures. If you could advance to an AW
> position you would be in a position to appreciate things like that, rather than
> being in an eliminationist position so you not only can't appreciate things like
> that but have to try to deny them to yourself. It seems there are a few ways you
> could become a better person if you moved on from the misnomer.

You've presented no evidence that in the situation where a substantial
amount of wildlife was present, the number of deaths caused by soy
production would be greater by a factor of hundreds. In fact at this
stage we have enough evidence to see pretty clearly that that's false.
You should stop making the claim.

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:22:26 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Nov 13, 11:09*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:41:57 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 6 Nov., 18:10, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:24:56 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Nov 5, 9:53 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:13:29 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >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.
>>
>> >> >> Did you finally learn that what I've been telling you is true, or do you
>> >> >> still not believe it or whatever? If not, why do you bring it up?
>>
>> >> >I've repeatedly said that the phrase has no real meaning,
>>
>> >> It has as much meaning as "good".
>>
>> >Wrong.
>>
>> * * Well, actually it has more since it certainly includes lives which are
>> actually "good" as well as those that are not good but still of positive rather
>> than negative value to the individual. "Good" of course does not include those
>> lives, meaning it doesn't involve all that are of positive value to the
>> individual without being necessarily "good".
>>
>
>When you speak of lives that are "not good but still of positive
>rather than negative value to the individual", what is it exactly that
>makes you believe you are saying anything meaningful.

Because I believe it's the case for many beings so I like to take that type
situation into consideration with the others.

>You certainly
>have shown yourself completely unable to give *any explanation at all*
>of what you mean.
>
>Do you think that, in principle, a scientist would be able to design
>tests that would determine whether an individual is having a life of
>positive or negative value to that individual?

There's one test for humans I can think of. That would be to ask them. Of
course they may be too stupid to comprehend the question. You are for example.
You would fail that test horribly, but it doesn't mean you would have a life of
negative value as a result of your complete failure. It would just show that
you're too stupid to have any idea whether your own life is of positive or
negative value to you.

>> >> >and you've
>> >> >pretty much confirmed that.
>>
>> >> By that pov there's no such thing as good music, or good food, or good
>> >> scultpure, or good painting, or good clothing, or.... There are lots of things
>> >> each of us must decide for ourself.
>>
>> >Well, actually, it would be pretty reasonable to say that all there is
>> >in reality is us holding favourable attitudes towards various
>> >instances of music, food, etc.
>>
>> * * Those of us who are able make the decision for ourselves.
>
>And also those who, like the rest of the human race, hold various
>favourable attitudes or disfavourable attitudes towards music, food,
>sculpture, and so forth, but don't think that those attitudes reflect
>any reality over and above the attitudes themselves.
>
>> If you honestly
>> can't make it between lives of positive and negative value then you have a
>> severe mental handicap in that area from my pov since I've been able to do it
>> since at least the sixth grade.
>>
>
>Tell us more about your thought processes in the sixth grade. You
>formulated the idea of "positive or negative value" for yourself, did
>you? Even though your teacher didn't use that phrase?

When questioned how slaves could have good lives the teacher had to make us
aware that what seems good and bad is a matter of personal opinion, and we
learned to form our own interpretation. Maybe you'll learn to as well some day,
but it seems you're not mentally capable. You would probably have been in the
special ed class at that school I suppose, since you would have been so very far
below everyone else.

>> >> >> >> >> >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.
>>
>> >> >> Certainly not the least bit more meaningless than to say they have "good"
>> >> >> lives, and you pretend to be able to have some slight comprehension of what that
>> >> >> means.
>>
>> >> >Yes, a lot more meaningless. There would be widespread agreement about
>> >> >what constitutes a good life.
>>
>> >> Define what you want us to think is so widely agreed upon.
>>
>> >I'm not interested in playing your stupid, pointless games.
>>
>> * * LOL!!! Goo has taught you to wuss totally from your own stupid claims, which
>> is exactly what you did. I challenge you again to try to defend your claim, and
>> when you can't it will be a clear demonstration that you're lying to the point
>> of being unable to even attempt to back yourself up. Your admiration for and
>> desire to please the Goober has caused you to sink to a most pathetic level.
>>
>
>The claim that "there would be widespread agreement about what
>constitutes a good life" is not a stupid claim. For example, it would
>be widely agreed that access to food and drink that tastes good, and
>adequate medical care, and remaining in reasonably good health over a
>long period of time, and having the liberty to pursue happiness in the
>form that you most prefer and being reasonably successful at doing so,
>are elements which contribute towards having a good life. It would
>also be widely agreed that things such as mental illness, or accident
>causing serious injury, or serious poverty, make it more difficult to
>have a good life. Having a fulfilling romantic relationship is one
>thing that can contribute towards having a good life. Having a desire
>to have such a relationship but not being able to find one probably
>means your life is less good. And so on and so forth. If we presented
>people with information about various people's lives and asked them to
>rate how good their life was, it is likely that there would be a
>significant degree of convergence in their ratings, at least so far as
>making comparisons go. We don't have absolutely precise criteria for
>what constitutes a good life,

Then saying good lives is no "better" than saying lives of positive value,
and it includes less beings as well.

>but we understand the notion
>sufficiently well that it is likely that there would be significant
>convergence in our ratings of how good people's lives are.
>
>This is all of course completely obvious, and it is silly to argue
>about it, which is why I didn't wish to waste my time explaining the
>perfectly obvious.

You still can't comprehend the distinction between good lives and lives
which are of positive value without actually being good, and you probably never
will be able to.

>Your references to my "admiration for" and "desire to please" Ball are
>the product of a deluded mind.

Not if I'm right. If I am, you're just lying about something else.

>> >> >There is no widespread agreement about
>> >> >what counts as a "life of positive value". If you want to introduce
>> >> >such a phrase you have to give criteria for when the phrase is
>> >> >applicable, and you're basically conceding that there are no criteria
>> >> >at all.
>>
>> >> I told you what it means but you can't comprehend. I also explained why it's
>> >> a better term than good since life doesn't necessarily have to be good in order
>> >> to be of positive value.
>>
>> >You didn't tell me what it means.
>>
>> * * That's a blatant lie and we know it. You're pretty much on the bottom.
>>
>
>You have never told me what "life of positive value" means in any
>satisfactory way that conveys any meaningful information. You have
>offered definitions but they are completely circular and convey no
>useful information, over and above the fact that the quantity of
>suffering in an individual's life is a relevant consideration. This is
>not a lie. It is the truth.
>
>> >> Give the widely agreed upon criteria for when the phrase "good" life is
>> >> applicable, and also for when it's not.
>> >> . . .
>>
>> >> >> >>as yet we [STILL!] 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.
>>
>> >> >> We will until YOU provide examples to indicate that you have some
>> >> >> appreciation for the lives of some creature(s). Try doing it now if you think
>> >> >> you can.
>>
>> >> >I have no
>>
>> >> Then we STILL agree that you have NO appreciation for the lives of any
>> >> creatures including grass raised cattle, yourself, your friends and your family.
>> >> Only you are in the position to change that but it would require you giving
>> >> examples, and apparently there are none for you to give.
>>
>> >Wrong.
>>
>> * * LOL!!! You have made it OBVIOUS that there are none for you to give. I again
>> challenge you to try to present some. Go:
>>
>
>What does "appreciation for the lives of creatures" mean, anyway?

If you can appreciate anything tell me what it is. If you can't, then you
can't appreciate the lives of any creatures either, just as you can't comprehend
whether your own life is of positive or negative value. You're just mentally
incapable and I can't make you capable. No one can.

>I
>need to understand what you mean by the phrase before I can say
>anything meaningful about it. Do you honestly think that I cannot
>appreciate the good things about the lives of my parents and my
>sister?

You can't comprehend whether they have lives of positive or negative value,
and you can't appreciate their lives at all according to you.

>> (correct prediction: you must necessarily fail the challenge each time it's
>> presented because there are no examples for you to possibly give)
>>
>> >> . . .
>>
>> >> >> Did you know the caged hens' parents are raised in cage free houses? And
>> >> >> that so are broilers and their parents?
>>
>> >> >What do you mean by "the caged hens"? Which caged hens? All hens that
>> >> >are kept in cages?
>>
>> >> Most commercial laying hens in the US are kept in small cages with wire
>> >> floors. I thought you were well familiar with that.
>>
>> >And their parents are raised in cage free houses, are they?
>>
>> * * Yes they are. Not out of consideration for the value of life to the birds
>> though. Only because they don't breed well in the cages. If they did, the
>> parents would be screwed just like their daughters (pullets), though in
>> different ways than their sons (stags).
>>
>
>Ok. So, what of it?

It only matters to people who care somewhat about the animals. If you did,
you wouldn't have to ask. Since you don't it can't mean anything to you
apparently, though it could matter a little to some people who can't just out of
curiosity.

>> >> >> >> >> 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.
>>
>> >> >> I've guided you and you act too stupid to appreciate what it means, even to
>> >> >> yourself.
>>
>> >> >It doesn't mean anything. If it meant something, you would be able to
>> >> >specify what.
>>
>> >> I've told you it means a life that doesn't involve enough suffering to make
>> >> it of negative value for the individual, even if it's not pleasant enough to be
>> >> thought of as "good".
>>
>> >Which doesn't tell me anything because I have no way of knowing what
>> >the threshold level of suffering would be for making a life of
>> >"negative value".
>>
>> * * That's because of a mental limitation on your part, and no one can help you
>> with that.
>
>No.

At least we agree that no one can help you.

>It is not because of any mental limitation on my part.

It certainly is.

.. . .
>> pointing out
>> that some things that seemed good to American slaves in those days might not
>> seem quite so good to free white people living in America today. Such details
>> are probably beyond you, and certainly appear to be so far, but my dad discussed
>> things like that with us all our lives and as I said we discussed that aspect in
>> grade school as well. In fact from my pov it seems very strange that your dad
>> never discussed things like that with you and you never discussed them in any
>> class you're ever taken in your life. It seems damned strange IF it's true.>> You're like the person who can't see stereograms ...
>
>You're a nitwit.

I'm way beyond you on this subject whether I am or not, and have been for
decades. Most grade school children are mentally superior to you on this subject
as well. Regarding this particular topic, you are the most nitwitted and
mentally challenged person I've ever encountered.

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:27:15 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Nov 13, 10:51*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:37:20 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>> >On 6 Nov., 18:11, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:15:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Nov 5, 9:54 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:04:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >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.
>>
>> >> >> Anyone who doesn't understand that that depends VERY MUCH on how much
>> >> >> wildlife is in the area doesn't have any clue about the subject at all.
>>
>> >> >So there is variation, so in order to make decisions about what to eat
>> >> >you go by the average. So we go with our best guess as to what the
>> >> >average is. You haven't offered any better estimate.
>>
>> >> On average cattle eating grass kill less than farm machines and chemicals
>> >> do. Also on average wildlife thrives much better in grazing areas than it does
>> >> in crop fields. Then there's the part you especially can't appreciate or even
>> >> acknowledge, which is that grazing areas provide good lives for billions of
>> >> livestock animals. In contrast to that crop fields do not. So right there we see
>> >> three ways livestock raising is better than crop farming for wildlife and
>> >> livestock, yet you can't appreciate any and possibly can't even comprehend any.
>> >> And IF you can, I doubt you could acknowledge it.
>>
>> >It may or may not be. I don't really think I'm in a position to know.
>>
>> * * You don't want to know about situations like that because they work against
>> what you want to believe, which in part is that they don't exist. They do exist
>> though.
>>
>
>That is false.

Yes they do.

>I would like to be in a position to know how the harm
>caused by the production of grass-fed beef and the harm caused by the
>production of soy products compare, and I have no reason to prefer the
>outcome to be one way or the other, but I think that it is a complex
>issue and I don't think I am in a position to know. I don't think that
>the evidence you have offered about the matter gives conclusive
>grounds for making a decision, one would need to do more to make sure
>that one had taken into account all the relevant factors. I am quite
>open to investigating the matter further.

Then do it. My prediction of course is that you can't, but it would be fun
to see you try.

>One thing that we can definitely say is false is the assertion which
>you still repeatedly make that soy products are likely to cause more
>deaths than grass-fed beef by a factor of hundreds.

I feel certain that in some cases it is hundreds, and in some it's probably
thousands. There may even be times when the soy causes less, but not nearly as
frequently imo.

>This assertion has
>been shown to be false but you still keep making it over and over
>again.

You could never show it to be false, but I challenge you to try. Go:

>> >> >> >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.
>>
>> >> >> For one thing it would depend on whether or not there are any predators that
>> >> >> are killed to protect a particular group of animals. For another the deaths of
>> >> >> any predators would need to be averaged out amoung all the animals that don't
>> >> >> get killed by that particular predator, including wildlife. That means that
>> >> >> killing the predator results in LESS DEATHS overall, not more, so it also means
>> >> >> LESS DEATHS because of the cattle, not more. You so far still have no argument
>> >> >> and it appears you're at a dead end. For some reason it seems to be too bad for
>> >> >> you but grass raised beef still comes up less deaths than soy, and a lot less
>> >> >> than rice. It's too bad you hate that, because you would be a better person if
>> >> >> you could appreciate it since it's the way it is. Maybe Goo will help you keep
>> >> >> denying it to yourself though....or maybe he already has through email....
>>
>> >> >It may very well be that grass-raised beef involves fewer deaths than
>> >> >soy or rice products; my mind has always been perfectly open on that
>> >> >issue,
>>
>> >> Uh huh.
>>
>> >> >I've simply been pointing out that it's a complex question, and
>> >> >also the difference is not by a factor of hundreds as you repeatedly
>> >> >claim.
>>
>> >> Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's not. The only times it would not be would be
>> >> when the wildlife has already been killed off in the area and there's no longer
>> >> any living to kill in the crop fields.
>>
>> >What's your evidence for that claim?
>>
>> * * Their absence when they're absent for one since it means they've all been
>> killed off. But when the fields are beside other areas where wildlife can
>> survive then new animals can move into the crop fields after others have been
>> killed off by machinery and chemicals and loss of habitat after harvest. Cows
>> don't do that stuff to wildlife in their pastures. If you could advance to an AW
>> position you would be in a position to appreciate things like that, rather than
>> being in an eliminationist position so you not only can't appreciate things like
>> that but have to try to deny them to yourself. It seems there are a few ways you
>> could become a better person if you moved on from the misnomer.
>
>You've presented no evidence that in the situation where a substantial
>amount of wildlife was present, the number of deaths caused by soy
>production would be greater by a factor of hundreds.

Even if it's only half a death per serving for the soy it's STILL greater by
a factor of hundreds.

On 11/13/2012 1:51 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:37:20 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>> On 6 Nov., 18:11, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:15:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 5, 9:54 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:04:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>>> Anyone who doesn't understand that that depends VERY MUCH on how much
>>>>> wildlife is in the area doesn't have any clue about the subject at all.
>>>
>>>> So there is variation, so in order to make decisions about what to eat
>>>> you go by the average. So we go with our best guess as to what the
>>>> average is. You haven't offered any better estimate.
>>>
>>> On average cattle eating grass kill less than farm machines and chemicals
>>> do. Also on average wildlife thrives much better in grazing areas than it does
>>> in crop fields. Then there's the part you especially can't appreciate or even
>>> acknowledge, which is that grazing areas provide good lives for billions of
>>> livestock animals. In contrast to that crop fields do not. So right there we see
>>> three ways livestock raising is better than crop farming for wildlife and
>>> livestock, yet you can't appreciate any and possibly can't even comprehend any.
>>> And IF you can, I doubt you could acknowledge it.
>>>
>>
>> It may or may not be. I don't really think I'm in a position to know.
>
> You don't want to know about situations like

You have no rational basis for criticizing "vegans".

On 11/6/2012 9:10 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:24:56 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 5, 9:53 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:13:29 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Did you finally learn that what I've been telling you is true, or do you
>>> still not believe it or whatever? If not, why do you bring it up?
>>>
>>
>> I've repeatedly said that the phrase has no real meaning,
>
> It has as much meaning as

It means only "existence" when you use it, Goo.


>> There is no widespread agreement about
>> what counts as a "life of positive value". If you want to introduce
>> such a phrase you have to give criteria for when the phrase is
>> applicable, and you're basically conceding that there are no criteria
>> at all.
>
> I told you what it means but

No, you didn't. You bullshitted emptily, as usual.


>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I've guided you and you act too stupid to appreciate what it means, even to
>>> yourself.
>>
>> It doesn't mean anything. If it meant something, you would be able to
>> specify what.
>
> I've told you it means a life that

It means "existence" to you, Goo. Proved.

On 11/20/2012 10:58 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:52:13 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> It means only "existence" when you use it, Goo.
>
> "I eat meat." - Goo
>
> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Plimpton
>
> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Plimpton
>
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
> their deaths" - Prof. Plimpton
>
> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
> ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
> moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Prof. Plimpton
>
> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Plimpton
>
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Plimpton
>
> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
> its quality of live" - Prof. Plimpton

All true statements, Goober ****wit.

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:28:26 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:58:30 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:52:13 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>It means only "existence" when you use it, Goo.
>>
>>"I eat meat." - Goo
>>
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>its quality of live" - Goo
>
>All true statements, Goober ****wit.

Sometimes you act like you want to disagree with yourself about them Goober
and sometimes you confess that you agree with yourself about them. But one thing
you have never been able to do is explain how you think you disagree with
yourself about any of them. You and all eliminationists agree with you(rself)
about ALL OF IT, Goo.

On 11/20/2012 10:58 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:52:13 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> It means only "existence" when you use it, Goo.
>
> "I eat meat." - Prof. Plimpton
>
> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Plimpton
>
> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Plimpton
>
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
> their deaths" - Prof. Plimpton
>
> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
> ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
> moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Prof. Plimpton
>
> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Plimpton
>
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Plimpton
>
> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
> its quality of live" - Prof. Plimpton

All true statements, Goober ****wit.

****wit David Harrison, a convicted felon who gives *NO* consideration
to animals' lives or welfare, lied:

>>>
>>>> It means only "existence" when you use it, Goo.
>>>
>>> "I eat meat." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>> ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>> moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>> its quality of live" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>
>> All true statements, Goober ****wit.
>
> Sometimes

Always, Goober ****wit - they always are true.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:33:09 -0800, Goo agreed:

>On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:23:08 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:28:26 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:58:30 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:52:13 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It means only "existence" when you use it, Goo.
>>>>
>>>>"I eat meat." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>their deaths" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>>>ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>>>moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>>
>>>All true statements, Goober ****wit.
>>
>> Sometimes you act like you want to disagree with yourself about them Goober
>>and sometimes you confess that you agree with yourself about them. But one thing
>>you have never been able to do is explain how you think you disagree with
>>yourself about any of them. You and all eliminationists agree with you(rself)
>>about ALL OF IT, Goo.
>
>Always

Every time so far Goober, you and your brothers have agreed with yourself
about all of it. Even when you lie that they're not quotes Goob you STILL can
never figure out how you want people to think you disagree with yourself.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:08:10 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:

>In article
>,
> Rupert > wrote:
>
>> On Oct 16, 11:22*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>> > In article
>> > >,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > *Rupert > wrote:
>> > > On Oct 15, 10:53*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>> > > > In article
>> > > > >,
>> >
>> > > > *Rupert > wrote:
>> > > > > To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
>> > > > > have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
>> > > > > lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
>> > > > > mathematician.
>> >
>> > > > Dr Rupert McCallum
>> > > > University of Sydney
>> > > > Casual External Casuals?
>> >
>> > > > The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
>> > > > did not have a link to a list of
>> > > > publications.
>> >
>> > > Try searching on arxiv.org.
>> >
>> > Why is there no link to a list of publications on the web page?
>>
>> Because I was only working casually for the University of Sydney and I
>> never bothered to make any changes to the webpage there. I am now
>> working at the University of Muenster. I've been meaning to set up a
>> webpage here.
>>
>> > Finding this page is about all the searching I feel like doing.
>> >
>> > <http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/memb?id=R.McCallum-1>
>> >
>> > You cannot be bothered to compile a list of links
>> > and I will not do your work for you.
>>
>> I did give you two links, in a different message. Here they are again:
>>
>> http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/fil...memc_final.pdf
>> http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum
>>
>> The first one is a publication on which I am co-author. The second
>> gives you my Academia page which has all my pre-prints on arxiv.org,
>> two of which have been accepted for publication. I've got a fourth
>> paper in the pipeline.
>>
>> > What journals published your work?
>> >
>>
>> Advances in Geometry and Mathematical Logic Quarterly have accepted
>> two of my papers for publication, and I am co-author on a publication
>> which appeared in an anthology called "Group Representations,
>> Automorphic Forms, and Invariant Theory".
>>
>> Also an abstract of the content of my PhD thesis appeared in the
>> Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society.
>>
>> Why do you care?
>
>I asked in response to
>"I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good mathematician."

I don't see how a guy like him could possibly obtain a PhD. In grade school
we discussed the fact that some slaves had good lives and others did not. The
teacher let us know that what seems like a good life and what doesn't is
something we each figure out for ourselves. During that time I learned life
doesn't have to be "good" in order for it to still be of positive value for the
individual living it. Also that different people and different animals would
have different ideas of what's "good" and what's not. So to include situations
where life doesn't seem to be necessarily "good" for an individual and might
even be very poor but still seems to be of positive value for the individual
living it, I usually use the term of posititve value instead of "good". It seems
that a person who is a good mathematician should certainly have no problem
making a distinction between which lives he feels are of positive value and
which are not, especially a person who wants to see all livestock animals
eliminated because he doesn't believe life is worth living for them! But!!! Not
only does he not feel strongly about such a distinction regarding animals he
would like to see totally eliminated, but he doesn't even:

"believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
"lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert

Since he can't comprehend a distinction AND he wants to see all livestock
animals eliminated, does that mean he wants to see all other life eliminated
too? He can't make a distinction or even comprehend how the distinction could
mean anything, so...???

>As for how much I care, that is not evident.

I find it nearly impossible to believe that a guy who can't get as far as my
sixth grade classmates and I were when we were in sixth grade regarding whether
life has positive or negative value for an individual, could possibly obtain a
PhD in math. I find it easy to believe he would lie about it, and also that he
might be able to make it appear that he had gotten one, but extremely hard to
believe that he actually did or could.

On 11/26/2012 11:23 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:08:10 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:
>
>> In article
>> >,
>> Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 16, 11:22 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> >,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 15, 10:53 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> >,
>>>>
>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
>>>>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
>>>>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
>>>>>>> mathematician.
>>>>
>>>>>> Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>>>> University of Sydney
>>>>>> Casual External Casuals?
>>>>
>>>>>> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>>>> did not have a link to a list of
>>>>>> publications.
>>>>
>>>>> Try searching on arxiv.org.
>>>>
>>>> Why is there no link to a list of publications on the web page?
>>>
>>> Because I was only working casually for the University of Sydney and I
>>> never bothered to make any changes to the webpage there. I am now
>>> working at the University of Muenster. I've been meaning to set up a
>>> webpage here.
>>>
>>>> Finding this page is about all the searching I feel like doing.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/memb?id=R.McCallum-1>
>>>>
>>>> You cannot be bothered to compile a list of links
>>>> and I will not do your work for you.
>>>
>>> I did give you two links, in a different message. Here they are again:
>>>
>>> http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/fil...memc_final.pdf
>>> http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum
>>>
>>> The first one is a publication on which I am co-author. The second
>>> gives you my Academia page which has all my pre-prints on arxiv.org,
>>> two of which have been accepted for publication. I've got a fourth
>>> paper in the pipeline.
>>>
>>>> What journals published your work?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Advances in Geometry and Mathematical Logic Quarterly have accepted
>>> two of my papers for publication, and I am co-author on a publication
>>> which appeared in an anthology called "Group Representations,
>>> Automorphic Forms, and Invariant Theory".
>>>
>>> Also an abstract of the content of my PhD thesis appeared in the
>>> Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society.
>>>
>>> Why do you care?
>>
>> I asked in response to
>> "I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good mathematician."
>
> I don't see how a guy like him could possibly obtain a PhD. In grade school
> we discussed the fact that some slaves had good lives and others did not. The
> teacher let us know that what seems like a good life and what doesn't is

Do you have a Ph.D.? No. So you don't know the first thing about what
it takes to get a Ph.D.

//
--
Prick your finger it is done
The moon has now eclipsed the sun
The angel has spread its wings
The time has come for bigger things

On 11/26/2012 10:57 AM, dh@. wrote:

>>> you have never been able to do is explain how you think you disagree with
>>> yourself about any of them. You and all eliminationists agree with you(rself)
>>> about ALL OF IT, Goo.
>>
>> Always
>
> Every time so far Goober, you and your brothers have agreed with yourself
> about all of it. Even when you lie that they're not quotes Goob you STILL can
> never figure out how you want people to think you disagree with yourself.
>

Please let me do some mathematical reduction of your prose to show you
how a concise person writes.

"So far, Goober, you and your kin have agreed about it all. Even when
you disagree that they are quotes, Goob, you are lying to yourself; you
want them to think you are dual personality."

--
Prick your finger it is done
The moon has now eclipsed the sun
The angel has spread its wings
The time has come for bigger things

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:24:05 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
wrote:

>On 11/26/2012 10:57 AM, dh@. wrote:
>
>>>> you have never been able to do is explain how you think you disagree with
>>>> yourself about any of them. You and all eliminationists agree with you(rself)
>>>> about ALL OF IT, Goo.
>>>
>>> Always
>>
>> Every time so far Goober, you and your brothers have agreed with yourself
>> about all of it. Even when you lie that they're not quotes Goob you STILL can
>> never figure out how you want people to think you disagree with yourself.
>>
>
>Please let me do some mathematical reduction of your prose to show you
>how a concise person writes.
>
>"So far, Goober, you and your kin have agreed about it all. Even when
>you disagree that they are quotes, Goob, you are lying to yourself; you
>want them to think you are dual personality."

It's hard to say about that last part. When asked about the supposed
superiority of the elimination objective, and often even when not asked, Goo has
made claims such as:

"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo

"Life "justifying" death is the
stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

etc...ect.... Sometimes the Goober will respond that his claims are all true
statements, but other times Goo wants to deny that they're his quotes. I know
they are his quotes so that lie goes nowhere. But! I give Goo the opportunity to
try to tell people how he wants them to think he disagrees with himself about
some or all of his quotes, in case he wants people to think he does. Goo can
never say, showing that he does agree with himself about all of it.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:19:30 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
wrote:

>On 11/26/2012 11:23 AM, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:08:10 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 16, 11:22 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >,
>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 15, 10:53 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
>>>>>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
>>>>>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
>>>>>>>> mathematician.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>>>>> University of Sydney
>>>>>>> Casual External Casuals?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>>>>> did not have a link to a list of
>>>>>>> publications.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Try searching on arxiv.org.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is there no link to a list of publications on the web page?
>>>>
>>>> Because I was only working casually for the University of Sydney and I
>>>> never bothered to make any changes to the webpage there. I am now
>>>> working at the University of Muenster. I've been meaning to set up a
>>>> webpage here.
>>>>
>>>>> Finding this page is about all the searching I feel like doing.
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/memb?id=R.McCallum-1>
>>>>>
>>>>> You cannot be bothered to compile a list of links
>>>>> and I will not do your work for you.
>>>>
>>>> I did give you two links, in a different message. Here they are again:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/fil...memc_final.pdf
>>>> http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum
>>>>
>>>> The first one is a publication on which I am co-author. The second
>>>> gives you my Academia page which has all my pre-prints on arxiv.org,
>>>> two of which have been accepted for publication. I've got a fourth
>>>> paper in the pipeline.
>>>>
>>>>> What journals published your work?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Advances in Geometry and Mathematical Logic Quarterly have accepted
>>>> two of my papers for publication, and I am co-author on a publication
>>>> which appeared in an anthology called "Group Representations,
>>>> Automorphic Forms, and Invariant Theory".
>>>>
>>>> Also an abstract of the content of my PhD thesis appeared in the
>>>> Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you care?
>>>
>>> I asked in response to
>>> "I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good mathematician."
>>
>> I don't see how a guy like him could possibly obtain a PhD. In grade school
>> we discussed the fact that some slaves had good lives and others did not. The
>> teacher let us know that what seems like a good life and what doesn't is
>
>Do you have a Ph.D.? No. So you don't know the first thing about what
>it takes to get a Ph.D.

So maybe a guy who doesn't believe the distinction between lives of positive
value and negative value means anything could get a PhD, but I still don't
believe it. I CAN'T believe it, even if it's true. From my pov he must be either
lying about being unable to appreciate the distinction, or lying about having a
PhD, or lying about both. In fact now that we mention it, lying about both does
seem most likely. Goo has lied about having a PhD in economics at least twice,
and lied about having been a marine at least once, so I've no doubt he has lied
about many many more things plus lied more often than I'm aware of about those
two things as well. To these people lying is only wrong if you get caught, and
then it's just something to lie even more about.

****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:24:05 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/26/2012 10:57 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>
>>>>> you have never been able to do is explain how you think you disagree with
>>>>> yourself about any of them. You and all eliminationists agree with you(rself)
>>>>> about ALL OF IT, Goo.
>>>>
>>>> Always
>>>
>>> Every time so far Goober, you and your brothers have agreed with yourself
>>> about all of it. Even when you lie that they're not quotes Goob you STILL can
>>> never figure out how you want people to think you disagree with yourself.
>>>
>>
>> Please let me do some mathematical reduction of your prose to show you
>> how a concise person writes.
>>
>> "So far, Goober, you and your kin have agreed about it all. Even when
>> you disagree that they are quotes, Goob, you are lying to yourself; you
>> want them to think you are dual personality."
>
> It's hard to say about that last part.

You didn't understand any of it, Goo.

****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:08:10 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:
>
>> In article
>> >,
>> Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 16, 11:22 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> >,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 15, 10:53 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> >,
>>>>
>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
>>>>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
>>>>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
>>>>>>> mathematician.
>>>>
>>>>>> Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>>>> University of Sydney
>>>>>> Casual External Casuals?
>>>>
>>>>>> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>>>> did not have a link to a list of
>>>>>> publications.
>>>>
>>>>> Try searching on arxiv.org.
>>>>
>>>> Why is there no link to a list of publications on the web page?
>>>
>>> Because I was only working casually for the University of Sydney and I
>>> never bothered to make any changes to the webpage there. I am now
>>> working at the University of Muenster. I've been meaning to set up a
>>> webpage here.
>>>
>>>> Finding this page is about all the searching I feel like doing.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/memb?id=R.McCallum-1>
>>>>
>>>> You cannot be bothered to compile a list of links
>>>> and I will not do your work for you.
>>>
>>> I did give you two links, in a different message. Here they are again:
>>>
>>> http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/fil...memc_final.pdf
>>> http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum
>>>
>>> The first one is a publication on which I am co-author. The second
>>> gives you my Academia page which has all my pre-prints on arxiv.org,
>>> two of which have been accepted for publication. I've got a fourth
>>> paper in the pipeline.
>>>
>>>> What journals published your work?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Advances in Geometry and Mathematical Logic Quarterly have accepted
>>> two of my papers for publication, and I am co-author on a publication
>>> which appeared in an anthology called "Group Representations,
>>> Automorphic Forms, and Invariant Theory".
>>>
>>> Also an abstract of the content of my PhD thesis appeared in the
>>> Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society.
>>>
>>> Why do you care?
>>
>> I asked in response to
>> "I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good mathematician."
>
> I don't see how a guy like him could possibly obtain a PhD. In grade school
> we discussed

No, you didn't.

On Nov 29, 10:19*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:19:30 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 11/26/2012 11:23 AM, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:08:10 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:
>
> >>> In article
> >>> >,
> >>> Rupert > wrote:
>
> >>>> On Oct 16, 11:22 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >,
> >>>>> * Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Oct 15, 10:53 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> >,
>
> >>>>>>> * Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
> >>>>>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
> >>>>>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
> >>>>>>>> mathematician.
>
> >>>>>>> Dr Rupert McCallum
> >>>>>>> University of Sydney
> >>>>>>> Casual External Casuals?
>
> >>>>>>> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
> >>>>>>> did not have a link to a list of
> >>>>>>> publications.
>
> >>>>>> Try searching on arxiv.org.
>
> >>>>> Why is there no link to a list of publications on the web page?
>
> >>>> Because I was only working casually for the University of Sydney and I
> >>>> never bothered to make any changes to the webpage there. I am now
> >>>> working at the University of Muenster. I've been meaning to set up a
> >>>> webpage here.
>
> >>>>> Finding this page is about all the searching I feel like doing.
>
> >>>>> <http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/memb?id=R.McCallum-1>
>
> >>>>> You cannot be bothered to compile a list of links
> >>>>> and I will not do your work for you.
>
> >>>> I did give you two links, in a different message. Here they are again:
>
> >>>>http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/fil...memc_final.pdf
> >>>>http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum
>
> >>>> The first one is a publication on which I am co-author. The second
> >>>> gives you my Academia page which has all my pre-prints on arxiv.org,
> >>>> two of which have been accepted for publication. I've got a fourth
> >>>> paper in the pipeline.
>
> >>>>> What journals published your work?
>
> >>>> Advances in Geometry and Mathematical Logic Quarterly have accepted
> >>>> two of my papers for publication, and I am co-author on a publication
> >>>> which appeared in an anthology called "Group Representations,
> >>>> Automorphic Forms, and Invariant Theory".
>
> >>>> Also an abstract of the content of my PhD thesis appeared in the
> >>>> Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society.
>
> >>>> Why do you care?
>
> >>> I asked in response to
> >>> "I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good *mathematician."
>
> >> * * *I don't see how a guy like him could possibly obtain a PhD. In grade school
> >> we discussed the fact that some slaves had good lives and others did not. The
> >> teacher let us know that what seems like a good life and what doesn't is
>
> >Do you have a Ph.D.? *No. *So you don't know the first thing about what
> >it takes to get a Ph.D.
>
> * * So maybe a guy who doesn't believe the distinction between lives of positive
> value and negative value means anything could get a PhD, but I still don't
> believe it. I CAN'T believe it, even if it's true. From my pov he must be either
> lying about being unable to appreciate the distinction, or lying about having a
> PhD, or lying about both. In fact now that we mention it, lying about both does
> seem most likely. Goo has lied about having a PhD in economics at least twice,
> and lied about having been a marine at least once, so I've no doubt he has lied
> about many many more things plus lied more often than I'm aware of about those
> two things as well. To these people lying is only wrong if you get caught, and
> then it's just something to lie even more about.

Someone wrote this thesis, would you not agree? It wasn't just
randomly generated by some computer program.

http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis11.pdf

Do you suppose that the individual who wrote it was named Rupert
McCallum?

On 11/30/2012 12:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Nov 29, 10:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:19:30 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 11/26/2012 11:23 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:08:10 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:
>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >,
>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Oct 16, 11:22 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 10:53 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> >,
>>
>>>>>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
>>>>>>>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
>>>>>>>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
>>>>>>>>>> mathematician.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>>>>>>> University of Sydney
>>>>>>>>> Casual External Casuals?
>>
>>>>>>>>> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>>>>>>> did not have a link to a list of
>>>>>>>>> publications.
>>
>>>>>>>> Try searching on arxiv.org.
>>
>>>>>>> Why is there no link to a list of publications on the web page?
>>
>>>>>> Because I was only working casually for the University of Sydney and I
>>>>>> never bothered to make any changes to the webpage there. I am now
>>>>>> working at the University of Muenster. I've been meaning to set up a
>>>>>> webpage here.
>>
>>>>>>> Finding this page is about all the searching I feel like doing.
>>
>>>>>>> <http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/memb?id=R.McCallum-1>
>>
>>>>>>> You cannot be bothered to compile a list of links
>>>>>>> and I will not do your work for you.
>>
>>>>>> I did give you two links, in a different message. Here they are again:
>>
>>>>>> http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/fil...memc_final.pdf
>>>>>> http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum
>>
>>>>>> The first one is a publication on which I am co-author. The second
>>>>>> gives you my Academia page which has all my pre-prints on arxiv.org,
>>>>>> two of which have been accepted for publication. I've got a fourth
>>>>>> paper in the pipeline.
>>
>>>>>>> What journals published your work?
>>
>>>>>> Advances in Geometry and Mathematical Logic Quarterly have accepted
>>>>>> two of my papers for publication, and I am co-author on a publication
>>>>>> which appeared in an anthology called "Group Representations,
>>>>>> Automorphic Forms, and Invariant Theory".
>>
>>>>>> Also an abstract of the content of my PhD thesis appeared in the
>>>>>> Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society.
>>
>>>>>> Why do you care?
>>
>>>>> I asked in response to
>>>>> "I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good mathematician."
>>
>>>> I don't see how a guy like him could possibly obtain a PhD. In grade school
>>>> we discussed the fact that some slaves had good lives and others did not. The
>>>> teacher let us know that what seems like a good life and what doesn't is
>>
>>> Do you have a Ph.D.? No. So you don't know the first thing about what
>>> it takes to get a Ph.D.
>>
>> So maybe a guy who doesn't believe the distinction between lives of positive
>> value and negative value means anything could get a PhD, but I still don't
>> believe it. I CAN'T believe it, even if it's true. From my pov he must be either
>> lying about being unable to appreciate the distinction, or lying about having a
>> PhD, or lying about both. In fact now that we mention it, lying about both does
>> seem most likely. Goo has lied about having a PhD in economics at least twice,
>> and lied about having been a marine at least once, so I've no doubt he has lied
>> about many many more things plus lied more often than I'm aware of about those
>> two things as well. To these people lying is only wrong if you get caught, and
>> then it's just something to lie even more about.
>
> Someone wrote this thesis, would you not agree? It wasn't just
> randomly generated by some computer program.
>
> http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis11.pdf
>
> Do you suppose that the individual who wrote it was named Rupert
> McCallum?

Which one?

On Nov 30, 4:41*pm, Donn Messenheimer >
wrote:
> On 11/30/2012 12:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 10:19 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:19:30 -0700, Lord Infomouse >
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 11/26/2012 11:23 AM, dh@. wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:08:10 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:
>
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >,
> >>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Oct 16, 11:22 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>> * *Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 10:53 pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>> >,
>
> >>>>>>>>> * *Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
> >>>>>>>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
> >>>>>>>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
> >>>>>>>>>> mathematician.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Dr Rupert McCallum
> >>>>>>>>> University of Sydney
> >>>>>>>>> Casual External Casuals?
>
> >>>>>>>>> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
> >>>>>>>>> did not have a link to a list of
> >>>>>>>>> publications.
>
> >>>>>>>> Try searching on arxiv.org.
>
> >>>>>>> Why is there no link to a list of publications on the web page?
>
> >>>>>> Because I was only working casually for the University of Sydney and I
> >>>>>> never bothered to make any changes to the webpage there. I am now
> >>>>>> working at the University of Muenster. I've been meaning to set up a
> >>>>>> webpage here.
>
> >>>>>>> Finding this page is about all the searching I feel like doing.
>
> >>>>>>> <http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/s/memb?id=R.McCallum-1>
>
> >>>>>>> You cannot be bothered to compile a list of links
> >>>>>>> and I will not do your work for you.
>
> >>>>>> I did give you two links, in a different message. Here they are again:
>
> >>>>>>http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/fil...memc_final.pdf
> >>>>>>http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum
>
> >>>>>> The first one is a publication on which I am co-author. The second
> >>>>>> gives you my Academia page which has all my pre-prints on arxiv.org,
> >>>>>> two of which have been accepted for publication. I've got a fourth
> >>>>>> paper in the pipeline.
>
> >>>>>>> What journals published your work?
>
> >>>>>> Advances in Geometry and Mathematical Logic Quarterly have accepted
> >>>>>> two of my papers for publication, and I am co-author on a publication
> >>>>>> which appeared in an anthology called "Group Representations,
> >>>>>> Automorphic Forms, and Invariant Theory".
>
> >>>>>> Also an abstract of the content of my PhD thesis appeared in the
> >>>>>> Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society.
>
> >>>>>> Why do you care?
>
> >>>>> I asked in response to
> >>>>> "I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good *mathematician."
>
> >>>> * * * I don't see how a guy like him could possibly obtain a PhD. In grade school
> >>>> we discussed the fact that some slaves had good lives and others did not. The
> >>>> teacher let us know that what seems like a good life and what doesn't is
>
> >>> Do you have a Ph.D.? *No. *So you don't know the first thing about what
> >>> it takes to get a Ph.D.
>
> >> * * *So maybe a guy who doesn't believe the distinction between lives of positive
> >> value and negative value means anything could get a PhD, but I still don't
> >> believe it. I CAN'T believe it, even if it's true. From my pov he must be either
> >> lying about being unable to appreciate the distinction, or lying about having a
> >> PhD, or lying about both. In fact now that we mention it, lying about both does
> >> seem most likely. Goo has lied about having a PhD in economics at least twice,
> >> and lied about having been a marine at least once, so I've no doubt he has lied
> >> about many many more things plus lied more often than I'm aware of about those
> >> two things as well. To these people lying is only wrong if you get caught, and
> >> then it's just something to lie even more about.
>
> > Someone wrote this thesis, would you not agree? It wasn't just
> > randomly generated by some computer program.
>
> >http://rupertmccallum.com/thesis11.pdf
>
> > Do you suppose that the individual who wrote it was named Rupert
> > McCallum?
>
> Which one?

I don't know if I understand the question. Which individual who wrote
this thesis, you mean? Are you suggested the thesis might have been co-
authored by more than one person? That's a possibility, sure. Of
course, it states on the front page of the thesis that it was written
by Rupert McCallum, and I also claim that I, Rupert McCallum, wrote
the thesis. Furthermore I imagine that the University of New South
Wales would be able to confirm that they awarded a PhD degree to an
individual named Rupert McCallum for a thesis entitled
"Generalizations of the Fundamental Theorem of Projective Geometry",
you could probably even find that on their alumni page, I would think.