On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>I do have to agree with them in that eating
>meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if livestock
>farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
.. . .
>Unlike me they intuitively believe
>that the best policy is one that can bring about the most happiness in the
>world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery, because that
>misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be disregarded.

Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life I'm curious if
any of you try to present the absurd position that you:

"don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of
negative value" means anything."

It's an easy concept to understand and so far I've never discussed it with
anyone in person who had the slightest problem comprehending or recognising the
significance of that aspect of the situation. But Doctor Ru tries to pretend he
doesn't "believe the distinction" "means anything", so I'm wondering
specifically if you try to pull that trick on your kids or grand kids, and how
they respond to it if/when you do try. Again, please TRY to be honest.