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.

On 4/29/2016 9:03 AM, ****wit David Harrison - just "****wit" as he's
usually known - bullshitted:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>
>> I do have to agree with them in that eating
>> meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if livestock
>> farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
> . . .
>> Unlike me they intuitively believe
>> that the best policy is one that can bring about the most happiness in the
>> world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery, because that
>> misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be disregarded.
>
> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life I'm curious if
> any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>
> "don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of
> negative value" means anything."

No, the issue is that *you* can't say how you can tell one from the
other in fact.


> significance of that aspect of the situation.

LOL! "Aspect of the situation" - you just sound stupid when you try to
sound erudite.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 09:17:01 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:03:14 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>
>>>I do have to agree with them in that eating
>>>meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if livestock
>>>farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
>>. . .
>>>Unlike me they intuitively believe
>>>that the best policy is one that can bring about the most happiness in the
>>>world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery, because that
>>>misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be disregarded.
>>
>> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life I'm curious if
>>any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>>
>>"don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of
>>negative value" means anything."
>>
>>It's an easy concept to understand and so far I've never discussed it with
>>anyone in person who had the slightest problem comprehending or recognising the
>>significance of that aspect of the situation.
>
>LOL! "Aspect of the situation" - you just sound

Only to someone who can't comprehend or recognise the significance of the
aspects of any situations, Goo.

>>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.

On 5/12/2016 5:31 PM, mur@. wrote:
> On 4/29/2016 9:17 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 4/29/2016 9:03 AM, ****wit David Harrison - just "****wit" as he's
>> usually known - bullshitted:
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do have to agree with them in that eating
>>>> meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if
>>>> livestock
>>>> farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
>>> . . .
>>>> Unlike me they intuitively believe
>>>> that the best policy is one that can bring about the most happiness
>>>> in the
>>>> world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery, because
>>>> that
>>>> misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be
>>>> disregarded.
>>>
>>> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life I'm
>>> curious if
>>> any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>>>
>>> "don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>>> "lives of
>>> negative value" means anything."
>>
>> No, the issue is that *you* can't say how you can tell one from the
>> other in fact.
>>
>>
>>> significance of that aspect of the situation.
>>
>> LOL! "Aspect of the situation" - you just sound stupid when you try to
>> sound erudite.
>
> Only to someone who can't comprehend or recognise the significance of the
> aspects of any situations

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

It is not morally "significant" in any way that livestock animals "get
to experience life." Only the products matter.

On Thu, 12 May 2016 18:09:07 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 12 May 2016 20:31:31 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 09:17:01 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:03:14 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I do have to agree with them in that eating
>>>>>meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if livestock
>>>>>farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
>>>>. . .
>>>>>Unlike me they intuitively believe
>>>>>that the best policy is one that can bring about the most happiness in the
>>>>>world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery, because that
>>>>>misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be disregarded.
>>>>
>>>> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life I'm curious if
>>>>any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>>>>
>>>>"don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of
>>>>negative value" means anything."
>>>>
>>>>It's an easy concept to understand and so far I've never discussed it with
>>>>anyone in person who had the slightest problem comprehending or recognising the
>>>>significance of that aspect of the situation.
>>>
>>>LOL! "Aspect of the situation" - you just sound
>>
>> Only to someone who can't comprehend or recognise the significance of the
>>aspects of any situations, Goo.
>
>There is no "significance" to any "aspects" of any "situation"

For you people not to anything that supports lives of positive value for any
domestic animals Goob. And maybe as you say there is no significance to any
aspects of any situations at all to you people, Goo.

>>>>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.
>
>It is not morally "significant" in any way that livestock animals "get
>to experience life." Only the products matter.

Of course you people feel the same way about all wildlife, Goo.

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

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