On 7/10/2012 1:02 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:08:25 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik >:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>>
>>>>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>>>
>>>> Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
>>>> error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.
>>>
>>> Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
>>> negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
>>> raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
>>> them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
>>> value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
>>> only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
>>> of positive value to a being without actually being "good".
>>
>> Maybe the reason he "can't comprehend it" is the fact that
>> "positive value", "good", "negative value" and "bad" are all
>> subjective value judgements, and as such have no intrinsic
>> meaning, something he appears to know and you don't.
>
> In contrast to that

No.

"Getting to experience life" is of no meaning or value to animals.