Help trying to help someone learn something

[Flourgen]

Hello,

I've been discussing things with a person who is a vegan and wants to see the
elimination of all domestic animals. This person is an adult but doesn't seem
capable of comprehending basic aspects of life that myself and the other members
of my class had no problem with in 6th grade. Also my father had discussed such
things regarding the pets we had for as far back as I can remember. The most
basic aspect is that life can have positive value for a being, or negative
value. In 6th grade we discussed that in regards to human slavery in the US, and
no one seemed to have a problem comprehending even though we'd always been led
to believe that slavery is bad so that aspect could have been a problem for some
people but I don't recall anyone having trouble with it.

The value of life for an individual can also change and often does, but if
someone can't get as "far" as the most basic positive/negative value aspect, how
could they possibly move on? Maybe they're not mentally capable. I've often
wondered if the person I'm referring to might be mentally handicapped.

The person says I need to provide a definition and "draw a line" between
positive and negative value. I've mentioned that because many/most beings on
this planet often put considerable effort into trying to remain alive that is an
indication that in general life has positive value, but that because some humans
kill themselves or make an honest attempt to it shows us that life sometimes has
negative value. Since it's different for each human being there's no way to draw
a line for everybody. Some people who appear to be having a good life kill
themselves, while some other people who appear to be having a terrible life seem
to enjoy it at least to the point that they don't wish to die, and some such
people even appear to be happy. Since we know there's that much difference
between humans, there's likely to be similar difference between different types
of animals and also between different individual animals within the different
types. So to try to simplify it for this person I point out that in general life
appears to be of positive value unless there's enough suffering, physical and/or
mental, to cause it to be of negative value. The person still not only can't
comprehend the distinction as I explain it, nor why a distinct line can't be
drawn, but can't comprehend any explanation or distinction for their self. Can
anyone help provide an explanation that such an overly challenged person might
be able to comprehend, or do you think they're probably just not mentally
equipped to ever understand at all?

Thank you for any help if any help is possible,
Flourgen

[WilburMu...@emailmenot.fu]

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 00:19:10 -0400, Flourgen Fl@rgenstein. wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I've been discussing things with a person who is a vegan and wants to see the
>elimination of all domestic animals. This person is an adult but doesn't seem
>capable of comprehending basic aspects of life that myself and the other members
>of my class had no problem with in 6th grade. Also my father had discussed such
>things regarding the pets we had for as far back as I can remember. The most
>basic aspect is that life can have positive value for a being, or negative
>value. In 6th grade we discussed that in regards to human slavery in the US, and
>no one seemed to have a problem comprehending even though we'd always been led
>to believe that slavery is bad so that aspect could have been a problem for some
>people but I don't recall anyone having trouble with it.

You're referring to two entirely different trains of thought, though the
dishonest eliminationists like to pretend they are what they most certainly are
not in order to gain millions more dollars to support their true objective.
People who want to see domestic animals enjoy lives which are of positive value
to them are animal welfare supporters. Those people encourage and support laws
and regulations which result in lives of positive value for animals which are
dependant on their lives to the humans who raise them.

Eliminationists who often hide their true objective by using the gross misnomer
"animal rights activists" do NOT want rights for domestic animals, decent lives
for domestic animals or anything at all for domestic animals. Those people want
to completely eliminate domestic animals, regardless of what the quality of
their lives could be.

>The value of life for an individual can also change and often does, but if
>someone can't get as "far" as the most basic positive/negative value aspect, how
>could they possibly move on? Maybe they're not mentally capable. I've often
>wondered if the person I'm referring to might be mentally handicapped.

All people who favor elimination over decent lives for domestic animals are
necessarily mentally handicapped. They're not capable of considering the fact
that many domestic animals experience lives of positive value because it works
against what they WANT TO believe. People in that position either always hated
the taste of meat and later learned to justify their hatred of animals raised
for food, or/and at some point were shocked into the eliminationist position by
eliminationist propaganda which most often is a very dishonest potrayal of human
influence on animals.

>The person says I need to provide a definition and "draw a line" between
>positive and negative value. I've mentioned that because many/most beings on
>this planet often put considerable effort into trying to remain alive that is an
>indication that in general life has positive value, but that because some humans
>kill themselves or make an honest attempt to it shows us that life sometimes has
>negative value. Since it's different for each human being there's no way to draw
>a line for everybody. Some people who appear to be having a good life kill
>themselves, while some other people who appear to be having a terrible life seem
>to enjoy it at least to the point that they don't wish to die, and some such
>people even appear to be happy. Since we know there's that much difference
>between humans, there's likely to be similar difference between different types
>of animals and also between different individual animals within the different
>types. So to try to simplify it for this person I point out that in general life
>appears to be of positive value unless there's enough suffering, physical and/or
>mental, to cause it to be of negative value. The person still not only can't
>comprehend the distinction as I explain it, nor why a distinct line can't be
>drawn, but can't comprehend any explanation or distinction for their self.

Though such people are not mentally equiped to consider the details associated
with topics like that, they often consider themselves to be authorities on
subjects they're not mentally capable of appreciating at all.

>Can
>anyone help provide an explanation that such an overly challenged person might
>be able to comprehend, or do you think they're probably just not mentally
>equipped to ever understand at all?
>
>Thank you for any help if any help is possible,
>Flourgen

None is possible. If the person was mentally capable of comprehending what you
pointed out for them, they would already have comprehended long before you
pointed it out for them.