|
|
 | | From: | JonathanBallCitizenBenfezWilsonWoodsRadicalModerateBingoEdwardGeorgeBillFredMyst | | Subject: | No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:14:00 GMT |
|
|
 | No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
you say they do is that coming into existence is
"better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
They don't. They are not better off for having
existed, versus never having existed.
|
|
| | From: | Jay Santos | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | 14 Jan 2005 14:35:48 -0800 |
|
|
| Zap wrote:
> > "Jay Santos" wrote in message
> > news:1105741287.006384.92180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> I'm sorry, ignore that last remark.
> I'm just making fun of you.
No, you're not. You're making fun of yourself. You ought to get
professional counseling.
|
|
| | From: | Zap | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:40:56 GMT |
|
|
|
"Jay Santos" wrote in message
news:1105742148.026827.36360@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Zap wrote:
> > > "Jay Santos" wrote in message
> > > news:1105741287.006384.92180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry, ignore that last remark.
> > I'm just making fun of you.
>
> No, you're not. You're making fun of yourself. You ought to get
> professional counseling.
>
And this from a man that doesn't believe he should exist!
If you don't believe you should ever have been born then why do you make
such a fuss?
Surely you have been born FOR THIS PURPOSE!
|
|
| | From: | Jay Santos | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | 14 Jan 2005 14:29:28 -0800 |
|
|
| Zap wrote:
> "Jay Santos" wrote in message
> news:1105741287.006384.92180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Zap wrote:
> > > "Jay Santos" wrote in message
> > > news:1105737296.771339.182040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > > Let that be a lesson to you. Drunkenness is not admirable.
Just
> > ask
> > > > Ray Slater's wife (you'll have to get David Nash off of her,
> > first).
> > > > Ray gets shit-his-pants drunk all the time, and has brought the
> > entire
> > > > family into low regard.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'd rather be a drunken sot than a pompous ass thanks all the
same.
> > You seem, unfortunately, to be both.
> >
>
> Actually I am not drunk at all I just said that.
Then what's the problem? Brain damage?
> I looked up the alternative spelling to non sequitur
There isn't one. That is THE spelling. There is only one.
|
|
| | From: | Zap | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:37:19 GMT |
|
|
|
"Jay Santos" wrote in message
news:1105741768.235532.16680@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Then what's the problem? Brain damage?
Got it in one. Sorry I don't have a pertinent Latin phrase for this
auspicious occasion (sic)
> > I looked up the alternative spelling to non sequitur
> There isn't one. That is THE spelling. There is only one.
You must be using an old dictionary, it was revised by John & Mills 2003 to
include an i
Non Sequitiur.
|
|
| | From: | Zap | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:18:06 GMT |
|
|
|
"JonathanBallCitizenBenfezWilsonWoodsRadicalModerateBingoEdwardGeorgeBillFre
dMyst" wrote in message
news:hf9gu0t2lmnng7qdroj7j90b4vgk8tgcb0@4ax.com...
> No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
> you say they do is that coming into existence is
> "better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
>
> They don't. They are not better off for having
> existed, versus never having existed.
Some life forms come into existence as plankton - are you saying they should
not exist even though they keep the fishes alive?
Anything is better off for having existed, for having had a chance - should
flowers and trees and birds not exist?
In fact - should NOTHING exist?
|
|
| | From: | J.Roo | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | 14 Jan 2005 19:12:09 -0800 |
|
|
|
JonathanBallCitizenBenfezWilsonWoodsRadicalModerateBingoEdwardGeorgeBillFredMyst
wrote:
> No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
> you say they do is that coming into existence is
> "better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
>
> They don't. They are not better off for having
> existed, versus never having existed.
Life has pain and pleasure, good and bad. Let us call the good +values
and the bad -values. Now align the experiences of Life onto the number
line.
We get things like -800,+45,0,77,+700...
What value(s) do you think Death or Non-existence has? And how do you
know that?
|
|
| | From: | Jay Santos | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | 14 Jan 2005 14:34:38 -0800 |
|
|
| d...@nomail.com wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2005 12:56:13 -0800,
> Jay Santos wrote:
>
> >Immortalist wrote:
> >> Mr Harrison wrote in message
news:hf9gu0t2lmnng7qdroj7j90b4vgk8tgcb0@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> > No animals "benefit" from farming.
> >>
> >> To begin, can you describe the "conditions" for having had
> >"benefited" from
> >> farming and create a difference by distinction between animals and
> >all other
> >> objects in the world that can and cannot bebefit in such ways.
> >>
> >> Aren't farm animals like welfare maggots in that they get what
they
> >would
> >> have to normally struggle for in the wilds, but instead fo free?
> >
> >No, to begin, you're going to have to ask this of the person who
REALLY
> >posted the message. It's David "Fuckwit" Harrison,
dh_ld@nomail.com.
> >He took what someone else wrote,
>
> LOL! You wrote it
YOU reposted it, under a fabricated name.
>
> >and reposted it under a made up (and
> >extremely childishly strung together) collection of "nyms".
>
> Which you post using.
No, I do not.
>
> >In fact,
> >he has correctly quoted someone, but that "someone" was replying to,
> >and refuting,
>
> You didn't refute anything.
I refuted everything you said.
> You simply insisted that life is not a benefit
It isn't.
> without backing it up.
I backed it up. I demonstrated that it CANNOT be a benefit. A benefit
is something that improves the welfare of an entity. Coming into
existence does not improve the welfare of the entity that comes into
existence.
>
> >Fuckwit's silly belief that farm animals "benefit" by
> >coming into existence.
> >
> >The correct place to begin your inquiry is with Fuckwit.
>
> No.
Yes. Your belief that coming into existence improves the welfare of
the entity that comes into existence is an absurdity.
The correct place for this poster to being his inquiry is with YOU, for
holding an absurd belief.
> >What you need
> >to get him to explain is why he believes that an entity "benefits"
by
> >coming into existence.
>
> Life is the benefit
Life is not a benefit. Coming into existence is not a benefit to the
entity that comes into existence. This is established beyond
refutation. The very definition of "benefit" means that my claim MUST
be true.
>
> >I can tell you right now that he won't explain
> >it, but you seem to be someone with a very low time value, so
perhaps
> >you won't mind wasting quite a lot of time with Fuckwit. Anyway,
> >that's how I suggest you proceed if you're interested: ask David
> >Fuckwit Harrison, who uses the fictitious e-mail address
> >"dh_ld@nomail.com", why he believes that being conceived and born is
> >"better" than never existing. Good luck.
>
> No
Yes. You cannot explain why being born is a benefit, except to try to
change the definitions mid-stream.
Life per se - that is, coming into existence - is not a benefit. It
cannot be one.
|
|
| | From: | dh_ld at nomail.com | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:06:08 GMT |
|
|
| On 14 Jan 2005 14:34:38 -0800, the Gonad wrote:
>d...@nomail.com wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 2005 12:56:13 -0800,
>> the Gonad wrote:
>>
>> >Immortalist wrote:
>> >> Mr Harrison wrote in message
>news:hf9gu0t2lmnng7qdroj7j90b4vgk8tgcb0@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> > No animals "benefit" from farming.
>> >>
>> >> To begin, can you describe the "conditions" for having had
>> >"benefited" from
>> >> farming and create a difference by distinction between animals and
>> >all other
>> >> objects in the world that can and cannot bebefit in such ways.
>> >>
>> >> Aren't farm animals like welfare maggots in that they get what
>they
>> >would
>> >> have to normally struggle for in the wilds, but instead fo free?
>> >
>> >No, to begin, you're going to have to ask this of the person who
>REALLY
>> >posted the message. It's David "Fuckwit" Harrison,
>dh_ld@nomail.com.
>> >He took what someone else wrote,
>>
>> LOL! You wrote it
>
>YOU reposted it,
You wrote it.
>under a fabricated name.
>
>>
>> >and reposted it under a made up (and
>> >extremely childishly strung together) collection of "nyms".
>>
>> Which you post using.
>
>No, I do not.
We know you post as, and think of yourself as being:
Jonathan Ball
Citizen
Benfez
Wilson Woods
Radical Moderate
Bingo
Edward
George
Bill
Fred
Mystery Poster
Merlin the dog
Bob the dog
silvia@onairos.com
elvira
Dieter
"Dieter d.Schmidt@deutsche_telekom.de"
Abner Hale
Roger Whitaker
Fucktard
Apoo
Ted Bell
notgenx32@yahoo.com
Jay Santos
mortons.steakhouse@chicago.not
Rudy Canoza
>> >In fact,
>> >he has correctly quoted someone, but that "someone" was replying to,
>> >and refuting,
>>
>> You didn't refute anything.
>
>I refuted everything you said.
No. You didn't refute anything, as a matter of fact.
>> You simply insisted that life is not a benefit
>
>It isn't.
>
>> without backing it up.
>
>I backed it up. I demonstrated that it CANNOT be a benefit.
It is a benefit.
>A benefit
>is something that improves the welfare of an entity.
Life allows zygotes to grow into beings who can and
do benefit from many things, meaning that life is the benefit
which makes all others possible.
If life were not the benefit which makes all others possible
you could explain how something that's not alive can benefit,
but it could not and we know it.
>Coming into
>existence does not improve the welfare of the entity that comes into
>existence.
>
>>
>> >Fuckwit's silly belief that farm animals "benefit" by
>> >coming into existence.
>> >
>> >The correct place to begin your inquiry is with Fuckwit.
>>
>> No.
>
>Yes. Your belief that coming into existence improves the welfare of
>the entity that comes into existence is an absurdity.
>
>The correct place for this poster to being his inquiry is with YOU, for
>holding an absurd belief.
>
>> >What you need
>> >to get him to explain is why he believes that an entity "benefits"
>by
>> >coming into existence.
>>
>> Life is the benefit
>
>Life is not a benefit. Coming into existence is not a benefit to the
>entity that comes into existence. This is established beyond
>refutation. The very definition of "benefit" means that my claim MUST
>be true.
As yet you have not, and in the future you will not, provide a definition
that backs up what you claim.
>> >I can tell you right now that he won't explain
>> >it, but you seem to be someone with a very low time value, so
>perhaps
>> >you won't mind wasting quite a lot of time with Fuckwit. Anyway,
>> >that's how I suggest you proceed if you're interested: ask David
>> >Fuckwit Harrison, who uses the fictitious e-mail address
>> >"dh_ld@nomail.com", why he believes that being conceived and born is
>> >"better" than never existing. Good luck.
>>
>> No
>
>Yes. You cannot explain why being born is a benefit,
Sure I can. It allows the fetus to become a being independant
from its mother or egg. It allows the new being to see, hear, smell,
taste and feel things which it could not before being born. It allows
the new being to consume different types of nourishment. It allows
the new being to have much greater freedom of movement. It allows
the new being to have much greater understanding of the world
around it. It allows the new being to interact with its mother. It allows
the new being to interact with others of its kind. It allows the new
being to grow far larger than it could within its mother. If it was never
born then it would end up soon dying and so would its mother.
>except to try to
>change the definitions mid-stream.
>
>Life per se - that is, coming into existence - is not a benefit. It
>cannot be one.
|
|
| | From: | Ray | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Sat, 15 Jan 2005 01:19:46 +0000 (UTC) |
|
|
|
"Jay Santos" wrote in message
news:1105742078.422662.32460@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> d...@nomail.com wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 2005 12:56:13 -0800,
>> Jay Santos wrote: Shite
>
> Life per se - that is, coming into existence - is not a benefit. It
> cannot be one.
In your case ~~Jonnie~~, you are correct:-)
Now FOAD.
>
|
|
| | From: | Jay Santos | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | 14 Jan 2005 12:56:13 -0800 |
|
|
| Immortalist wrote:
> Fuckwit David Harrison, beer-dive cleanup boy pretending to be
someone else,
> wrote in message news:hf9gu0t2lmnng7qdroj7j90b4vgk8tgcb0@4ax.com...
>
> > No animals "benefit" from farming.
>
> To begin, can you describe the "conditions" for having had
"benefited" from
> farming and create a difference by distinction between animals and
all other
> objects in the world that can and cannot bebefit in such ways.
>
> Aren't farm animals like welfare maggots in that they get what they
would
> have to normally struggle for in the wilds, but instead fo free?
No, to begin, you're going to have to ask this of the person who REALLY
posted the message. It's David "Fuckwit" Harrison, dh_ld@nomail.com.
He took what someone else wrote, and reposted it under a made up (and
extremely childishly strung together) collection of "nyms". In fact,
he has correctly quoted someone, but that "someone" was replying to,
and refuting, Fuckwit's silly belief that farm animals "benefit" by
coming into existence.
The correct place to begin your inquiry is with Fuckwit. What you need
to get him to explain is why he believes that an entity "benefits" by
coming into existence. I can tell you right now that he won't explain
it, but you seem to be someone with a very low time value, so perhaps
you won't mind wasting quite a lot of time with Fuckwit. Anyway,
that's how I suggest you proceed if you're interested: ask David
Fuckwit Harrison, who uses the fictitious e-mail address
"dh_ld@nomail.com", why he believes that being conceived and born is
"better" than never existing. Good luck.
|
|
| | From: | dh_ld at nomail.com | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:26:11 GMT |
|
|
| On 14 Jan 2005 12:56:13 -0800,
Jonathan Ball/Citizen/Benfez/Wilson Woods/Radical Moderate/
Bingo/Edward/George/Bill/Fred/Mystery Poster/Merlin the dog/
Bob the dog/silvia@onairos.com/elvira/Dieter/Abner Hale/
Roger Whitaker/Fucktard/Apoo/Ted Bell/notgenx32@yahoo.com/
Jay Santos/mortons.steakhouse@chicago.not/Rudy Canoza...
aka the Gonad wrote:
>Immortalist wrote:
>> Mr Harrison wrote in message news:hf9gu0t2lmnng7qdroj7j90b4vgk8tgcb0@4ax.com...
>>
>> > No animals "benefit" from farming.
>>
>> To begin, can you describe the "conditions" for having had
>"benefited" from
>> farming and create a difference by distinction between animals and
>all other
>> objects in the world that can and cannot bebefit in such ways.
>>
>> Aren't farm animals like welfare maggots in that they get what they
>would
>> have to normally struggle for in the wilds, but instead fo free?
>
>No, to begin, you're going to have to ask this of the person who REALLY
>posted the message. It's David "Fuckwit" Harrison, dh_ld@nomail.com.
>He took what someone else wrote,
LOL! You wrote it Gonad. You really are hilarious.
>and reposted it under a made up (and
>extremely childishly strung together) collection of "nyms".
Which you post using.
>In fact,
>he has correctly quoted someone,
That's you.
>but that "someone" was
You.
>replying to,
>and refuting,
You didn't refute anything. You simply insisted that life is
not a benefit without backing it up.
>Fuckwit's silly belief that farm animals "benefit" by
>coming into existence.
>
>The correct place to begin your inquiry is with Fuckwit.
No. The correct place to begin is with the person who wrote
it, which is you Gonad. Notice that as you try to slink and slime
your way out of something stupid that you said, you're cowardly
trying to get people to attack he who presented it (that's me)
instead of you who said it. Yes, you noticed, and I noticed, and
hopefully anyone reading will notice too.
>What you need
>to get him to explain is why he believes that an entity "benefits" by
>coming into existence.
Life is the benefit which makes all others possible. Otherwise
you're just a zygote dead in the water, and that's all you'll ever be.
>I can tell you right now that he won't explain
>it, but you seem to be someone with a very low time value, so perhaps
>you won't mind wasting quite a lot of time with Fuckwit. Anyway,
>that's how I suggest you proceed if you're interested: ask David
>Fuckwit Harrison, who uses the fictitious e-mail address
>"dh_ld@nomail.com", why he believes that being conceived and born is
>"better" than never existing. Good luck.
No Gonad. You need to explain why it is "better" to never exist,
because you're saying it is NOT better to exist.
|
|
| | From: | Jay Santos | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | 14 Jan 2005 19:21:23 -0800 |
|
|
| J.Roo wrote:
> David Fuckwit Harrison, using a stupid fabricated ID, reposted
something someone
> else originally wrote as:
>
> > No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
> > you say they do is that coming into existence is
> > "better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
> >
> > They don't. They are not better off for having
> > existed, versus never having existed.
>
>
> Life has pain and pleasure, good and bad. Let us call the good
+values
> and the bad -values. Now align the experiences of Life onto the
number
> line.
> We get things like -800,+45,0,77,+700...
>
> What value(s) do you think Death or Non-existence has? And how do you
> know that?
Forget this crap. You have been trolled into talk.politics.animals by
David Harrison, on the stupidest of pretexts. He trolled, and you bit.
Sorry you wasted your time.
The fact is, life _per se_, or initial existence, cannot be a benefit
to an entity. A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an
entity. As the entity didn't exist, it didn't have a welfare to be
improved by coming into existence. Therefore, coming into existence is
not a benefit.
If you want to follow this further, subscribe to talk.politics.animals.
|
|
| | From: | dh_ld at nomail.com | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:08:33 GMT |
|
|
| On 14 Jan 2005 19:21:23 -0800, the Gonad wrote:
>J.Roo wrote:
>> David Fuckwit Harrison, using a stupid fabricated ID, reposted
>something someone
>> else
That's you.
>> originally wrote as:
>>
>> > No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
>> > you say they do is that coming into existence is
>> > "better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
>> >
>> > They don't. They are not better off for having
>> > existed, versus never having existed.
>>
>>
>> Life has pain and pleasure, good and bad. Let us call the good
>+values
>> and the bad -values. Now align the experiences of Life onto the
>number
>> line.
>> We get things like -800,+45,0,77,+700...
>>
>> What value(s) do you think Death or Non-existence has? And how do you
>> know that?
That's what I asked him...
>Forget this crap.
...and as we can see he doesn't like trying to back up his claim.
>You have been trolled into talk.politics.animals by
>David Harrison, on the stupidest of pretexts. He trolled, and you bit.
>Sorry you wasted your time.
>
>The fact is, life _per se_, or initial existence, cannot be a benefit
>to an entity.
Life is the benefit which allows zygotes to grow into organisms
who can benefit from more things, meaning that life is the benefit
which makes all others possible. Duh.
>A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an
>entity. As the entity didn't exist, it didn't have a welfare to be
>improved by coming into existence. Therefore, coming into existence is
>not a benefit.
>If you want to follow this further, subscribe to talk.politics.animals.
Why do you keep trying to slink away and hide from your
own claim?
What horrible thing(s) are you afraid might happen if people
tried to deliberately contribute to decent lives for farm animals
with their lifestlye?
|
|
| | From: | Jay Santos | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | 14 Jan 2005 14:21:27 -0800 |
|
|
|
Zap wrote:
> "Jay Santos" wrote in message
> news:1105737296.771339.182040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Let that be a lesson to you. Drunkenness is not admirable. Just
ask
> > Ray Slater's wife (you'll have to get David Nash off of her,
first).
> > Ray gets shit-his-pants drunk all the time, and has brought the
entire
> > family into low regard.
> >
>
> I'd rather be a drunken sot than a pompous ass thanks all the same.
You seem, unfortunately, to be both.
|
|
| | From: | Zap | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:23:20 GMT |
|
|
|
"Jay Santos" wrote in message
news:1105741287.006384.92180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Zap wrote:
> > "Jay Santos" wrote in message
> > news:1105737296.771339.182040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > Let that be a lesson to you. Drunkenness is not admirable. Just
> ask
> > > Ray Slater's wife (you'll have to get David Nash off of her,
> first).
> > > Ray gets shit-his-pants drunk all the time, and has brought the
> entire
> > > family into low regard.
> > >
> >
> > I'd rather be a drunken sot than a pompous ass thanks all the same.
> You seem, unfortunately, to be both.
>
Actually I am not drunk at all I just said that.
I looked up the alternative spelling to non sequitur and what I have said
was purely to save your male pride.
I would rather say that I was drunk than actually attempt to try and tell a
man that he is WRONG!
GOD FORBID!
(Especially a pompous one!)
I bet you have a moustache an' all!!!
|
|
| | From: | Zap | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:25:08 GMT |
|
|
| > "Jay Santos" wrote in message
> news:1105741287.006384.92180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I'm sorry, ignore that last remark.
I'm just making fun of you.
Apologies but I enjoy the ridiculous.
And you sir
Are ridiculous.
|
|
| | From: | Tim | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:03:54 -0500 |
|
|
|
"JonathanBallCitizenBenfezWilsonWoodsRadicalModerateBingoEdwardGeorgeBillFredMyst"
wrote in message
news:hf9gu0t2lmnng7qdroj7j90b4vgk8tgcb0@4ax.com...
> No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
> you say they do is that coming into existence is
> "better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
>
> They don't. They are not better off for having
> existed, versus never having existed.
I'm an animal and I certainly benefit from farming. I don't know a thing
about growing, harvesting, and storing food. Without those farmers and their
knowledge most people on this rock would have died years ago. Ergo your
universal negation stands negated. Have a nice day.
|
|
| | From: | dh_ld at nomail.com | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:46:17 GMT |
|
|
| On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:03:54 -0500, "Tim" wrote:
>
>"JonathanBallCitizenBenfezWilsonWoodsRadicalModerateBingoEdwardGeorgeBillFredMyst"
> wrote in message
>news:hf9gu0t2lmnng7qdroj7j90b4vgk8tgcb0@4ax.com...
>> No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
>> you say they do is that coming into existence is
>> "better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
>>
>> They don't. They are not better off for having
>> existed, versus never having existed.
>
>I'm an animal and I certainly benefit from farming. I don't know a thing
>about growing, harvesting, and storing food. Without those farmers and their
>knowledge most people on this rock would have died years ago. Ergo your
>universal negation stands negated. Have a nice day.
The Gonad is insisting that life has never been a benefit
for any living creature. Not even one. Not ever. He also feels
that being born is not a benefit to animals:
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,misc.rural,uk.business.agriculture
Subject: Re: No loss to the animals
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:53:59 GMT
NO animals "benefit" from being born
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Way to go, Dutch - you just made Fuckwit's argument for him.
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:09:49 GMT
No animal benefits from being born. Period.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Way to go, Fuckwit - you just showed AGAIN that you are an idiot
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:12:48 GMT
NO animals benefit from being born, Fuckwit. None.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: alt.food.vegan
Subject: Re: Riddle: What am I?
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:16:38 GMT
NO animals benefit from being born
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: No need for farm animals. (more logic of the larder) Attn. Jonathan
Ball
Message-ID: <7u1Qb.22707$1e.4476@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:33:07 GMT
NO animal benefits from being born
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Subject: FUCKWIT'S "getting to experience life" crapola = the (il)logic of
the larder
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 07:53:46 GMT
Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,misc.rural,uk.business.agriculture
Subject: Re: Fuckwit continues to babble
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:20:32 GMT
NO animals 'benefit' from being born, Fuckwit. Not a
single one.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Re: "getting to experience life" = the (il)logic of the larder
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 17:53:53 GMT
Being born is not a benefit, FUCKWIT; it cannot be.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
It may be that he's stupider than you thought. Even though
I've pointed out that the unborn animal and its mother would
both die if the animal is never born, Gonad insists being born
is not a benefit.
All of it is his attempt to refute the fact that some farm
animals benefit from farming and some don't. "ARAs" only
want people to consider those that do not, and we can see
they are so desperate to keep it that way that they insist
life has never been a benefit for anything:
_________________________________________________________
Message-ID: <3E3EF9E2.4090906@whitehouse.net>
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Just Curious...
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 23:22:32 GMT
Life is not a "benefit"
[...]
Repeat after me, Fuckwit: life, itself, cannot be a
"benefit".
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Initial existence is NOT a benefit
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:12:20 GMT
Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit to any
creature.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.philosophy
Subject: Re: The evidence: MOST meat eaters do not believe in the illogic
of the larder
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 22:46:32 GMT
You are wrong, JethroDonkeyFucktardMoron: life is not
a "benefit". It can't be.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy,alt.philosophy.debate,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: If life is a benefit...
Message-ID: <%s4zb.25383$n56.22354@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:02:35 GMT
1. Life per se is not a benefit.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Re: David, stop dodging
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 23:00:34 -0800
Message-ID: <3DCE0412.DE82876C@netscape.com>
Life itself is not a benefit
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Re: "getting to experience life" = the (il)logic of the larder
Message-ID: <4YiWb.23450$uM2.3964@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 05:20:00 GMT
Life per se is not a benefit at all. It
can't be.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.philosophy,sci.agriculture,alt.food.vegan,alt.sci.sociology
Subject: Re: Why is Fuckwit David Harrison (Atlanta, GA) so horribly afraid
to answer simple and good questions?
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 20:51:20 GMT
"Life" is not a benefit
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Special for Dreck: Fuckwit's contradiction
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 23:08:13 -0800
Lines: 104
Message-ID: <3DD1FA5D.D7C55413@netscape.com>
"Life" is not a benefit
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups:
alt.philosophy,alt.philosophy.debate,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Re: Pure exploitation of animals - a troll by David Fuckwit Harrison
Message-ID: <8pUnb.6916$Px2.5155@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:19:32 GMT
I have examined the question at length, and feel
there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
is not a benefit.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
|
|
| | From: | AE | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:09:05 +0100 |
|
|
| Jonathan wrote:
> No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
> you say they do is that coming into existence is
> "better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
>
> They don't. They are not better off for having
> existed, versus never having existed.
I couldn't tell - indeed nobody can tell, except maybe the animal itself.
|
|
| | From: | dh_ld at nomail.com | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:33:23 GMT |
|
|
| On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:09:05 +0100, AE wrote:
>Jonathan wrote:
>> No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
>> you say they do is that coming into existence is
>> "better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
>>
>> They don't. They are not better off for having
>> existed, versus never having existed.
>
>I couldn't tell - indeed nobody can tell, except maybe the animal itself.
I doubt that the animals are capable of considering it directly.
That doesn't prevent them from benefiting from a decent life
though. Some do and some do not, and to think otherwise is
absurd.
The Gonad lied and said I mean that coming into existence is
"better" than not coming into existence. He also said that is
wrong, meaning somehow he knows coming into existence is
*not* better than never having existed. How could he possibly
know that? He could not.
|
|
| | From: | Bruce Sinclair | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:10:07 GMT |
|
|
| In article , dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:09:05 +0100, AE wrote:
>
>>Jonathan wrote:
>>> No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
>>> you say they do is that coming into existence is
>>> "better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
>>>
>>> They don't. They are not better off for having
>>> existed, versus never having existed.
>>
>>I couldn't tell - indeed nobody can tell, except maybe the animal itself.
>
> I doubt that the animals are capable of considering it directly.
>That doesn't prevent them from benefiting from a decent life
>though. Some do and some do not, and to think otherwise is
>absurd.
> The Gonad lied and said I mean that coming into existence is
>"better" than not coming into existence. He also said that is
>wrong, meaning somehow he knows coming into existence is
>*not* better than never having existed. How could he possibly
>know that? He could not.
Likewise, neither can you know one way or the other. It is an unknown.
If you believe you have proof, please present it for review.
Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.
Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
|
|
| | From: | AE | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:43:31 +0100 |
|
|
| dh_ld@nomail.com schrieb:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:09:05 +0100, AE wrote:
>
>
>>Jonathan wrote:
>>
>>>No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
>>>you say they do is that coming into existence is
>>>"better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
>>>
>>>They don't. They are not better off for having
>>>existed, versus never having existed.
>>
>>I couldn't tell - indeed nobody can tell, except maybe the animal itself.
>
>
> I doubt that the animals are capable of considering it directly.
> That doesn't prevent them from benefiting from a decent life
> though. Some do and some do not, and to think otherwise is
> absurd.
> The Gonad lied and said I mean that coming into existence is
> "better" than not coming into existence. He also said that is
> wrong, meaning somehow he knows coming into existence is
> *not* better than never having existed. How could he possibly
> know that? He could not.
Indeed nobody really could tell.
On the other hand I can get to a subjective decision: I'd definitely
decide to exist, because I enjoy living.
|
|
| | From: | dh_ld at nomail.com | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:40:05 GMT |
|
|
| On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:43:31 +0100, AE wrote:
>dh_ld@nomail.com schrieb:
>> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:09:05 +0100, AE wrote:
>>
>>
>>>the Gonad wrote:
>>>
>>>>No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
>>>>you say they do is that coming into existence is
>>>>"better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
>>>>
>>>>They don't. They are not better off for having
>>>>existed, versus never having existed.
>>>
>>>I couldn't tell - indeed nobody can tell, except maybe the animal itself.
>>
>>
>> I doubt that the animals are capable of considering it directly.
>> That doesn't prevent them from benefiting from a decent life
>> though. Some do and some do not, and to think otherwise is
>> absurd.
>> The Gonad lied and said I mean that coming into existence is
>> "better" than not coming into existence. He also said that is
>> wrong, meaning somehow he knows coming into existence is
>> *not* better than never having existed. How could he possibly
>> know that? He could not.
>
>Indeed nobody really could tell.
>On the other hand I can get to a subjective decision: I'd definitely
>decide to exist, because I enjoy living.
But wouldn't that depend on the type of life you have? There
are some that I would rather not have, even if it meant never
living at all. Then again there are plenty of others that I would
rather have than nothing. That is what "ARAs" are so very
opposed to. Since they don't want any farm animals to exist
regardless of the quality of their lives, "ARAs" are opposed
to the possibility that people could try to contribute to decent
lives for them with their lifestyle.
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.
"Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment
of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of
animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only
serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are
achieved." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means
Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992,
pp. 40-42.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/pets.txt
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
AVMA Policy on Animal Welfare and Animal Rights
Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects
of animal well-being, from proper housing and nutrition to preventive
care, treatment of disease, and when necessary, humane euthanasia.
The AVMA's commitment to animal welfare is unsurpassed.
However, animal welfare and animal rights are not the same. AVMA cannot
endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights
advocates when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals
for human purposes, such as food and fiber, and for research conducted
to benefit both humans and animals.
http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.
"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
February 1991, p. 20.
"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/pets.txt
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University
"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)
http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
|
|
| | From: | Jay Santos | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | 14 Jan 2005 14:26:00 -0800 |
|
|
| d...@nomail.com wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:48:05 GMT, "Zap"
wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jay Santos" wrote in message
> >news:1105735390.214000.99940@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> Zap wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Anything is better off for having existed
> >>
> >> False. It is not "better" to exist than not to exist. "Better
off"
> >> MEANS an improvement in welfare. Since there was no welfare of
the
> >> entity prior to the entity's existence, it is clearly a logical
> >> absurdity to believe that coming into existence made the entity
"better
> >> off".
> >>
> >> Basic existence - being conceived and born - does not make any
entity
> >> "better off" than before.
> >>
> >
> >How do you know that a cow (however stupid you may think a cow is)
did not
> >hear a bird sing and wish she was a bird before she died?
> >A little thing like that can effect the life form and continuing
existence
> >of a dumb creature.
>
> You're way over his head now.
No.
> Remember that you're disgussing this
> with a guy who feels that life has never been a benefit to anything.
Life per se is NOT a benefit to anything. Nothing is "better off" for
having lived, compared with not having lived. No entity's welfare was
improved, ever, merely by coming into existence. This is a fact that
you simply cannot address.
|
|
| | From: | Jay Santos | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | 14 Jan 2005 14:45:08 -0800 |
|
|
| Zap wrote:
> "Jay Santos" wrote in message
> news:1105741768.235532.16680@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Then what's the problem? Brain damage?
>
> Got it in one. Sorry I don't have a pertinent Latin phrase for this
> auspicious occasion (sic)
>
> > > I looked up the alternative spelling to non sequitur
> > There isn't one. That is THE spelling. There is only one.
>
> You must be using an old dictionary, it was revised by John & Mills
2003 to
> include an i
>
> Non Sequitiur.
No. That's not Latin.
You fucking moron: you can't "revise" the correct spelling of a word
or expression that is a couple of thousand years old, and is from a
language that is no longer in vernacular usage, hence not subject to
revisions.
|
|
| | From: | Jay Santos | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | 14 Jan 2005 12:43:10 -0800 |
|
|
| Zap wrote:
> Fuckwit David Harrison, pretending to be someone else, wrote in
message
> news:hf9gu0t2lmnng7qdroj7j90b4vgk8tgcb0@4ax.com...
> > No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
> > you say they do is that coming into existence is
> > "better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
> >
> > They don't. They are not better off for having
> > existed, versus never having existed.
>
> Some life forms come into existence as plankton - are you saying they
should
> not exist even though they keep the fishes alive?
No. That's not what anyone is saying.
>
> Anything is better off for having existed
False. It is not "better" to exist than not to exist. "Better off"
MEANS an improvement in welfare. Since there was no welfare of the
entity prior to the entity's existence, it is clearly a logical
absurdity to believe that coming into existence made the entity "better
off".
Basic existence - being conceived and born - does not make any entity
"better off" than before.
|
|
| | From: | Zap | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:48:05 GMT |
|
|
|
"Jay Santos" wrote in message
news:1105735390.214000.99940@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Zap wrote:
> > Fuckwit David Harrison, pretending to be someone else, wrote in
> message
> > news:hf9gu0t2lmnng7qdroj7j90b4vgk8tgcb0@4ax.com...
> > > No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
> > > you say they do is that coming into existence is
> > > "better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
> > >
> > > They don't. They are not better off for having
> > > existed, versus never having existed.
> >
> > Some life forms come into existence as plankton - are you saying they
> should
> > not exist even though they keep the fishes alive?
>
> No. That's not what anyone is saying.
>
> >
> > Anything is better off for having existed
>
> False. It is not "better" to exist than not to exist. "Better off"
> MEANS an improvement in welfare. Since there was no welfare of the
> entity prior to the entity's existence, it is clearly a logical
> absurdity to believe that coming into existence made the entity "better
> off".
>
> Basic existence - being conceived and born - does not make any entity
> "better off" than before.
>
How do you know that a cow (however stupid you may think a cow is) did not
hear a bird sing and wish she was a bird before she died?
A little thing like that can effect the life form and continuing existence
of a dumb creature.
|
|
| | From: | dh_ld at nomail.com | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:22:59 GMT |
|
|
| On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:48:05 GMT, "Zap" wrote:
>
>"Jay Santos" wrote in message
>news:1105735390.214000.99940@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Zap wrote:
>> > Fuckwit David Harrison, pretending to be someone else, wrote in
>> message
>> > news:hf9gu0t2lmnng7qdroj7j90b4vgk8tgcb0@4ax.com...
>> > > No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
>> > > you say they do is that coming into existence is
>> > > "better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
>> > >
>> > > They don't. They are not better off for having
>> > > existed, versus never having existed.
>> >
>> > Some life forms come into existence as plankton - are you saying they
>> should
>> > not exist even though they keep the fishes alive?
>>
>> No. That's not what anyone is saying.
>>
>> >
>> > Anything is better off for having existed
>>
>> False. It is not "better" to exist than not to exist. "Better off"
>> MEANS an improvement in welfare. Since there was no welfare of the
>> entity prior to the entity's existence, it is clearly a logical
>> absurdity to believe that coming into existence made the entity "better
>> off".
>>
>> Basic existence - being conceived and born - does not make any entity
>> "better off" than before.
>>
>
>How do you know that a cow (however stupid you may think a cow is) did not
>hear a bird sing and wish she was a bird before she died?
>A little thing like that can effect the life form and continuing existence
>of a dumb creature.
You're way over his head now. Remember that you're disgussing this
with a guy who feels that life has never been a benefit to anything.
|
|
| | From: | Jay Santos | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | 14 Jan 2005 13:07:36 -0800 |
|
|
|
Zap wrote:
> "Jay Santos" wrote in message
> news:1105736227.514016.160040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > That question is a non sequitur.
> >
>
> Oh I do beg your pardon sir, but if you are going to speak Latin or
whatever
> pompous language that is then at least spell it correctly.
I did, ignorant semi-literate fuckwit.
Yes, it is Latin - good guess.
|
|
| | From: | Zap | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:11:10 GMT |
|
|
|
"Jay Santos" wrote in message
news:1105736856.916692.51280@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Zap wrote:
> > "Jay Santos" wrote in message
> > news:1105736227.514016.160040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > That question is a non sequitur.
> > >
> >
> > Oh I do beg your pardon sir, but if you are going to speak Latin or
> whatever
> > pompous language that is then at least spell it correctly.
> I did, ignorant semi-literate fuckwit.
>
> Yes, it is Latin - good guess.
>
Sorry, I am drunk and seeing dubble
you know I honestly thought it was spelt non sequtiir but it turns out that
those two ii's are actually one u
my apologies
|
|
| | From: | Immortalist | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:45:57 -0800 |
|
|
|
"JonathanBallCitizenBenfezWilsonWoodsRadicalModerateBingoEdwardGeorgeBillFredMyst"
wrote in message
news:hf9gu0t2lmnng7qdroj7j90b4vgk8tgcb0@4ax.com...
> No animals "benefit" from farming.
To begin, can you describe the "conditions" for having had "benefited" from
farming and create a difference by distinction between animals and all other
objects in the world that can and cannot bebefit in such ways.
Aren't farm animals like welfare maggots in that they get what they would
have to normally struggle for in the wilds, but instead fo free?
> What you mean when
> you say they do is that coming into existence is
> "better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
>
How do you establish a criterion for making such a standard? Do you mean
that you have analogies of situations dealing in "better & worse" and you
can convince us that living or dying is nuetral as concerns these standards
your comparing them to.
> They don't. They are not better off for having
> existed, versus never having existed.
How so?
|
|
| | From: | Jay Santos | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | 14 Jan 2005 14:02:01 -0800 |
|
|
| Zap wrote:
> "Jay Santos" wrote in message
> news:1105736856.916692.51280@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Zap wrote:
> > > "Jay Santos" wrote in message
> > > news:1105736227.514016.160040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > > That question is a non sequitur.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oh I do beg your pardon sir, but if you are going to speak Latin
or
> > whatever
> > > pompous language that is then at least spell it correctly.
> > I did, ignorant semi-literate fuckwit.
> >
> > Yes, it is Latin - good guess.
> >
>
> Sorry, I am drunk
Let that be a lesson to you. Drunkenness is not admirable. Just ask
Ray Slater's wife (you'll have to get David Nash off of her, first).
Ray gets shit-his-pants drunk all the time, and has brought the entire
family into low regard.
|
|
| | From: | Zap | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:10:27 GMT |
|
|
|
"Jay Santos" wrote in message
news:1105737296.771339.182040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Let that be a lesson to you. Drunkenness is not admirable. Just ask
> Ray Slater's wife (you'll have to get David Nash off of her, first).
> Ray gets shit-his-pants drunk all the time, and has brought the entire
> family into low regard.
>
I'd rather be a drunken sot than a pompous ass thanks all the same.
|
|
| | From: | Jay Santos | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | 14 Jan 2005 12:57:07 -0800 |
|
|
| Zap wrote:
> "Jay Santos" wrote in message
> news:1105735390.214000.99940@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Zap wrote:
> > > Fuckwit David Harrison, pretending to be someone else, wrote in
> > message
> > > news:hf9gu0t2lmnng7qdroj7j90b4vgk8tgcb0@4ax.com...
> > > > No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
> > > > you say they do is that coming into existence is
> > > > "better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
> > > >
> > > > They don't. They are not better off for having
> > > > existed, versus never having existed.
> > >
> > > Some life forms come into existence as plankton - are you saying
they
> > should
> > > not exist even though they keep the fishes alive?
> >
> > No. That's not what anyone is saying.
> >
> > >
> > > Anything is better off for having existed
> >
> > False. It is not "better" to exist than not to exist. "Better
off"
> > MEANS an improvement in welfare. Since there was no welfare of the
> > entity prior to the entity's existence, it is clearly a logical
> > absurdity to believe that coming into existence made the entity
"better
> > off".
> >
> > Basic existence - being conceived and born - does not make any
entity
> > "better off" than before.
> >
>
> How do you know that a cow (however stupid you may think a cow is)
did not
> hear a bird sing and wish she was a bird before she died?
That question is a non sequitur.
|
|
| | From: | Zap | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:00:21 GMT |
|
|
|
"Jay Santos" wrote in message
news:1105736227.514016.160040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> That question is a non sequitur.
>
Oh I do beg your pardon sir, but if you are going to speak Latin or whatever
pompous language that is then at least spell it correctly.
|
|
| | From: | danti | | Subject: | Re: No animals "benefit" from farming. | | Date: | Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:52:30 GMT |
|
|
|
"Zap" wrote in message
news:FpWFd.316$6w4.27@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Jay Santos" wrote in message
> news:1105736227.514016.160040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>> That question is a non sequitur.
>>
>
> Oh I do beg your pardon sir, but if you are going to speak Latin or
> whatever
> pompous language that is then at least spell it correctly.
>
>
non se-qui-tur
|
|
|
