Re: Goo****wit and animal "pre-existence"

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:57:16 -0700, Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass
<shrubkiller@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Sep 17, 9:24 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> Goo (****wit David Harrison) is the only one who has
>> introduced animal "pre-existence" as something to be
>> considered.  The literal words "pre-existence" are not
>> found in his blabbering, but they are undeniably
>> implied by what he has written:
>>
>>         The animals that will be raised for us to eat
>>         are more than just "nothing", because they
>>         *will* be born unless something stops their
>>         lives from happening. Since that is the case,
>>         if something stops their lives from happening,
>>         whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
>>         them of the life they otherwise would have had.
>>         ****wit - 12/09/1999
>>
>>         Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
>>         born if nothing prevents that from happening,
>>         that would experience the loss if their lives
>>         are prevented.
>>         ****wit - 08/01/2000
>>
>>         What gives you the right to want to deprive
>>         them [unborn animals] of having what life they
>>         could have?
>>         ****wit - 10/12/2001
>>
>>         What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
>>         *could* get to live, is for people not to
>>         consider the fact that they are only keeping
>>         these animals from being killed, by keeping
>>         them from getting to live at all.
>>         ****wit - 10/19/1999
>>
>> These unconceived and unborn animals *exist* to
>> ****wit:  he believes they can experience a loss, be
>> "denied" and "deprived" of something, and can
>> experience "unfairness".  Since the animals don't exist
>> now in the real world, and since Goo says they
>> "...*will* be born" as a result of being "...more than
>> just "nothing", then *necessarily* Goo is saying they
>> "pre-exist":  they're sitting around somewhere before
>> their existence in this world, just waiting for their turn.
>>
>> "Pre-existence":  this is Goo's problem, not mine.
>
>LOL!!!
>
>It most certainly was your *problem*.
>
>You used pre-existence as a selling point in your argument that
>animals derive no benefit from moving from pre-existence to the here-
>and-now.

No, it's Harrison who uses pre-existence to sup****t his
argument, because without it he has no victim to defend
against the vegan who wants to see the abolition of farmed 
animals. Harrison believes farmed animals pre-exist as
living matter before conception.

 [start, Harrison] 
 >>>The only reason you can benefit is because you 
 >>>have life. 
 [me]
 >>Then that ruins your argument, because you 
 >>have given the beneficiary of life a relative 
 >>position: alive, so it cannot now be advantaged 
 >>any further by giving it life. A benefit is 
 >>something gained from a relative position, 
 >>so if life is a benefit, what was that relative 
 >>position of the beneficiary before life if not 
 >>dead or unborn? 
 [Harrison]
 >    Matter composing something else...sometimes 
 >something living or sometimes not. 
 [me]
 You're joking! You've now given a non-existing 
 beneficiary substance of matter as well as a 
 relative position of being alive before birth. 
 These are impossible cir***stances which logic 
 tells us cannot be 
 [end] 
 ipse dixit (me) 02 Dec 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5qaov


Rudy has always rejected Harrison's belief that animals
pre-exist, and it's also worth noting at this point that he
reached the same conclusion Salt did independently
before even reading Salt's essay on the logic of the larder.