dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:31:03 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:00:22 -0100, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, due to his incredible ineptitude, Goo desperately
lied:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:17:57 -0100, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:18:37 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> David wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you think anything to do with pre-existence
>>>>>>> prevents existing beings from benefitting from their own
>>>>>>> existence
>>>>>> "benefiting from existence" is a circular and meaningless
expression.
>>>>> That doesn't prevent existing beings from benefitting from their
own
>>>>> existence.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If something is a benefit to me, that implies necessarily that its
>>>>>> absence would be a loss to me. But if my existence were absent that
>>>>>> could not be a loss to me, because there would be no me to lose
anything.
>>>>> That doesn't prevent existing beings from benefitting from their
own
>>>>> existence.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only way that the concept "benefit from existence" can begin to
make
>>>>>> sense semantically is if one assumes a pre-existent state which is
less
>>>>>> desirable than existence.
>>>>> That doesn't prevent existing beings from benefitting from their
own
>>>>> existence.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You do not deserve all the attempts people have made over the years
to
>>>>>> help you grasp this.
>>>>> So far you haven't even come close to explaining how you think
>>>>> pre-existent "entities" or anything else about pre-existence
prevents
>>>>> existing beings from benefitting from their own existence. That
means
>>>>> that in all the attempts people have made over the years COMBINED
>>>>> we still have absolutely nothing to consider. NOTHING.
>>>> You never were talking about existing beings
>>> Of course that's a lie Goo, since we refer to them very frequently.
>>> That lie is clearly shown to be a lie in this very thread by at least
one
>>> of your previous lies, Goob:
>>>
>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence" can begin
>>> to make sense semantically is if one assumes a pre-existent state" -
Goo
>>>
>>> Looking back we see that you proved this particular lie to be a
>>> lie years ago too, Goo:
>>> _________________________________________________________
>>> From: d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 15:52:48 -0500
>>>
>>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:03:26 GMT, Goober Gonad Canoza proclaimed:
>>> [...]
>>>> Life is not a benefit for farm animals.
>>> [...]
>>>> Life is not a benefit for farm animals
>>> [...]
>>>> Life is not a benefit for farm animals.
>>> [...]
>>>> Life is not a benefit for farm animals.
>>> Do you wish on a star when you repeat that Goober?
>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> That was a statement of fact,
>
> You want to lie about this stuff, but you're already defeated.
The Logic of the Larder was defeated in 1914. Many legitimate arguments
exist for the humane use of animals, LoL (aptly) is not one of them.
It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that it is
better for them to live and to be butchered than not to live at all.
Now, obviously, if such reasoning justifies the practice of
flesh-eating, it must equally justify all breeding of animals for profit
or pastime, when their life is a fairly happy one. The argument is
frequently used by s****tsmen, on the ground that the fox would long ago
have become extinct in this country had not they, his true friends,
"preserved" him for purposes of s****t. Vivisectors, who breed
guinea-pigs for experimentation, also have used it, and they have as
much right to it as flesh-eaters; for how, they may say, can a few hours
of suffering be set in the balance against the enormous benefit of life?
In fact, if we once admit that it is an advantage to an animal to be
brought into the world, there is hardly any treatment that cannot be
justified by the supposed terms of such a contract.
Also, the argument must apply to mankind. It has, in fact, been the plea
of the slave-breeder; and it is logically just as good an excuse for
slave-holding as for flesh-eating. It would justify parents in almost
any treatment of their children, who owe them, for the great boon of
life, a debt of gratitude which no subsequent services can repay. We
could hardly deny the same merit to cannibals, if they were to breed
their human victims for the table, as the early Peruvians are said to
have done.
It is on record, in no less authentic a work than "Hansard" (March 7/
1883), that when Sir Herbert Maxwell argued in Parliament that a "blue
rock" would prefer to be s****t for pigeon-shooters than not to exist at
all, Mr. W. E. Forster satirically remarked that what we have to
consider is not a blue rock before existence, but a blue rock in
existence. There, in brief, is the key to the whole matter. The fallacy
lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to compare existence
with non-existence. A person who is already in existence may feel that
he would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra
firma of existence to argue from; the moment he begins to argue as if
from the abyss of the non-existent, he talks nonsense, by predicating
good or evil, happiness or unhappiness, of that of which we can
predicate nothing.
When, therefore, we talk of "bringing a being," as we vaguely express
it, "into the world," we cannot claim from that being any gratitude for
our action, or drive a bargain with him, and a very shabby one, on that
account; nor can our duties to him be evaded by any such quibble, in
which the wish is so obviously father to the thought. Nor, in this
connection, is it necessary to enter on the question of ante-natal
existence, because, if such existence there be, we have no reason for
assuming that it is less happy than the present existence; and thus
equally the argument falls to the ground. It is absurd to compare a
supposed preexistence, or non-existence, with actual individual life as
known to us here. All reasoning based on such comparison must
necessarily be false, and will lead to grotesque conclusions.
Take the case, as it stands, between the Philosopher and the Pig. Is it
not adding insult to injury that this much-massacred animal should not
only be eaten by the Philosopher, but should also be made the subject of
a far from disinterested beatification—"Blessed is the Pig, for the
Philosopher is fond of bacon."[1] We can imagine how the Philosopher,
when he p***** a butcher's shop, which, according to his showing, is a
very shrine and centre of humaneness, since without it there "would be
no pigs at all," must pause in serene self-satisfaction to felicitate
the pallid carcase laid out there, with the mockery of an ornamental
orange in its mouth. "I have been a benefactor to this Pig," he must
say, "inasmuch as I ate a ****tion of his predecessor; and now I will be
a benefactor to some yet unborn pig, by eating a ****tion of this one."
This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig;
and what shall be the reply of the Pig to the Philosopher? "Revered
moralist," he might plead, "it were unseemly for me, who am to-day a
pig, and to-morrow but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of
ethics, yet to my ****cine intellect it appeareth that having first
determined to kill and devour me, thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to
find a moral reason. For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the
world my own predilection was in no wise considered, nor did I purchase
life on condition of my own butchery. If, then, thou art firm set on
****k, so be it, for ****k I am: but though thou hast not spared my life,
at least spare me thy sophistry. It is not for his sake, but for thine,
that in his life the Pig is filthily housed and fed, and at the end
barbarously butchered."
From whatever point one looks at this sophism, it is seen to be equally
hollow.
> You amusingly don't know how to begin even though you clearly
> want to very very badly. Your attempt has drawn attention to
> another challenge you will fail to meet. At first you had one huge
> question that you (meaning you/Goo/Derek/etc of course) will
> always fail to answer, but now you draw attention to another
> so at this point we have 2 very significant challenges for you to
> meet before we can even consider that you might have some
> clue what you think you're trying to talk about:
>
> 1. Exactly HOW??? do you think pre-existent entities are
> preventing all existing entities from benefitting from their
> own existence?
"Benefiting from one's existence" is meaningless rhetoric. In your case
its a silly attempt to flog The Logic of the Larder.
> 2. Exactly WHY??? would anything think it's necessary to
> assume WHAT sort of pre-existent state, in order to benefit
> from its existence?
Animals do not "benefit from existence", they simply either exist of
they do not.
>
>> the one you are too dull to grasp.
>
> As yet all you've done is insist that because of something
> to do with pre-existent entities, existing entities can not
> benefit from their own existence. Of course it sounds very
> stupid on the surface, and as yet you're showing us that
> there's nothing at all to back it up, but I encourage you
> very strongly to try. Let's make this a simple challenge for
> you AGAIN!!! PLEASE TRY explaining exactly how you
> think pre-existent entities are preventing you from benefitting
> from your own existence. GO:
See above.
|
