On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:29:55 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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.
Only to people who believe that experiencing a decent life of
positive value is better than not experiencing it, regardless of
whether or not any beings experience more than one life.
>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.
Not necessarily.
>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.
The question is whether they have lives of positive value
or not.
>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.
That's an outright lie.
>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,
That's an outright lie.
>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.
That's changing the subject to something that doesn't matter
to the animals at all. It's something that bothers eliminationinists
personally, and their own incredible selfishness prevents them
from considering what the animals gain from the arrangement.
>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.
In order to get a realistic interpretation of whether or not
something is cruel to animals, a person MUST take into
consideration what the animals get out of the arrangement.
If a person considers some of their lives to be of positive
value, then a person MUST take that into consideration.
>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."
As yet we still don't have ANY good reason(s) to
deliberately try to ignore the animals' position when
considering whether or not it's cruel to raise them
for food.
>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.
As yet we still don't have ANY good reason(s) to
deliberately try to ignore the animals' position when
considering whether or not it's cruel to raise them
for food.
>For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the
>world my own predilection was in no wise considered,
That's a lie.
>nor did I purchase
>life on condition of my own butchery.
Death is one of the costs of life for everything. If you're
going to try to use that, then you need to explain which
lives death prevents from being of positive value and
which ones it does not, and WHY. You can't do it. Obviously
"ar" Salt couldn't do it either.
>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.
That's a lie. It is NECESSARY to consider the animals, in
order to get a realistic idea whether or not something is cruel
TO THEM.
In contrast to the rock solid necessity of needing to consider
the animals in order to consider the animals, insisting that
people NOT consider the animals is a hollow plea by those who
admittedly have extremely limitted or no consideration at all for
the animals being discussed.
The people who are most inconsiderate of the animals
themselves, are also the only people who want to deliberately
prevent future such animals from experiencing life because
those people are personally disturbed by the fact that humans
eat meat.
>> 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.
That's a claim you make but since you can't back it up
by explaining exactly HOW you think pre-existent entities
prevent us from benefitting, we have no reason at all to
consider the possibility that your absurd sounding claim
might have some tiny element of truth to it. We can not!
We--including you--can not think of a single way that
pre-existent entities prevent existing ones from benefitting
from their existence.
>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.
That didn't answer any question, much less the
particular one I was challenging you to answer. You
obviously never did have the slightest clue what you
thought you were trying to talk about. I expected you
to at least have SOMEthing to back up such an
absurd claim, but obviously you don't have any clue
at all. This is especially lame even for you.
>>> 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.
There's nothing that you have ever written, said, or
thought that tells us how you think pre-existent entities
are ruining our lives. So I AGAIN challenge you to try
explaining it NOW:
|
