Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest pig-****ing cracker in existence
- blabbered and presented no challenge:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:29:55 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest pig-****ing cracker in
existence - blabbered and presented no challenge:
>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:31:03 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest pig-****ing cracker in
existence - blabbered and presented no challenge:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, due to his incredible ineptitude, Rudy C.
Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest pig-****ing cracker in
existence - blabbered and presented no challenge:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:18:37 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest pig-****ing cracker in
existence - blabbered and presented no challenge:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>>>> 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,
That is an irrational and wrong belief. In any case, you do *not* care
about the "decent" aspect of life. ALL you care about, Goo, is that
they live and you get to consume them.
>> 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.
Yes, necessarily, Goo. It is *exactly* a restatement of what you believe.
>> 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.
No, that is not the question to you, Goo. The only thing you care about
is that the animals you want to consume exist.
|
