Mr. Smartypants wrote:
> On Jul 22, 6:28 am, Dutch <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:29:55 GMT, Dutch <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> 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.
" - Salt
>>> Only to people who believe that experiencing a decent life of
>>> positive value is better than not experiencing it,
>> It's an illegitimate argument. The wish is so obviously father to the
>> thought...
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>> 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:
>> How did you get this confused? "Pre-existent entities" are not ruining
>> anything, the concept is postulated as a way to allow the idea "coming
>> into existence is a benefit" to make logical sense. Of course common
>> sense says that no such entities "exist", therefore coming into
>> existence cannot be a benefit.
>
>
> How do you know they don't "exist"?
This is all very old hat.
For one thing, they are by definition "pre-existent" which says they
don't, secondly, there's no evidence of their existence, but finally,
even if there is such a state as pre-existence, we know nothing about it
so we cannot claim that leaving that state and going into existence as
we know it is a "benefit".
More to the point, how did you end up siding with the biggest animal
abuse excuser in existence?
|
