Re: Pre-existent "entities" ruining our lives???

dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:28:52 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>> dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:29:55 GMT, Dutch <no@[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...
> 
>     Try explaining how you think that prevents livestock from
> benefitting from their lives.


If by "benefiting from life" you mean deriving some enjoyment from the 
good things in it, then nothing. There is no doubt that every life 
contains some juice, some joy, and we should be focused on promoting 
more of that for the animals we raise. But that is not an issue until a 
being comes into existence. What is wrong is to believe that we can take 
this innate juice of life and use it as a justification for raising food 
animals. Its obvious self-serving sophism.

[..]
>>
>>>     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? 
> 
>     The confusion is on your end, not mine.

No, it's not. You have never shown that you understand the inherent 
contradiction in the phrase "benefit from life". You argue for the idea 
in the rhetorical sense to mean "get enjoyment from life" but in the 
Logic of the Larder it is used literally, as in "to benefit by coming 
into existence". That's where the fundamental error in the whole 
argument lies.

  I point out that you
> have never explained it, can't explain it, and therefore never
> will be able to explain it. You want to pretend that you've already
> explained it even though you can't do it now nor can you provide
> any examples of you having done it in the past, nor will there ever
> be any examples of you doing it in the future.

I did just above.

> 
>> "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.
> 
>     What you need to do in order to back up your claim, is explain
> how you think your own pre-existence or/and that of any other
> entity is preventing you from benefitting from your own existence.
> But you can't, meaning that you give us nothing to even consider
> much less put faith in. Amusingly for me, you have obviously put
> your faith in the idea even though you are completely unable to
> explain why or how. If you think you can explain it, try doing it

You're missing the point. Once an animal exists, THEN there are many 
ways to enhance that life. That's all very admirable. If you insist on 
saying that existence itself justifies raising beings then the door is 
wide open for the kind of arguments that slavers have made.