No animals "benefit" from farming (wrong!)

Archive > Pet newsgroups > alt.pets.ferrets

No animals "benefit" from farming (wrong!) - CLICK HERE for the Pet Manual Forum Home Page

dh_ld@nomail.com

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, Abner Gonad Canoza wrote:

>No animals "benefit" from farming

Some do. Some don't. A person would have to be an
idiot not to understand something as basic as that.

Bill Leary

<dh_ld@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:odqh111thuj2e99f0elob7dg0i53lu385a@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, Abner Gonad Canoza wrote:
>
> >No animals "benefit" from farming
>
> Some do. Some don't. A person would have to be an
> idiot not to understand something as basic as that.

A.P.F. folks, note the numerous cross posts before you hit "reply" on this
thread. Looks like some of you who's ferrets are working animals are being
baited.

- Bill

Bruce Sinclair

In article <odqh111thuj2e99f0elob7dg0i53lu385a@4ax.com>, dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, Abner Gonad Canoza wrote:
>
>>No animals "benefit" from farming
>
> Some do. Some don't. A person would have to be an
>idiot not to understand something as basic as that.

Then for us idiots, could you show what benefit you are talking about for
farmed animals ? One would do ... more would obviously be better.

Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

Phil L

Bruce Sinclair wrote:
:: In article <odqh111thuj2e99f0elob7dg0i53lu385a@4ax.com>,
:: dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
::: On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, Abner Gonad Canoza wrote:
:::
:::: No animals "benefit" from farming
:::
::: Some do. Some don't. A person would have to be an
::: idiot not to understand something as basic as that.
::
:: Then for us idiots, could you show what benefit you are talking
:: about for farmed animals ? One would do ... more would obviously
:: be better.
::
::
::
::
:: Bruce
::
::
Life?

--

http://www.blueyonder256k.myby.co.uk/

Rudy Canoza

Bruce Sinclair wrote:

> In article <odqh111thuj2e99f0elob7dg0i53lu385a@4ax.com>, ****wit David Harrison wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No animals "benefit" from farming
>>
>> Some do. Some don't. A person would have to be an
>>idiot not to understand something as basic as that.
>
>
> Then for us idiots, could you show what benefit you are talking about for
> farmed animals ? One would do ... more would obviously be better.

This is really a shame that you've been suckered into
this. The moron who thoughtlessly crossposted to
whatever group you read this in is named ****wit David
Harrison. He's a 45 or 46 year old loser in Atlanta
who lives on a decrepit houseboat on Lake Lanier; never
married; no kids (that he knows of); kind of a
handy-man sort of career path.

He has been arguing in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
for over 5 years with "vegans" and "animal rights
activists", and he thought he saw a neat trick to
exploit. He thought he could prey upon the supposed
sympathy "vegans" have for animals, and point out to
them that the only way they can prevent animals from
being killed for human consumption is by "denying life"
to them in the first place. ****wit thought this would
make them reconsider.

It doesn't, of course. "vegans" DON'T WANT there to be
farm animals. They think it is an abominable wrong
humans inflict on farm animals, and they shouldn't exist.

So ****wit had to try to come up with something better.
What he came up with is, life is a "benefit" to farm
animals, and by wanting farm animals not to exist,
"vegans" are denying them a benefit they could have,
and so the "vegans" are evil.

****wit insists life is a "benefit" to farm animals,
despite the incontestable fact that this violates the
very definition of "benefit". A benefit is something
that *improves* the welfare of some welfare-bearing
entity. But prior to being alive, farm animals HAD no
welfare to improve. Therefore, life _per se_ cannot be
a benefit to them.

****wit the stupid ignorant Atlanta cracker thinks he's
found a nice little catch phrase to handle that: "Life
is the benefit that makes all other benefits possible."
WRONG, of course. Life is the *condition* that makes
benefits - NOT "all other benefits" - possible. Life
itself is not a benefit.

You guys don't need to read further. Trust me - you're
not going to get any "benefit" from anything ****wit says.

If you want to e-mail him directly, his e-mail address
is kller@mindspring.com. Good luck.

Rudy Canoza

Phil L wrote:

> Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> :: In article <odqh111thuj2e99f0elob7dg0i53lu385a@4ax.com>,
> :: dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
> ::: On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, Abner Gonad Canoza wrote:
> :::
> :::: No animals "benefit" from farming
> :::
> ::: Some do. Some don't. A person would have to be an
> ::: idiot not to understand something as basic as that.
> ::
> :: Then for us idiots, could you show what benefit you are talking
> :: about for farmed animals ? One would do ... more would obviously
> :: be better.
> ::
> ::
> ::
> ::
> :: Bruce
> ::
> ::
> Life?

That's what ****wit David Harrison, the moron who
crossposted to your groups, says. He claims that life
_per se_ is a benefit to farm animals. He's wrong.

A benefit is something that *improves* the welfare of
an entity. But before they are alive, farm animals
(and any other animal, including humans) HAVE NO
welfare that could be improved. THEREFORE, life _per
se_ is not a benefit. QED.

I hope that helps.

dh_ld@nomail.com

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:26:57 GMT, Abner the Gonad Canoza wrote:

>Mr Harrison wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, the Gonad wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No animals "benefit" from farming
>>
>>
>> Some do. Some don't.
>
>NONE do, ****wit. Coming into existence is not a
>benefit for any animal.

For some it is. For some it isn't.

dh_ld@nomail.com

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:38:01 GMT, bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:

>In article <odqh111thuj2e99f0elob7dg0i53lu385a@4ax.com>, dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, Abner Gonad Canoza wrote:
>>
>>>No animals "benefit" from farming
>>
>> Some do. Some don't. A person would have to be an
>>idiot not to understand something as basic as that.
>
>Then for us idiots, could you show what benefit you are talking about for
>farmed animals ?

A decent life is a benefit imo. Some get one. Some don't.

>One would do ... more would obviously be better.

You've got one. The things which make up a decent life are more.

Rudy Canoza

Xref: 127.0.0.1 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:154099 sci.agriculture:68231 sci.agriculture.poultry:55812 alt.pets.rodents:32479 alt.pets.ferrets:172381

****wit David Harrison kller@mindspring.com, stupid
cracker, wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:26:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison kller@mindspring.com, stupid cracker, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>No animals "benefit" from farming
>>>
>>>
>>> Some do. Some don't.
>>
>>NONE do, ****wit. Coming into existence is not a
>>benefit for any animal.
>
>
> For some it is. For some it isn't.

It is not a benefit for ANYTHING to come into
existence, ****wit. That presumes a comparison between
existence and non-existence, and a conclusion that
existence is "better". We have clearly seen that such
a comparison is invalid.

Existence is not a benefit to farm animals, ****wit.
Period.

Rudy Canoza

****wit David Harrison kller@mindspring.com, stupid
cracker, wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:38:01 GMT, bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
>
>
>>In article <odqh111thuj2e99f0elob7dg0i53lu385a@4ax.com>, ****wit David Harrison kller@mindspring.com, stupid cracker, wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>No animals "benefit" from farming
>>>
>>> Some do. Some don't. A person would have to be an
>>>idiot not to understand something as basic as that.
>>
>>Then for us idiots, could you show what benefit you are talking about for
>>farmed animals ?
>
>
> A decent life is a benefit imo. Some get one. Some don't.

What ****wit Harrison means, Bruce, is that he
considers it better, *from the animal's perspective*,
if it lives rather than if it doesn't. That, of
course, is plainly absurd.

>
>
>>One would do ... more would obviously be better.
>
>
> You've got one.

He doesn't even have one, ****wit. Life per se is not
a benefit for any animal: it does not improve the
welfare of the animal, because prior to being alive, it
HAD NO welfare to improve. "Benefit" is *defined* as
something that improves an entity's welfare. Coming
into life doesn't improve any entity's welfare, so life
is not a benefit: QED.

Hope this helps, ****wit.

dh_ld@nomail.com

Rudy Canoza

Bruce Sinclair

In article <hsik11l22ufprdn4g4cm0vc7dsrm2oo0n4@4ax.com>, dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:26:57 GMT, Abner the Gonad Canoza wrote:
>
>>Mr Harrison wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, the Gonad wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>No animals "benefit" from farming
>>>
>>>
>>> Some do. Some don't.
>>
>>NONE do, ****wit. Coming into existence is not a
>>benefit for any animal.
>
> For some it is. For some it isn't.

... and what benefits are these again ?

Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

Bruce Sinclair

In article <81jk11dr5s021tmg2s2cs48kdle4qcinst@4ax.com>, dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:38:01 GMT, bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz
> (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
>
>>In article <odqh111thuj2e99f0elob7dg0i53lu385a@4ax.com>, dh_ld@nomail.com
> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, Abner Gonad Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>>No animals "benefit" from farming
>>>
>>> Some do. Some don't. A person would have to be an
>>>idiot not to understand something as basic as that.
>>
>>Then for us idiots, could you show what benefit you are talking about for
>>farmed animals ?
>
> A decent life is a benefit imo. Some get one. Some don't.

In what way ? How is it a benefit ? Can you actually show this or is it just
"what you believe" ? If it's belief, then there is nothing left to talk
about.

>>One would do ... more would obviously be better.
> You've got one. The things which make up a decent life are more.

No. You ahve failed to show how any benefits actually acrue from existing.
Please try again ... or better, give up :)

Thanks

Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

Bruce Sinclair

lin

"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:ExsSd.3161$1S4.369427@news.xtra.co.nz...
> In article <hsik11l22ufprdn4g4cm0vc7dsrm2oo0n4@4ax.com>, dh_ld@nomail.com
> wrote:
>>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:26:57 GMT, Abner the Gonad Canoza wrote:
>>
>>>Mr Harrison wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, the Gonad wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>No animals "benefit" from farming
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some do. Some don't.
>>>
>>>NONE do, ****wit. Coming into existence is not a
>>>benefit for any animal.
>>
>> For some it is. For some it isn't.
>
> .. and what benefits are these again ?

Why don't you guys go study Sartre for awhile before continuing this
ridiculous conversation? <snort>

Rudy Canoza

Xref: 127.0.0.1 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:154107 alt.pets.rodents:32484 alt.pets.ferrets:172386

lin wrote:

> "Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
> message news:ExsSd.3161$1S4.369427@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
>>In article <hsik11l22ufprdn4g4cm0vc7dsrm2oo0n4@4ax.com>, dh_ld@nomail.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:26:57 GMT, Abner the Gonad Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mr Harrison wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, the Gonad wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>No animals "benefit" from farming
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some do. Some don't.
>>>>
>>>>NONE do, ****wit. Coming into existence is not a
>>>>benefit for any animal.
>>>
>>> For some it is. For some it isn't.
>>
>>.. and what benefits are these again ?
>
>
> Why don't you guys go study Sartre for awhile before continuing this
> ridiculous conversation? <snort>

****wit David Harrison, the cross-posting ****bag who
started this, hasn't even read "Animal Farm",
dismissing it as a "fantasy about animals". You don't
REALLY expect him to have read any Sartre, do you?

lin

Rudy Canoza

dh_ld@nomail.com

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 02:20:47 GMT, Gonad cried:

>They think it is an abominable wrong
>humans inflict on farm animals, and they shouldn't exist.

As do you, which is why you are so maniacally opposed
to the suggestion that anything could be ethically equivalent
or superior to veganism. We know that you think it's wrong:
__________________________________________________
_______
From: Jonathan Ball <jonball@whitehouse.not>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Re: "getting to experience life" = the (il)logic of the larder
Message-ID: <a6K%b.10491$yZ1.3559@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:19:18 GMT

the "getting to experience
life" deserves NO moral consideration, and is given
none; the deliberate killing of animals for use by
humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________
_______
From: Dieter <d.Schmidt@deutsche_telekom.de>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.philosophy
Subject: Re: Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit"
Message-ID: <Ydpwc.2521$uX2.1318@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:33:12 GMT

ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any
moral consideration.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________
_______
From: Jonathan Ball <jonball@whitehouse.not>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Re: "getting to experience life" = the (il)logic of the larder
Message-ID: <GwI2c.488$Cm3.256@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 16:58:14 GMT

We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________
_______
From: "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
Subject: Re: Skunky pisses all over the trolls
Date: 28 Jan 2005 15:01:28 -0800
Message-ID: <1106953288.386977.29670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

Fact: IF it is wrong to kill animals deliberately for food, then
having deliberately caused them to live in the first place does not
mitigate the wrong in any way.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________
_______
From: Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con>
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
Subject: Re: Skunky pisses all over the trolls
Message-ID: <Q4RKd.2867$Ix.1159@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:02:08 GMT

"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________
_______
From: jonball52@altavista.com (Jonathan Ball)
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
Subject: Re: How Jonathan Ball wants people to feel about the silly arse, ****with
Date: 11 Apr 2002 18:53:15 -0700

People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans". "Vegans"
aren't interested in contributing to lives of any quality for farm
animals: they don't want there to be farm animals.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________
_______
From: Jonathan Ball <jonb...@earthlink.NS.net>
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,uk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animal activist admits to setting fire
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:09:07 GMT

"Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm
animals. And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm
animals would live in bad conditions.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
but exactly *why* is it wrong Mr Gonad? Why should we stop raising animals for
food? Simply because there would be no moral loss?
__________________________________________________
_______
09 Sep 2000 by Jonathan Ball
there is no moral loss if domesticated species go extinct.

19 Oct 2000 by Jonathan Ball
Since there is no moral loss to any animals, there is
nothing for any human to take into consideration

02 Dec 2000 by Jonathan Ball
if domestic animals were to go extinct, there would be
no moral loss

27 Jan 2002 by Jonathan Ball
his basic rationale for opposing "animal rights" and
"vegans" is nonsense (that it prevents animals from
"getting to experience life")

27 Jul 2001 by Jonathan Ball
If they never live in the first place, there is no moral
loss to humans, animals or the universe.

05 Sep 2001 by Jonathan Ball
If no farm animals are born...then so be it. There's no
moral loss.

04 Dec 2000 by Jonathan Ball
I said that their experiencing of life is of no moral
significance: if domestic animals were to go extinct,
there would be no moral loss
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Can you do no better than that? That's no reason at all.

Rudy Canoza

Xref: 127.0.0.1 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:154114 sci.agriculture:68236 sci.agriculture.poultry:55831 alt.pets.rodents:32486 alt.pets.ferrets:172388

****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker, wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 02:20:47 GMT, Rudy Canoza rebutted ****wit thusly:
>
>
>
>>They think it is an abominable wrong
>>humans inflict on farm animals, and they shouldn't exist.
>
>
> As do you

Nope. I consume animal products, and intend to
continue doing so.

YOU are the closet "ara", ****wit.

dh_ld@nomail.com

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:40:57 GMT, bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:

>In article <81jk11dr5s021tmg2s2cs48kdle4qcinst@4ax.com>, dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:38:01 GMT, bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz
>> (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <odqh111thuj2e99f0elob7dg0i53lu385a@4ax.com>, dh_ld@nomail.com
>> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, Abner Gonad Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>No animals "benefit" from farming
>>>>
>>>> Some do. Some don't. A person would have to be an
>>>>idiot not to understand something as basic as that.
>>>
>>>Then for us idiots, could you show what benefit you are talking about for
>>>farmed animals ?
>>
>> A decent life is a benefit imo. Some get one. Some don't.
>
>In what way ? How is it a benefit ?

By allowing them to experience pleasures in life.

>Can you actually show this

How could I? Do you want me to meet you at a farm somewhere,
and point at some farm animals enjoying something? I'm not going
to attempt that. If you want to see them do it, go to a farm your own
self and ask a farmer to show you. You might do better if you can
get someone to go along and explain to the farmer that you're
retarded so he will be more likely to sympathise with such a stupid
request, but that is the best way for you to "see" it happening.

Here are pictures of it:

http://www.tysonfoodsinc.com/corpor...hickFeeders.gif
http://www.tysonfoodsinc.com/corpor...ages/Grower.gif

>or is it just
>"what you believe" ? If it's belief, then there is nothing left to talk
>about.

It would leave plenty to talk about. Like you could explain how
you know that none of them have ever benefitted, and how you
know it for a fact instead of it just being "what you believe".

>>>One would do ... more would obviously be better.
>> You've got one. The things which make up a decent life are more.
>
>No. You ahve failed to show how any benefits actually acrue from existing.

You have certainly failed even more to show that existence has
never been a benefit for anything. Why don't you just explain why
it would be a benefit, and for what or whom, if we stop raising animals
for food. So far none of you have been able to do that, and we can
be fairly certain that you're never going to do it either.

dh_ld@nomail.com

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:12:21 GMT, Gonad lied:

>"Benefit" is *defined* as
>something that improves an entity's welfare.

No, that is NOT a definition of benefit, and you can
not provide a single example of a respectable source
defining it that way or you would have done it long ago.

Rudy Canoza

****wit David Harrison kller@mindspring.com, stupid
crcker, wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:12:21 GMT, Rudy Canozs wrote:
>
>
>>"Benefit" is *defined* as
>>something that improves an entity's welfare.
>
>
> No, that is NOT a definition of benefit

That is THE definition of benefit, ****wit.

Rudy Canoza

dh_ld@nomail.com

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:03:57 GMT, "lin" <ktnil@KAZMOMX2woh.rr.com> wrote:

>If *any* of you insist on carrying out a debate like this (although it
>certainly does not fit the parameters of any educated "debate" I've ever
>seen), you ALL should yank out yer library cards & do a little reading up on
>yer basic Philosophy.

If you believe there are some philosophical ideas that need to be
introduced, then you need to introduce them. If you can't, then stop
telling other people to do it for you.

dh_ld@nomail.com

lin

<dh_ld@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:c6mm11100upvmdrtqpnqdagt1psp989v5f@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:03:57 GMT, "lin" <ktnil@KAZMOMX2woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>If *any* of you insist on carrying out a debate like this (although it
>>certainly does not fit the parameters of any educated "debate" I've ever
>>seen), you ALL should yank out yer library cards & do a little reading up
>>on
>>yer basic Philosophy.
>
> If you believe there are some philosophical ideas that need to be
> introduced, then you need to introduce them. If you can't, then stop
> telling other people to do it for you.

I don't really give a rat's ass *what* you guys believe in, or about your
ridiculous little hissy fits w/ each other - other than the fact that I'm
not sure *why* you had to drag it into alt.pets.ferrets. I know what *I*
know, because I pick up a real honest-to-God *book* once in a while. Perhaps
you all should go educate yourselves, too, because you all are making
yourselves look really silly. If that's too hard a concept for you folks to
get a grip on, that's *your* problem, not mine.

Phil L

lin wrote:
:: <dh_ld@nomail.com> wrote in message
:: news:c6mm11100upvmdrtqpnqdagt1psp989v5f@4ax.com...
::: On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:03:57 GMT, "lin"
::: <ktnil@KAZMOMX2woh.rr.com> wrote:
:::
:::: If *any* of you insist on carrying out a debate like this
:::: (although it certainly does not fit the parameters of any
:::: educated "debate" I've ever seen), you ALL should yank out yer
:::: library cards & do a little reading up on
:::: yer basic Philosophy.
:::
::: If you believe there are some philosophical ideas that need to
::: be introduced, then you need to introduce them. If you can't,
::: then stop telling other people to do it for you.
::
:: I don't really give a rat's ass *what* you guys believe in, or
:: about your ridiculous little hissy fits w/ each other - other than
:: the fact that I'm not sure *why* you had to drag it into
:: alt.pets.ferrets. I know what *I* know, because I pick up a real
:: honest-to-God *book* once in a while. Perhaps you all should go
:: educate yourselves, too, because you all are making yourselves
:: look really silly. If that's too hard a concept for you folks to
:: get a grip on, that's *your* problem, not mine.

Maybe if you just killed the thread by using your delete key or killfiled
the arseholes who are carrying it on, then *you* wouldn't become one of them
by posting off topic in all the other groups in the list?

Newsgroups trimmed and FUset to ferrets

--

http://www.blueyonder256k.myby.co.uk/

Phil L

srabner

Add me to the list-- What other people say are important ---
Maybe>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>+=#@!^

"Phil L" <neverchecked@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jSNSd.21164$8B3.15486@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> lin wrote:
> :: <dh_ld@nomail.com> wrote in message
> :: news:c6mm11100upvmdrtqpnqdagt1psp989v5f@4ax.com...
> ::: On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:03:57 GMT, "lin"
> ::: <ktnil@KAZMOMX2woh.rr.com> wrote:
> :::
> :::: If *any* of you insist on carrying out a debate like this
> :::: (although it certainly does not fit the parameters of any
> :::: educated "debate" I've ever seen), you ALL should yank out yer
> :::: library cards & do a little reading up on
> :::: yer basic Philosophy.
> :::
> ::: If you believe there are some philosophical ideas that need to
> ::: be introduced, then you need to introduce them. If you can't,
> ::: then stop telling other people to do it for you.
> ::
> :: I don't really give a rat's ass *what* you guys believe in, or
> :: about your ridiculous little hissy fits w/ each other - other than
> :: the fact that I'm not sure *why* you had to drag it into
> :: alt.pets.ferrets. I know what *I* know, because I pick up a real
> :: honest-to-God *book* once in a while. Perhaps you all should go
> :: educate yourselves, too, because you all are making yourselves
> :: look really silly. If that's too hard a concept for you folks to
> :: get a grip on, that's *your* problem, not mine.
>
> Maybe if you just killed the thread by using your delete key or killfiled
> the arseholes who are carrying it on, then *you* wouldn't become one of
> them
> by posting off topic in all the other groups in the list?
>
> Newsgroups trimmed and FUset to ferrets
>
> --
>
> http://www.blueyonder256k.myby.co.uk/
>
>

srabner

dh_ld@nomail.com

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:11:03 GMT, "lin" <ktnil@KAZMOMX2woh.rr.com> wrote:

>
><dh_ld@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:c6mm11100upvmdrtqpnqdagt1psp989v5f@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:03:57 GMT, "lin" <ktnil@KAZMOMX2woh.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>If *any* of you insist on carrying out a debate like this (although it
>>>certainly does not fit the parameters of any educated "debate" I've ever
>>>seen), you ALL should yank out yer library cards & do a little reading up
>>>on
>>>yer basic Philosophy.
>>
>> If you believe there are some philosophical ideas that need to be
>> introduced, then you need to introduce them. If you can't, then stop
>> telling other people to do it for you.
>
>I don't really give a rat's ass *what* you guys believe in,

So far you're pathetic...

>or about your
>ridiculous little hissy fits w/ each other -

....and still you suck....

>other than the fact that I'm
>not sure *why* you had to drag it into alt.pets.ferrets.

....still extremely lame....

>I know what *I*
>know, because I pick up a real honest-to-God *book* once in a while.

....you're still pathetic....

>Perhaps
>you all should go educate yourselves, too, because you all are making
>yourselves look really silly.

....you have pretty much hit the bottom, proven that you have no
clue what you wish you were talking about, and have shown that
you're the type person who never has anything of value to offer. All
that while you were trying to bitch.

>If that's too hard a concept for you folks to
>get a grip on, that's *your* problem, not mine.

You involved yourself acting as if you know more about this than
we do, but have proven that you don't even know what you think
you're talking about. You suck at this. I only mean that in the best
way of course, and am encouraging you to at least get some idea
what you're trying to write about, before you try writing about it.
That's just an idea you might try sometime. And if you try it soon
enough, you might even be able to contribute to the discussion.

..brian..

Xref: 127.0.0.1 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:154254 sci.agriculture:68245 sci.agriculture.poultry:55859 alt.pets.rodents:32497 alt.pets.ferrets:172427

Phil L wrote:
> lin wrote:
> :: <dh_ld@nomail.com> wrote in message
> :: news:c6mm11100upvmdrtqpnqdagt1psp989v5f@4ax.com...
> ::: On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:03:57 GMT, "lin"
> ::: <ktnil@KAZMOMX2woh.rr.com> wrote:
> :::
> :::: If *any* of you insist on carrying out a debate like this
> :::: (although it certainly does not fit the parameters of any
> :::: educated "debate" I've ever seen), you ALL should yank out yer
> :::: library cards & do a little reading up on
> :::: yer basic Philosophy.
> :::
> ::: If you believe there are some philosophical ideas that need to
> ::: be introduced, then you need to introduce them. If you can't,
> ::: then stop telling other people to do it for you.
> ::
> :: I don't really give a rat's ass *what* you guys believe in, or
> :: about your ridiculous little hissy fits w/ each other - other than
> :: the fact that I'm not sure *why* you had to drag it into
> :: alt.pets.ferrets. I know what *I* know, because I pick up a real
> :: honest-to-God *book* once in a while. Perhaps you all should go
> :: educate yourselves, too, because you all are making yourselves
> :: look really silly. If that's too hard a concept for you folks to
> :: get a grip on, that's *your* problem, not mine.
>
> Maybe if you just killed the thread by using your delete key or
killfiled
> the arseholes who are carrying it on, then *you* wouldn't become one
of them
> by posting off topic in all the other groups in the list?
>
> Newsgroups trimmed and FUset to ferrets
>
> --
>
> http://www.blueyonder256k.myby.co.uk/

Good solution. too bad it doesn't work for everyone...

lin

<dh_ld@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:e6ep119qsupvmrgeo170k7m669jt4kdd1a@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:11:03 GMT, "lin" <ktnil@KAZMOMX2woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh_ld@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>news:c6mm11100upvmdrtqpnqdagt1psp989v5f@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:03:57 GMT, "lin" <ktnil@KAZMOMX2woh.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>If *any* of you insist on carrying out a debate like this (although it
>>>>certainly does not fit the parameters of any educated "debate" I've ever
>>>>seen), you ALL should yank out yer library cards & do a little reading
>>>>up
>>>>on
>>>>yer basic Philosophy.
>>>
>>> If you believe there are some philosophical ideas that need to be
>>> introduced, then you need to introduce them. If you can't, then stop
>>> telling other people to do it for you.
>>
>>I don't really give a rat's ass *what* you guys believe in,
>
> So far you're pathetic...
>
>>or about your
>>ridiculous little hissy fits w/ each other -
>
> ....and still you suck....
>
>>other than the fact that I'm
>>not sure *why* you had to drag it into alt.pets.ferrets.
>
> ....still extremely lame....
>
>>I know what *I*
>>know, because I pick up a real honest-to-God *book* once in a while.
>
> ....you're still pathetic....
>
>>Perhaps
>>you all should go educate yourselves, too, because you all are making
>>yourselves look really silly.
>
> ....you have pretty much hit the bottom, proven that you have no
> clue what you wish you were talking about, and have shown that
> you're the type person who never has anything of value to offer. All
> that while you were trying to bitch.

My, my, my - how intelligent. Apparently Wry Repartee is on vacation this
wk, eh?

>>If that's too hard a concept for you folks to
>>get a grip on, that's *your* problem, not mine.
>
> You involved yourself acting as if you know more about this than
> we do, but have proven that you don't even know what you think
> you're talking about. You suck at this. I only mean that in the best
> way of course, and am encouraging you to at least get some idea
> what you're trying to write about, before you try writing about it.
> That's just an idea you might try sometime. And if you try it soon
> enough, you might even be able to contribute to the discussion.

Look. The college where I teach charges $499 per credit hr. I'm in the
middle of calculating & posting midterms. And you want me to take my time to
give you a free lecture in Philosophy?

Ok, fine. I'll give you the "For Dummies" version. You were discussing
whether "life" is a benefit to a farm (or any other sort of) animal.

Define "life". Define "existence". Please.

Taken from a Philosophy dictionary (albeit an old one) I happen to have
laying around here, this is the crux of the biscuit, as it were.
Metaphysics -

"The branch of philosophy concerned with providing a comprehensive account
of the most general features of reality as a whole; the study of being as
such. Questions about the existence and nature of minds, bodies, god, space,
time, causality, unity, identity, and the world are all metaphysical issues.
From Plato onwards, many philosophers have tried to determine what kinds of
things (and how many of each) exist. But Kant argued that this task is
impossible; he proposed instead that we consider the general structure of
our thought about the world. Strawson calls the former activity revisionary,
and the latter descriptive, metaphysics."

Got that? You should - you're all so friggen smart, & that *is* a very
undetailed, basic, 100-level definition. Ok, going on. How the hell do *you*
expect to even be able to *define* existence? You can't do it; all of the
major philosophers can't (or couldn't) do it; even today's scientists &
doctors can't do it.

Please. Define "existence" for all of us. Cos if you *can* come up w/ a
definition everyone can agree w/, you'll have the Nobel Prizes for Science,
Literature, *&* Peace in yer back pocket by this time next yr. You'll have
solved all the major problems of the world - whether abortion is murder or
not, whether organ transplants are ethical, whether a person in a high-level
coma should be kept alive or be allowed to die (like Karen Ann Quinlan, who,
once she *was* disconnected, didn't die anyway!), whether capitol punishment
should be abolished, etc. You'll have ALL the answers! You, & you alone,
will be the only person in History to have figured it all out. Won't you
just be hot **** on a stick?

I'll tell you what I tell my students: If you plan to come to class to
debate something, make sure you PICK UP A BOOK FIRST & have at least *some*
basic understanding of the subject at hand, or else you'll only succeed in
forcing the rest of the class run you over w/ the Clue Bus.

Now, kindly shut up & take your discussion somewhere where it might be
appreciated (or at least entertained). As for me, as this thread have become
a total ego war, pardon me whilst I ignore it. But right now, I'm gonna eat
a couple chocolate kisses, just so I can **** w/ my unborn great-great-great
grandchildren's complexions.

Jim Higgins

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:47:12 GMT, in
<AZyTd.1984$m14.752@fe2.columbus.rr.com>, "lin"
<ktnil@KAZMOMX2woh.rr.com> wrote:

>Now, kindly shut up & take your discussion somewhere where it might be
>appreciated (or at least entertained).

Excellent advice. I suggest you take it yourself lest you be
confused with someone else who used to trash this group regularly
by arguing with trolls and idiots.

dh_ld@nomail.com

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:47:12 GMT, "lin" tried to influence the structure
of our thought by writing:

>Taken from a Philosophy dictionary (albeit an old one) I happen to have
>laying around here,

I damn sure don't believe that.

>this is the crux of the biscuit, as it were.
>Metaphysics -
>
>"The branch of philosophy concerned with providing a comprehensive account
>of the most general features of reality as a whole; the study of being as
>such. Questions about the existence and nature of minds, bodies, god, space,
>time, causality, unity, identity, and the world are all metaphysical issues.
>From Plato onwards, many philosophers have tried to determine what kinds of
>things (and how many of each) exist.

That involves all matter.

>But Kant argued that this task is
>impossible; he proposed instead that we consider the general structure of
>our thought about the world.

That involves very little matter.

>Strawson calls the former activity revisionary,
>and the latter descriptive, metaphysics."
>
>Got that?
__________________________________________________
_______
meta-

(also met- before a vowel or h)

• combining form forming words referring to: 1 a change of position or condition: metamorphosis. 2 position behind,
after, or beyond: metacarpus. 3 something of a higher or second-order kind: metalanguage.

— ORIGIN from Greek meta ‘with, across, or after’.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/meta?view=uk
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I'm guessing Strawson wants to say that thinking about things gives
them a type of existence regardless of whether or not it involves matter,
or at least regardless of how much it involves if any.

>You should - you're all so friggen smart, & that *is* a very
>undetailed, basic, 100-level definition. Ok, going on. How the hell do *you*
>expect to even be able to *define* existence? You can't do it; all of the
>major philosophers can't (or couldn't) do it; even today's scientists &
>doctors can't do it.
>
>Please. Define "existence"

How do you want to define it? Do you want it to involve matter, or not?

>for all of us. Cos if you *can* come up w/ a
>definition everyone can agree w/, you'll have the Nobel Prizes for Science,
>Literature, *&* Peace in yer back pocket by this time next yr. You'll have
>solved all the major problems of the world

I sure don't believe that

> - whether abortion is murder or
>not,

or that

>whether organ transplants are ethical,

or that

>whether a person in a high-level
>coma should be kept alive or be allowed to die

or that

>(like Karen Ann Quinlan, who,
>once she *was* disconnected, didn't die anyway!),

(okay, maybe that)

>whether capitol punishment
>should be abolished,

Too bad you're slinking off, because I'd love for you to explain how the
correct definition of existence could decide whether capitol punishment
should be abolished.

>etc. You'll have ALL the answers!

I sure don't believe that

>You, & you alone,
>will be the only person in History to have figured it all out. Won't you
>just be hot **** on a stick?
>
>I'll tell you what I tell my students:

or that
__________________________________________________
_______
metaphysics

Branch of philosophy concerned with providing a comprehensive account
of the most general features of reality as a whole; the study of being as such.
Questions about the existence and nature of minds, bodies, god, space, time,
causality, unity, identity, and the world are all metaphysical issues. From Plato
onwards, many philosophers have tried to determine what kinds of things (and
how many of each) exist. But Kant argued . . .

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m7.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
[...]

Rudy Canoza

****wit David Harrison, dumb jerk-off cracker, wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:47:12 GMT, "lin" tried to influence the
structure
> of our thought by writing:
>
> >Taken from a Philosophy dictionary (albeit an old one) I happen to
have
> >laying around here,
>
> I damn sure don't believe that.

****wit, that's because you are an uneducated cracker. You're not only
uneducated, ****wit, you are actively ANTI-intellectual. This is why
the South has a bad name, and is considered an intellectual and moral
backwater.

>
> >this is the crux of the biscuit, as it were.
> >Metaphysics -
> >
> >"The branch of philosophy concerned with providing a comprehensive
account
> >of the most general features of reality as a whole; the study of
being as
> >such. Questions about the existence and nature of minds, bodies,
god, space,
> >time, causality, unity, identity, and the world are all metaphysical
issues.
> >From Plato onwards, many philosophers have tried to determine what
kinds of
> >things (and how many of each) exist.
>
> That involves all matter.
>
> >But Kant argued that this task is
> >impossible; he proposed instead that we consider the general
structure of
> >our thought about the world.
>
> That involves very little matter.
>
> >Strawson calls the former activity revisionary,
> >and the latter descriptive, metaphysics."
> >
> >Got that?
> __________________________________________________
_______
> meta-
>
> (also met- before a vowel or h)
>
> =B7 combining form forming words referring to: 1 a change of
position or condition: metamorphosis. 2 position behind,
> after, or beyond: metacarpus. 3 something of a higher or second-order
kind: metalanguage.
>
> - ORIGIN from Greek meta 'with, across, or after'.
>
> http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/meta?view=3Duk
>
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A
F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A
F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF
> I'm guessing Strawson wants to say that thinking about things
gives
> them a type of existence regardless of whether or not it involves
matter,
> or at least regardless of how much it involves if any.
>
> >You should - you're all so friggen smart, & that *is* a very
> >undetailed, basic, 100-level definition. Ok, going on. How the hell
do *you*
> >expect to even be able to *define* existence? You can't do it; all
of the
> >major philosophers can't (or couldn't) do it; even today's
scientists &
> >doctors can't do it.
> >
> >Please. Define "existence"
>
> How do you want to define it? Do you want it to involve matter,
or not?
>
> >for all of us. Cos if you *can* come up w/ a
> >definition everyone can agree w/, you'll have the Nobel Prizes for
Science,
> >Literature, *&* Peace in yer back pocket by this time next yr.
You'll have
> >solved all the major problems of the world
>
> I sure don't believe that
>
> > - whether abortion is murder or
> >not,
>
> or that
>
> >whether organ transplants are ethical,
>
> or that
>
> >whether a person in a high-level
> >coma should be kept alive or be allowed to die
>
> or that
>
> >(like Karen Ann Quinlan, who,
> >once she *was* disconnected, didn't die anyway!),
>
> (okay, maybe that)
>
> >whether capitol punishment
> >should be abolished,
>
> Too bad you're slinking off, because I'd love for you to explain
how the
> correct definition of existence could decide whether capitol
punishment
> should be abolished.
>
> >etc. You'll have ALL the answers!
>
> I sure don't believe that
>
> >You, & you alone,
> >will be the only person in History to have figured it all out. Won't
you
> >just be hot **** on a stick?
> >
> >I'll tell you what I tell my students:
>
> or that
> __________________________________________________
_______
> metaphysics
>
> Branch of philosophy concerned with providing a comprehensive
account
> of the most general features of reality as a whole; the study of
being as such.
> Questions about the existence and nature of minds, bodies, god,
space, time,
> causality, unity, identity, and the world are all metaphysical
issues. From Plato
> onwards, many philosophers have tried to determine what kinds of
things (and
> how many of each) exist. But Kant argued . . .
>
> http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m7.htm
>
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A
F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A
F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF
> [...]

dh_ld@nomail.com

On 25 Feb 2005 09:06:24 -0800, Gonad whined:

>****wit David Harrison, dumb jerk-off cracker, wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:47:12 GMT, "lin" tried to influence the
>structure
>> of our thought by writing:
>>
>> >Taken from a Philosophy dictionary (albeit an old one) I happen to
>have
>> >laying around here,
>>
>> I damn sure don't believe that.
>
>****wit, that's because
[...]
>> __________________________________________________
_______
>> metaphysics
>>
>> Branch of philosophy concerned with providing a comprehensive
>account
>> of the most general features of reality as a whole; the study of
>being as such.
>> Questions about the existence and nature of minds, bodies, god,
>space, time,
>> causality, unity, identity, and the world are all metaphysical
>issues. From Plato
>> onwards, many philosophers have tried to determine what kinds of
>things (and
>> how many of each) exist. But Kant argued . . .
>>
>> http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m7.htm
>>
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> [...]

Rudy Canoza

In-Reply-To: <tj60215t1og9n5eeppe05pijcjpmdb2525@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <a7VTd.7303$Ba3.6192@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 06:59:18 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.3.180.135
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net 1109401158 69.3.180.135 (Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:59:18 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:59:18 PST
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Path: spool9-east!propagator-sterling.newsfeeds.com!news-in.nuthinbutnews.com!meganewsservers.com!feeder2.on.meganewsservers.com!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.ea
rthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!5569b590!not-for-mail
Xref: 127.0.0.1 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:154500 sci.agriculture:68258 sci.agriculture.poultry:55939 alt.pets.rodents:32504 alt.pets.ferrets:172481

****wit David Harrison, dumb jerk-off cracker, wrote:

> On 25 Feb 2005 09:06:24 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison, dumb jerk-off cracker, wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:47:12 GMT, "lin" tried to influence the
>>
>>structure
>>
>>>of our thought by writing:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Taken from a Philosophy dictionary (albeit an old one) I happen to
>>
>>have
>>
>>>>laying around here,
>>>
>>> I damn sure don't believe that.
>>
>>****wit, that's because you are an uneducated cracker. You're not only
>>uneducated, ****wit, you are actively ANTI-intellectual. This is why
>>the South has a bad name, and is considered an intellectual and moral
>>backwater.
>
> [...]

Next time add some original content, ****wit. You
stupid prickcheese.

john

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, Abner Gonad Canoza wrote:
>
>> No animals "benefit" from farming
>
> Some do. Some don't. A person would have to be an
> idiot not to understand something as basic as that.
>

How is starvation a benifit? Please explain to this 'idiot'.

john

>

dh_ld@nomail.com

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 23:14:00 GMT, john <john@photoengineering.com> wrote:

>
>
>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, Abner Gonad Canoza wrote:
>>
>>> No animals "benefit" from farming
>>
>> Some do. Some don't. A person would have to be an
>> idiot not to understand something as basic as that.
>>
>
>How is starvation a benifit?

What are you talking about?

>Please explain to this 'idiot'.
>
>john
>
>>

Walter

dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 23:14:00 GMT, john <john@photoengineering.com>
wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, Abner Gonad Canoza wrote:
> >>
> >>> No animals "benefit" from farming
> >>
> >> Some do. Some don't. A person would have to be an
> >> idiot not to understand something as basic as that.
> >>
> >
> >How is starvation a benifit?
>
> What are you talking about?

Rudy Canoza

****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker, wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 23:14:00 GMT, john <john@photoengineering.com>
wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, Abner Gonad Canoza wrote:
> >>
> >>> No animals "benefit" from farming
> >>
> >> Some do. Some don't. A person would have to be an
> >> idiot not to understand something as basic as that.
> >>
> >
> >How is starvation a benifit?
>
> What are you talking about?

You stupid ******* cracker. You dumb, chicken-*******, moronic cracker.

demonmaster

Xref: 127.0.0.1 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:155294 sci.agriculture:68317 sci.agriculture.poultry:56092 alt.pets.rodents:32510 alt.pets.ferrets:172735

<none>

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 23:14:00 GMT, john <john@photoengineering.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, Abner Gonad Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> No animals "benefit" from farming
>>>
>>> Some do. Some don't. A person would have to be an
>>> idiot not to understand something as basic as that.
>>>
>>
>> How is starvation a benifit?
>
> What are you talking about?
>

Farming creates monocultures with huge negative imbalences in ecological
systems. Without outside food production huge numbers of animals would
starve. In other words -- crop failures in the US cause starvation in
Africa. The GMOs have to raise their seeds somewhere. And yes, sterile
seeds are one of the main causes of starvation around the world. How is
this a benefit?

>> Please explain to this 'idiot'.
>>
>> john
>>
>>>
>
>

Rudy Canoza

****wit David Harrison, stupid illiterate cracker, wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:26:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza thoughtfully wrote:
>
> >****wit David Harrison, stupid illiterate cracker, wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza thoughtfully wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>No animals "benefit" from farming
> >>
> >>
> >> Some do. Some don't.
> >
> >NONE do, ****wit. Coming into existence is not a
> >benefit for any animal.
>
> For some it is. For some it isn't.

Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal. It cannot be.
A benefit is something that makes an entity better off than it was
before, and clearly and undeniably, there was no "before".

This is established and indisputable, ****wit. It's time for you to
admit defeat and move on.

dh_ld@nomail.com

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:36:59 GMT, demonmaster <demonmaster@controls.you.org> wrote:

>
>
><none>
>
>On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 23:14:00 GMT, john <john@photoengineering.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, Abner Gonad Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No animals "benefit" from farming
>>>>
>>>> Some do. Some don't. A person would have to be an
>>>> idiot not to understand something as basic as that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How is starvation a benifit?
>>
>> What are you talking about?
>>
>
>Farming creates monocultures with huge negative imbalences in ecological
>systems. Without outside food production huge numbers of animals would
>starve. In other words -- crop failures in the US cause starvation in
>Africa. The GMOs have to raise their seeds somewhere. And yes, sterile
>seeds are one of the main causes of starvation around the world. How is
>this a benefit?

In the cases where the animals die of starvation, I would put them in
the "Some don't." catagory. In other cases where the animals have decent
lives, I would put them in the "Some do." catagory.

dh_ld@nomail.com

On 8 Mar 2005 09:13:31 -0800, Gonad lied:

>Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal. It cannot be.
>A benefit is something that makes an entity better off than it was
>before, and clearly and undeniably, there was no "before".
>
>This is established and indisputable, ****wit. It's time for you to
>admit defeat and move on.

Hardly. Some zygotes benefit from life and grow into animals.
Some of those animals benefit from farming and some don't. There's
nothing you can do about it except lie.

demonmaster

<none>

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:36:59 GMT, demonmaster <demonmaster@controls.you.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> <none>
>>
>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 23:14:00 GMT, john <john@photoengineering.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, Abner Gonad Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No animals "benefit" from farming
>>>>>
>>>>> Some do. Some don't. A person would have to be an
>>>>> idiot not to understand something as basic as that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How is starvation a benifit?
>>>
>>> What are you talking about?
>>>
>>
>> Farming creates monocultures with huge negative imbalences in ecological
>> systems. Without outside food production huge numbers of animals would
>> starve. In other words -- crop failures in the US cause starvation in
>> Africa. The GMOs have to raise their seeds somewhere. And yes, sterile
>> seeds are one of the main causes of starvation around the world. How is
>> this a benefit?
>
> In the cases where the animals die of starvation, I would put them in
> the "Some don't." catagory. In other cases where the animals have decent
> lives, I would put them in the "Some do." catagory.
>

So...you do not regard spiruality a benefit?

Rudy Canoza

****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker, wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:36:59 GMT, demonmaster
<demonmaster@controls.you.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> ><none>
> >
> >On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 ****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker, wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 23:14:00 GMT, john <john@photoengineering.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 ****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker,
wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:07:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza helpfully wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> No animals "benefit" from farming
> >>>>
> >>>> Some do. Some don't. A person would have to be an
> >>>> idiot not to understand something as basic as that.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> How is starvation a benifit?
> >>
> >> What are you talking about?
> >>
> >
> >Farming creates monocultures with huge negative imbalences in
ecological
> >systems. Without outside food production huge numbers of animals
would
> >starve. In other words -- crop failures in the US cause starvation
in
> >Africa. The GMOs have to raise their seeds somewhere. And yes,
sterile
> >seeds are one of the main causes of starvation around the world. How
is
> >this a benefit?
>
> In the cases where the animals die of starvation, I would put
them in
> the "Some don't." catagory. In other cases where the animals have
decent
> lives, I would put them in the "Some do." catagory.

NO animal "benefits" from coming into existence, ****wit. You know
this by now. It's time for you to admit defeat and move on to your
next time-w