| Re: No animals "benefit" from farming - CLICK HERE for the Pet Manual Forum Home Page |
| Rudy Canoza |
****wit David Harrison kller@mindspring.com, stupid
crcker, wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:40:57 GMT, bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
>
>
>>In article <81jk11dr5s021tmg2s2cs48kdle4qcinst@4ax.com>, ****wit David Harrison kller@mindspring.com, stupid crcker, 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.
How does that make them better off than they were, ****wit?
>
>
>>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?
You stupid ****wit. He means, can you show it
logically? The answer, of course, is NO, you cannot
show it logically. Logically, you don't have a case at
all.
>
>>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".
He knows, as do all the rest of us, ****wit, that a
benefit is something that makes an entity better of
than it was before, and that life itself THEREFORE
cannot be a benefit, because the entity didn't have a
welfare before it was alive.
>
>
>>>>One would do ... more would obviously be better.
>>>
>>> You've got one. The things which make up a decent life are more.
>>
>>No. You have 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.
All he's done to this point is ask you questions,
****wit. It is YOUR burden to back up your claim that
initial existence is a benefit to an entity. You
haven't even attempted it, because you know it isn't.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
****wit David Harrison kller@mindspring.com, stupid
crcker, wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:40:57 GMT, bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
>
>
>>In article <81jk11dr5s021tmg2s2cs48kdle4qcinst@4ax.com>, ****wit David Harrison kller@mindspring.com, stupid crcker, 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.
How does that make them better off than they were, ****wit?
>
>
>>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?
You stupid ****wit. He means, can you show it
logically? The answer, of course, is NO, you cannot
show it logically. Logically, you don't have a case at
all.
>
>>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".
He knows, as do all the rest of us, ****wit, that a
benefit is something that makes an entity better of
than it was before, and that life itself THEREFORE
cannot be a benefit, because the entity didn't have a
welfare before it was alive.
>
>
>>>>One would do ... more would obviously be better.
>>>
>>> You've got one. The things which make up a decent life are more.
>>
>>No. You have 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.
All he's done to this point is ask you questions,
****wit. It is YOUR burden to back up your claim that
initial existence is a benefit to an entity. You
haven't even attempted it, because you know it isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
