| Re: No animals "benefit" from farming: established - CLICK HERE for the Pet Manual Forum Home Page |
| Rudy Canoza |
****wit David Harrison kller@mindspring.com, stupid cracker, wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:18:47 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >****wit David Harrison kller@mindspring.com, stupid
> >cracker, wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:07:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>****wit David Harrison kller@mindspring.com, stupid
> >>>cracker, wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:12:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza 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.
> >>
> >> __________________________________________________
_______
> >> Main Entry: 1ben=B7e=B7fit
> >> [...]
> >> 2 a : something that promotes well-being : ADVANTAGE
> >
> >RIGHT, ****wit: "well-being" is SYNONYMOUS with
> >"welfare".
>
> Life is the advantage, or benefit, which allows zygotes to grow
into animals.
No, ****wit - life is the necessary condition to allow growth. Life is
not an advantage or benefit in any way.
You really suck at this, ****wit. You suck really hard.
>
> >Before being alive, an animal has no
> >well-being to promote. THEREFORE, ****wit, existence
> >is not benefit to farm animals. QED
>=20
> Life is=20
Not a benefit in any way.
Get out now.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> In article <s0ep11p96kb38qbkf572744bpt2anq024u@4ax.com>,
dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>
> > Life is the advantage, or benefit, which allows zygotes to grow
into
> > animals.
> >
> >>Before being alive, an animal has no
> >>well-being to promote. THEREFORE, ****wit, existence
> >>is not benefit to farm animals. QED
> >
> > Life is the benefit which makes all others possible.
>
> Now show that life is a benefit compared to not life.
> Otherwise you are merely assuming.
Prediction: ****wit David Harrison is going to lie and say he doesn't
consider life to be a benefit compared to no life, even though it is
clearly implicit in his current argument, and EXPLICIT in statements
he's made before:
The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999
Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000
What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
****wit - 10/12/2001
What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
****wit - 10/19/1999
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
