Zoblots
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 22 |   |
Karma: 0
|
Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit& - 2005/04/09 19:51
Every idiot who believes it is a benefit has offered a definition of "benefit" that is some form of the following:
something that promotes well-being
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=benefit&x=0&y=0
This assumes there ALREADY IS an entity that has a well-being to promote: note that "promote" does NOT mean "causes" or "is a necessary condition for having". This is why initial existence - life per se - CANNOT be a benefit, because prior to existence, there was no entity with a well-being or welfare to promote.
Fuckwit David Harrison and his new-found bum-bandit friend, fucktard JethroUK, both are trying to cling to the illogical belief that life per se is some welfare improvement. It is not: it CANNOT be. The very basics of language indicate it cannot be. We speak of something being a "benefit *to*" some entity. WHAT IS
THE ENTITY to which basic existence might be conferred? Answer: prior to existing, there IS no entity.
Fuckwit David Harrison babbles, "explain how something that doesn't exist can benefit." "IT" CAN'T! That's just the point: something that doesn't exist CANNOT benefit, and as there is no entity prior to existence, existence itself CANNOT be a benefit.
This is really elementary stuff. That Fuckwit and fucktard both refuse to see it is a frightening indication of just how willfully stupid, how self-limiting, some people can be.
Popular posts by Zoblots
the *correct* calculation of the fe...
One at a time: Fuckwit's second, a...
The ethical case for animal righ...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
lokoweneska
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 19 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit& - 2005/04/09 20:25
No. Dummy. The arugument never was about linguistics.
I now KNOW, for absolute certain, that alt.philosophy is populated by nothing but underemployed dopes with a gift for gab.
Popular posts by lokoweneska
The "ar" rump
The essential ignorance, the hopele...
Conspiracy to Commit War Crimes
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
lokoweneska
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 19 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit& - 2005/04/10 05:03
No, you aren't, Fuckwit. You are ONLY talking about initial existence; that is all you ever were talking about:
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.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
What gives you the right to want to deprive them [unborn animals] of having what life they could have?
Fuckwit - 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.
Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
Not ONE of those quotes makes any reference to continued existence, Fuckwit. All of them are about initial existence: "being born".
Stop lying, Fuckwit: you NEVER were talking about continued existence; you ONLY ever were talking about initial existence.
Initial existence is not a benefit, Fuckwit.
Popular posts by lokoweneska
The "ar" rump
The essential ignorance, the hopele...
Conspiracy to Commit War Crimes
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Zoblots
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 22 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit& - 2005/04/11 00:14
No. Where do you get that crap? No one has said it, no one has implied it.
I never said animals should not be slaughtered. WHERE are you digging this shit up? The question put to me went *far* beyond merely slaughtering animals.
Popular posts by Zoblots
the *correct* calculation of the fe...
One at a time: Fuckwit's second, a...
The ethical case for animal righ...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
lokoweneska
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 19 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit& - 2005/04/11 06:22
You're not. There IS an existing entity from which you're "taking life". When a criminal unlawfully kills someone, he is ending the life of a real, living, breathing person.
It should be obvious to any clear-thinking, rational person: moving from non-existence to existence is infinitely different than going from existence to non-existence. Existing entities may have interests; never-existing ones don't.
There was nothing obtuse about it. In fact, my argument is the very essence of straightforward, logical, rational argumentation. Back to school with you.
Popular posts by lokoweneska
The "ar" rump
The essential ignorance, the hopele...
Conspiracy to Commit War Crimes
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
4691230
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 22 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit& - 2005/04/11 06:34
You could argue that the existence of life is a benefit to other living things, since all living things are interdependent, and life has the best chance of continuing when there is a broad diversity to combat entropic and enthalpic forces.
Popular posts by 4691230
U.S. Mad Cow Case Increases Pressur...
Trappers Push Pro-Trapping Postage ...
Happy Ending For Rescued Farm Anima...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Atra_Undecim
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 36 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit& - 2005/04/11 12:53
BEFORE it's dead there IS an "it", Fuckwit: an "it" with interests.
No, it's a fundamental truth, Fuckwit. It's a truth that trashes your fuckwitted "getting to experience life" bullshit.
Popular posts by Atra_Undecim
Typically dishonest Lesley-the-Iris...
why do you PETA skanks fund the ...
You Fat Gits
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
4691230
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 22 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit& - 2005/04/11 20:52
In fact, sometimes I think that "that's why we're here".
Popular posts by 4691230
U.S. Mad Cow Case Increases Pressur...
Trappers Push Pro-Trapping Postage ...
Happy Ending For Rescued Farm Anima...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Kazuki san
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 74 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit& - 2005/04/12 19:45
I'm not pretending anything, an animal that is killed suffers a permanent loss of life. They don't "suffer" as in "feel pain" permanently, if at all, when I say they "suffer" a loss of life *that_is* permanent. Please get a dictionary.
I don't know, that's a stupid question. They are bred to be food, therefore they live the optimum time for that purpose, not to have some ideal amount of life, there's no such thing.
How about
I can't carry on a reasonable dialogue with you when you ramble senselessly like that.
What if the answer to *what* is yes? Is it justified? If the answer is yes you do it. What did you think?
No it's not. Life and death are not the same thing. Death and killing are not the same thing. You're pulling thoughts out at random, like a monkey on a keyboard.
What importance does that have? Are you claiming that since animals are going to die eventually anyway, that justifies killing them?
Why do you keep inventing justifications for something that requires none?
No you don't, you claim moral credit for every animal you eat and you have no idea if any of their lives had "positive value", whatever you take that to mean. You're so butt-ignorant you don't even know what happens to cows.
The idea that animal's lives can be a moral good is an extreme utilitarian
AR idea espoused by Peter Singer among others. You are so muddled that you are promoting AR extremism while trying to mount a senseless argument against AR. I've seen your ignorance grow over the years to the point where it's barely recognizable as human thought processes.
Popular posts by Kazuki san
analyse this
Consumers Prefer Free Range Eggs...
Value of Knowledge
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Kazuki san
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 74 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit& - 2005/04/12 19:58
No, ethics is beside the point. It's simply wrong, i.e. illogical, to say that an animal "benefitted by being born". Once one makes this erroneous statement one can conclude wrongly that one has initiated this benefit and done something morally admirable by causing it to be born.
That's the whole point, you *ended an existence*, that is morally considerable.
That's not the argument per_se, although you will have a difficult time proving that life *itself* is a positive, without considering the events and conditions within that life. The point is that moral consideration involves much more than simply stating that life exists.
If you are trying present an argument just as inane of The Logic of the
Larder you are doing a fine job. According to your logic committing a robbery is morally acceptable because the victim no longer is in possession of the stolen items.
Popular posts by Kazuki san
analyse this
Consumers Prefer Free Range Eggs...
Value of Knowledge
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Valkyrie Shamerik
User
Newbie
| Posts: 7 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit& - 2005/04/12 23:47
I concur. Unfortunately such people are as common and widespread as dandelions.
Popular posts by Valkyrie Shamerik
Group Trainwreck
Profile of a Barking Mad Irish F...
How does the Gonad....
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Kazuki san
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 74 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit& - 2005/04/13 15:45
Wrong again, the act of killing a livestock animal poses potential ethical questions which may or may not reflect negatively on those involved. A livestock animal's life per_se poses no ethical questions, it does NOT reflect on anyone.
Nonsense, it can benefit from good treatment and conditions *once it has come into existence* but is impossible for it to benefit from coming into existence.
You aren't talking about things which exist. You said that animals benefit from coming into existence, so you must believe there is a pre-existent being to receive this benefit. The animal can't receive it, because if it is there to receive it, it must already have it (already exist), and that can only happen once for each animal. If you could understand this you would see that it proves that coming into existence CANNOT be a benefit.
For coming into existence to be a benefit, there has to be a recipient, a beneficiary, every benefit has a beneficiary. Since coming into existence can only happen once, therefore the animal that does not yet exist (that pre-existent thing) must be that beneficiary. But to be a beneficiary a thing must exist. But to receive the one-time benefit of coming into existence, it must not already exist or it can't receive the benefit, and so on, forever. Your argument is a logical conundrum.
Popular posts by Kazuki san
analyse this
Consumers Prefer Free Range Eggs...
Value of Knowledge
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Atra_Undecim
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 36 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit& - 2005/04/13 20:18
But that's not what you've ever been talking about,
Fuckwit, and we all know it. YOU especially know it,
Fuckwit. You have always been talking about *INITIAL* existence, Fuckwit: "being born".
Why do you keep trying to move the goalpost, Fuckwit, you fuckwitted cunt, when you KNOW I will always catch you? You aren't talking about CONTINUED existence,
Fuckwit, and never were. You ALWAYS have been talking about initial existence.
I am not self-limiting at all, DEEPLY self-limited
Fuckwit: you are. You are absolutely limited, boxed in, by a stupid, fuckwitted, WRONG belief: that coming into existence is a "benefit" to animals
Popular posts by Atra_Undecim
Typically dishonest Lesley-the-Iris...
why do you PETA skanks fund the ...
You Fat Gits
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Kazuki san
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 74 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit& - 2005/04/13 23:10
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=benefit a. Something that promotes or enhances well-being; an advantage: *The field trip was of great benefit to the students.*
Note in the example "students", already existing..
One's well-being cannot be promoted or enhanced until one already exists, therefore one cannot logically benefit from life.
It's also true to say that one cannot benefit unless one is alive, therefore life must exist before a benefit may ensue.
Give up fuckwit, it's just too much for your simple mind.
The only thing I want eliminated is the misguided notion that the lives of livestock have moral signifiance.
[..]
You're dead wrong as always. Human crops such as rice support huge populations of animals. Also the return of grazing lands to indigenous animals would mean many, many more animals of different species could occupy that land.
Just because I tell the plain truth instead of spinning yarns does not mean
I favour elimination, I DON'T.
Popular posts by Kazuki san
analyse this
Consumers Prefer Free Range Eggs...
Value of Knowledge
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Isilme Palandir
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 14 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit& - 2005/04/14 05:35
That's right ~~jonnie~~ we all understand.
When faced with an emotional crisis some people are driven to devote themselves entirely to their work, you have chosen usenet.
We all understand, when your personal e-mails are aired on usenet the embarrassement must be hard to accept.
You just keep on sending your edicts to that nice Mr. Harrison, believe me, we all there for you.
Popular posts by Isilme Palandir
You Fat Gits
'Nymshifting' gone mad.
Why not name and shame the 20-30...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Atra_Undecim
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 36 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit& - 2005/04/14 15:58
"And before it's alive" WHAT, Fuckwit? Before "it" is alive, there is no "it". There is no moral value to consider if "it" never comes into being.
I really wish I understood more about the deep, crippling limitation on your thinking that prevents you from seeing this. All I know is, the limitation is there, and it is plainly apparent, and it is crippling to you.
"Life" - initial existence - CANNOT be a "benefit" to any animal, Fuckwit: there IS no entity on which to confer the benefit.
Popular posts by Atra_Undecim
Typically dishonest Lesley-the-Iris...
why do you PETA skanks fund the ...
You Fat Gits
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
4691230
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 22 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit& - 2005/04/15 06:15
The predisposition of matter to converge upon a stable state is blocked by life.
Popular posts by 4691230
U.S. Mad Cow Case Increases Pressur...
Trappers Push Pro-Trapping Postage ...
Happy Ending For Rescued Farm Anima...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Kazuki san
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 74 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit& - 2005/04/15 08:53
The life of the chicken who's leg you had for dinner has no moral significance for you, regardless of what you think.
Popular posts by Kazuki san
analyse this
Consumers Prefer Free Range Eggs...
Value of Knowledge
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Atra_Undecim
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 36 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit& - 2005/04/15 13:51
STOP the unethical snipping, cocksucker.
Leave this in:
Let us once again, tediously but unfortunately, due to your inherent dishonesty, necessarily, re-establish the definitions. Don't bother lying and telling me these aren't your definitions; they are, and we both know they are.
Existence: "being born"; *initial* existence; "getting life"
Benefit: something that *improves* the welfare of an entity
Welfare: qualitative state of being; synonymous with
"well-being"
These are your terms. I will not discuss them with you further. Is that clear? These are the meanings you have been using, no matter if you have been using the exact language or not. This is not open to further debate.
No, you can't. You have no way of contemplating what it would be "like", because there is no "it".
[snip horseshit]
The *only* thing you can contemplate, you fetid twat, is what the world was like before you were in it. You cannot logically contemplate "never-existence". Stop being such a twit, twat.
No, it is not the same at all. "post-existence" does not erase the historical fact of your having existed.
I'm not suggesting that, and never was, and you know it. Prat.
Existence: "being born"; *initial* existence; "getting life"
Benefit: something that *improves* the welfare of an entity
Welfare: qualitative state of being; synonymous with
"well-being"
Why does that not surprise me?
Sophomoric:
1 : conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of a sophomore <a sophomoric prank>
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=sophomoric&x=0&y=0
A sophomore, you uneducated, semi-literate twat, is a student in the second of a four-year level of school.
The term is used both for American high school and for
American university. In the context of "sophomoric", it means some ass-munch who has been at school long enough to know how to tie his shoes, but hasn't acquired any intellectually useful knowledge yet. It is you, except that I'm not confident you can tie your own shoes; thank god for Velcro, eh?
You are not a philosopher, full stop. You are uneducated, you are not genuinely inquisitive, you do not learn. You don't play chess.
Don't make me vomit. You give ZERO indication of any native, untrained intelligence, and you for certain are not brilliant. You are quite dull, in fact.
You have not figured out anything, sophomore. The most important thing you haven't figured out is, you are really very stupid, and seemingly incapable of learning.
You do not know *anything* of philosophy. You have not intuited what minds orders of magnitude finer than your shabby little raisin have struggled with for millenia.
You are leagues deep, sophomore. I really ought to reconsider calling you 'sophomore'; real sophomores at least ARE at school, where they might learn something if they persist and keep their mouths shut.
Yes, it's true: you have invalidly attempted to move the goalpost. You can't do it. I stopped you. I kept the debate in its original formulation, and you lost.
Popular posts by Atra_Undecim
Typically dishonest Lesley-the-Iris...
why do you PETA skanks fund the ...
You Fat Gits
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Kazuki san
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 74 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit& - 2005/04/15 15:03
[..]
An animal you injure suffers a wound, a wound heals. The animal you kill
"suffers" loss of life, loss of life is permanent. That's why murder is a more serious crime than assault. The fact that the victim is no longer around to "suffer" pain from the crime against them is not relevant.
No, actually it might have some meaning to a moron. What does "worth living" mean to a chicken?
What more do you need? It's justified, do it. It's not, don't. There's no more to consider.
How clever. If 1,000,000 monkeys typed on 1,000,000 keyborads for 1,000,000 years they would type everything ever written, it's an old saying, don't take it literally, jackass.
Because it's unethical to take moral credit for a life, especially when that life is created to feed you.
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,talk.politics.a nimals,uk.politics.animals
http://www.nehbc.org/pollan2.html
It's a long article, but you need to take the time read it.
Popular posts by Kazuki san
analyse this
Consumers Prefer Free Range Eggs...
Value of Knowledge
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
|
post new topic