The best!
ex-PFC Wintergreen
start on this at all:
I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
post my spew as everyone else does.
Fuckwit - 11/30/1999
Fuckwit believes that unborn "future farm animals" are
morally considerable "somethings":
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.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
He claims that he gives livestock animals' lives
"consideration" that "vegans", selfishly, don't. But
in fact, he gives the animals' lives *no* consideration
as having morally considerable value AT ALL; it's only
utilitarian to Fuckwit:
It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005
In fact, the only "consideration" he gives animals'
lives is instrumental, as a means to products Fuckwit
wants to consume. This exchange with someone named
Dave illustrates it perfectly. The discussion
ostensibly had been about which set of animals' lives,
livestock or wildlife, ought to receive greater moral
consideration. Fuckwit suddenly abandons any pretense
of moral consideration of their lives, and shows he is
only interested in the products they yield:
Dave:
I am suggesting that we have no reason to
promote life for farm animals ahead of life for
wild animals
Fuckwit:
LOL!!!. We have at least two reasons. Can you
think of either?
Dave:
Enlighten me.
Fuckwit:
Meat. Gravy.
Fuckwit David Harrison - Mar 20, 2006
He claims to "promote decent aw [animal welfare]", but
the fact is he doesn't care if animals suffer at all:
I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999
This last is astonishing: admitting that he would
ignore their suffering is an admission that he
*DOESN'T* care about them at all, except for the
products they yield.
He believes they can experience things - loss,
deprivation, unfairness:
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
If you keep an animal from being born which
would have been born without your interference,
you have denied life to it, whether it actually
exists or not.
Fuckwit - 28 Sept 1999 http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu
If it is wrong to cut their lives short, it is
even more wrong to discourage them from ever
getting to experience life at all IMO.
Fuckwit - 9 Nov 1999 http://tinyurl.com/38bd9v
I am talking about non-existing entities as if
they will be alive some day. You are encouraging
the idea that they should never be alive.
Fuckwit - 10 Nov 1999 http://tinyurl.com/2nypox
He believes that the "future farm animals" getting to
live at all is what's important, irrespective of the
quality of their lives:
*Whatever* life they get they are lucky to get
it...even if it's only six weeks like a fryer.
Fuckwit - 09/04/1999
All of that has nothing to do with how many
actually get to live. But that is why I feel
that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
in the respect that it *did* get to be born,
since the odds are infinite against all of us
that *we* will actually get to experience life.
Fuckwit - 12/11/1999
Then I guess raising billions of animals for
food provides billions of beings with a place in
eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least
some of it.
Fuckwit - 04/12/2002
But it's still every bit as morally acceptable
for humans to kill animals for food, as it is
for any other animals to do so imo. And in fact
more so, since we provide life for most of the
animals we kill.
Fuckwit - 04/20/2002
Life is the benefit that makes all others
possible.
Fuckwit - 06/25/2003 (and numerous other posts)
Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the
most important benefits for any being. Though
life itself is a necessary benefit for all
beings, the individual life experiences of the
animals are completely different things and not
necessarily a benefit for every animal,
depending on the particular things that they
experience.
Fuckwit - 03/22/2005
Lately (winter 2008), Fuckwit has been lying about his
focus. He has taken to claiming that he is concerned
with existing farm animals, and their enjoyment of
[ugh; wretched Fuckwit phrasing alert] "lives of
positive value". This is another Fuckwit lie. As the
above quotes largely show, and as the next two amplify
and reinforce, Fuckwit has *always* been maniacally
obsessed with the "wrong" done to non-existent "future
farm animals":
If it is wrong to cut their lives short, it is
even more wrong to discourage them from ever
getting to experience life at all IMO.
Fuckwit - 9 Nov 1999 http://tinyurl.com/38bd9v
I am talking about non-existing entities as if
they will be alive some day. You are encouraging
the idea that they should never be alive.
Fuckwit - 10 Nov 1999 http://tinyurl.com/2nypox
Fuckwit tries to deny that he attaches any importance
to the mere fact of "getting to experience life" per
se, but as usual, his words betray him. Here, we see
that Fuckwit believes that "providing them with life"
earns humans some kind of moral bonus points:
As for whether or not providing them with life
is an acceptable trade off for taking it later,
no one has ever had a problem with it.
Fuckwit - 10/12/2003
He believes that "aras" are doing something terrible to
the unborn "future farm animals" merely by *wanting* to
prevent them from being born:
People who encourage vegetarianism are the
worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
have IMO.
Fuckwit - 09/13/1999
You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
Fuckwit - 01/08/2002
That approach is illogical, since if it
is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
*far worse* to keep those same animals from
getting to have any life at all.
Fuckwit - 07/30/1999
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
[like Humpty Dumpty, I pay this quote extra!]
Fuckwit claims, falsely, that what the animals feel
about their lives is what matters:
But!! Since *we* are not the ones that we are
discussing, what *we* know has nothing to do
with it. Instead, the way the animals feel
about their lives is what matters, and in order
to get some idea of what that is, we have to
ignore the things that we know, and that they
do not (like the fact that they will be
killed). If a person is not willing to try to
do that, then they really don't care about the
animals, but are worried more about their self.
Fuckwit - 08/20/1999
But of course, he's lying. It's what *Fuckwit* feels
about them, about his connection to them, about his
ability to "appreciate" them for a while, that matters
to him:
Over in cat ng world I've been flamed pretty
well for letting [Fuckwit's cat] have any
[kittens]. At least one of them feels that for
every kitten I let a person have from "my" cat,
a kitten in a shelter will die. Of course the
ratio is not likely to be anywhere near one to
one, but some folks tend to be a bit fanatical
about things. Even if it were that way, there
is really no reason for me to encourage life
for some kittens in a shelter, at the expense
of kittens that could get to experience life
from a cat that I actually care about, and
kittens that I get to appreciate and like at
least for a little while.
Fuckwit - 09/23/1999
At least my "insanity" allows appreciation for
what life has to offer [to animals].
Fuckwit - 05/06/2004
Fuckwit sleazily and dishonestly tries to keep
insisting that the people arguing with him need to show
how the "'ar' proposal" to eliminate farm animal is
ethically superior to providing "decent" lives for
them. But as we see, Fuckwit isn't at all concerned
with providing "decent lives" for them. He's
interested in seeing them "get to experience life",
period, irrespective of the quality of that life. And
he feels anyone who wants to try to stop that is evil.
No one needs to show any ethical superiority of one
"proposal" over another, at all, as long as Fuckwit is
lying about *his* proposal and as long as he continues
to insist on presenting the bogus, logically invalid
choice that he does.
The record, in Fuckwit's own words, speaks for itself.
No one has "lied" about Fuckwit's beliefs. Fuckwit
believes everything I have said he believes, as
supported by Fuckwit's own ranting.
Mr.Smartypants
wrote:
>
> You really have to wonder why Fuckwit David Harrison even bothered to
> start on this at all:
>
<snip>
Are you going to start disagreeing with yourself again Goobs?
Rupert
And I also just wanted to say that it's a really fine and admirable
public service you're performing by making pretty much the exact same
post over and over again for about ten years setting forth the reasons
for believing that David Harrison is a complete nincompoop, because
there might be a few people who hang around here for a while and yet
continue to feel substantial confusion on that point, and it's really
big of you to put in the effort to help them see how things are more
quickly.
Hope you're well.
dh
>He believes they can experience things - loss,
>deprivation, unfairness:
No, that's a lie as I've pointed out too many times. It's a
lie dependant on a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. In
contrast to that Goo obviously believes there is some
pre-existent "state". Not only has he made it clear he believes
there is, but also that he hilariously believes the ability to
benefit from existence is somehow dependant upon the existence of
his supposed pre-existent state:
_________________________________________________________
"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo
"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was" - Goo
"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was" - Goo
"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare" - Goo
"Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare
improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
life we can detect, we cannot conclude that life is a
benefit to it." - Goo
���������������������������������������������������������
The Goober carries his belief further and stronger to the point
that he declares his supposed pre-existent state is always better
for the "entities" regardless of the quality of their life on
Earth:
_________________________________________________________
"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before" - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
with never existing." - Goo
"It is not "good"for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - Goo
���������������������������������������������������������
As yet I have found no good reason(s) to agree with Goo and he
certainly has never provided any good reason(s) himself, so I
must remain in disagreement with this Goober's claims about the
subject.
. . .
>Fuckwit sleazily and dishonestly tries to keep
>insisting that the people arguing with him need to show
>how the "'ar' proposal" to eliminate farm animal is
>ethically superior to providing "decent" lives for
>them.
LOL!!! Well Goob, they certainly need to before anyone can
know what it is they think they want everyone to BELIEVE is
superior about it...LOL... Were you somehow unaware of that, Goo?
dh
<rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Ball [Goo], I just wanted to say welcome back, we missed you terribly.
>
>And I also just wanted to say that it's a really fine and admirable
>public service you're performing by making pretty much the exact same
>post over and over again for about ten years setting forth the reasons
>for believing that David Harrison is a complete nincompoop,
AFAIK all of Goo's "reasons" are lies. I've certainly been
taught--by you--from experience that you don't have much if any
problem with dishonesty provided it supports what you want to
believe. That leaves me curious if ANY degree of dishonesty
bothers you if it's supporting what you want to believe. All that
being the case I'm interested in which of Goo's particular lies
about me you feel are really fine and admirable. I both ask and
challenge you to provide your favorite examples now:
>because
>there might be a few people who hang around here for a while and yet
>continue to feel substantial confusion on that point,
If they also are aware that the Goober lies blatantly then
his dishonesty could confuse them as to what about it could
possibly be thought of as really fine and admirable, as I've both
asked and challenged you to try explaining.
>and it's really
>big of you to put in the effort to help them see how things are more
>quickly.
Are there any of Goo's lies you feel are not really fine and
admirable? LOL! No doubt IF you feel that way about any of his
lies about me you are far too chicken shit to say what they are,
since Goo would attack you visciously like he did when you
appeared to try considering the life of some livestock animal one
time in your life. One time in your life you tried it, and the
Goober and one of his boys immediately trained you never to make
that attempt again. Do you think Goo was really fine and
admirable about all this too:
_________________________________________________________
"Derek" wrote:
> If you think that "a private email account" is actually
> private and not open to those who know how to get
> into them, even while the account "holder is present",
Goo responded:
Can you show me how to do that? Contact me via the secondary
channel to arrange a time.
���������������������������������������������������������
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:11:43 -0500, dh@. wrote:
> >On Fri, 18 Dec, Goo wrote:
>
> >>He believes they can experience things - loss,
> >>deprivation, unfairness:
>
> > No, that's a lie as I've pointed out too many times. It's a
> >lie dependant on a couple of mistakes I made in terminology.
>
It certainly wasn't. That was nothing but a weak, lame attempted
dodge on his part. From the time the question was first put to him
until he finally responded was something like eight months. He had
all the time in the world to consider and reconsider his
"terminology". No, he said exactly what he meant, using the words
that most accurately conveyed what he believes. That's absolutely
clear, and not in serious dispute.
> You believe 'they' exist, and
> that by bringing 'them' into existence you are doing 'them' a good deed.
And he believes that if anyone "prevents" that from happening, that
person is imposing a "loss" on them. His meaning is plain as day. No
one will be fooled by this silly claim about "mistake in terminology".
> But no, you are their grim reaper, procuring them from their timeless
> ethereal paradise and casting them into your filthy pits of pain, misery
> and utter despair. Where they once experienced only bliss, by your hand
> they now suffer agonies constantly administered by the vivisectionist who
> toys with them, and by the farmer who callously exploits their now tender
> flesh for food. For them your world is hell, and you a maleficent spectre
> procuring all you can from theirs with the lie that yours is better. Your
> greed for them is no different from Satan's greed for our souls.
Kreed
<notg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 21, 10:35�am, Kreed <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:11:43 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>> >On Fri, 18 Dec, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >>He believes they can experience things - loss,
"Even if an all veg*n human population would be
ethically better in an environmental way, there is still
the fact that it would cause billions of future sentient
beings to miss out entirely on what life they could
have had."
David Harrison 5 Aug 1999 http://tinyurl.com/6rj2rl
>> >>deprivation,
"What gives you the right to want to deprive them
[unborn animals] of having what life they could have?
David Harrison 12 Oct 2001 http://tinyurl.com/yb8nhou
>> >>unfairness:
"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.
David Harrison 19 Oct 1999 http://tinyurl.com/yf5vzmm
>> > � �No, that's a lie as I've pointed out too many times. It's a
>> >lie dependant on a couple of mistakes I made in terminology.
>>
>> It wasn't a mistake in terminology, fuckwit.
>
>It certainly wasn't. That was nothing but a weak, lame attempted
>dodge on his part. From the time the question was first put to him
>until he finally responded was something like eight months. He had
>all the time in the world to consider and reconsider his
>"terminology". No, he said exactly what he meant, using the words
>that most accurately conveyed what he believes. That's absolutely
>clear, and not in serious dispute.
At least, not by any honest participants here, that is, which counts
fuckwit Harrison out I suppose.
>> You believe 'they' exist, and
>> that by bringing 'them' into existence you are doing 'them' a good deed.
>
>And he believes that if anyone "prevents" that from happening, that
>person is imposing a "loss" on them. His meaning is plain as day. No
>one will be fooled by this silly claim about "mistake in terminology".
He wrote what he wrote. He can't escape it.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:03:42 -0800 (PST), ex-PFC Wintergreen
>
> >On Dec 21, 10:35 am, Kreed <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:11:43 -0500, dh@. wrote:
> >> >On Fri, 18 Dec, Goo wrote:
>
> >> >>He believes they can experience things - loss,
>
> "Even if an all veg*n human population would be
> ethically better in an environmental way, there is still
> the fact that it would cause billions of future sentient
> beings to miss out entirely on what life they could
> have had."
>
> >> >>deprivation,
>
> "What gives you the right to want to deprive them
> [unborn animals] of having what life they could have?
>
> >> >>unfairness:
>
> "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.
>
> >> > No, that's a lie as I've pointed out too many times. It's a
> >> >lie dependant on a couple of mistakes I made in terminology.
>
> >> It wasn't a mistake in terminology, fuckwit.
>
> >It certainly wasn't. That was nothing but a weak, lame attempted
> >dodge on his part. From the time the question was first put to him
> >until he finally responded was something like eight months. He had
> >all the time in the world to consider and reconsider his
> >"terminology". No, he said exactly what he meant, using the words
> >that most accurately conveyed what he believes. That's absolutely
> >clear, and not in serious dispute.
>
> At least, not by any honest participants here, that is, which counts
> fuckwit Harrison out I suppose.
>
> >> You believe 'they' exist, and
> >> that by bringing 'them' into existence you are doing 'them' a good deed.
>
> >And he believes that if anyone "prevents" that from happening, that
> >person is imposing a "loss" on them. His meaning is plain as day. No
> >one will be fooled by this silly claim about "mistake in terminology".
>
> He wrote what he wrote. He can't escape it.
He wrote what he wrote, and it is what he meant. His beliefs are
clear, and clearly understood by everyone who has read his statements
of belief.
Dutch
> On Fri, 18 Dec, Goo wrote:
>
>>He believes they can experience things - loss,
>>deprivation, unfairness:
>
> No, that's a lie as I've pointed out too many times. It's a
> lie dependant on a couple of mistakes I made in terminology
Your mistakes go much deeper than terminology, your lack of comprehension
leads to deep rooted confusion about moral relationships.
If vegans can be criticized for their failure to support the breeding of
livestock then the livestock who never come into existence as a result of
those choices must suffer in some way, must experience some kind of loss.
But of course that makes no sense, non-existent beings can't suffer. Your
argument is nonsensical.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Ball [Goo], I just wanted to say welcome back, we missed you terribly.
>>
>>And I also just wanted to say that it's a really fine and admirable
>>public service you're performing by making pretty much the exact same
>>post over and over again for about ten years setting forth the reasons
>>for believing that David Harrison is a complete nincompoop,
>
> AFAIK all of Goo's "reasons" are lies.
Sadly, your confusion is all too real.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> <dh@.> wrote
>
> > On Fri, 18 Dec, Goo wrote:
>
> >>He believes they can experience things - loss,
> >>deprivation, unfairness:
>
> > No, that's a lie as I've pointed out too many times. It's a
> > lie dependant on a couple of mistakes I made in terminology
>
> Your mistakes go much deeper than terminology,
There was no "mistake of terminology" at all. He had months to
compose his reply, and when he finally posted it, he used the words
that accurately reflected his thinking. He said what he wanted and
meant to say.
dh
>On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:11:43 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Dec, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>He believes they can experience things - loss,
>>>deprivation, unfairness:
>>
>> No, that's a lie as I've pointed out too many times. It's a
>>lie dependant on a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. In
>>contrast to that Goo obviously believes there is some
>>pre-existent "state". Not only has he made it clear he believes
>>there is, but also that he hilariously believes the ability to
>>benefit from existence is somehow dependant upon the existence of
>>his supposed pre-existent state:
>>_________________________________________________________
>>"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>a pre-existent state" - Goo
>
>It wasn't a mistake in terminology, fuckwit. You believe 'they' exist, and that
I disagree with your belief that it makes sense to assume a
pre-existent state Goob, but I consider the possibility that
you're right and one or more might exist. Even if you're right
though Goo you still haven't explained how it could prevent
existing beings from benefitting from their existence. Try
explaining how you think it could now:
>>"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
>>might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
>>"pre-existence" state was" - Goo
>>
>>"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
>>I was" - Goo
>>
>>"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
>>existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
>>its welfare" - Goo
>>
>>"Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare
>>improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
>>life we can detect, we cannot conclude that life is a
>>benefit to it." - Goo
>>���������������������������������������������������������
>>The Goober carries his belief further and stronger to the point
>>that he declares his supposed pre-existent state is always better
>>for the "entities" regardless of the quality of their life on
>>Earth:
>>_________________________________________________________
>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>not make them better off than before" - Goo
>>
>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>
>>"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
>>with never existing." - Goo
>
>by bringing 'them' into existence you are doing 'them' a good deed.
>But no, you are their grim reaper, procuring them from their timeless
>ethereal paradise and casting them into your filthy pits of pain, misery
>and utter despair.
Some of them have lives of positive value and some of them
have lives of negative value Goo. That's about as obvious and
basic an aspect of the situation as there is to it Goob, but you
people can't even get that far. So how could you move beyond it
to consider which have lives of positive value and which not? You
necessarily could not do it Goo because you "quit" when you
refuse to consider the animals at all.
>>"It is not "good"for the animals that they exist, no matter
>>how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
>
>Where they once experienced only bliss,
During what state was that Goob?
>>"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
>>the existence." - Goo
>>���������������������������������������������������������
>>As yet I have found no good reason(s) to agree with Goo and he
>>certainly has never provided any good reason(s) himself, so I
>>must remain in disagreement with this Goober's claims about the
>>subject.
>
>by your hand
>they now suffer agonies constantly administered by the vivisectionist who
>toys with them,
Not by mine you poor insane Goober. Animal research benefits
humans including you misnomer addicts as well as other animals
though Goo, so you should try to keep that in mind if you can.
>>. . .
>>>Fuckwit sleazily and dishonestly tries to keep
>>>insisting that the people arguing with him need to show
>>>how the "'ar' proposal" to eliminate farm animal is
>>>ethically superior to providing "decent" lives for
>>>them.
>>
>> LOL!!! Well Goob, they certainly need to before anyone can
>>know what it is they think they want everyone to BELIEVE is
>>superior about it...LOL... Were you somehow unaware of that, Goo?
>
>and by the farmer who callously exploits their now tender
>flesh for food.
It doesn't hurt dead animals for people to eat them Goo. Try
to get comfortable with that fact if you ever want to try to
think realistically about all this.
>For them your world is hell,
You people can't distinguish between which of them have lives
of positive value and which of them have negative value
Goob...you aren't even capable of trying in fact.
>and you a maleficent spectre
>procuring all you can from theirs with the lie that yours is better.
My what is better than what Goo, do you have any idea?
>Your
>greed for them is no different from Satan's greed for our souls.
I believe that's a lie Goober because I want them to have
decent lives of positive value on Earth, and decent lives of
positive value in future lives if there are any. What makes you
people think Satan wants the same for humans OR animals Goo?
dh
>On Dec 21, 12:41�pm, Goo wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:03:42 -0800 (PST), Goo wrote:
Goo, even if I did believe the things you lie that I believe,
how do you think that could prevent every being on the planet
from benefitting from its existence?
What if I did NOT believe what you lie that I believe? Why
are you people afraid that if I didn't believe what you lie that
I do believe, millions of livestock WOULD benefit from lives of
positive value, can any of you bring yourselves to consider that
aspect of it?
Rupert
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'll give it a go.
(1) You benefit from a state of affairs if you would be worse off if
the state of affairs did not hold.
(2) In the hypothetical circumstance in which you don't exist, it's
not correct to say that you're worse off (because you don't exist).
(3) So you don't benefit from the fact that you exist.
I think that's the argument most people round here want to push, "Goo"
included.
dh
<rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 23, 1:12�am, dh@. challenged:
>
>> � � Goo, even if I did believe the things you lie that I believe,
>> how do you think that could prevent every being on the planet
>> from benefitting from its existence?
>>
>> � � What if I did NOT believe what you lie that I believe? Why
>> are you people afraid that if I didn't believe what you lie that
>> I do believe, millions of livestock WOULD benefit from lives of
>> positive value, can any of you bring yourselves to consider that
>> aspect of it?-
>
>I'll give it a go.
>
>(1) You benefit from a state of affairs if you would be worse off if
>the state of affairs did not hold.
>(2) In the hypothetical circumstance in which you don't exist, it's
>not correct to say that you're worse off (because you don't exist).
>(3) So you don't benefit from the fact that you exist.
>
>I think that's the argument most people round here want to push, "Goo"
>included.
Apparently so, but you still leave nothing to take into
consideration as has been true of that Goobal position the entire
time. You all very badly WANT life not to be a benefit for
anything, but you can't explain what about pre-existence or
non-existence you want people to think prevents any of us from
benefitting from our existence. Simply claiming that none of us
do because at one time we did not exist doesn't do it...in fact
that does nothing but make a person wonder what I keep
challenging you people to try explaining. Again:
Exactly WHAT about your supposed pre-existent state, do you
believe is preventing you from benefitting from your existence
now?
dh
>> AFAIK all of Goo's "reasons" are lies. I've certainly been
>>taught--by you--from experience that you don't have much if any
>>problem with dishonesty provided it supports what you want to
>>believe. That leaves me curious if ANY degree of dishonesty
>>bothers you if it's supporting what you want to believe. All that
>>being the case I'm interested in which of Goo's particular lies
>>about me you feel are really fine and admirable. I both ask and
>>challenge you to provide your favorite examples now:
>
>Sadly, your confusion is all too real.
Provide examples of which of Goo's particular lies
about me you feel are really fine and admirable. Go:
Rupert
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think any talk about a "pre-existent state" is hogwash.
I happily grant that I am most likely better off if it turns out that
my life continues another 50 years instead of only 5 minutes, but that
is because I am around now and I will be around to enjoy the positive
side-effects if my life continues a reasonably long time.
We are supposed to be talking about some kind of situation where the
sperm and the egg are in separate petri dishes and my parents are
weighing up whether to get the whole thing started. Whatever the
merits of doing that it doesn't benefit me because I'm just not there
yet. There simply ain't any Rupert around to be affected by anything,
I tell you.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
No one has lied about your beliefs. You wrote what you wrote, and it
reflects your beliefs. "Mistakes in terminology" might happen if
you're being questioned in a high-pressure setting, say by a hostile
lawyer in a courtroom, but that's not the case here. You had
literally months to think of your reply and get it right. In fact,
you _did_ get it right: you wrote your beliefs.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 06:30:36 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>
>
>
> <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 23, 1:12 am, dh@. challenged:
>
> >> Goo, even if I did believe the things you lie that I believe,
> >> how do you think that could prevent every being on the planet
> >> from benefitting from its existence?
>
> >> What if I did NOT believe what you lie that I believe? Why
> >> are you people afraid that if I didn't believe what you lie that
> >> I do believe, millions of livestock WOULD benefit from lives of
> >> positive value, can any of you bring yourselves to consider that
> >> aspect of it?-
>
> >I'll give it a go.
>
> >(1) You benefit from a state of affairs if you would be worse off if
> >the state of affairs did not hold.
> >(2) In the hypothetical circumstance in which you don't exist, it's
> >not correct to say that you're worse off (because you don't exist).
> >(3) So you don't benefit from the fact that you exist.
>
> >I think that's the argument most people round here want to push, "Goo"
> >included.
>
> Apparently so, but you still leave nothing to take into
> consideration as has been true of that Goobal position the entire
> time. You all very badly WANT life not to be a benefit for
> anything,
Life - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 Goo wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:11:43 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
> >>On Fri, 18 Dec, Goo wrote:
>
> >>>He believes they can experience things - loss,
> >>>deprivation, unfairness:
>
> >> No, that's a lie as I've pointed out too many times. It's a
> >>lie dependant on a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. In
> >>contrast to that Goo obviously believes there is some
> >>pre-existent "state". Not only has he made it clear he believes
> >>there is, but also that he hilariously believes the ability to
> >>benefit from existence is somehow dependant upon the existence of
> >>his supposed pre-existent state:
> >>_________________________________________________________
> >>"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
> >>can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
> >>a pre-existent state" - Goo
>
> >It wasn't a mistake in terminology, fuckwit. You believe 'they' exist, and that
>
> I disagree with your belief
YOUR belief. Apparently you disagree with yourself.
> that it makes sense to assume a
> pre-existent state
It doesn't make any sense at all, but you believe it anyway.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
There was no lying. You believe what you wrote.
Rupert
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:24:39 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>
> >Ball [Goo], I just wanted to say welcome back, we missed you terribly.
>
> >And I also just wanted to say that it's a really fine and admirable
> >public service you're performing by making pretty much the exact same
> >post over and over again for about ten years setting forth the reasons
> >for believing that David Harrison is a complete nincompoop,
>
> AFAIK all of Goo's "reasons" are lies. I've certainly been
> taught--by you--from experience that you don't have much if any
> problem with dishonesty provided it supports what you want to
> believe. That leaves me curious if ANY degree of dishonesty
> bothers you if it's supporting what you want to believe.
Dishonesty is not one of my problems. I am happy to give you honest
feedback as best I am able about whatever it is you believe insofar as
you can make it clear to me, although obviously it would be good if
you could at least give me credit for being honest. As far as what
Ball writes about it, I really don't especially care, but see below.
> All that
> being the case I'm interested in which of Goo's particular lies
> about me you feel are really fine and admirable. I both ask and
> challenge you to provide your favorite examples now:
>
You really have a problem with working out when people are attempting
sarcastic humour, don't you? Obviously I do not really believe that I
have ever known Ball to do anything fine and admirable.
I do estimate the quality of the argumentation you generally provide
round here poorly, yes. That's just based on my experience debating
with you, not on anything Ball has said. I don't need Ball to help me
form that view. Sorry about that, but I'm sure you'll cope.
> >because
> >there might be a few people who hang around here for a while and yet
> >continue to feel substantial confusion on that point,
>
> If they also are aware that the Goober lies blatantly then
> his dishonesty could confuse them as to what about it could
> possibly be thought of as really fine and admirable, as I've both
> asked and challenged you to try explaining.
>
The point I am trying to make is that your problems with your
reputation around here are not due to Ball, they are due to people
forming poor impressions of your debating skills when you engage with
them. Ball would perhaps like to think that he is lowering your
reputation further, I don't know, I can't really fathom what drives
him to keep having a go at you, but his efforts do not achieve
anything in particular over and above what people already believe
about you based on what you write.
> >and it's really
> >big of you to put in the effort to help them see how things are more
> >quickly.
>
> Are there any of Goo's lies you feel are not really fine and
> admirable? LOL! No doubt IF you feel that way about any of his
> lies about me you are far too chicken shit to say what they are,
> since Goo would attack you visciously like he did when you
> appeared to try considering the life of some livestock animal one
> time in your life.
I haven't really looked all that closely at what Ball has said to be
honest. Isn't he just providing quotations? With regard to the
*quotations*, are they fabricated or taken out of context? You tell
me. One would think if they were you would have demonstrated this.
I'm not especially worried about Ball having a go at me, I feel
reasonably confident of my ability to hold my own in a debate with
him.
> One time in your life you tried it, and the
> Goober and one of his boys immediately trained you never to make
> that attempt again. Do you think Goo was really fine and
> admirable about all this too:
> _________________________________________________________
>
> "Derek" wrote:
> > If you think that "a private email account" is actually
> > private and not open to those who know how to get
> > into them, even while the account "holder is present",
>
> Goo responded:
>
> Can you show me how to do that? Contact me via the secondary
> channel to arrange a time.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
As I say you've got the wrong idea about that incident if you think
that it leads me to take their wishes about my behaviour on board now.
Certainly neither of them behaved especially admirably; presumably we
all agree about that. Derek succeeded in upsetting my equilibrium,
obviously, if he views that as a victory, well good on him. I wouldn't
have thought that Ball's role in the matter meant anything in
particular. Presumably at that stage he had already found out it was a
trick; if the request were genuine he would be unlikely to make it in
public.
Remember that time when Ball was asking me if my mental health history
was due to a history of child abuse? That was lovely, wasn't it?
See, you just don't get it, obviously I would never seriously claim
that there was anything "fine and admirable" about Ball, it is
sarcasm, I am satirising what I see as a rather absurd situation. Get
it now? I'm amazed I have to explain it.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
They are due to people forming accurate impressions of his poor
debating skills.
Rupert
Well, sure, obviously I would agree there, except I sort of feel the
point's been made, really. But there you go.
Kreed
>On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 Kreed wrote:
>>On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:11:43 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>On Fri, 18 Dec, ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>>>
>>>>He believes they can experience things - loss, deprivation, unfairness:
>>>
>>> No, that's a lie as I've pointed out too many times. It's a
>>>lie dependant on a couple of mistakes I made in terminology.
>>
>>But no, you are their grim reaper, procuring them from their timeless
>>ethereal paradise and casting them into your filthy pits of pain, misery
>>they now suffer agonies constantly administered by the vivisectionist who
>>flesh for food. For them your world is hell, and you a maleficent spectre
>>procuring all you can from theirs with the lie that yours is better. Your
>>greed for them is no different from Satan's greed for our souls.
>
It's YOUR belief that animals exist in a pre-existent state, Harrison, not
mine, so you may as well stop trying that desperate, dishonest switcheroo
right now because it only makes you look even more stupid than you do
already.
> but I consider the possibility that one or more might exist.
And there we have all the proof we need to show that YOU STILL DO believe
animals exist in a pre-existent state, despite your later denials, just
like I've been telling you all along for years. Your earlier statements
which reveal this fuckwitted belief of yours were clearly NOT a "mistake in
terminology" at all, liar. You've been trying to get yourself out of
trouble by saying they were for years, but you've undone all that lying now
by exposing the real truth about your beliefs again.
Below is a short list of YOUR quotes which reveal your fuckwitted beliefs
about pre-conceived animals and the wrongs being done to them by vegans who
want to stop livestock farming. You can't deny that you wrote them, and you
can't get yourself out of trouble from them by trying to claim you made a
mistake in terminology when writing them. They're there - they're yours-
and they reveal your beliefs concerning pre-conceived animals.
"Even if an all veg*n human population would be
ethically better in an environmental way, there is still
the fact that it would cause billions of future sentient
beings to miss out entirely on what life they could
have had."
David Harrison 5 Aug 1999 http://tinyurl.com/6rj2rl
"We can *only* deny life to a non-existent being.
We can only "deny" something to a being that doesn't
yet have it. And we can only "take" something from a
being that does already have what we take from it.
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.
If it is wrong to take the life of animals it is even
*worse* to try to keep them from ever getting to live at all."
David Harrison 9 August 1999 http://tinyurl.com/5oug3o
" There are an infinite number of unborns, and there
always will be.
...
If you keep an animal from being born which
would have been born without your interference,
you have denied life to it, whether it actually
exists or not."
David Harrison 28 Sept 1999 http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu
"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."
David Harrison 19 Oct 1999 http://tinyurl.com/yf5vzmm
"I am talking about non-existing entities as if they
will be alive some day. You are encouraging the
idea that they should never be alive."
David Harrison 10 Nov 1999 http://tinyurl.com/2nypox
"If an animal that would otherwise have never been
born, instead gets to live for six weeks and is then
killed, what it has lost is those six weeks of
nonexistence, but it has gained six weeks of life."
David Harrison 31 May 2000 http://tinyurl.com/6gxjl8
"What gives you the right to want to deprive them
[unborn animals] of having what life they could have?"
David Harrison 12 Oct 2001 http://tinyurl.com/yb8nhou
We can see from these old statements of yours, and today's where you again
admit that you do believe 'they' exist in a pre-conceived state, that you
would be their grim reaper if such a circumstance actually existed. You
would procure 'them' from 'their' ethereal place of eternal bliss and
condemn them to a short life in your hell for your benefit with the lie
that it would benefit them. You're a disgusting wretch, and if evil exists
in anyone your entire being is made up of it.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Absolutely they reveal that belief! They ALL support that conclusion
about his belief. No one has lied about his belief - he, himself, has
fully revealed his belief, and no one has made any mistake about it.
>
> "Even if an all veg*n human population would be
> ethically better in an environmental way, there is still
> the fact that it would cause billions of future sentient
> beings to miss out entirely on what life they could
> have had."
> David Harrison 5 Aug 1999http://tinyurl.com/6rj2rl
This one shows unequivocally that he places a high value today on
animal lives that do not, and might never, exist. It's crazy. Note
that almost no one does the same thing even for human life. We assume
that humans will live in the future, and so many people are concerned
to leave the world in a state such that humans who do live in future
will have better rather than worse welfare. But even then, that
doesn't suggest that humans "ought" to live, nor does anyone suggest
that if they don't, there will be some welfare loss.
>
> "We can *only* deny life to a non-existent being.
> We can only "deny" something to a being that doesn't
> yet have it. And we can only "take" something from a
> being that does already have what we take from it.
> 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.
> If it is wrong to take the life of animals it is even
> *worse* to try to keep them from ever getting to live at all."
> David Harrison 9 August 1999http://tinyurl.com/5oug3o
No "mistake in terminology" in any of that.
>
> " There are an infinite number of unborns, and there
> always will be.
> ...
> If you keep an animal from being born which
> would have been born without your interference,
> you have denied life to it, whether it actually
> exists or not."
> David Harrison 28 Sept 1999http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu
You can't deny anything to something that doesn't exist. Since he
believes you can "deny life" to unborn animals, he necessarily
believes they exist.
>
> "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."
> David Harrison 19 Oct 1999http://tinyurl.com/yf5vzmm
Nothing can be "unfair" to something that doesn't exist. Since he
believes it is "unfair" to unborn animals if they are prevented from
being born, he necessarily believes they exist now.
>
> "I am talking about non-existing entities as if they
> will be alive some day. You are encouraging the
> idea that they should never be alive."
> David Harrison 10 Nov 1999http://tinyurl.com/2nypox
>
> "If an animal that would otherwise have never been
> born, instead gets to live for six weeks and is then
> killed, what it has lost is those six weeks of
> nonexistence, but it has gained six weeks of life."
> David Harrison 31 May 2000http://tinyurl.com/6gxjl8
bleaghhhh. That's just wretched writing.
>
> "What gives you the right to want to deprive them
> [unborn animals] of having what life they could have?"
> David Harrison 12 Oct 2001http://tinyurl.com/yb8nhou
Since you can't "deprive" a non-existent entity of anything, he
necessarily believes they exist in some state today. What he believes
is that they exist in a state of pre-existence. It's weird, it's
illogical, it's nonsense, but it's what he believes. There can be no
doubt.
Kreed
Particularly so when we read his latest admission concerning his belief,
that "[he] consider[s] the possibility that one or more might exist." But
there's no "might" about it; he absolutely believes they exist. His quotes
leave no doubt about it. It's beyond dispute.
>> "Even if an all veg*n human population would be
>> �ethically better in an environmental way, there is still
>> �the fact that it would cause billions of future sentient
>> �beings to miss out entirely on what life they could
>> �have had."
>> �David Harrison 5 Aug 1999 http://tinyurl.com/6rj2rl
>
>This one shows unequivocally that he places a high value today on
>animal lives that do not, and might never, exist. It's crazy. Note
>that almost no one does the same thing even for human life. We assume
>that humans will live in the future, and so many people are concerned
>to leave the world in a state such that humans who do live in future
>will have better rather than worse welfare. But even then, that
>doesn't suggest that humans "ought" to live, nor does anyone suggest
>that if they don't, there will be some welfare loss.
"If there were any unkindness, or any lack of kindness, in not breeding
animals, the enormity of our sins of omission would be more than the human
conscience could endure, for the number of the unborn is limitless, and to
wade through slaughter to a throne, "and shut the gates of mercy on
mankind," would be a trifle in comparison with this cold-blooded shutting
of the gates of life on the poor, neglected nonexistent !" Salt.
>> �"We can *only* deny life to a non-existent being.
>> � We can only "deny" something to a being that doesn't
>> � yet have it. And we can only "take" something from a
>> � being that does already have what we take from it.
>> � 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.
>> � �If it is wrong to take the life of animals it is even
>> � *worse* to try to keep them from ever getting to live at all."
>> � David Harrison 9 August 1999 http://tinyurl.com/5oug3o
>
>No "mistake in terminology" in any of that.
And he knows it.
>> " There are an infinite number of unborns, and there
>> � �always will be.
>> �...
>> � �If you keep an animal from being born which
>> � �would have been born without your interference,
>> � �you have denied life to it, whether it actually
>> � �exists or not."
>> � �David Harrison 28 Sept 1999 http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu
>
>You can't deny anything to something that doesn't exist. Since he
>believes you can "deny life" to unborn animals, he necessarily
>believes they exist.
QED
>> � "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."
>> � �David Harrison 19 Oct 1999 http://tinyurl.com/yf5vzmm
>
>Nothing can be "unfair" to something that doesn't exist. Since he
>believes it is "unfair" to unborn animals if they are prevented from
>being born, he necessarily believes they exist now.
QED
>> �"I am talking about non-existing entities as if they
>> � �will be alive some day. You are encouraging the
>> � �idea that they should never be alive."
>> � �David Harrison 10 Nov 1999 http://tinyurl.com/2nypox
>>
>> �"If an animal that would otherwise have never been
>> � �born, instead gets to live for six weeks and is then
>> � �killed, what it has lost is those six weeks of
>> � �nonexistence, but it has gained six weeks of life."
>> � �David Harrison 31 May 2000 http://tinyurl.com/6gxjl8
>
>bleaghhhh. That's just wretched writing.
Yes, but the message is still clear. He believes that a pre-conceived
animal can lose 6 weeks of non-existence by gaining 6 weeks of life.
>> �"What gives you the right to want to deprive them
>> � �[unborn animals] of having what life they could have?"
>> � �David Harrison 12 Oct 2001 http://tinyurl.com/yb8nhou
>
>Since you can't "deprive" a non-existent entity of anything, he
>necessarily believes they exist in some state today. What he believes
>is that they exist in a state of pre-existence. It's weird, it's
>illogical, it's nonsense, but it's what he believes. There can be no
>doubt.
If you look again at that last quote you'll see that he believes 'they'
have a right to be born which trumps our "right to want to deprive them of
having what life they could have".
Dutch
> Goo, even if I did believe the things you lie that I believe,
> how do you think that could prevent every being on the planet
> from benefitting from its existence?
What does that mean? How exactly does a pig "benefit from existence"? It
appears to be a phrase you made up to make you feel less guilty about eating
bacon.
Rupert
Quite a lot of people do believe that, other things equal, it is
better if humans become extinct later rather than sooner. Actually,
I'd be surprised if most people wouldn't concede this point. My sister
says the idea doesn't bother her. Might be something to do with being
young in the 21st century. But I'm sure that almost everyone would
agree that it is better if our species goes on existing for 10 million
years or more rather than less than 200. Many people who are concerned
about human extinction scenarios explicitly make that part of their
concern. There could also sometimes be an element of concern about
personal welfare, or the welfare of your immediant descendants. But in
most cases there would be some element of "it would be good if we
could exist for as long as possible, think of what we might achieve".
Dutch
"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ef30ef31-5b84-42c5...@g4g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
--------------------->.
He is a good example of how individuals do not necessarily exhibit the
innate capacities of the species.
When I see intelligent people responding to dh I can predict what his non
sequitur bonehead reply will be, and can clearly see the futility in
attempting to communicate with him, yet I seem to ignore that futility
myself. I feel like a researcher spending years on a project that everyone
else thinks is a waste of time, except that in this case I agree with them
:>)
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
You're just changing the subject, as usual, you're all over the map.
"Benefitting from your existence" is a rhetorical expression meaning
something like "making the most out of life" and it is contingent on
existing in the first place. That is not the issue being discussed here, I
am sure most livestock animals do fairly well at that under difficult
circumstances.
*Coming into existence* refers to the very instant when you first exist as
as a living organism, and that can't logically be called a benefit for the
simple reason that every benefit requires a benefactor, a recipient that
exists at least a moment prior to the benefit being imparted and none exists
in this case. I realize that words are not really "your thing", but surely
after all these years even you can understand this.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:8cs1j5d3fcler362r...@4ax.com...
I didn't notice any lies, only direct quotes and completely logical and
inescapable conclusions based on your own arguments.
If you want to call coming into existence a benefit then you are assuming a
pre-existent state. If you had said all along what you really mean, simply
that life is "a good thing" then you wouldn't be getting as much static
about the logical flaws in your position.
Dutch
"ex-PFC Wintergreen" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6f1d2aa0-b049-4abc...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
------->
To be precise, a) he believes that coming into existence is a benefit AND he
does not believe b) there is a pre-existent state, even though a)
necessarily implies b).
He does not understand the implications of his own beliefs, or much of
anything else about this whole topic.
Dutch
------------>
Sadly, his debating skills are probably his strongest suit. His lack of
understanding of the meaning of words, of moral theory, poor logic and
thinking in general, the absence of a moral compass, and dogged stubbornness
all rank as greater weaknesses.
Dutch
----------->
I know, let's play "Let's all beat up on the retard for Christmas"
Dutch
------------->
If you agree that life is a good thing, a beautiful thing, or something like
it, that then it makes sense to want it happen in abundance and for it to
continue indefinitely. If you then argue that while all living things have
intrinsic value, the human is the pinnacle of nature's achievements, the
most complex, advanced manifestation of life, then besides the conceits you
mention, it is natural to want man to continue as well. The problem is,
these are somewhat conflicting hopes, because besides being a magnificent
specimen, man is also a destructive species. We probably should go extinct
sooner rather than later for the betterment of the other inhabitants.
Dh takes a very narrow, simplistic approach, forgetting all of the poor use
of words, equivocating and strawmen, his position is that livestock are a
group of living organisms who experience life and thus by being an advocate
for their existence he finds a flaw in vegans because they oppose this
existence, hence the "misnomer" label.
You're right though, almost nobody takes him seriously, but for some strange
reason I enjoy pointing out the flaws in his arguments.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
People want their own offspring to survive.
Mr.Smartypants
Doesn't a hostile Goober count?
You had
> literally months to think of your reply and get it right. In fact,
> you _did_ get it right: you wrote your beliefs.- Hide quoted text -
Mr.Smartypants
With the probable exception of your parents, Goobs.
Rupert
Indeed, but I do think that there is a bit more to it than that.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Fri, 18 Dec, Goo wrote:
> >He believes they can experience things - loss,
> >deprivation, unfairness:
>
> No, that's a lie as I've pointed out too many times. It's a
> lie dependant on a couple of mistakes I made in terminology.
No lies, no "mistakes in terminology". You wrote wrote what you meant
to write; you what you believe. There were no mistakes. You wrote
plenty more that says the same thing in barely different words.
dh
>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:18:58 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 06:30:36 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>><rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 23, 1:12�am, dh@. challenged:
>>>
>>>> � � Goo, even if I did believe the things you lie that I believe,
>>>> how do you think that could prevent every being on the planet
>>>> from benefitting from its existence?
>>>>
>>>> � � What if I did NOT believe what you lie that I believe? Why
>>>> are you people afraid that if I didn't believe what you lie that
>>>> I do believe, millions of livestock WOULD benefit from lives of
>>>> positive value, can any of you bring yourselves to consider that
>>>> aspect of it?-
>>>
>>>I'll give it a go.
>>>
>>>(1) You benefit from a state of affairs if you would be worse off if
>>>the state of affairs did not hold.
>>>(2) In the hypothetical circumstance in which you don't exist, it's
>>>not correct to say that you're worse off (because you don't exist).
>>>(3) So you don't benefit from the fact that you exist.
>>>
>>>I think that's the argument most people round here want to push, "Goo"
>>>included.
>>
>> Apparently so, but you still leave nothing to take into
>>consideration as has been true of that Goobal position the entire
>>time. You all very badly WANT life not to be a benefit for
>>anything, but you can't explain what about pre-existence or
>>non-existence you want people to think prevents any of us from
>>benefitting from our existence. Simply claiming that none of us
>>do because at one time we did not exist doesn't do it...in fact
>>that does nothing but make a person wonder what I keep
>>challenging you people to try explaining. Again:
>>
>>Exactly WHAT about your supposed pre-existent state, do you
>>believe is preventing you from benefitting from your existence
>>now?
>
>You're just changing the subject,
That has always been in question. So far it appears that
nothing about our supposed pre-existent state prevents us from
beneffiting from our existence.
>as usual, you're all over the map.
I'm still curious why you goobers think that if I was a Hindu
or something and believed in multiple lives it would somehow help
prevent everything from benefitting from its existence, or
whatever it is you think you gain by lying about what I actually
believe. Why lie about that? Perhaps it's because you people have
gotten in the habit of always lying about everything...that seems
to be the most likely reason to me so far.
>"Benefitting from your existence" is a rhetorical expression meaning
>something like "making the most out of life" and it is contingent on
>existing in the first place. That is not the issue being discussed here, I
>am sure most livestock animals do fairly well at that under difficult
>circumstances.
>
>*Coming into existence* refers to the very instant when you first exist as
>as a living organism, and that can't logically be called a benefit
Of course it can, but for the moment I'll agree not to since
you apparently can not. So if coming into existence is not a
benefit, do you think that somehow prevented you from benefitting
from your existence:
1. ten minutes later?
2. two days later?
3. five years later?
4. 30 seconds ago?
>for the
>simple reason that every benefit requires a benefactor, a recipient that
>exists at least a moment prior to the benefit being imparted and none exists
>in this case. I realize that words are not really "your thing", but surely
>after all these years even you can understand this.
I understand what you're trying to say. Now try to explain
this:
dh
<rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> now?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I think any talk about a "pre-existent state" is hogwash.
Apparently you feel that something about it is preventing you
from benefitting from your existence now...unless you've finally
thought it through to the point that you can appreciate
benefitting from it now.
>I happily grant that I am most likely better off if it turns out that
>my life continues another 50 years instead of only 5 minutes, but that
>is because I am around now and I will be around to enjoy the positive
>side-effects if my life continues a reasonably long time.
>
>We are supposed to be talking about some kind of situation where the
>sperm and the egg are in separate petri dishes and my parents are
>weighing up whether to get the whole thing started. Whatever the
>merits of doing that it doesn't benefit me because I'm just not there
>yet. There simply ain't any Rupert around to be affected by anything,
>I tell you.
You need to explain what you think prevents livestock from
benefitting from decent lives of positive value. As yet
apparently neither of us can figure out what you think is
preventing them, but we have found that it has something to do
with the concept of pre-existence.
Since you could not figure it all out in regards to
livestock, you began trying to figure out what you think prevents
you from benefitting. Apparently you still believe something
about your pre-existence is preventing you from beneifitting from
your existence now.
What EXACTLY do you think is preventing you?
You could take what appears to me to be a more honest and
therefore a more realistic approach as I do and acknowledge that
it appears you DO benefit from your existence now BECAUSE your
life at this time is of positive value. But taking that more
honest and realistic approach takes us back to appreciating the
fact that millions of animals experience lives of positive value
because humans raise them for food, which is far outside the
mental safety zone of your extremely restricted little
mind....necessarily restricted by the extremism of the misnomer
itself.
Isn't there a saying something like: 'the most extreme position
is always the best'?
Or is it more like: 'is never the best'?
dh
It's apparently a benefit that makes all others possible
whether there's a pre-existent state or not.
>If you had said all along what you really mean, simply
>that life is "a good thing"
It's not always a good thing. It's always a benefit that
makes all others *possible*, but it doesn't guarantee that there
will be any more. Unless you want to say that development before
birth is a benefit, but you could never think deeply enough to
consider how life is ever a benefit, so details like this are
beyond you. I'll explain anyway even though it could never have
any significance to any of you people:
Some beings never really experience any benefit after their
birth. For example animals who hatch or are born into ant hills,
being attacked and suffering horribly until they finally are
killed by the ants. They never have any benefit other than their
existence and life itself, unless you want to count the time they
spent developing in the egg or womb... The same could be true of
land animals that get born in water and drown without ever even
getting to take a breath of air. In contrast to that I remember a
calf down the road getting born into a bathtub full of water they
used for watering the cattle. It was winter and the calf broke
through a covering of ice. That calf did not drown and die
though, and even though it was a horrible way to be born it
managed to get its head up and breath, and eventually stand. When
the farmers found it the next day it was standing and nursing
from its mother. They took it from the tub and from there it
began to benefit from a life of positive value.
dh
<rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 22, 5:11�am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:24:39 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>>
>> <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Ball [Goo], I just wanted to say welcome back, we missed you terribly.
>>
>> >And I also just wanted to say that it's a really fine and admirable
>> >public service you're performing by making pretty much the exact same
>> >post over and over again for about ten years setting forth the reasons
>> >for believing that David Harrison is a complete nincompoop,
>>
>> � � AFAIK all of Goo's "reasons" are lies. I've certainly been
>> taught--by you--from experience that you don't have much if any
>> problem with dishonesty provided it supports what you want to
>> believe. That leaves me curious if ANY degree of dishonesty
>> bothers you if it's supporting what you want to believe.
>
>Dishonesty is not one of my problems.
Then I was right and you are comfortable with any degree of
dishonesty as long as it agrees with what you want to believe. I
consider myself fortunate that I don't feel the same way, though
I have noticed feeling comfortable with dishonesty gives you
people what you consider to be advantages.
>I am happy to give you honest
>feedback as best I am able about whatever it is you believe insofar as
>you can make it clear to me, although obviously it would be good if
>you could at least give me credit for being honest.
I certainly wish I could Rupert, that's for sure.
>As far as what
>Ball writes about it, I really don't especially care,
If he had been honest in contrast to blatantly lying about me
all these years he thinks things would have gone differently, and
maybe they would have.
>but see below.
>
>> All that
>> being the case I'm interested in which of Goo's particular lies
>> about me you feel are really fine and admirable. I both ask and
>> challenge you to provide your favorite examples now:
>>
>
>You really have a problem with working out when people are attempting
>sarcastic humour, don't you? Obviously I do not really believe that I
>have ever known Ball to do anything fine and admirable.
That's not obvious at all. Anything he says or does that
supports the misnomer I believe you consider to be fine and
admirable. I have no reason to believe otherwise. In contrast to
that, Mr Smartypants attacks some of Goo's dishonesties even when
they do support the misnomer.
>I do estimate the quality of the argumentation you generally provide
>round here poorly, yes. That's just based on my experience debating
>with you,
I frequently present you with questions you can't answer and
challenges you are afraid to attempt. My influence on you could
make you a better person imo, and CERTAINLY could expand your
thinking in ways I believe could have a positive influence on
your life, or the lives of people around you, and possibly even
on countless animals in the future. But you resist because it
works against what you have grown comfortable believing and want
to continue feeling comfortable believing.
>not on anything Ball has said. I don't need Ball to help me
>form that view. Sorry about that, but I'm sure you'll cope.
>
>> >because
>> >there might be a few people who hang around here for a while and yet
>> >continue to feel substantial confusion on that point,
>>
>> � � If they also are aware that the Goober lies blatantly then
>> his dishonesty could confuse them as to what about it could
>> possibly be thought of as really fine and admirable, as I've both
>> asked and challenged you to try explaining.
>>
>
>The point I am trying to make is that your problems with your
>reputation around here are not due to Ball, they are due to people
>forming poor impressions of your debating skills when you engage with
>them. Ball would perhaps like to think that he is lowering your
>reputation further, I don't know, I can't really fathom what drives
>him to keep having a go at you, but his efforts do not achieve
>anything in particular over and above what people already believe
>about you based on what you write.
Like what, for examples?
>> >and it's really
>> >big of you to put in the effort to help them see how things are more
>> >quickly.
>>
>> � � Are there any of Goo's lies you feel are not really fine and
>> admirable? LOL! No doubt IF you feel that way about any of his
>> lies about me you are far too chicken shit to say what they are,
>> since Goo would attack you visciously like he did when you
>> appeared to try considering the life of some livestock animal one
>> time in your life.
>
>I haven't really looked all that closely at what Ball has said to be
>honest. Isn't he just providing quotations? With regard to the
>*quotations*, are they fabricated or taken out of context? You tell
>me.
They are taken out of context and some he knows are blatant
lies.
>One would think if they were you would have demonstrated this.
I have done so so many times it seems worthless to point out
the truth. Even though it probably will be again I'll put it in a
post called: "Replying to the Goober"
>I'm not especially worried about Ball having a go at me, I feel
>reasonably confident of my ability to hold my own in a debate with
>him.
>
>> One time in your life you tried it, and the
>> Goober and one of his boys immediately trained you never to make
>> that attempt again. Do you think Goo was really fine and
>> admirable about all this too:
>> _________________________________________________________
>>
>> "Derek" wrote:
>> > If you think that "a private email account" is actually
>> > private and not open to those who know how to get
>> > into them, even while the account "holder is present",
>>
>> Goo responded:
>>
>> Can you show me how to do that? �Contact me via the secondary
>> channel to arrange a time.
>> ���������������������������������������������������������
>
>As I say you've got the wrong idea about that incident if you think
>that it leads me to take their wishes about my behaviour on board now.
They succeeded in scaring you away from considering a more AW
type of position, which is exactly what they were determined to
do.
>Certainly neither of them behaved especially admirably; presumably we
>all agree about that. Derek succeeded in upsetting my equilibrium,
>obviously, if he views that as a victory, well good on him.
Good for him, Goo, and the misnomer, bad for AW, and imo bad
for you as well.
>I wouldn't
>have thought that Ball's role in the matter meant anything in
>particular. Presumably at that stage he had already found out it was a
>trick; if the request were genuine he would be unlikely to make it in
>public.
>
>Remember that time when Ball was asking me if my mental health history
>was due to a history of child abuse? That was lovely, wasn't it?
No. It was typical lowlife Goo. When I bring up that aspect
it's to enourage you to think and move beyond the restrictions of
the misnomer, and to get people who you respect to help you. I
encourage something to help you (though it would be very
uncomfortable to begin with), while the Goober just wants to hurt
you.
>See, you just don't get it, obviously I would never seriously claim
>that there was anything "fine and admirable" about Ball, it is
>sarcasm, I am satirising what I see as a rather absurd situation. Get
>it now? I'm amazed I have to explain it.
You may actually consider yourself to be an honest person. To
me in order to be an advocate of the misnomer you have to be more
comfortable with dishonesties and unrealistic ideas than with
reality, even IF you really do consider yourself to be an honest
and realistic person. That being the case it was natural for me
think you would approve of anything Goo does that's bad for me,
and I still expect that it's true even if whatever honest part of
you might exist would rather that it's not true.
dh
>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:10:54 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 Kreed wrote:
>>>On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:11:43 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 18 Dec, ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>He believes they can experience things - loss, deprivation, unfairness:
>>>>
>>>> No, that's a lie as I've pointed out too many times. It's a
>>>>lie dependant on a couple of mistakes I made in terminology.
>>>
>>>It wasn't a mistake in terminology, fuckwit. You believe 'they' exist, and
>>>that by bringing 'them' into existence you are doing 'them' a good deed.
>>>But no, you are their grim reaper, procuring them from their timeless
>>>ethereal paradise and casting them into your filthy pits of pain, misery
>>>and utter despair. Where they once experienced only bliss, by your hand
>>>they now suffer agonies constantly administered by the vivisectionist who
>>>toys with them, and by the farmer who callously exploits their now tender
>>>flesh for food. For them your world is hell, and you a maleficent spectre
>>>procuring all you can from theirs with the lie that yours is better. Your
>>>greed for them is no different from Satan's greed for our souls.
>>
>> I disagree with your belief that it makes sense to assume a
>>pre-existent state,
>
>It's YOUR belief that animals exist in a pre-existent state
I don't believe they do Goo, but I'm aware that billions of
livestock appear to benefit from lives of positive value
regardless of anything to do with pre-existence.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:r3f4j5pjv9040m1h6...@4ax.com...
The question is meaningless and irrelevant. *If* there were such a thing as
a "pre-existent state" and I find no reason to believe there is, but *if*,
then there is NO reason to think that it would influence our existence now.
The primary problem now (one of many) is that you are using a "rhetorical
expression" that I explain below in order to explain away a logical
impossibility, combine that with a misconception of the basic arguments and
you have the mess that is YOU.
>
>>as usual, you're all over the map.
>
> I'm still curious why you goobers think that if I was a Hindu
> or something and believed in multiple lives it would somehow help
> prevent everything from benefitting from its existence, or
> whatever it is you think you gain by lying about what I actually
> believe. Why lie about that? Perhaps it's because you people have
> gotten in the habit of always lying about everything...that seems
> to be the most likely reason to me so far.
Read below.
>>"Benefitting from your existence" is a rhetorical expression meaning
>>something like "making the most out of life" and it is contingent on
>>existing in the first place. That is not the issue being discussed here, I
>>am sure most livestock animals do fairly well at that under difficult
>>circumstances.
>>
>>*Coming into existence* refers to the very instant when you first exist as
>>as a living organism, and that can't logically be called a benefit
>
> Of course it can
No it can't, a benefit can only happen to someone or something.
, but for the moment I'll agree not to since
> you apparently can not. So if coming into existence is not a
> benefit, do you think that somehow prevented you from benefitting
> from your existence:
>
> 1. ten minutes later?
>
> 2. two days later?
>
> 3. five years later?
>
> 4. 30 seconds ago?
One has nothing to do with the other. One is a logical impossibility, the
other is a rhetorical expression.
>>for the
>>simple reason that every benefit requires a benefactor, a recipient that
>>exists at least a moment prior to the benefit being imparted and none
>>exists
>>in this case. I realize that words are not really "your thing", but surely
>>after all these years even you can understand this.
>
> I understand what you're trying to say.
You show ABSOLUTELY NO indication that you understood a single thing I
wrote.
Now try to explain
> this:
>
> Exactly WHAT about your supposed pre-existent state,
There is NO SUCH THING as a pre-existent state (imo). The only reason the
concept entered the discussion at all is directly as a result of the claim
that "coming into existence" is a benefit, since without a pre-existent
state there is nobody there to benefit.
If you don't believe in pre-existent states then you cannot logically
believe that coming into existence is a benefit.
> do you
> believe is preventing you from benefitting from your existence
> now?
I don't "benefit from my existence" you idiot, my existence IS ME. You're
trying to do an end run around your own illogical argument by using a
tortured rhetorical expression.
Mr.Smartypants
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:r3f4j5pjv9040m1h6...@4ax.com...
Goo has given every indication that *he* believes he came from a pre-
existent state.
You don't want to argue with Goo do you?
The only reason the
> concept entered the discussion at all is directly as a result of the claim
> that "coming into existence" is a benefit, since without a pre-existent
> state there is nobody there to benefit.
>
> If you don't believe in pre-existent states then you cannot logically
> believe that coming into existence is a benefit.
>
> > do you
> > believe is preventing you from benefitting from your existence
> > now?
>
> I don't "benefit from my existence" you idiot, my existence IS ME. You're
> trying to do an end run around your own illogical argument by using a
> tortured rhetorical expression.- Hide quoted text -
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Yes, you do believe it. Everything you've written shows you believe
it. There were no "mistakes in terminology". You wrote what you
believe.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:56:39 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
It is not a benefit at all. It can't be.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:36:32 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>
>
>
> <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 22, 5:11 am, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:24:39 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>
> >> <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >Ball [Goo], I just wanted to say welcome back, we missed you terribly.
>
> >> >And I also just wanted to say that it's a really fine and admirable
> >> >public service you're performing by making pretty much the exact same
> >> >post over and over again for about ten years setting forth the reasons
> >> >for believing that David Harrison is a complete nincompoop,
>
> >> AFAIK all of Goo's "reasons" are lies. I've certainly been
> >> taught--by you--from experience that you don't have much if any
> >> problem with dishonesty provided it supports what you want to
> >> believe. That leaves me curious if ANY degree of dishonesty
> >> bothers you if it's supporting what you want to believe.
>
> >Dishonesty is not one of my problems.
>
> Then I was right
No, you were wrong.
> >I do estimate the quality of the argumentation you generally provide
> >round here poorly, yes. That's just based on my experience debating
> >with you,
>
> I frequently present you with questions you can't answer
No, you don't.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:53:03 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >>Exactly WHAT about your supposed pre-existent state,
YOUR "pre-existent state". You are the one who believes in it. Your
writing shows that you do.
> >> do you believe is preventing you from benefitting from your existence
> >> now?
>
> >You're just changing the subject,
>
> That has always been in question. So far it appears that
> nothing about our supposed pre-existent state prevents us from
> beneffiting from our existence.
No entity benefits from coming into existence. Coming into existence
- "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit. It isn't a benefit
in any way. It cannot be: coming into existence does not make an
entity better off, and becoming better off is the definition of
benefit.
If "billions of future farm animals" never get to experience life
because humans stop breeding livestock, that has no moral or ethical
meaning.
Dutch
"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:bb70b376-742b-40b2...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
---------->
You're a retard.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:56:39 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>If you want to call coming into existence a benefit then you are assuming
>>a
>>pre-existent state.
>
> It's apparently a benefit that makes all others possible
> whether there's a pre-existent state or not.
That is logically impossible. A benefit is something good that happens TO an
existing being, therefore coming into existence cannot be one. Coming into
existence does not happen TO anyone. Coming into existence is an *event*
which makes benefits and suffering possible.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
>
> <dh@.> wrote
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:56:39 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>> If you want to call coming into existence a benefit then you are
>>> assuming a
>>> pre-existent state.
>>
>> It's apparently a benefit that makes all others possible
>> whether there's a pre-existent state or not.
>
> That is logically impossible.
Exactly, and for the very reason you give below. That reason, of
course, has been given literally hundreds of times in this farce of a
"debate".
> A benefit is something good that happens
> TO an existing being, therefore coming into existence cannot be one.
Correct.
> Coming into existence does not happen TO anyone.
Correct.
> Coming into existence
> is an *event* which makes benefits and suffering possible.
And which is, itself, neither a benefit nor suffering.
Everyone knows this - everyone. People who pretend they don't know it
are playing a dishonest game of sophistry.
Dutch
> Dutch wrote:
[..]
>> Coming into existence
>> is an *event* which makes benefits and suffering possible.
>
> And which is, itself, neither a benefit nor suffering.
>
> Everyone knows this - everyone. People who pretend they don't know it
> are playing a dishonest game of sophistry.
You may be underestimating how stupid some people are.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:ivh4j5leh3s0vlrum...@4ax.com...
Translation, I finally understand that coming into existence can't logically
be a "benefit" because a benefit requires a benefactor, but many livestock
animals seem to enjoy life, and I consider that a good thing.
Why didn't you say that 10 years ago?
ex-PFC Wintergreen
The stupidity consists in thinking, wrongly, that they can succeed in
their attempted sophistry.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
beneficiary
> but many livestock animals seem to enjoy life,
...once they exist...
Mr.Smartypants
> On Dec 23, 7:52 am, dh@. wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:53:03 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> > >>Exactly WHAT about your supposed pre-existent state,
>
> YOUR "pre-existent state". You are the one who believes in it. Your
> writing shows that you do.
So does your's Goo.
You said you are no better off than you WERE BEFORE.
You realize that with that statement you admitted you believe you were
in a pre-existenet state?
Of course you do.
dh
A dishonest and maniacal Goober. If I was a Hindu I would
explain what I believed about previous lives, but instead any
suggestion I've made that I believe in such a thing was a
mistake. Since then I haven't made the same mistake in
terminology again which is why Goo hangs on to the few I did make
and have many times since mentioned. If I believed it instead I
would have explained why.
Is it possible that the Goober is honestly too stupid to
understand that obvious fact? After all these years has Goo STILL
not caught on to the fact that I don't mind telling people in
these ngs what I believe, even when it doesn't agree with what
they want to believe? Is Goo really so stupid that he thinks I
wouldn't explain that I was a Hindu or of some other faith that
believes in multiple lives, if I did believe it? Of course I
would, but I don't so I don't. This Goober on the other hand,
admittedly believes that:
_________________________________________________________
"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo
���������������������������������������������������������
which seems quite idiotic. I have been benefitting from my
existence, and the Goober appears to benefit from his too even
though he wishes he could deny it, and so do countless other
beings on this planet REGARDLESS of anything to do with Goo's
supposed pre-existent state. But Goo is obsessed with his own
idiocy to the point that he claims he never even discusses
existing animals, but only those in his supposed pre-existent
state:
_________________________________________________________
"Existing animals don't figure into it in any way." - Goo.
"We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo
"The topic is not and never has been whether or not
existing animals enjoy living." - Goo
"Whether or not some entity enjoys life once it does exist
is *NOT* the topic." - Goo
"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
existing entities" - Goo
���������������������������������������������������������
But again, as usual/always the Goober is lying. He DOES consider
existing animals, and has concluded that they were better off in
his supposed pre-existent state:
_________________________________________________________
"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off" - Goo
"you are their grim reaper, procuring them from their timeless
ethereal paradise and casting them into your filthy pits of pain,
misery and utter despair. Where they once experienced only bliss,
by your hand they now suffer agonies constantly" - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate
killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo
"I have examined the question at length, and feel
there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
is not a benefit." - Goo
���������������������������������������������������������
dh
LOL!!! Yes it can, but you are either too stupid to be able
to comprehend how, or you're dishonestly pretending that you're
too stupid to be able to comprehend how.
>because a benefit requires a benefactor, but many livestock
>animals seem to enjoy life, and I consider that a good thing.
Explain EXACTLY what you think is preventing you from
benefitting from your existence.
dh
<pia...@catch-2222222.org> wrote:
Explain EXACTLY what you think is preventing you from
benefitting from your existence.
dh
What do you think prevents all of us from benefitting from
our existence?
>*If* there were such a thing as
>a "pre-existent state" and I find no reason to believe there is, but *if*,
>then there is NO reason to think that it would influence our existence now.
Duh, as I've been pointing out for years.
>> if coming into existence is not a
>> benefit, do you think that somehow prevented you from benefitting
>> from your existence:
>>
>> 1. ten minutes later?
>>
>> 2. two days later?
>>
>> 3. five years later?
>>
>> 4. 30 seconds ago?
>
>One has nothing to do with the other.
Then millions of livestock benefit from their lives. Duh, as
I've been pointing out for years.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
It wasn't a mistake. You repeatedly wrote stuff that did a lot more
than "suggest" that you believe in pre-existence. Everything you write
about animals "getting to experience life" proves you believe they
pre-exist.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
It cannot. It has been shown conclusively that coming into existence
cannot be a benefit to the entity that comes into existence.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Attempted goalpost move - rejected.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
attempted goalpost move - rejected
>> *If* there were such a thing as
>> a "pre-existent state" and I find no reason to believe there is, but *if*,
>> then there is NO reason to think that it would influence our existence now.
>
> Duh, as I've been pointing out for years.
What you've been lying about for years.
>
>>> if coming into existence is not a
>>> benefit,
It isn't.
>>> do you think that somehow prevented you from benefitting
>>> from your existence:
attempted goalpost move - rejected
>>> 1. ten minutes later?
>>>
>>> 2. two days later?
>>>
>>> 3. five years later?
>>>
>>> 4. 30 seconds ago?
>> One has nothing to do with the other.
>
> Then millions of livestock benefit from their lives.
No.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Dec 23, 10:40 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <notgen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 23, 7:52 am, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:53:03 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> Exactly WHAT about your supposed pre-existent state,
>> YOUR "pre-existent state". You are the one who believes in it. Your
>> writing shows that you do.
>
>
> So does your's
No. I show that there is no valid reason to believe in a state of
"pre-existence". I show that an entity coming into existence does not
benefit from doing so.
dh
pointed out:
>On Dec 23, 2:38�pm, "Dutch" wussed horribly:
>
>> <dh@.> destroyed "Dutch" by presenting the challenge:
>>
>> > if coming into existence is not a
>> > benefit, do you think that somehow prevented you from benefitting
>> > from your existence:
>>
>> > 1. ten minutes later?
>>
>> > 2. two days later?
>>
>> > 3. five years later?
>>
>> > 4. 30 seconds ago?
>>
>> One has nothing to do with the other. One is a logical impossibility, the
>> other is a rhetorical expression.
>>
>> >>for the
>> >>simple reason that every benefit requires a benefactor, a recipient that
>> >>exists at least a moment prior to the benefit being imparted and none
>> >>exists
>> >>in this case. I realize that words are not really "your thing", but surely
>> >>after all these years even you can understand this.
>>
>> > � �I understand what you're trying to say.
>>
>> You show ABSOLUTELY NO indication that you understood a single thing I
>> wrote.
>>
>> �Now try to explain
>>
>> > this:
>>
>> > Exactly WHAT about your supposed pre-existent state,
>>
>> There is NO SUCH THING as a pre-existent state (imo).
>
>
>Goo has given every indication that *he* believes he came from a pre-
>existent state.
He certainly has:
_________________________________________________________
"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare" - Goo
"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo
"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was before." - Goo
"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was" - Goo
"These unconceived and unborn animals *exist*" - Goo
"Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare
improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
life we can detect" - Goo
"you still cannot demonstrate, ever, why it is "beneficial"
for souls to incarnate and experience this meaning." - Goo
"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before" - Goo
���������������������������������������������������������
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:2vq7j51oeivf529ai...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:40:43 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>
>>On Dec 23, 2:38 pm, "Dutch" elucidated
>>
>>> <dh@.> babbled incoherently and mindlessly as usual
Nope
> _________________________________________________________
> "When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
> existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
> its welfare" - Goo
That statement is *contingent* not absolute.
> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
> a pre-existent state" - Goo
That is an indictment and refutation of the LoL, not a statement of belief.
>
> "coming into existence didn't make me better off than
> I was before." - Goo
Again, does not state a belief.
> "EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
> might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
> "pre-existence" state was" - Goo
Contingent
> "These unconceived and unborn animals *exist*" - Goo
>
> "Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare
> improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
> life we can detect" - Goo
>
> "you still cannot demonstrate, ever, why it is "beneficial"
> for souls to incarnate and experience this meaning." - Goo
>
> "Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
> not make them better off than before" - Goo
> �����������������������������������
None of those is a statement of belief in a pre-existent state. It is The
LoL and ONLY the LoL that causes the pre-existent state argument to come
into play.
The LoL necessarily IMPLIES a pre-existent state, that is why it is
illogical.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:bc97j5ddgqmf2om41...@4ax.com...
ROTFLMAO!!! No it can't.
> but you are either too stupid to be able
> to comprehend how, or you're dishonestly pretending that you're
> too stupid to be able to comprehend how.
It is a logical impossibility.
>>because a benefit requires a benefactor, but many livestock
>>animals seem to enjoy life, and I consider that a good thing.
>
> Explain EXACTLY what you think is preventing you from
> benefitting from your existence.
Do you mean "enjoying life"? Then say THAT, "benefitting from your
existence" is nonsense.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
He's still trying a lame trick. The issue is not, and never has been,
benefiting from one's existence; the issue has always been if coming
into existence is a benefit. Existence, and coming into existence, are
not the same thing. He has always been running his mouth about "future
farm animals", and how "aras'" wish to prevent them is "bad" and
"wrong". "Future farm animals" do not exist, so it is a nonsense to
talk about them "benefiting from their existence" or "benefiting from
lives of positive value".
He's been trying to make this switch in terminology for some time now,
but it has always failed.
dh
The Goober's entire supposed argument is based on his
supposed pre-existent state.
>It is The
>LoL and ONLY the LoL that causes the pre-existent state argument to come
>into play.
>
>The LoL necessarily IMPLIES a pre-existent state, that is why it is
>illogical.
It could only IMPLY that to a moron, but not to anyone who is
not exceptionally stupid. There's no reason to think that
benefitting from your existence has ANYTHING to do with
pre-existence, which is why you have never been able to explain
how you think pre-existence prevents you from benefitting from
your life.
dh
Not to me because to me that's retarded to even think about.
But Goober if you think it somehow is significant in regards to
whether or not it's cruel to animals to raise them for food, then
just try to explain HOW you think it's significant. OBVIOUSLY
experiencing decent lives of positive value is significant in a
positive way for the animals themselves Goo, but so far there's
no indication that whether or not "coming into existence" is
litterally a benefit means a damn thing to them or could be made
to mean a damn thing to them. If you think you can make it mean
something to them though Goober, I'm curious how you think you
could do it.
Will you go out and lecture to cattle and poultry Goo,
explaining to them how they don't benefit from the pleasure they
get from their existence because they didn't benefit from the
joining of sperm and egg which was their actual conception? What
will be your explanation as to how the conception of their zygote
somehow prevents them from benefitting from the rest of their
lives Goober, do you have any idea?
LOL! The thought of you driving up and telling farmers you
need to talk to their cows and chickens because there's something
they need to know, is quite amusing Goob. And the thought of you
trying to explain it to them if he lets you, even though you have
NOTHING to explain just as you have never been able to explain it
here...LOL...you are an amusing Goober, Goo.
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:bc97j5ddgqmf2om41...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Explain EXACTLY what you think is preventing you from
>> benefitting from your existence.
>
>Do you mean "enjoying life"?
Here's a clue for you since you're so clueless: If I meant
"enjoying life" I would have said it.
>Then say THAT, "benefitting from your existence" is nonsense.
It may be to you if you're truly too stupid to comprehend how
you benefit from your own life. If you really are that stupid,
then I guess you would necessarily be too stupid to appreciate
the lives of any livestock.
Regardless of how stupid you honestly are, this has been to
get you to prove that you have no idea at all how anything to do
with pre-existence can prevent any animals--domestic or
wild--from benefitting from their existence. You have proven that
you have no idea, as I correctly predicted you would.
dh
<pia...@catch-2222222.org> wrote:
>dh pointed out:
>
>>as usual/always the Goober is lying. He DOES consider
>>existing animals, and has concluded that they were better off in
>>his supposed pre-existent state:
>>
>>_________________________________________________________
>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>not make them better off" - Goo
>>
>>"you are their grim reaper, procuring them from their timeless
>>ethereal paradise and casting them into your filthy pits of pain,
>>misery and utter despair. Where they once experienced only bliss,
>>by your hand they now suffer agonies constantly" - Goo
>>
>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate
>>killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"I have examined the question at length, and feel
>>there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
>>is not a benefit." - Goo
>>���������������������������������������������������������
>Everything you write
>about animals "getting to experience life" proves you believe they
>pre-exist.
That's a blatant lie Goober because I don't have a belief
about whether they pre-exist or not, and nothing I write could
"prove" something that's not true. Even if you're right and they
do pre-exist Goo, millions of animals still benefit from lives of
positive value because humans raise them for food REGARDLESS of
anything to do with their pre-existence.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
It isn't a lie.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
>
>
>
>
>
> <pian...@catch-2222222.org> wrote:
> >Dutch wrote:
>
Yes, to you. All your writing is about the phony moral issue of
preventing "future farm animals" from "getting to experience life".
Dutch
"ex-PFC Wintergreen" <pia...@catch-2222222.org> wrote in message
news:PeudnaeAD8v0ZanW...@earthlink.com...
I have pointed that out before, and it's the bottom line for sure, but the
new switchreroo terminology itself is senseless. Benefitting from existence
is just a stupid catch-phrase, it doesn't literally make any sense. Who ARE
you if not your existence? You don't benefit from yourself.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:954aj5l1q1dvabbjb...@4ax.com...
Nope, it is rock solid logic. If coming into existence is a benefit then it
must benefit some entity, and it can't be the entity itself because as soon
as you name the entity as the beneficiary you recognize that it already
exists. Existence cannot happen to an already existing entity.
, but not to anyone who is
> not exceptionally stupid. There's no reason to think that
> benefitting from your existence has ANYTHING to do with
> pre-existence, which is why you have never been able to explain
> how you think pre-existence prevents you from benefitting from
> your life.
There's that clumsy goalpost move again. You're waaaay too dull for this.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:1h4aj5hd648d02esp...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:50:51 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:bc97j5ddgqmf2om41...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Explain EXACTLY what you think is preventing you from
>>> benefitting from your existence.
>>
>>Do you mean "enjoying life"?
>
> Here's a clue for you since you're so clueless: If I meant
> "enjoying life" I would have said it.
In the spirit pf Christmas I offered you a chance to save face and you
foolishly rejected it
>>Then say THAT, "benefitting from your existence" is nonsense.
>
> It may be to you if you're truly too stupid to comprehend how
> you benefit from your own life.
You must work at some mundane manual job, because you can't think.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
>
> >> Explain EXACTLY what you think is preventing you from
> >> benefitting from your existence.
>
> >Do you mean "enjoying life"?
>
> Here's a clue for you since you're so clueless: If I meant
> "enjoying life" I would have said it.
Heh...how do we know it wouldn't have just been another "mistake in
terminology"?
>
> >Then say THAT, "benefitting from your existence" is nonsense.
>
> It may be to you if
No, it just is nonsense, period.
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:954aj5l1q1dvabbjb...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:42:16 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> lied:
>>
>>>The LoL necessarily IMPLIES a pre-existent state, that is why it is
>>>illogical.
>>
>> It could only IMPLY that to a moron
>
>Nope, it is rock solid logic. If coming into existence is a benefit then it
>must benefit some entity
Millions of livestock animals benefit from lives of positive
value regardless of whether or not their actual conception was a
benefit to them.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 20:00:22 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:42:16 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> lied:
>
> >>>The LoL necessarily IMPLIES a pre-existent state, that is why it is
> >>>illogical.
>
> >> It could only IMPLY that to a moron
>
> >Nope, it is rock solid logic. If coming into existence is a benefit then it
> >must benefit some entity
>
> Millions of livestock animals benefit from lives of
No animal benefits from coming into existence.
Rupert
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 20:00:22 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:42:16 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> lied:
>
> >>>The LoL necessarily IMPLIES a pre-existent state, that is why it is
> >>>illogical.
>
> >> It could only IMPLY that to a moron
>
> >Nope, it is rock solid logic. If coming into existence is a benefit then it
> >must benefit some entity
>
> Millions of livestock animals benefit from lives of positive
> value regardless of whether or not their actual conception was a
> benefit to them.
What the hell is a "life of positive value"? How am I supposed to go
about working out which animals have that?
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:amgcj51op7vdc3t6s...@4ax.com...
It took you ten years to budge one inch off a completely irrational
position. I suspect even that will be temporary.
Dutch
"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote
---------
You aren't, you're just supposed to think it then sit back and gloat while
you eat a cheeseburger. As you sink your teeth into that burger imagine a
pastoral scene with cattle grazing, calves prancing, and butterflies
flitting about.
And YOU want to prevent all that! SHAME!
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:24:39 -0800 (PST), Rupert
> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I just wanted to say welcome back, we missed you terribly.
>>
>> And I also just wanted to say that it's a really fine and admirable
>> public service you're performing by making pretty much the exact same
>> post over and over again for about ten years setting forth the reasons
>> for believing that David Harrison is a complete nincompoop,
>
No lies.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Fri, 18 Dec, ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>
>> He believes they can experience things - loss,
>> deprivation, unfairness:
>
> No, that's a lie
Not a lie.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
your belief in "pre-existence" of animals.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 20:00:22 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> <dh@.> wrote in message news:954aj5l1q1dvabbjb...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:42:16 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> lied:
>>>
>>>> The LoL necessarily IMPLIES a pre-existent state, that is why it is
>>>> illogical.
>>> It could only IMPLY that to a moron
>> Nope, it is rock solid logic. If coming into existence is a benefit then it
>> must benefit some entity
>
> Millions of livestock animals benefit from lives of positive
> value
NO livestock animals "benefit" from coming into existence. There is
nothing to consider. Of course, you don't give any consideration anyway.
dh
One that's not so full of discomfort or/and overly
restrictive that it gives life a negative value.
>How am I supposed to go
>about working out which animals have that?
You have to consider each situation and what it would be like
to be an animal in that situation.
1. battery commercial laying hen - Lives a decent life as a chick
interacting with other birds enjoying the interactions, the
warmth and pleasures associated with the brooders, enjoying food
and water, scratching in litter, taking dust baths, and all the
things commercially raised baby chickens get to enjoy. Life has
positive value. Then she is put into a battery cage with other
hens. She no longer has freedom to move around to different
areas, she can no longer scratch, take dust baths or even flap
her wings. Those things are overly restricting and could easily
give life a negative value. However I'm free to consider a good
bit of detail so I'll share a couple more differing situations
with you:
(a) The hen is smaller than average and put into a cage with
larger birds. Some of those birds are overly aggressive and beat
on her constantly to satisfy their own aggressive tendencies. She
soon resorts to hiding her head in a corner so that the flesh
isn't beaten off of it down to the scull (as I've seen happen a
number of times). When she pulls her head out the other hens
attack her, so she spends more and more time in the corner
getting weaker and weaker until she no longer cares, no longer
tries to come out and eat, and eventually fades off and dies of
malnutrition and dehydration. To me that is a life of negative
value.
(b) The hen is average size or larger and gets put in a cage
with a smaller timid bird. She learns to enjoy beating on the
timid bird dominating her and making her hide her head in the
corner, always looking forward to an opportunity to get in
another good peck and when possible to do some flogging with her
feet. Abusing that hen could give life possitive value for her,
until the other hen eventually won't come out of the corner at
all any more, and at some point is removed completely from the
cage. To me that could be a life of positive value, or maybe not.
2. brother to battery hens - Never has a decent life enjoying
food, water, brooders, scratching, dust bathing, or anything at
all. Never fed or watered at all. If it's lucky it is killed
quickly by gas. If it's less fortunate it will smother under the
bodies of many others, will be dragged off by a rat or other
predator who will eventually kill and eat it, or will just die of
starvation and dehydration if it's close enough to the top of the
pile that it can get enough oxygen to survive that long. To me
all of those are lives of negative value.
3. cage free commercial laying hen - Lives a life of positive
value as a chick like the hens above, and then is moved to a
large open cage free house where it can continue to enjoy the
majority of things it enjoyed as a chick. The things it no longer
can enjoy as it did as a chick are things that fully feathered
chickens no longer do any more, like huddle together under
brooders. Sometimes cage free hens are able to get outside, to
enjoy whatever--if any--pleasure they get out of that experienc.
To me most cage free hens have lives of positive value.
dh
What do you think the position is/was?
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:56:59 -0800 (PST), Rupert
> <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 27, 4:07 am, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 20:00:22 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:954aj5l1q1dvabbjb...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:42:16 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> lied:
>>>>>> The LoL necessarily IMPLIES a pre-existent state, that is why it is
>>>>>> illogical.
>>>>> It could only IMPLY that to a moron
>>>> Nope, it is rock solid logic. If coming into existence is a benefit then it
>>>> must benefit some entity
>>> Millions of livestock animals benefit from lives of positive
>>> value regardless of whether or not their actual conception was a
>>> benefit to them.
>> What the hell is a "life of positive value"?
>
> One that's not so full of discomfort or/and overly
> restrictive that it gives life a negative value.
It's just a garbage phrase you coined.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
You maintain the same position: that if something prevents "future farm
animals" from existing, "they" will experience a loss. That was and
remains your position.