Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit

[George Plimpton]

It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.

[Rupert]

You've been known to say this many times in the past.

[dh]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 02:39:10 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 20, 10:45 pm, Goo wrote:
>> It cannot be one.  A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>> the welfare of an entity.  Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>
>You've been known to say this many times in the past.

It's one of the ways Goo tries to reassure people that they should put their
faith in elimination.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, a convicted felon who gives *NO* consideration
to animals' lives or welfare, lied:

> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 02:39:10 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>

>> On Nov 20, 10:45 pm, Prof. George Plimpton wrote:
>>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>
>> You've been known to say this many times in the past.
>

> It's one of the ways Prof. Plimpton tries to

It's simply a fact, Goober Fuckwit. Existence - "getting to experience
life" - is not a benefit. This has been proved beyond rational dispute.

[jh]

Search for welfare is a constant concerning every life form. And
actions are the consequences of it. Existence without any kind of
movement or action could be exempt of welfare, for sure, but we call
that kind of existence: death. Life is relationship. The beauty of
existence for human being is recovering his real place into reality.
As for every life form around him, this rediscovery is full of
happiness. It looks like the body doesn't have enough space to contain
it! The poet Rilke said: "(...) like being suddenly transported from
your bed room to the summit of a big mountain." It's funny that we
live humdrum existences. We are sort of supernovas!

[Derek]

That's exactly what I was going to say.

[jh]

Exactly?

[George Plimpton]

None of that blabber changes the basic fact that existence is not a benefit.

[brian mitchell]

Existence is a benefit:

1. this dispute has been in existence for many years
2. There is no dispute without the disputants
3. none of the disputants chooses to quit the dispute
4. the disputants derive benefit from the existence of the dispute (or they would quit it)
5. ergo, existence is a benefit

[God of heaven]

I agree and disagree. It depends on where you are in existence. Sure you
could be blind or handicapped in some way and existence won't be fun, in
fact it'd be miserable. But you could be in good health, surrounded by
noble family and friends, and in a relationship with a person who brings
that special joy that you'd never have a clue of what it's like if you
didn't exist.

But the bottom line is that you are much more than you think you are in
the present state. It will probably be a long time before you realize
"eternal glorified existence" but once you get there all that was "not
beneficial" that came before it will seem trivial in comparison. As far
as enjoying existence in the here and now, relationships are key.

[George Plimpton]

On 11/22/2012 4:04 PM, brian mitchell wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:34:41 -0800, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> On 11/22/2012 11:52 AM, jh wrote:
>>> On 20 nov, 16:45, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>>>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>>>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>>
>>> Search for welfare is a constant concerning every life form. And
>>> actions are the consequences of it. Existence without any kind of
>>> movement or action could be exempt of welfare, for sure, but we call
>>> that kind of existence: death. Life is relationship. The beauty of
>>> existence for human being is recovering his real place into reality.
>>> As for every life form around him, this rediscovery is full of
>>> happiness. It looks like the body doesn't have enough space to contain
>>> it! The poet Rilke said: "(...) like being suddenly transported from
>>> your bed room to the summit of a big mountain." It's funny that we
>>> live humdrum existences. We are sort of supernovas!
>>
>> None of that blabber changes the basic fact that existence is not a benefit.
>
> Existence is a benefit:

It is not. A benefit is something that *improves* the welfare of an
entity. Existence doesn't do that.

[x]

ahhg. get it over with. fuck off or fight.

[George Plimpton]

On 11/22/2012 5:17 PM, God of heaven wrote:
> On 11/20/2012 4:45 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>
> I agree and disagree. It depends on where you are in existence. Sure you
> could be blind or handicapped in some way and existence won't be fun, in
> fact it'd be miserable. But you could be in good health, surrounded by
> noble family and friends, and in a relationship with a person who brings
> that special joy that you'd never have a clue of what it's like if you
> didn't exist.

That doesn't mean that existence itself is a benefit. It's the things
*in* your existence that may be benefits.

Go back to the definition of benefit: something that *improves* the
welfare of an experiential - that is, a welfare-bearing - entity.
Existence doesn't do that; it doesn't improve an entity's welfare.
Thus, it cannot be a benefit.

If an entity that might have existed instead never does, because someone
prevents it, there is no loss of benefit - no deterioration of welfare.

[George Plimpton]

I already did fight, and I won.

[x]

then leave this argument alone, please.

[George Plimpton]

There's no argument left. It's over.

[jh]

On 22 nov, 17:34, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
> None of that blabber changes the basic fact that existence is not a benefit.

Thanks for this conversation, then.

[George Plimpton]

You're welcome. I enjoy helping people shed ignorance.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, a convicted felon who gives *NO* consideration
to animals' lives or welfare, lied:

> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 02:39:10 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>

>> On Nov 20, 10:45 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>
>> You've been known to say this many times in the past.
>

> It's one of the ways Prof. Plimpton tries to reassure people that they
> should put their faith [sic] in elimination.

In February 1999, Fuckwit David Harrison - already a convicted felon
then - wrote in his typically turgid, stilted manner:

If you people really cared about the animals involved, the LAST
thing you would want to do is deny them life entirely!!! You
would instead be glad for them that they have the chance to live
at all, and also be glad for them that they do not understand the
situation that they are in. You would be appreciative of the
things that are good in their lives, and try to change the things
that are bad. But NOOOO! You people deny that there is anything
good in their lives, and even make up lies to make it seem worse
than it is! And then go on to try to deny them of life at
all...you don't care about giving them a better life...you just
want to deny them of it entirely.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/msg/f9ac7b2d424834e1

For close to 14 years, Fuckwit has been saying the animals "get
something out of the 'deal'", when there is no "deal" and the animals
get *nothing*. There is no reason whatever to be "glad for them that
they have the chance to live at all" - their "getting to experience
life" is not a benefit and is nothing to celebrate.

[God of heaven]

On 11/23/2012 12:14 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 11/22/2012 5:17 PM, God of heaven wrote:
>> On 11/20/2012 4:45 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>
>> I agree and disagree. It depends on where you are in existence. Sure you
>> could be blind or handicapped in some way and existence won't be fun, in
>> fact it'd be miserable. But you could be in good health, surrounded by
>> noble family and friends, and in a relationship with a person who brings
>> that special joy that you'd never have a clue of what it's like if you
>> didn't exist.
>
> That doesn't mean that existence itself is a benefit. It's the things
> *in* your existence that may be benefits.

How do you separate things in your existence that brings benefit, from
existence being beneficial? If I like hot fudge brownie ice-cream sundae
then I'm better off existing because I can enjoy it. Same with those
extra special relationships, people are better off existing because of
them and because of them existence is beneficial. I can't separate the
things that make existence beneficial from just existence being
beneficial since they are an integral part of existence and not separate
from the experience of existence.

[George Plimpton]

On 11/23/2012 8:04 PM, God of heaven wrote:
> On 11/23/2012 12:14 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 11/22/2012 5:17 PM, God of heaven wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2012 4:45 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>>>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>>>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>>
>>> I agree and disagree. It depends on where you are in existence. Sure you
>>> could be blind or handicapped in some way and existence won't be fun, in
>>> fact it'd be miserable. But you could be in good health, surrounded by
>>> noble family and friends, and in a relationship with a person who brings
>>> that special joy that you'd never have a clue of what it's like if you
>>> didn't exist.
>>
>> That doesn't mean that existence itself is a benefit. It's the things
>> *in* your existence that may be benefits.
>
> How do you separate things in your existence that brings benefit, from
> existence being beneficial?

I've explained to you the ironclad definition of benefit: something
that improves the welfare of an entity. It goes without saying - but
because you're dense, I need to say it anyway - that we're talking about
an *existing* entity: the entity must exist *in order* to benefit from
anything.

> If I like hot fudge brownie ice-cream sundae
> then I'm better off existing because I can enjoy it.

Nope. You have to exist *before* you can benefit from anything. Your
existence is not a benefit - it does not improve your welfare. The
sundae may be a benefit, but you have to exist first.

[dh]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 20:20:25 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On 11/22/2012 4:04 PM, brian mitchell wrote:

>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:34:41 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/22/2012 11:52 AM, jh wrote:

>>>> On 20 nov, 16:45, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>>>>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>>>>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>>>
>>>> Search for welfare is a constant concerning every life form. And
>>>> actions are the consequences of it. Existence without any kind of
>>>> movement or action could be exempt of welfare, for sure, but we call
>>>> that kind of existence: death. Life is relationship. The beauty of
>>>> existence for human being is recovering his real place into reality.
>>>> As for every life form around him, this rediscovery is full of
>>>> happiness. It looks like the body doesn't have enough space to contain
>>>> it! The poet Rilke said: "(...) like being suddenly transported from
>>>> your bed room to the summit of a big mountain." It's funny that we
>>>> live humdrum existences. We are sort of supernovas!
>>>
>>> None of that blabber changes the basic fact that existence is not a benefit.
>>
>> Existence is a benefit:
>
>It is not. A benefit is something that *improves* the welfare of an
>entity. Existence doesn't do that.

_________________________________________________________
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit

ben·e·fit [ben-uh-fit] noun, verb, ben·e·fit·ed or ben·e·fit·ted,
ben·e·fit·ing or ben·e·fit·ting.
noun
1. something that is advantageous or good; an advantage
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Your existence as well as your life both seem to have been an advantage to you
since your conception Goober, but if you want people to think they haven't been
then YOU need to explain what you want people to think is preventing them from
being an advantage. Try Goo. Go:

[dh]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 09:08:17 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On 11/23/2012 8:04 PM, God of heaven wrote:

>> On 11/23/2012 12:14 AM, Goo wrote:
>>> On 11/22/2012 5:17 PM, God of heaven wrote:

>>>> On 11/20/2012 4:45 PM, Goo wrote:
>>>>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>>>>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>>>>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>>>
>>>> I agree and disagree. It depends on where you are in existence. Sure you
>>>> could be blind or handicapped in some way and existence won't be fun, in
>>>> fact it'd be miserable. But you could be in good health, surrounded by
>>>> noble family and friends, and in a relationship with a person who brings
>>>> that special joy that you'd never have a clue of what it's like if you
>>>> didn't exist.
>>>
>>> That doesn't mean that existence itself is a benefit. It's the things
>>> *in* your existence that may be benefits.
>>
>> How do you separate things in your existence that brings benefit, from
>> existence being beneficial?
>
>I've explained to you the ironclad definition of benefit

_________________________________________________________
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit

ben·e·fit [ben-uh-fit] noun, verb, ben·e·fit·ed or ben·e·fit·ted,
ben·e·fit·ing or ben·e·fit·ting.
noun

1. something that is advantageous or good; an advantage: He explained the
benefits of public ownership of the postal system.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

>: something
>that improves the welfare of an entity. It goes without saying - but
>because you're dense, I need to say it anyway - that we're talking about
>an *existing* entity: the entity must exist

Your existence has been an advantage to you from the time you began to exist
Goob, and lots of other beings have benefitted from existence since long before
your stupidass began to exist. For billions of years beings have benefitted from
existence on this planet alone Goober, and it's really past time you learn to
accept the fact.

>*in order* to benefit from
>anything.

Goo, try for the first time in all the countless times you've made the
claim, to explain what you want people to think is preventing you from
benefitting from your:

1. life.
2. existence.

You clearly appear to benefit from both Goob, so try to tell us what you want us
to think is preventing either from being an advantage to you. Oh and Goo, unless
you can prove otherwise we'll take it for granted that you DO exist. Now attempt
your explanation Goober. Go:

(correct prediction based on countless other similar challenges: Goo can't even
attempt to pretend to go)

>> If I like hot fudge brownie ice-cream sundae
>> then I'm better off existing because I can enjoy it.
>
>Nope.

By your own claim you don't know whether he is or not, 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 for the animals; one simply
cannot know." - Goo

yet for years lately you've been claiming that you somehow found out. How do you
want people to think you found out Goob? Your definition doesn't apply to this
situation Goober since the benefit of existence DOES exist even before future
beings begin to benefit from it...fyi Goo.

[dh]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:52:20 -0800 (PST), jh <jh7...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 20 nov, 16:45, Goo wrote:
>
>> It cannot be one.  A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>> the welfare of an entity.  Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>
>Search for welfare is a constant concerning every life form. And
>actions are the consequences of it. Existence without any kind of
>movement or action could be exempt of welfare, for sure, but we call
>that kind of existence: death. Life is relationship. The beauty of
>existence for human being is recovering his real place into reality.
>As for every life form around him, this rediscovery is full of
>happiness. It looks like the body doesn't have enough space to contain
>it!

Humans and other animals can and do live lives of positive value in
unnatural condittions. Our natural condition would be naked eating whatever we
can find in jungles and plains. No one does that any more because no one likes
to get all the way back. There's no reason to believe it's not the same for
animals of other types as well.

>The poet Rilke said: "(...) like being suddenly transported from
>your bed room to the summit of a big mountain." It's funny that we
>live humdrum existences.

The reason Goo's insisting existence is not a benefit is in relation to
livestock animals especially. There are people who want to see the end of
domestic animals in general, and all livestock in particular so they don't get
"killed". I point out that they only exist because they're raised for food.
They're not just "killed" as are the wild animals who die in crop fields, but
livestock only live at all because of the situation. People who favor
elimination over decent animal welfare are opposed to taking the lives of
livestock into consideration because doing so works directly against the
elimination objective and THAT is why Goob insists life is not a benefit. Goo
has often shown that what I pointed out is correct:

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

"Shut the fuck up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo

"Life "justifying" death is the
stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo

"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo

>We are sort of supernovas!

Only those of us who die by burning or exploding from the inside out, which
is a fairly small percentage. The rest of us are like something different.

[dh]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 19:30:01 -0800, Goo wrote:

>For close to 14 years, Fuckwit has been saying the animals "get
>something out of the 'deal'", when there is no "deal" and the animals
>get *nothing*.

LOL!!! A more blatant lie could not be told since they get EVERYTHING out of
it. Why would anyone who favors decent AW over elimination tell that particular
pathetic lie? They would have no reason to, that's the answer.

>There is no reason whatever to be "glad for them that
>they have the chance to live at all" - their "getting to experience
>life" is not a benefit and is nothing to celebrate.

Many livestock animals appear to experience decent lives of positive value
Goober. If instead they could be kept in a comatose condition never experiencing
consciousness or the world around them, explain why you want people to think
that would be better for them, which particular "them", and why those particular
animals. Try Goo. Go:

[dh]

It's not uncommon to be lied to by any of the goos at any time. The goos
consist of Goo himself, the "Dutch" character, and the "Derek" character.

[dh]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 20:17:47 -0500, God of heaven <Future...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On 11/20/2012 4:45 PM, Goo wrote:
>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>
>I agree and disagree. It depends on where you are in existence. Sure you
>could be blind or handicapped in some way and existence won't be fun, in
>fact it'd be miserable. But you could be in good health, surrounded by
>noble family and friends, and in a relationship with a person who brings
>that special joy that you'd never have a clue of what it's like if you
>didn't exist.

I point out to them that some livestock experience lives of positive value
and some experience lives of negative value. That's the starting line, but these
people can't even get that far. Why? Because considering the fact that some
livestock experience lives of positive value works against the elimination
objective, which triggers cognitive dissonance in their brain because it's not
what they want to believe. One person claiming to have a PhD in math even
claimed that:

"I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
"lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert

We discussed that topic regarding slavery in America in grade school, yet this
guy claiming to have a PhD says he can't comprehend it at all.

[dh]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:14:39 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On 11/22/2012 5:17 PM, God of heaven wrote:

>> On 11/20/2012 4:45 PM, Goo wrote:
>>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>
>> I agree and disagree. It depends on where you are in existence. Sure you
>> could be blind or handicapped in some way and existence won't be fun, in
>> fact it'd be miserable. But you could be in good health, surrounded by
>> noble family and friends, and in a relationship with a person who brings
>> that special joy that you'd never have a clue of what it's like if you
>> didn't exist.
>
>That doesn't mean that existence itself is a benefit. It's the things
>*in* your existence that may be benefits.
>
>Go back to the definition of benefit:

_________________________________________________________
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit

ben·e·fit [ben-uh-fit] noun, verb, ben·e·fit·ed or ben·e·fit·ted,
ben·e·fit·ing or ben·e·fit·ting.
noun
1. something that is advantageous or good; an advantage

ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
What do you want people to think is preventing your existence from being an
advantage to you Goo? Maybe it's only that you're too stupid to figure out how
it could be one, Goob.

[dh]

That's a lie of course and quite a blatant one. If there are parts you think
you agree with though, try saying what they are and why if you can.

[x]

> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

> Your existence as well as your life both seem to have been an advantage
> to you since your conception Goober, but if you want people to think
> they haven't been then YOU need to explain what you want people to think
> is preventing them from being an advantage. Try Goo. Go:

no...not you... go awayyyyyyyyyy


--
all wrongs revenged

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, a convicted felon who gives *NO* consideration
to animals' lives or welfare, lied:

> George Plimpton, a *real* opponent of "ar", wrote:
>
>> On 11/22/2012 4:04 PM, brian mitchell wrote:

>>> George Plimpton, a *real* opponent of "ar", wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/22/2012 11:52 AM, jh wrote:

>>>>> George Plimpton, a *real* opponent of "ar", wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>>>>>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>>>>>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Search for welfare is a constant concerning every life form. And
>>>>> actions are the consequences of it. Existence without any kind of
>>>>> movement or action could be exempt of welfare, for sure, but we call
>>>>> that kind of existence: death. Life is relationship. The beauty of
>>>>> existence for human being is recovering his real place into reality.
>>>>> As for every life form around him, this rediscovery is full of
>>>>> happiness. It looks like the body doesn't have enough space to contain
>>>>> it! The poet Rilke said: "(...) like being suddenly transported from
>>>>> your bed room to the summit of a big mountain." It's funny that we
>>>>> live humdrum existences. We are sort of supernovas!
>>>>
>>>> None of that blabber changes the basic fact that existence is not a benefit.
>>>
>>> Existence is a benefit:
>>
>> It is not. A benefit is something that *improves* the welfare of an
>> entity. Existence doesn't do that.
> _________________________________________________________
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit
>
> ben·e·fit [ben-uh-fit] noun, verb, ben·e·fit·ed or ben·e·fit·ted,
> ben·e·fit·ing or ben·e·fit·ting.
> noun
> 1. something that is advantageous or good; an advantage

To an existing entity only, of course...

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, a convicted felon who gives *NO* consideration
to animals' lives or welfare, lied:

> George Plimpton, a *real* opponent of "ar", wrote:
>
>> On 11/23/2012 8:04 PM, God of heaven wrote:

>>> George Plimpton, a *real* opponent of "ar", wrote:
>>>> On 11/22/2012 5:17 PM, God of heaven wrote:

>>>>> George Plimpton, a *real* opponent of "ar", wrote:
>>>>>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>>>>>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>>>>>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree and disagree. It depends on where you are in existence. Sure you
>>>>> could be blind or handicapped in some way and existence won't be fun, in
>>>>> fact it'd be miserable. But you could be in good health, surrounded by
>>>>> noble family and friends, and in a relationship with a person who brings
>>>>> that special joy that you'd never have a clue of what it's like if you
>>>>> didn't exist.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't mean that existence itself is a benefit. It's the things
>>>> *in* your existence that may be benefits.
>>>
>>> How do you separate things in your existence that brings benefit, from
>>> existence being beneficial?
>>

>> I've explained to you the ironclad definition of benefit: something

>> that improves the welfare of an entity. It goes without saying - but
>> because you're dense, I need to say it anyway - that we're talking about
>> an *existing* entity: the entity must exist
>
> Your existence has been an advantage to you

No, it hasn't - it can't be, by definition.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, a convicted felon who gives *NO* consideration
to animals' lives or welfare, lied:

> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:52:20 -0800 (PST), jh <jh7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> George Plimpton, a *real* opponent of "ar", wrote:
>>
>>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>
>> Search for welfare is a constant concerning every life form. And
>> actions are the consequences of it. Existence without any kind of
>> movement or action could be exempt of welfare, for sure, but we call
>> that kind of existence: death. Life is relationship. The beauty of
>> existence for human being is recovering his real place into reality.
>> As for every life form around him, this rediscovery is full of
>> happiness. It looks like the body doesn't have enough space to contain
>> it!
>
> Humans and other animals can and do live lives of positive value

Meaningless blabber.

"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit. It cannot be one.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, a convicted felon who gives *NO* consideration
to animals' lives or welfare, lied:

> George Plimpton, a *real* opponent of "ar", wrote:
>
>> For close to 14 years, Fuckwit has been saying the animals "get
>> something out of the 'deal'", when there is no "deal" and the animals
>> get *nothing*.
>
> LOL!!! A more blatant lie

Not a lie. There is no "deal".

>> There is no reason whatever to be "glad for them that
>> they have the chance to live at all" - their "getting to experience
>> life" is not a benefit and is nothing to celebrate.
>
> Many livestock animals

There is nothing to "celebrate" about livestock animals "getting to
experience life", Fuckwit. This has been proved.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, a convicted felon who has no consideration for
animals' lives *or* welfare, wussed out:

You. No, it is not uncommon for you to lie, Goo - you do it in every post.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, a convicted felon who gives *NO* consideration
to animals' lives or welfare, lied:

> George Plimpton, a *real* opponent of "ar", wrote:
>
>> On 11/22/2012 5:17 PM, God of heaven wrote:

>>> George Plimpton, a *real* opponent of "ar", wrote:
>>>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>>>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>>>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>>
>>> I agree and disagree. It depends on where you are in existence. Sure you
>>> could be blind or handicapped in some way and existence won't be fun, in
>>> fact it'd be miserable. But you could be in good health, surrounded by
>>> noble family and friends, and in a relationship with a person who brings
>>> that special joy that you'd never have a clue of what it's like if you
>>> didn't exist.
>>
>> That doesn't mean that existence itself is a benefit. It's the things
>> *in* your existence that may be benefits.
>>
>> Go back to the definition of benefit:
>
> _________________________________________________________
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit
>
> ben·e·fit [ben-uh-fit] noun, verb, ben·e·fit·ed or ben·e·fit·ted,
> ben·e·fit·ing or ben·e·fit·ting.
> noun
> 1. something that is advantageous or good; an advantage
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

...advantageous or good to an existing entity *only*, of course.

[x]

please do not encourage the @dh character.



--
all wrongs revenged

[George Plimpton]

I don't. I kick him in the teeth, repeatedly.

[x]

yet he continues to chatter.



--
all wrongs revenged

[George Plimpton]

He has two lowbrow cracker attributes in abundance: stupidity and
stubbornness.

[x]

and yet you continue to chatter.



--
all wrongs revenged

[George Plimpton]

I like kicking him in the teeth. You'll take it, and you'll like it.

[jh]

On 26 nov, 13:04, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:52:20 -0800 (PST), jh <jh7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 20 nov, 16:45, Goo wrote:
>
> >> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
> >> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
> >> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>
> >Search for welfare is a constant concerning every life form. And
> >actions are the consequences of it. Existence without any kind of
> >movement or action could be exempt of welfare, for sure, but we call
> >that kind of existence: death. Life is relationship. The beauty of
> >existence for human being is recovering his real place into reality.
> >As for every life form around him, this rediscovery is full of
> >happiness. It looks like the body doesn't have enough space to contain
> >it!
>
>     Humans and other animals can and do live lives of positive value in
> unnatural condittions. Our natural condition would be naked eating whatever we
> can find in jungles and plains. No one does that any more because no one likes
> to get all the way back.

Men have the ability to do many things. Getting all the way back would
be amazing. Anyway, the past never return the way it was. Men are
creators condemned to novelty who have followed the way of security
exaggerating its importance. They break with their first natural
confidence. Life became complicated because of all the fears coming
with security.

The potential of happiness is great for any human being. However, we
can see people walking on the street who are not surprised about
anything. And everyone is sure to be sane! Many social fears must be
overcome. Life is not what they taught to us. Anyway, words are not
reality.

[George Plimpton]

On 11/26/2012 10:04 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:52:20 -0800 (PST), jh <jh7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20 nov, 16:45, Goo wrote:
>>
>>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>
>> Search for welfare is a constant concerning every life form. And
>> actions are the consequences of it. Existence without any kind of
>> movement or action could be exempt of welfare, for sure, but we call
>> that kind of existence: death. Life is relationship. The beauty of
>> existence for human being is recovering his real place into reality.
>> As for every life form around him, this rediscovery is full of
>> happiness. It looks like the body doesn't have enough space to contain
>> it!
>
> Humans and other animals can and do live lives of positive value

Meaningless blabber - all you mean is, they exist.

>
>> The poet Rilke said: "(...) like being suddenly transported from
>> your bed room to the summit of a big mountain." It's funny that we
>> live humdrum existences.
>

> The reason Professor Plimpton is insisting existence is not a benefit is

> in relation to livestock animals especially. There are people who want to see
> the end of domestic animals in general, and all livestock in particular so they
> don't get "killed". I point out

No.

> that they only exist because they're raised for food.

Everyone was already aware of that long before you pointlessly belabored it.

> They're not just "killed" as are the wild animals who die in crop fields, but
> livestock only live at all because of the situation.

Meaningless.

> People who favor
> elimination over decent animal welfare

No, that's a false choice. That is *not* the choice people have to make.

> are opposed to taking the lives of
> livestock into consideration

There's nothing to consider. The animals' "getting to experience life"
deserves no moral consideration at all. If livestock husbandry ceases
and no more livestock animals "get to experience life", then

* no "loss" has been incurred
* no "harm" has been inflicted
* no failure to give due consideration has occurred

There is no reason at all to "consider" the lives of the livestock
animals as morally meaningful *prior* to their existence.

[x]

i appreciate the thought.


--
all wrongs revenged

[George Plimpton]

That's nice.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 02:39:10 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 20, 10:45 pm, Prof. George Plimpton helpfully explicated:

>>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>

>> You've been known to say this many times in the past.
>
> It's

It's just not a benefit, Goo - existence is not a benefit. It can't be.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 20:20:25 -0800, Prof. George Plimpton helpfully explicated:

>
>> On 11/22/2012 4:04 PM, brian mitchell wrote:

>>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:34:41 -0800, Prof. George Plimpton helpfully explicated:

>>>
>>>> On 11/22/2012 11:52 AM, jh wrote:

>>>>> On 20 nov, 16:45, Prof. George Plimpton helpfully explicated:

>>>>>
>>>>>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>>>>>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>>>>>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>>>>

>>>>> Search for welfare is a constant concerning every life form. And
>>>>> actions are the consequences of it. Existence without any kind of
>>>>> movement or action could be exempt of welfare, for sure, but we call
>>>>> that kind of existence: death. Life is relationship. The beauty of
>>>>> existence for human being is recovering his real place into reality.
>>>>> As for every life form around him, this rediscovery is full of
>>>>> happiness. It looks like the body doesn't have enough space to contain
>>>>> it! The poet Rilke said: "(...) like being suddenly transported from
>>>>> your bed room to the summit of a big mountain." It's funny that we
>>>>> live humdrum existences. We are sort of supernovas!
>>>>
>>>> None of that blabber changes the basic fact that existence is not a benefit.
>>>
>>> Existence is a benefit:
>>
>> It is not. A benefit is something that *improves* the welfare of an
>> entity. Existence doesn't do that.
> _________________________________________________________
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit
>
> ben·e·fit [ben-uh-fit] noun, verb, ben·e·fit·ed or ben·e·fit·ted,
> ben·e·fit·ing or ben·e·fit·ting.
> noun
> 1. something that is advantageous or good; an advantage

> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

"advantageous" = improves the welfare of an existing entity.

Thank you for confirming what I wrote, Goo. Existence is *not* a
benefit, because it doesn't provide an advantage or do something good
*for an entity*.

When "aras" advocate that no more livestock should exist, they are not
proposing to withhold a benefit from an entity.

[dh]

>> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

>> Your existence as well as your life both seem to have been an advantage
>> to you since your conception Goober, but if you want people to think
>> they haven't been then YOU need to explain what you want people to think
>> is preventing them from being an advantage. Try Goo. Go:
>
>
>no

He can't. Nor can you. I challenge you to try explaining what you think
prevents existence from being a benefit if you think you can. Goo can't, yet he
makes the claim that it's not frequently.

[dh]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:22:02 -0800, Goo wrote:

>Existence is *not* a
>benefit, because it doesn't provide an advantage or do something good
>*for an entity*.
>
>When "aras" advocate that no more livestock should exist, they are not
>proposing to withhold a benefit from an entity.

They do nothing but contribute to the deaths of wildlife with their
lifestyle Goo, but not to life of any sort for livestock. Anyone who is
considering which direction to take should take that into consideration. It's
only after a person has made their choice that they should want to try denying
it, or whatever...

[dh]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:50:52 -0800 (PST), jh <jh7...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 26 nov, 13:04, dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:52:20 -0800 (PST), jh <jh7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 20 nov, 16:45, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>> >> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>> >> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>
>> >Search for welfare is a constant concerning every life form. And
>> >actions are the consequences of it. Existence without any kind of
>> >movement or action could be exempt of welfare, for sure, but we call
>> >that kind of existence: death. Life is relationship. The beauty of
>> >existence for human being is recovering his real place into reality.
>> >As for every life form around him, this rediscovery is full of
>> >happiness. It looks like the body doesn't have enough space to contain
>> >it!
>>
>>     Humans and other animals can and do live lives of positive value in
>> unnatural condittions. Our natural condition would be naked eating whatever we
>> can find in jungles and plains. No one does that any more because no one likes
>> to get all the way back.
>
>Men have the ability to do many things. Getting all the way back would
>be amazing. Anyway, the past never return the way it was.

You could still go find a place to live on grubs and whatever you find and
hunt with whatever weapons you could make using rocks and sticks if you wanted
to, but no one ever wants to.

>Men are
>creators condemned to novelty who have followed the way of security
>exaggerating its importance. They break with their first natural
>confidence. Life became complicated because of all the fears coming
>with security.

Some of the fears it does away with may balance it out though, like not
having to fear too much about starving to death or dying from bad water or
freezing or getting killed by wild animals, etc.

Goo believes all of his claims, as do all eliminationists.

[dh]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:21:10 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:02:54 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>
>>On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 09:08:17 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On 11/23/2012 8:04 PM, God of heaven wrote:

>>>> On 11/23/2012 12:14 AM, Goo wrote:
>>>>> On 11/22/2012 5:17 PM, God of heaven wrote:

>>>>>> On 11/20/2012 4:45 PM, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>>>>>>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>>>>>>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree and disagree. It depends on where you are in existence. Sure you
>>>>>> could be blind or handicapped in some way and existence won't be fun, in
>>>>>> fact it'd be miserable. But you could be in good health, surrounded by
>>>>>> noble family and friends, and in a relationship with a person who brings
>>>>>> that special joy that you'd never have a clue of what it's like if you
>>>>>> didn't exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't mean that existence itself is a benefit. It's the things
>>>>> *in* your existence that may be benefits.
>>>>
>>>> How do you separate things in your existence that brings benefit, from
>>>> existence being beneficial?
>>>
>>>I've explained to you the ironclad definition of benefit

>>_________________________________________________________
>>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit
>>
>>ben·e·fit [ben-uh-fit] noun, verb, ben·e·fit·ed or ben·e·fit·ted,
>>ben·e·fit·ing or ben·e·fit·ting.
>>noun

>>1. something that is advantageous or good; an advantage: He explained the
>>benefits of public ownership of the postal system.
>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

>>>: something
>>>that improves the welfare of an entity. It goes without saying - but
>>>because you're dense, I need to say it anyway - that we're talking about
>>>an *existing* entity: the entity must exist
>>

>> Your existence has been an advantage to you from the time you began to exist
>>Goob, and lots of other beings have benefitted from existence since long before
>>your stupidass began to exist. For billions of years beings have benefitted from
>>existence on this planet alone Goober, and it's really past time you learn to
>>accept the fact.
>>
>>>*in order* to benefit from
>>>anything.
>>
>> Goo, try for the first time in all the countless times you've made the
>>claim, to explain what you want people to think is preventing you from
>>benefitting from your:
>>
>>1. life.
>>2. existence.
>>
>>You clearly appear to benefit from both Goob, so try to tell us what you want us
>>to think is preventing either from being an advantage to you. Oh and Goo, unless
>>you can prove otherwise we'll take it for granted that you DO exist. Now attempt
>>your explanation Goober. Go:
>>
>>(correct prediction based on countless other similar challenges: Goo can't even
>>attempt to pretend to go)
>>
>>>> If I like hot fudge brownie ice-cream sundae
>>>> then I'm better off existing because I can enjoy it.
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>
>> By your own claim you don't know whether he is or not, 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 for the animals; one simply
>>cannot know." - Goo
>>
>>yet for years lately you've been claiming that you somehow found out. How do you
>>want people to think you found out Goob? Your definition doesn't apply to this
>>situation Goober since the benefit of existence DOES exist even before future
>>beings begin to benefit from it...fyi Goo.

>
>No, it hasn't - it can't be, by definition.

Existence has been a benefit to countless beings for billions of years
before you began to exist, Goo.

[dh]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:25:40 -0800, Goo oddly maundered:

>On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:06:53 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>
>>On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:14:39 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On 11/22/2012 5:17 PM, God of heaven wrote:

>>>> On 11/20/2012 4:45 PM, Goo wrote:
>>>>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>>>>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>>>>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>>>
>>>> I agree and disagree. It depends on where you are in existence. Sure you
>>>> could be blind or handicapped in some way and existence won't be fun, in
>>>> fact it'd be miserable. But you could be in good health, surrounded by
>>>> noble family and friends, and in a relationship with a person who brings
>>>> that special joy that you'd never have a clue of what it's like if you
>>>> didn't exist.
>>>
>>>That doesn't mean that existence itself is a benefit. It's the things
>>>*in* your existence that may be benefits.
>>>
>>>Go back to the definition of benefit:
>>
>>_________________________________________________________
>>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit
>>
>>ben·e·fit [ben-uh-fit] noun, verb, ben·e·fit·ed or ben·e·fit·ted,
>>ben·e·fit·ing or ben·e·fit·ting.
>>noun
>>1. something that is advantageous or good; an advantage
>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

>> What do you want people to think is preventing your existence from being an
>>advantage to you Goo? Maybe it's only that you're too stupid to figure out how
>>it could be one, Goob.
>

>...advantageous or good to an existing entity *only*, of course.

What other type are you suggesting there is, Goo?

[dh]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:23:46 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:05:06 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>
>>On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 19:30:01 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>For close to 14 years, Fuckwit has been saying the animals "get
>>>something out of the 'deal'", when there is no "deal" and the animals
>>>get *nothing*.
>>

>> LOL!!! A more blatant lie could not be told since they get EVERYTHING out of
>>it. Why would anyone who favors decent AW over elimination tell that particular
>>pathetic lie? They would have no reason to, that's the answer.

>>
>>>There is no reason whatever to be "glad for them that
>>>they have the chance to live at all" - their "getting to experience
>>>life" is not a benefit and is nothing to celebrate.
>>

>> Many livestock animals appear to experience decent lives of positive value
>>Goober. If instead they could be kept in a comatose condition never experiencing
>>consciousness or the world around them, explain why you want people to think
>>that would be better for them, which particular "them", and why those particular
>>animals. Try Goo. Go:

>
>There is nothing to "celebrate" about livestock animals "getting to
>experience life", Fuckwit. This has been proved.

No Goober it has not. What has been proved is that ONLY eliminationists have
reason to oppose taking the animals' lives into consideration, Goo.

[dh]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:30:55 -0600, x <x...@x.org> wrote:

>please do not encourage the @dh character.

What have I pointed out that you don't like?

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:30:55 -0600, x <x...@x.org> wrote:
>
>> please do not encourage the @dh character.
>
> What have I pointed out

Nothing.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:23:46 -0800, George X. Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:05:06 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:

>>
>>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 19:30:01 -0800, George H. Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> For close to 14 years, Fuckwit has been saying the animals "get
>>>> something out of the 'deal'", when there is no "deal" and the animals
>>>> get *nothing*.
>>>
>>> LOL!!! A more blatant lie
>>

>>Not a lie. There is no "deal", Fuckwit.

>>
>>>
>>>> There is no reason whatever to be "glad for them that
>>>> they have the chance to live at all" - their "getting to experience
>>>> life" is not a benefit and is nothing to celebrate.
>>>
>>> Many livestock animals
>>

>> There is nothing to "celebrate" about livestock animals "getting to
>> experience life", Fuckwit. This has been proved.
>

> No it has not.

Yes, absolutely is has been.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:25:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:06:53 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:

>>
>>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:14:39 -0800, George I. Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/22/2012 5:17 PM, God of heaven wrote:

>>>>> On 11/20/2012 4:45 PM, George W. Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>>>>>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>>>>>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree and disagree. It depends on where you are in existence. Sure you
>>>>> could be blind or handicapped in some way and existence won't be fun, in
>>>>> fact it'd be miserable. But you could be in good health, surrounded by
>>>>> noble family and friends, and in a relationship with a person who brings
>>>>> that special joy that you'd never have a clue of what it's like if you
>>>>> didn't exist.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't mean that existence itself is a benefit. It's the things
>>>> *in* your existence that may be benefits.
>>>>
>>>> Go back to the definition of benefit:
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________
>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit
>>>
>>> ben·e·fit [ben-uh-fit] noun, verb, ben·e·fit·ed or ben·e·fit·ted,
>>> ben·e·fit·ing or ben·e·fit·ting.
>>> noun
>>> 1. something that is advantageous or good; an advantage
>>> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>>

>> ...advantageous or good to an existing entity *only*, of course.
>
> What other type are you suggesting there is

Coming into existence is not advantageous to an entity, Goo.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> George believes all of his claims,

They're all true, Fuckwit.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:21:10 -0800, George N. Plimpton wrote:
>
>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>

>>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 09:08:17 -0800, George I. Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/23/2012 8:04 PM, God of heaven wrote:

>>>>> On 11/23/2012 12:14 AM, George X. Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/22/2012 5:17 PM, God of heaven wrote:

>>>>>>> On 11/20/2012 4:45 PM, George B. Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>>>>>>>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>>>>>>>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree and disagree. It depends on where you are in existence. Sure you
>>>>>>> could be blind or handicapped in some way and existence won't be fun, in
>>>>>>> fact it'd be miserable. But you could be in good health, surrounded by
>>>>>>> noble family and friends, and in a relationship with a person who brings
>>>>>>> that special joy that you'd never have a clue of what it's like if you
>>>>>>> didn't exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That doesn't mean that existence itself is a benefit. It's the things
>>>>>> *in* your existence that may be benefits.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you separate things in your existence that brings benefit, from
>>>>> existence being beneficial?
>>>>

>>>> I've explained to you the ironclad definition of benefit: something

>>>> that improves the welfare of an entity. It goes without saying - but
>>>> because you're dense, I need to say it anyway - that we're talking about
>>>> an *existing* entity: the entity must exist
>>>
>>> Your existence has been an advantage to you
>>

>> No, it hasn't - it can't be, by definition.
>
> Existence has been a benefit to

No. Existence is never a benefit to an entity.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:22:02 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> Existence is *not* a
>> benefit, because it doesn't provide an advantage or do something good
>> *for an entity*.
>>
>> When "aras" advocate that no more livestock should exist, they are not
>> proposing to withhold a benefit from an entity.
>
> They do nothing but

Fuckwit, you claim they are doing something objectionable. They are not.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison, a convicted felon who has no consideration for
animals' lives *or* welfare, wussed out:

> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:19:40 -0600, x <x...@x.org> wrote:
>

>> Fuckwit David Harrison, a convicted felon who has no consideration for animals' lives *or* welfare, wussed out:

>>
>>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 20:20:25 -0800, Prof. Geo. Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/22/2012 4:04 PM, brian mitchell wrote:

>>>>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:34:41 -0800, Prof. Geo. Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/22/2012 11:52 AM, jh wrote:

>> no
>
> He can't. Nor can you.

"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, Fuckwit - proved.

[jh]

On 29 nov, 16:08, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:50:52 -0800 (PST), jh <jh7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Men have the ability to do many things. Getting all the way back would
> >be amazing. Anyway, the past never return the way it was.
>
> You could still go find a place to live on grubs and whatever you find and
> hunt with whatever weapons you could make using rocks and sticks if you wanted
> to, but no one ever wants to.

Life is always changing. Man is no more who he was. The matter looks
about the same, but inside himself the man has deeply changed. The old
conditions would be lived in a new way. People are living a sort of
nightmare that is not real at all. We are deeply free. Illusions act
as some veils between each of us and reality. In fact, there's
nothing.

> >Men are
> >creators condemned to novelty who have followed the way of security
> >exaggerating its importance. They break with their first natural
> >confidence. Life became complicated because of all the fears coming
> >with security.
>
> Some of the fears it does away with may balance it out though, like not
> having to fear too much about starving to death or dying from bad water or
> freezing or getting killed by wild animals, etc.

If balance is valued in my life, maybe. Nothing is important... We may
stop creating fears by understanding it. There's no fears hidden in
what we call: "unconscious". We just care about not creating any more
of these.

[George Plimpton]

On 11/30/2012 12:14 PM, jh wrote:
> On 29 nov, 16:08, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:50:52 -0800 (PST), jh <jh7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Men have the ability to do many things. Getting all the way back would
>>> be amazing. Anyway, the past never return the way it was.
>>
>> You could still go find a place to live on grubs and whatever you find and
>> hunt with whatever weapons you could make using rocks and sticks if you wanted
>> to, but no one ever wants to.
>
> Life is always changing. Man is no more who he was. The matter looks
> about the same, but inside himself the man has deeply changed. The old
> conditions would be lived in a new way. People are living a sort of
> nightmare that is not real at all. We are deeply free. Illusions act
> as some veils between each of us and reality. In fact, there's
> nothing.

Fuckwit David Harrison - 'dh@.' - completely missed your point, of course.

>>> Men are
>>> creators condemned to novelty who have followed the way of security
>>> exaggerating its importance. They break with their first natural
>>> confidence. Life became complicated because of all the fears coming
>>> with security.
>>
>> Some of the fears it does away with may balance it out though, like not
>> having to fear too much about starving to death or dying from bad water or
>> freezing or getting killed by wild animals, etc.
>
> If balance is valued in my life, maybe. Nothing is important... We may
> stop creating fears by understanding it. There's no fears hidden in
> what we call: "unconscious". We just care about not creating any more
> of these.

Be all that as it may, existence - "getting to experience life" - is not
and *cannot be* a benefit.

[dh]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:15:47 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:16:17 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:30:55 -0600, x <x...@x.org> wrote:
>>
>>>please do not encourage the @dh character.
>>

>> What have I pointed out that you don't like?
>

>Nothing.

Pointing out things people don't like to take into consideration is what I
do Goo. So obviously I've pointed out some thing(s) that x doesn't like to see
pointed out. Maybe it's the faith of strong atheists? Maybe it's that God would
have to be an alien? Maybe it's that the lives of livestock should be given as
much or more consideration than their deaths? Maybe it's something to do with
the velocity of light? Or the non-existence of time and space? We don't know
Goob and may never know WHAT it is he doesn't like, but we do know for sure that
there's something, or there are some things...

[dh]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:15:53 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:04:31 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>
>>On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:22:02 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>Existence is *not* a
>>>benefit, because it doesn't provide an advantage or do something good
>>>*for an entity*.
>>>
>>>When "aras" advocate that no more livestock should exist, they are not
>>>proposing to withhold a benefit from an entity.
>>

>> They do nothing but contribute to the deaths of wildlife with their
>>lifestyle Goo, but not to life of any sort for livestock. Anyone who is
>>considering which direction to take should take that into consideration. It's
>>only after a person has made their choice that they should want to try denying
>>it, or whatever...
>

>Fuckwit, you claim they are doing something objectionable. They are not.

They're doing nothing Goo. That's the point. If a person wants to do more
than nothing then they certainly should NOT be vegan.

[dh]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:14:51 -0800 (PST), jh <jh7...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 29 nov, 16:08, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:50:52 -0800 (PST), jh <jh7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Men have the ability to do many things. Getting all the way back would
>> >be amazing. Anyway, the past never return the way it was.
>>
>> You could still go find a place to live on grubs and whatever you find and
>> hunt with whatever weapons you could make using rocks and sticks if you wanted
>> to, but no one ever wants to.
>
>Life is always changing. Man is no more who he was. The matter looks
>about the same, but inside himself the man has deeply changed. The old
>conditions would be lived in a new way. People are living a sort of
>nightmare that is not real at all.

It's real, and by far the majority of people prefer it to just gathering
what food they could find in jungles and grass lands. In fact everyone seems to
prefer the nightmare to the "real" human way since no one lives that way any
more.

>We are deeply free. Illusions act
>as some veils between each of us and reality. In fact, there's
>nothing.
>
>> >Men are
>> >creators condemned to novelty who have followed the way of security
>> >exaggerating its importance. They break with their first natural
>> >confidence. Life became complicated because of all the fears coming
>> >with security.
>>
>> Some of the fears it does away with may balance it out though, like not
>> having to fear too much about starving to death or dying from bad water or
>> freezing or getting killed by wild animals, etc.
>
>If balance is valued in my life, maybe. Nothing is important...

Everything will become important if you go live the "real" way. Every bite
of food, every sip of water, every sound you hear at night....

>We may
>stop creating fears by understanding it. There's no fears hidden in
>what we call: "unconscious". We just care about not creating any more
>of these.

What are you having problems with?

[dh]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:15:51 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:10:38 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:21:10 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:02:54 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>

>>>>On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 09:08:17 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 11/23/2012 8:04 PM, God of heaven wrote:

>>>>>> On 11/23/2012 12:14 AM, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/22/2012 5:17 PM, God of heaven wrote:

>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2012 4:45 PM, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>>>>>>>>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>>>>>>>>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree and disagree. It depends on where you are in existence. Sure you
>>>>>>>> could be blind or handicapped in some way and existence won't be fun, in
>>>>>>>> fact it'd be miserable. But you could be in good health, surrounded by
>>>>>>>> noble family and friends, and in a relationship with a person who brings
>>>>>>>> that special joy that you'd never have a clue of what it's like if you
>>>>>>>> didn't exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That doesn't mean that existence itself is a benefit. It's the things
>>>>>>> *in* your existence that may be benefits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you separate things in your existence that brings benefit, from
>>>>>> existence being beneficial?
>>>>>
>>>>>I've explained to you the ironclad definition of benefit

>>>>_________________________________________________________
>>>>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit
>>>>
>>>>ben·e·fit [ben-uh-fit] noun, verb, ben·e·fit·ed or ben·e·fit·ted,
>>>>ben·e·fit·ing or ben·e·fit·ting.
>>>>noun
>>>>1. something that is advantageous or good; an advantage: He explained the
>>>>benefits of public ownership of the postal system.
>>>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

>>>>>: something
>>>>>that improves the welfare of an entity. It goes without saying - but
>>>>>because you're dense, I need to say it anyway - that we're talking about
>>>>>an *existing* entity: the entity must exist
>>>>

>>>No, it hasn't - it can't be, by definition.
>>

>> Existence has been a benefit to countless beings for billions of years
>>before you began to exist, Goo.
>

>No. Existence is never a benefit to an entity.

It will be to you until you die Goober, and then and ONLY then will your
existence cease to be a benefit. "You" won't really exist anymore afawk anyway
Goob. Because the benefit of life is gone your lardy ass body won't be able to
benefit from anything else any more, Goo.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:15:47 -0800, George P. Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:16:17 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:

>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:30:55 -0600, x <x...@x.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> please do not encourage the @dh character.
>>>
>>> What have I pointed out
>>

>> Nothing.
>
> Pointing out things people don't like

You've "pointed out" nothing. You've bullshitted, non-stop, for
fourteen years.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:15:53 -0800, George M. Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:04:31 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:

>>
>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:22:02 -0800, George H. Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Existence is *not* a
>>>> benefit, because it doesn't provide an advantage or do something good
>>>> *for an entity*.
>>>>
>>>> When "aras" advocate that no more livestock should exist, they are not
>>>> proposing to withhold a benefit from an entity.
>>>
>>> They do nothing but
>>

>> Fuckwit, you claim they are doing something objectionable. They are not.
>
> They're doing nothing

There's nothing they "ought" to be doing that they aren't doing, Fuckwit
- *Goo*. You have no valid moral criticism of them. You really should
just shut up.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:14:51 -0800 (PST), jh <jh7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> On 29 nov, 16:08, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:

>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:50:52 -0800 (PST), jh <jh7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Men have the ability to do many things. Getting all the way back would
>>>> be amazing. Anyway, the past never return the way it was.
>>>
>>> You could still go find a place to live on grubs and whatever you find and
>>> hunt with whatever weapons you could make using rocks and sticks if you wanted
>>> to, but no one ever wants to.
>>
>> Life is always changing. Man is no more who he was. The matter looks
>> about the same, but inside himself the man has deeply changed. The old
>> conditions would be lived in a new way. People are living a sort of
>> nightmare that is not real at all.
>
> It's real, and

You wouldn't know. You don't know what's real and what isn't.

>> We are deeply free. Illusions act
>> as some veils between each of us and reality. In fact, there's
>> nothing.
>>
>>>> Men are
>>>> creators condemned to novelty who have followed the way of security
>>>> exaggerating its importance. They break with their first natural
>>>> confidence. Life became complicated because of all the fears coming
>>>> with security.
>>>
>>> Some of the fears it does away with may balance it out though, like not
>>> having to fear too much about starving to death or dying from bad water or
>>> freezing or getting killed by wild animals, etc.
>>
>> If balance is valued in my life, maybe. Nothing is important...
>
> Everything will become important if

You wouldn't know.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:15:51 -0800, George A. Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:10:38 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:21:10 -0800, George C. Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:02:54 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:

>>>>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 09:08:17 -0800, George E. Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/23/2012 8:04 PM, God of heaven wrote:

>>>>>>> On 11/23/2012 12:14 AM, George G. Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/22/2012 5:17 PM, God of heaven wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2012 4:45 PM, George J. Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be one. A benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>>>>>>>>>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>>>>>>>>>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree and disagree. It depends on where you are in existence. Sure you
>>>>>>>>> could be blind or handicapped in some way and existence won't be fun, in
>>>>>>>>> fact it'd be miserable. But you could be in good health, surrounded by
>>>>>>>>> noble family and friends, and in a relationship with a person who brings
>>>>>>>>> that special joy that you'd never have a clue of what it's like if you
>>>>>>>>> didn't exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean that existence itself is a benefit. It's the things
>>>>>>>> *in* your existence that may be benefits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you separate things in your existence that brings benefit, from
>>>>>>> existence being beneficial?
>>>>>>

>>>>>> I've explained to you the ironclad definition of benefit: something

>>>>>> that improves the welfare of an entity. It goes without saying - but
>>>>>> because you're dense, I need to say it anyway - that we're talking about
>>>>>> an *existing* entity: the entity must exist
>>>>>
>>>>> Your existence has been an advantage to you
>>>>

>>>> No, it hasn't - it can't be, by definition.
>>>
>>> Existence has been a benefit to
>>

>> No. Existence is never a benefit to an entity.
>
> It will be to you until

No. Existence is never a benefit to an entity. This is proved.

[Jack Skolasky]

If a substantial percentage of the population became vegan, far fewer
livestock animals would be born. To vegans, that would be a good thing.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:15:53 -0800, George I. Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:04:31 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:

>>
>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:22:02 -0800, George X. Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Existence is *not* a
>>>> benefit, because it doesn't provide an advantage or do something good
>>>> *for an entity*.
>>>>
>>>> When "aras" advocate that no more livestock should exist, they are not
>>>> proposing to withhold a benefit from an entity.
>>>
>>> They do nothing but
>>

>> Fuckwit, you claim they are doing something objectionable. They are not.
>

> They're doing nothing. That's the point.

*Goo*, you're claiming that by not wanting livestock animals to exist,
they're doing something objectionable. You can't say *why* it's
objectionable, *Goo* - apart from taking meat away from you.

[Tsukino Usagi]

On 21/11/2012 6:45 AM, George Plimpton wrote:> It cannot be one. A

benefit, by definition, is something that improves
> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.

Actually though I've stayed out of this pretty much (because it seems an
uninteresting debate to me), this point strikes me as interesting. I've
always been taught that in buddhism existance itself is not the benefit,
but rather the opportunity to realize a benefit. In short, regarding
karma, if one is born into the life of a chicken which is to be cruelly
destroyed, in a sense, one deserves it. But, one is always given that
time, for which they have the opportunity to make the best of their life
and to learn something.

Although not the sole reason for doing so, it does tend to suggest that
you should avoid cruelly destroying an animal for any reason. Simply
killing for food is a separate issue; no one is ever destined to a life
where they are guaranteed to lose karma (see above); which would seem to
indicate that creatures such as wolves or sharks do not necessarily lose
karma when they kill for food.

Then again, a hollistic view might take it that those animals help their
prey evolve as a species, while when humans kill for food it does not
help (for example, chickens) in general. So there are differences.

However, if you're a buddhist at least, you know how to solve this
dillema: Stop talking about it and meditate about it. The more you
meditate about it the more you will understand the truth of the matter.
The fact that there's so much arguing going on ONLY serves to point out
how little spiritual development the people engaging in this debate have
achieved.

[George Plimpton]

On 12/3/2012 7:47 PM, Tsukino Usagi wrote:
> On 21/11/2012 6:45 AM, George Plimpton wrote:> It cannot be one. A
> benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>
> Actually though I've stayed out of this pretty much (because it seems an
> uninteresting debate to me), this point strikes me as interesting. I've
> always been taught that in buddhism existance itself is not the benefit,
> but rather the opportunity to realize a benefit. In short, regarding
> karma, if one is born into the life of a chicken which is to be cruelly
> destroyed, in a sense, one deserves it. But, one is always given that
> time, for which they have the opportunity to make the best of their life
> and to learn something.

The issue in this sterile discussion - it would be a stretch to call it
a debate - is that Fuckwit David Harrison believes that existence itself
is a benefit /per se/, and that "animal rights activists" who want to
end livestock husbandry are trying to withhold a "benefit" from
livestock animals that have not been conceived and born, but might be.
He says there's something "wrong" about that, but he can't say what it is.

Suppose some couple marry and decide they want to have four children.
They really do intend to have four. After two, for whatever reasons,
they decide that's enough. They are not withholding some "benefit" of
existence from the two children they never conceive and bear: those
children never existed, and existence is a *precondition* for benefiting
from anything, but existence is *not* a benefit /per se/.

[Tsukino Usagi]

On 04/12/2012 1:15 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> The issue in this sterile

discussion - it would be a stretch to call it
> a debate

I only called it a debate because it looks like one.. ppl making their
case and it looks like someone is expecting a judge to bang a gavel
somewhere and hand down a judgement.

> is that Fuckwit David Harrison believes that existence itself
> is a benefit /per se/, and that "animal rights activists" who want to
> end livestock husbandry are trying to withhold a "benefit" from
> livestock animals that have not been conceived and born, but might be.
> He says there's something "wrong" about that, but he can't say what it is.

Yeah, so in other words, you disagree with him. I disagree with lots of
people about a lot of things. I even think some of them are fuckwits.

So ok this is about how you disagree with him.

> Suppose some couple marry and decide they want to have four children.
> They really do intend to have four. After two, for whatever reasons,
> they decide that's enough. They are not withholding some "benefit" of
> existence from the two children they never conceive and bear: those
> children never existed, and existence is a *precondition* for benefiting
> from anything, but existence is *not* a benefit /per se/.

Yeah like I said, there are many reasons you could say that. You just
said another one. It's like I said; if we would all just subscribe to
the same pile of dogma at once there wouldn't be any arguing. In this
case, the fundamental misunderstanding (from Buddhism's point of view)
is the way in which existance is thought to be a benefit; Existance is a
benefit because it provides the opportunity to work down negative karma.
However the problem with viewing existance itself as the benefit is that
the reason why people are reborn is "merely because" they have negative
karma. People with negative karma will be reborn and have the same net
time to work off the same net karma as everyone else; be it 1000 hours
as a series of fireflies, or in one lump sum as a chicken who is
slaughtered too young. You can't avoid being reborn in that situation.
So I think of it more as a bunch of people who simply don't understand
the spiritual truths of buddhism rather than an animal rights issue.

[George Plimpton]

On 12/4/2012 5:46 AM, Tsukino Usagi wrote:
> On 04/12/2012 1:15 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> The issue in this sterile
> discussion - it would be a stretch to call it
>> a debate
>
> I only called it a debate because it looks like one.. ppl making their
> case and it looks like someone is expecting a judge to bang a gavel
> somewhere and hand down a judgement.
>
>> is that Fuckwit David Harrison believes that existence itself
>> is a benefit /per se/, and that "animal rights activists" who want to
>> end livestock husbandry are trying to withhold a "benefit" from
>> livestock animals that have not been conceived and born, but might be.
>> He says there's something "wrong" about that, but he can't say what it is.
>
> Yeah, so in other words, you disagree with him. I disagree with lots of
> people about a lot of things. I even think some of them are fuckwits.

No, it is *not* merely that I disagree with him - it's that he *cannot*
explain what it is that is objectionable about "vegans" not wanting any
more livestock animals to exist, apart from the fact that Fuckwit
wouldn't have meat available to him then.

>> Suppose some couple marry and decide they want to have four children.
>> They really do intend to have four. After two, for whatever reasons,
>> they decide that's enough. They are not withholding some "benefit" of
>> existence from the two children they never conceive and bear: those
>> children never existed, and existence is a *precondition* for benefiting
>> from anything, but existence is *not* a benefit /per se/.
>
> Yeah like I said, there are many reasons you could say that. You just
> said another one. It's like I said; if we would all just subscribe to
> the same pile of dogma at once there wouldn't be any arguing. In this
> case, the fundamental misunderstanding (from Buddhism's point of view)
> is the way in which existance is thought to be a benefit; Existance is a
> benefit because it provides the opportunity to work down negative karma.

That's wrong, because it doesn't recognize the proper meaning of
benefit. A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity.
Existence doesn't do that, and *therefore* cannot be a benefit.

> However the problem with viewing existance itself as the benefit is that
> the reason why people are reborn

That's bullshit. There is no such thing as rebirth.

[jh]

On 3 déc, 17:51, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:14:51 -0800 (PST), jh <jh7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 29 nov, 16:08, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:50:52 -0800 (PST), jh <jh7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Men have the ability to do many things. Getting all the way back would
> >> >be amazing. Anyway, the past never return the way it was.
>
> >> You could still go find a place to live on grubs and whatever you find and
> >> hunt with whatever weapons you could make using rocks and sticks if you wanted
> >> to, but no one ever wants to.
>
> >Life is always changing. Man is no more who he was. The matter looks
> >about the same, but inside himself the man has deeply changed. The old
> >conditions would be lived in a new way. People are living a sort of
> >nightmare that is not real at all.
>
>     It's real, and by far the majority of people prefer it to just gathering
> what food they could find in jungles and grass lands. In fact everyone seems to
> prefer the nightmare to the "real" human way since no one lives that way any
> more.

It has no existence at all when you see it from the other side.

> >We are deeply free. Illusions act
> >as some veils between each of us and reality. In fact, there's
> >nothing.
>
> >> >Men are
> >> >creators condemned to novelty who have followed the way of security
> >> >exaggerating its importance. They break with their first natural
> >> >confidence. Life became complicated because of all the fears coming
> >> >with security.
>
> >> Some of the fears it does away with may balance it out though, like not
> >> having to fear too much about starving to death or dying from bad water or
> >> freezing or getting killed by wild animals, etc.
>
> >If balance is valued in my life, maybe. Nothing is important...
>
>     Everything will become important if you go live the "real" way. Every bite
> of food, every sip of water, every sound you hear at night....
>
> >We may
> >stop creating fears by understanding it. There's no fears hidden in
> >what we call: "unconscious". We just care about not creating any more
> >of these.
>
>     What are you having problems with?

Systems. We born free and become captive. Education means control.
Only an inner revolution can get you out of it. Understanding is the
key. Not Buddhism, Zen or any ready made solution. The known world is
blind to the novelty of life we are and we live in.

[George Plimpton]

Bravo! Keep up the good work. This stuff ties Fuckwit up in knots.

[Tsukino Usagi]

On 05/12/2012 12:53 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 12/4/2012 5:46 AM, Tsukino Usagi wrote:
>> On 04/12/2012 1:15 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> The issue in this sterile
>> discussion - it would be a stretch to call it
>>> a debate
>>
>> I only called it a debate because it looks like one.. ppl making their
>> case and it looks like someone is expecting a judge to bang a gavel
>> somewhere and hand down a judgement.
>>
>>> is that Fuckwit David Harrison believes that existence itself
>>> is a benefit /per se/, and that "animal rights activists" who want to
>>> end livestock husbandry are trying to withhold a "benefit" from
>>> livestock animals that have not been conceived and born, but might be.
>>> He says there's something "wrong" about that, but he can't say what
>>> it is.
>>
>> Yeah, so in other words, you disagree with him. I disagree with lots of
>> people about a lot of things. I even think some of them are fuckwits.
>
> No, it is *not* merely that I disagree with him - it's that he *cannot*
> explain what it is that is objectionable about "vegans" not wanting any
> more livestock animals to exist, apart from the fact that Fuckwit
> wouldn't have meat available to him then.

But doesn't that mean he is mentally retarded, and you should feel
sympathy for him? I mean, it's not his fault.

In many ways he is like the chicken who has been sentenced to too cruel
a fate. We should love these animals and not try to hurt them.

After all, we are the human animal.

>> Yeah like I said, there are many reasons you could say that. You just
>> said another one. It's like I said; if we would all just subscribe to
>> the same pile of dogma at once there wouldn't be any arguing. In this
>> case, the fundamental misunderstanding (from Buddhism's point of view)
>> is the way in which existance is thought to be a benefit; Existance is a
>> benefit because it provides the opportunity to work down negative karma.
>
> That's wrong, because it doesn't recognize the proper meaning of
> benefit. A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity.
> Existence doesn't do that, and *therefore* cannot be a benefit.

Oh, of course it's wrong. I was just saying that's how buddhism looks at
it. I'm reading this on a buddhist newsgroup so that's how I am going to
present things. So yeah it may be wrong, but that's how it is.

>> However the problem with viewing existance itself as the benefit is that
>> the reason why people are reborn
>
> That's bullshit. There is no such thing as rebirth.

There's also no such thing as benefit. But that's probably too advanced
for you to understand. Hehe ;-) I'm sorry, that's a little
confrontational. Then again, you are confrontational. I feel for you, it
must hurt to argue against a brick wall for so long. It can't be good
for your mental health. I mean you've been doing this for what, 3, 4
years? Look around at some of the people who have been whining and
bitching for 10 or 15 or more years. They've become batshit insane. The
drugs and black buddhism didn't help either. But such is life.

[halfawake]

Existence as a benefit is a definition rather than a truth. "Benefit"
is a value judgment, and one man's benefit may be another woman's
torturous nightmare in limbo. Arguing over whether existence is a
benefit or not is like arguing over which is better: chocolate or
vanilla. It's a matter of opinion, not fact. Therefore the debate can
happily go on forever without ever getting close to being resolved.

Defining existence as a benefit as a justication for raising animals as
food or sport, and then saying that since life is a benefit, cruelly
killing them is just fine, is clearly a self-fulfilling apologia for
behavior that is at the very least cruel and callous. Arguing with such
a self-justifying person is worse than useless, since they invented the
argument in the first place to justify their own lack of empathy and to
avoid their own responsibility for their actions.

I'm a meat eater, and I accept the inherent cruelty in killing animals
for food, rather than avoiding it. Having accepted that, I can choose
to eat free-range meat as much as possible, and eliminate what I
consider to be some of the cruel treatment given to animals raised for food.

For Buddha, karma accrued to someone who killed the animal himself.
Strangely, he did not attribute production of karma to someone who ate
meat unless the meat was directly killed for that person's meal. In
other words, in Buddhism, eating the meat of an animal that would have
been killed anyway is okay, but having an animal killed for your own
gain is not okay, and direct killing is very much not okay.

Hui Neng, seen as the founder of Ch'an/zen [along with Bodhidharma?],
lived with hunters for 12 years in the woods after his great awakening.
He was put in charge of the traps and let go any animals that were
caught. He cooked his vegetables in the meat pot with the hunters, but
did not eat any of the meat. That gives a sense of the extent of
vegetarianism and the status of killing of animals in Buddhism.

From a Buddhist point of view, we should simply be as kind as possible,
and as cruel as little as possible. Ahimsa, or non-harmfulness, is an
absolute value in Buddhism. So the idea of "life being a benefit" or
not is not primary. It is primary, however, whether one engages in
actions that cause suffering, or refrain from causing suffering, or take
actions to end or alleviate suffering. Killing is never okay, and
causing suffering directly and purposely is never okay. Someone who
raises animals to engage them in cock fights or dog fights would
automatically be among the lowest of the low, making a living out of
causing horrible suffering to innocent animals for no good reason. That
is just evil no matter how you look at it. To raise animals under cruel
conditions is terrible no matter what they are being raised for. So
that's the bottom line, not eating meat per se, and not whether life is
"a benefit" in the abstract or not. There is no compensation or
trade-off of "benefits" of any kind that justifies any kind of
purposeful cruelty, even if such can be seen to exist. There's no
excuse, and I invite someone who is purposely cruel for their own
pleasure to look forward to their own karmic consequences.

Best,
Robert

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

[halfawake]

And you know this how...?
Cause you think so...?

Robert

- - - - - - - - - - -

[halfawake]

Now you are being rational - a deadly mistake in this ongoing dialogue.
You may deflate the entire thing if you keep on this way.

>>>Yeah like I said, there are many reasons you could say that. You just
>>>said another one. It's like I said; if we would all just subscribe to
>>>the same pile of dogma at once there wouldn't be any arguing. In this
>>>case, the fundamental misunderstanding (from Buddhism's point of view)
>>>is the way in which existance is thought to be a benefit; Existance is a
>>>benefit because it provides the opportunity to work down negative karma.
>>
>>That's wrong, because it doesn't recognize the proper meaning of
>>benefit. A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity.
>> Existence doesn't do that, and *therefore* cannot be a benefit.
>
>
> Oh, of course it's wrong. I was just saying that's how buddhism looks at
> it. I'm reading this on a buddhist newsgroup so that's how I am going to
> present things. So yeah it may be wrong, but that's how it is.

Right, from a Buddhist point of the view, the entire purpose of a human
existence is to further evolve the understanding of one's true nature,
and to increase detachment. So it is a "hard-won benefit" in Buddhism
to gain a human birth.

Of course that is more along the lines of the theology of Buddhism,
rather than its practical application from moment to moment, but still
an important part of what makes it tick.

>>>However the problem with viewing existance itself as the benefit is that
>>>the reason why people are reborn
>>
>>That's bullshit. There is no such thing as rebirth.
>
>
> There's also no such thing as benefit. But that's probably too advanced
> for you to understand. Hehe ;-) I'm sorry, that's a little
> confrontational. Then again, you are confrontational. I feel for you, it
> must hurt to argue against a brick wall for so long. It can't be good
> for your mental health. I mean you've been doing this for what, 3, 4
> years? Look around at some of the people who have been whining and
> bitching for 10 or 15 or more years. They've become batshit insane. The
> drugs and black buddhism didn't help either. But such is life.

There is recovery after usenet. It helps to take a break sometimes.

Robert

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

[George Plimpton]

No, that's wrong. Benefit has a precise definition: something that
*improves* the welfare of an entity. Existence does not improve an
entity's welfare - it *establishes* it, but the establishment of it is
not an improvement; the entity (and its welfare) must *already* exist in
order for the entity to realize any benefit from anything. This is
*not* a matter of mere opinion; it is a matter of definition and logic.

You really went off the rails. An argument over whether chocolate or
vanilla flavor is "better" *is* a matter of opinion - subjective opinion
- because one's sense of one's welfare, and what things improve or
degrade that welfare, is subjective.

[George Plimpton]

It doesn't matter *how* I know it - I just know it, and so do you.

[George Plimpton]

On 12/5/2012 10:58 AM, halfawake wrote:
> Tsukino Usagi wrote:
>
>> On 05/12/2012 12:53 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>


>>>> Yeah like I said, there are many reasons you could say that. You just
>>>> said another one. It's like I said; if we would all just subscribe to
>>>> the same pile of dogma at once there wouldn't be any arguing. In this
>>>> case, the fundamental misunderstanding (from Buddhism's point of view)
>>>> is the way in which existance is thought to be a benefit; Existance
>>>> is a
>>>> benefit because it provides the opportunity to work down negative
>>>> karma.
>>>
>>> That's wrong, because it doesn't recognize the proper meaning of
>>> benefit. A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity.
>>> Existence doesn't do that, and *therefore* cannot be a benefit.
>>
>>
>> Oh, of course it's wrong. I was just saying that's how buddhism looks at
>> it. I'm reading this on a buddhist newsgroup so that's how I am going to
>> present things. So yeah it may be wrong, but that's how it is.
>
> Right, from a Buddhist point of the view,

We're not interested in irrational conjecture.

[Tsukino Usagi]

I'm not interested in irrational conjecture, and -- fwiw -- i'm also not
interested in climatology or oil painting.

[Tsukino Usagi]

Didn't you just say that existence is not a benefit, but merely the
establishment of welfare?

You just said,

1

> Benefit has a precise definition: something that
> *improves* the welfare of an entity.

2

[George Plimpton]

Good. Nonetheless, you and everyone else know that there is no such
thing as rebirth.

Here's a short passage from Raymond Chandler's "The High Window" to help
you get a grasp on it:

"What about Hench?"

"Nothing about Hench. Him and the girl were having a liquor party.
They would drink a little and sing a little and scrap a little and
listen to the radio and go out to eat once in a while, when they
thought of it. I guess it had been going on for days. Just as well
we stopped it. The girl has two bad eyes. The next round Hench
might have broken her neck. The world is full of bums like
Hench--and his girl."

"What about the gun Hench said wasn't his?"

"It's the right gun. We don't have the slug yet, but we have the
shell. It was under George's body and it checks. We had a couple
more fired and comparisoned the ejector marks and the firing pin
dents."

"You believe somebody planted it under Hench's pillow?"

"Sure. Why would Hench shoot Phillips? He didn't know him."

"How do you know that?"

"I know it," Breeze said, spreading his hands. "Look, there are
things you know because you have them down in black and white. And
there are things you know because they are reasonable and have to
be so."


That's how the real world works, "Tsukino" (heh). There are some things
you know because they have to be so. I'm sorry if that's not satisfying
to you, but it is how the real world works. Maybe when you get older,
you'll come to understand it; maybe.

[George Plimpton]

Yes, exactly.

> You just said,
>
> 1
>> Benefit has a precise definition: something that
>> *improves* the welfare of an entity.
>
> 2
>> Existence does not improve an
>> entity's welfare - it *establishes* it,

Yes? And? That's correct. If I take some pieces of wood and build a
chair, I haven't "improved" the chair - the chair didn't even exist
until I built it.

Until a welfare-bearing entity comes into existence, there is no welfare
to be improved. This isn't a difficult concept.

[dh]

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:03:49 -0800, Jack Skolasky <kick.d...@SouthTeats.con>
wrote:

If animals could be raised in a comatose condition so they never get to
experience counscious life, why would that be better? Would it always be better,
or in some conditions would it be better for the animals to experience their
lives?

[dh]

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:21:05 -0800, Goo wrote:

>You can't say *why* it's
>objectionable, *Goo* - apart from taking meat away from you.

"I consume meat. I consume it daily - I can't even remember a day in my life
when I didn't." - Goo

"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - 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

[dh]

On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 12:47:07 +0900, Tsukino Usagi <us...@tsukino.ca> wrote:

>On 21/11/2012 6:45 AM, Goo wrote:> It cannot be one. A

>benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>
>Actually though I've stayed out of this pretty much (because it seems an
>uninteresting debate to me), this point strikes me as interesting. I've
>always been taught that in buddhism existance itself is not the benefit,
>but rather the opportunity to realize a benefit.

It's one of the benefits that makes all others possible. Another is life
itself. After a person loses the benefit of life, nothing else benefits him/her
any more including the existence of their dead body. If there is life beyond
this then of course the benefit of continued existence would be necessary in
order to benefit from it, or maybe the continued existence would not be such
that it was a benefit but even if so that doesn't prevent existence from being a
benefit to other beings therefore existence itself still remains a benefit.

>In short, regarding
>karma, if one is born into the life of a chicken which is to be cruelly
>destroyed, in a sense, one deserves it. But, one is always given that
>time, for which they have the opportunity to make the best of their life
>and to learn something.
>
>Although not the sole reason for doing so, it does tend to suggest that
>you should avoid cruelly destroying an animal for any reason. Simply
>killing for food is a separate issue; no one is ever destined to a life
>where they are guaranteed to lose karma (see above); which would seem to
>indicate that creatures such as wolves or sharks do not necessarily lose
>karma when they kill for food.

Livestock are not simply "killed" as are the prey of wolves and sharks and
the wildlife who die in crop production. Instead livestock animals only LIVE
because they are raised for food.

>Then again, a hollistic view might take it that those animals help their
>prey evolve as a species, while when humans kill for food it does not
>help (for example, chickens) in general. So there are differences.

Yes it does help. It allows many humans to put more of their time into
learning new ways of doing other things that sevice society besides trying to
produce their own food.

>However, if you're a buddhist at least, you know how to solve this
>dillema: Stop talking about it and meditate about it. The more you
>meditate about it the more you will understand the truth of the matter.
>The fact that there's so much arguing going on ONLY serves to point out
>how little spiritual development the people engaging in this debate have
>achieved.

The reason Goo opposes considering the benefit of life is because giving the
lives of livestock as much or more consideration than their deaths works AGAINST
the elimination objective, and that's the ONLY reason he has for opposing it.

[dh]

On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 13:36:52 -0800 (PST), jh <jh7...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3 déc, 17:51, dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:14:51 -0800 (PST), jh <jh7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 29 nov, 16:08, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:50:52 -0800 (PST), jh <jh7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Men have the ability to do many things. Getting all the way back would
>> >> >be amazing. Anyway, the past never return the way it was.
>>
>> >> You could still go find a place to live on grubs and whatever you find and
>> >> hunt with whatever weapons you could make using rocks and sticks if you wanted
>> >> to, but no one ever wants to.
>>
>> >Life is always changing. Man is no more who he was. The matter looks
>> >about the same, but inside himself the man has deeply changed. The old
>> >conditions would be lived in a new way. People are living a sort of
>> >nightmare that is not real at all.
>>
>>     It's real, and by far the majority of people prefer it to just gathering
>> what food they could find in jungles and grass lands. In fact everyone seems to
>> prefer the nightmare to the "real" human way since no one lives that way any
>> more.
>
>It has no existence at all when you see it from the other side.

It has no existence if no one is doing it, but the potential is still there.
The point is that though you may think it's what you really want, it's not and
it's not what anyone really wants. So you should accept that. That would be a
step up for you. From there you could move on, maybe, IF you can ever get that
far. Until then you're fooling yourself and won't be able to think realistically
about it.

>> >We are deeply free. Illusions act
>> >as some veils between each of us and reality. In fact, there's
>> >nothing.
>>
>> >> >Men are
>> >> >creators condemned to novelty who have followed the way of security
>> >> >exaggerating its importance. They break with their first natural
>> >> >confidence. Life became complicated because of all the fears coming
>> >> >with security.
>>
>> >> Some of the fears it does away with may balance it out though, like not
>> >> having to fear too much about starving to death or dying from bad water or
>> >> freezing or getting killed by wild animals, etc.
>>
>> >If balance is valued in my life, maybe. Nothing is important...
>>
>>     Everything will become important if you go live the "real" way. Every bite
>> of food, every sip of water, every sound you hear at night....
>>
>> >We may
>> >stop creating fears by understanding it. There's no fears hidden in
>> >what we call: "unconscious". We just care about not creating any more
>> >of these.
>>
>>     What are you having problems with?
>
>Systems. We born free and become captive. Education means control.

You may get taught things you don't like, but you also have the ability to
learn about things you do like. If you were naked in Africa or wherever it would
be the same way sort of...you'd still be learning about things you do and don't
like. But! It would be harder to learn about enough things you do like to keep
yourself alive than it is living in a society.

>Only an inner revolution can get you out of it. Understanding is the
>key. Not Buddhism, Zen or any ready made solution. The known world is
>blind to the novelty of life we are and we live in.

You need to learn to accept that you like living in modern human society.
Maybe you don't like the particular area you're living in now, but you still do
like modern society. Maybe you should consider moving...

[dh]

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 10:51:13 +0900, Tsukino Usagi <us...@tsukino.ca> wrote:

>On 05/12/2012 12:53 AM, Goo wrote:
>> On 12/4/2012 5:46 AM, Tsukino Usagi wrote:

>>> On 04/12/2012 1:15 PM, Goo wrote:> The issue in this sterile

>>> discussion - it would be a stretch to call it
>>>> a debate
>>>
>>> I only called it a debate because it looks like one.. ppl making their
>>> case and it looks like someone is expecting a judge to bang a gavel
>>> somewhere and hand down a judgement.
>>>
>>>> is that Fuckwit David Harrison believes that existence itself
>>>> is a benefit /per se/, and that "animal rights activists" who want to
>>>> end livestock husbandry are trying to withhold a "benefit" from
>>>> livestock animals that have not been conceived and born, but might be.
>>>> He says there's something "wrong" about that, but he can't say what
>>>> it is.
>>>
>>> Yeah, so in other words, you disagree with him. I disagree with lots of
>>> people about a lot of things. I even think some of them are fuckwits.
>>
>> No, it is *not* merely that I disagree with him - it's that he *cannot*
>> explain what it is that is objectionable about "vegans" not wanting any
>> more livestock animals to exist, apart from the fact that Fuckwit
>> wouldn't have meat available to him then.
>
>But doesn't that mean he is mentally retarded, and you should feel
>sympathy for him?

You should feel more symapathy for Goo. That Goober actually believed, for
YEARS, that some cattle are raised for 12 years and more for no other reason
than to become pet food. THAT is someone who you might be able to feel sympathy
for, but he's too disgusting in his dishonesties for me to feel sorry for him
about his incredible stupidity.

>I mean, it's not his fault.

I wonder if it's not Goo's fault that he lies the majority of the time.
Maybe it's his parents' fault?

>In many ways he is like the chicken who has been sentenced to too cruel
>a fate. We should love these animals and not try to hurt them.
>
>After all, we are the human animal.

· The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
that begins their particular existence. Those animals will
only live if people continue to raise them for food.

Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
for their existence. ·

>>> Yeah like I said, there are many reasons you could say that. You just
>>> said another one. It's like I said; if we would all just subscribe to
>>> the same pile of dogma at once there wouldn't be any arguing. In this
>>> case, the fundamental misunderstanding (from Buddhism's point of view)
>>> is the way in which existance is thought to be a benefit; Existance is a
>>> benefit because it provides the opportunity to work down negative karma.
>>
>> That's wrong, because it doesn't recognize the proper meaning of
>> benefit. A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity.
>> Existence doesn't do that, and *therefore* cannot be a benefit.
>
>Oh, of course it's wrong. I was just saying that's how buddhism looks at
>it. I'm reading this on a buddhist newsgroup so that's how I am going to
>present things. So yeah it may be wrong, but that's how it is.
>
>>> However the problem with viewing existance itself as the benefit is that
>>> the reason why people are reborn
>>
>> That's bullshit. There is no such thing as rebirth.
>
>There's also no such thing as benefit.

_________________________________________________________
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit

ben·e·fit [ben-uh-fit] noun, verb, ben·e·fit·ed or ben·e·fit·ted,
ben·e·fit·ing or ben·e·fit·ting.
noun
1. something that is advantageous or good; an advantage
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Your existence clearly appears to be a benefit to you. Your life also clearly
appears to be a benefit to you. Your challenge is the same as Goo's if you want
people to believe it's not the benefit it clearly appears to be, but Goo has
never been able to attempt it nor has anyone else afawk. That challenge which I
predict you will fail is to try explaining WHAT you want people to think is
preventing your life from being a benefit to you and HOW you want them to think
whatever it is is doing so.

>But that's probably too advanced
>for you to understand.

So far it appears to be untrue, not "too advanced".

>Hehe ;-) I'm sorry, that's a little
>confrontational. Then again, you are confrontational. I feel for you, it
>must hurt to argue against a brick wall for so long. It can't be good
>for your mental health. I mean you've been doing this for what, 3, 4
>years? Look around at some of the people who have been whining and
>bitching for 10 or 15 or more years. They've become batshit insane.

Goo has been trying to reassure people that elimination is superior to
providing lives of positive value for billions of livestock animals, for over 12
years now.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 10:51:13 +0900, Tsukino Usagi <us...@tsukino.ca> wrote:
>

>> On 05/12/2012 12:53 AM, George H. Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 12/4/2012 5:46 AM, Tsukino Usagi wrote:

>>>> On 04/12/2012 1:15 PM, George X. Plimpton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The issue in this sterile discussion - it would be a stretch to call it
>>>>> a debate
>>>>
>>>> I only called it a debate because it looks like one.. ppl making their
>>>> case and it looks like someone is expecting a judge to bang a gavel
>>>> somewhere and hand down a judgement.
>>>>
>>>>> is that Fuckwit David Harrison believes that existence itself
>>>>> is a benefit /per se/, and that "animal rights activists" who want to
>>>>> end livestock husbandry are trying to withhold a "benefit" from
>>>>> livestock animals that have not been conceived and born, but might be.
>>>>> He says there's something "wrong" about that, but he can't say what
>>>>> it is.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, so in other words, you disagree with him. I disagree with lots of
>>>> people about a lot of things. I even think some of them are fuckwits.
>>>
>>> No, it is *not* merely that I disagree with him - it's that he *cannot*
>>> explain what it is that is objectionable about "vegans" not wanting any
>>> more livestock animals to exist, apart from the fact that Fuckwit
>>> wouldn't have meat available to him then.
>>
>> But doesn't that mean he is mentally retarded, and you should feel

>> sympathy for him? I mean, it's not his fault.
>
> I wonder if it's not fault that he lies the majority of the time.

I don't lie about you, *Goo*. You *are* a retarded, deliberately stupid
cracker who is beaten, who *knows* he is beaten, but is too much a
cocksucker to concede defeat.

You're defeated, *Goo*. You are. You know you are.

>> In many ways he is like the chicken who has been sentenced to too cruel
>> a fate. We should love these animals and not try to hurt them.
>>
>> After all, we are the human animal.
>

> [Fuckwit *Goo* Harrison blabber snipped]

"Getting to experience life" - existence - is not a benefit, *Goo*. You
know this.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 13:36:52 -0800 (PST), jh <jh7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> On 3 déc, 17:51, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:

>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:14:51 -0800 (PST), jh <jh7...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> On 29 nov, 16:08, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:

>>>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:50:52 -0800 (PST), jh <jh7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Men have the ability to do many things. Getting all the way back would
>>>>>> be amazing. Anyway, the past never return the way it was.
>>>
>>>>> You could still go find a place to live on grubs and whatever you find and
>>>>> hunt with whatever weapons you could make using rocks and sticks if you wanted
>>>>> to, but no one ever wants to.
>>>
>>>> Life is always changing. Man is no more who he was. The matter looks
>>>> about the same, but inside himself the man has deeply changed. The old
>>>> conditions would be lived in a new way. People are living a sort of
>>>> nightmare that is not real at all.
>>>
>>> It's real, and by far the majority of people prefer it to just gathering
>>> what food they could find in jungles and grass lands. In fact everyone seems to
>>> prefer the nightmare to the "real" human way since no one lives that way any
>>> more.
>>
>> It has no existence at all when you see it from the other side.
>
> It has no existence if no one is doing it, but the potential is still there.

Meaningless.

[George Plimpton]

On 12/6/2012 11:36 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his

fourteen year string of futility alive with:

> On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 12:47:07 +0900, Tsukino Usagi <us...@tsukino.ca> wrote:
>

>> On 21/11/2012 6:45 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> It cannot be one. A
>> benefit, by definition, is something that improves
>>> the welfare of an entity. Existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
>>> entity - it establishes the welfare, but does not improve it.
>>
>> Actually though I've stayed out of this pretty much (because it seems an
>> uninteresting debate to me), this point strikes me as interesting. I've
>> always been taught that in buddhism existance itself is not the benefit,
>> but rather the opportunity to realize a benefit.
>
> It's one of the benefits that makes all others possible.

No, *Goo* - it's not a benefit. A benefit is something that *improves*
an entity's welfare, *Goo* - you know this, because I've instructed you
in it. Existence doesn't improve an entity's welfare, *Goo* - it
establishes it.

>> In short, regarding
>> karma, if one is born into the life of a chicken which is to be cruelly
>> destroyed, in a sense, one deserves it. But, one is always given that
>> time, for which they have the opportunity to make the best of their life
>> and to learn something.
>>
>> Although not the sole reason for doing so, it does tend to suggest that
>> you should avoid cruelly destroying an animal for any reason. Simply
>> killing for food is a separate issue; no one is ever destined to a life
>> where they are guaranteed to lose karma (see above); which would seem to
>> indicate that creatures such as wolves or sharks do not necessarily lose
>> karma when they kill for food.
>
> Livestock are not simply "killed" as are the prey of wolves and sharks and
> the wildlife who die in crop production. Instead livestock animals only LIVE
> because they are raised for food.

Meaningless, *Goo*. That doesn't change the moral picture in the least.

>> Then again, a hollistic view might take it that those animals help their
>> prey evolve as a species, while when humans kill for food it does not
>> help (for example, chickens) in general. So there are differences.
>
> Yes it does help.

It doesn't help the animals, *Goo*.

>> However, if you're a buddhist at least, you know how to solve this
>> dillema: Stop talking about it and meditate about it. The more you
>> meditate about it the more you will understand the truth of the matter.
>> The fact that there's so much arguing going on ONLY serves to point out
>> how little spiritual development the people engaging in this debate have
>> achieved.
>

> The reason George opposes considering the benefit of life is because

...it isn't a benefit.

[George Plimpton]

Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:21:05 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> You can't say *why* it's
>> objectionable, *Goo* - apart from taking meat away from you.
>

> [snip *Goo's* fearful whiff-off]

LOL! You *still* can't say what's objectionable about it, *Goo*! You
never will be able to say. You're stuck. It's hilarious, *Goo*!