Benefit
ex-PFC Wintergreen
It cannot be. A benefit is something that makes a
welfare-experiencing entity better off, i.e., it improves the entity's
welfare. Prior to existing, there is no entity, thus no welfare to be
improved. Therefore, coming into existence does not improve the
entity's welfare, and so it cannot be a benefit.
I hope this helps clear up some confusion.
Mr.Smartypants
wrote:
Yet you said you are no better off than you WERE BEFORE indicating
that you *know* that you were in a pre-existent state and that you
also know how your existence compares to your pre-existence.
I hope this clears up *your* confusion, Goobs.
Sir Frederick
The "entity" known as human, confabulates and practices
stories. Some 'stories' may be "benefit" stories. Often confusion
'benefits' these stories and their practice.
Deceit works, even self deceit. 'Confusion' can support deceit.
I hope this helps enhance some meaning giving confusion.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Dec 24, 11:04 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> wrote:
>> Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit.
>> It cannot be. A benefit is something that makes a
>> welfare-experiencing entity better off, i.e., it improves the entity's
>> welfare. Prior to existing, there is no entity, thus no welfare to be
>> improved. Therefore, coming into existence does not improve the
>> entity's welfare, and so it cannot be a benefit.
>>
>> I hope this helps clear up some confusion.
>
>
>
> Yet you said you are no better off than
I said coming into existence isn't a benefit. It isn't.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:04:17 -0800, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pia...@catch-2222222.org> wrote:
>
>> Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit.
>> It cannot be. A benefit is something that makes a
>> welfare-experiencing entity better off, i.e., it improves the entity's
>> welfare. Prior to existing, there is no entity, thus no welfare to be
>> improved. Therefore, coming into existence does not improve the
>> entity's welfare, and so it cannot be a benefit.
>>
>> I hope this helps clear up some confusion.
>
> The "entity" known as human, confabulates and practices
> stories.
Coming into existence is not a benefit to an entity.
Sir Frederick
The practiced stories may still tell of benefits.
That is enough.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:25:41 -0800, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pia...@catch-2222222.org> wrote:
>
>> Sir Frederick wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:04:17 -0800, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pia...@catch-2222222.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit.
>>>> It cannot be. A benefit is something that makes a
>>>> welfare-experiencing entity better off, i.e., it improves the entity's
>>>> welfare. Prior to existing, there is no entity, thus no welfare to be
>>>> improved. Therefore, coming into existence does not improve the
>>>> entity's welfare, and so it cannot be a benefit.
>>>>
>>>> I hope this helps clear up some confusion.
>>> The "entity" known as human, confabulates and practices
>>> stories.
>> Coming into existence is not a benefit to an entity.
>
> The practiced stories may still tell of benefits.
Fiction.
Sir Frederick
'Confabulate' means made up or fiction.
Jared
wrote:
Same goes for dying.
On the other hand, neither can make one worse off either, by the same
logic.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Dec 24, 1:04 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> wrote:
>> Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit.
>> It cannot be. A benefit is something that makes a
>> welfare-experiencing entity better off, i.e., it improves the entity's
>> welfare. Prior to existing, there is no entity, thus no welfare to be
>> improved. Therefore, coming into existence does not improve the
>> entity's welfare, and so it cannot be a benefit.
>>
>> I hope this helps clear up some confusion.
>
> Same goes for dying.
Not exactly.
Dutch
"Mr.Smartypants" <bc...@canada.com> wrote in message
news:1386d35a-1144-442a...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
--------->
Why don't you attempt to add something worthwhile or genuine to the
discussion instead of injecting erroneous conclusions?
Where's your spine?
Dutch
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:ogc7j51tsv461euv2...@4ax.com...
It seems like a non sequitur.
Dutch
Works for whom and for what purpose? I don't base my belief system or my
morals on fiction.
Dutch
"Jared" <jare...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6bba4a2d-4e5d-40b8...@x15g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 24, 1:04 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
wrote:
> Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit.
> It cannot be. A benefit is something that makes a
> welfare-experiencing entity better off, i.e., it improves the entity's
> welfare. Prior to existing, there is no entity, thus no welfare to be
> improved. Therefore, coming into existence does not improve the
> entity's welfare, and so it cannot be a benefit.
>
> I hope this helps clear up some confusion.
Same goes for dying.
-------->
No, because being killed happens TO a living individual with interests,
contravening the primary interest, survival, while coming into existence
marks the very beginning of the entity so does not happen TO any entity and
so does not benefit or harm an entity.
On the other hand, neither can make one worse off either, by the same
logic.
----------->
It's true that death does not make an entity worse off but it harms an
entity, or in some cases benefits it, that is the difference.
bigfl...@gmail.com
wrote:
In fact, such views are the basis of all con-fusion.
If 'the entity' didnt exist, you would be right, but you do, and you
had no choice in the matter. Are you saying you have had no experience
of contributing to your own welfare,not experienced self improvement
at some level? because comparing 'non being' with being is absurd.
We arrive here with a pre programme (you obviously think the dna just
'happend'?).
Every experience is a benefit because it enriches our experiences.
BOfL
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Dec 25, 2:04 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> wrote:
>> Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit.
>> It cannot be. A benefit is something that makes a
>> welfare-experiencing entity better off, i.e., it improves the entity's
>> welfare. Prior to existing, there is no entity, thus no welfare to be
>> improved. Therefore, coming into existence does not improve the
>> entity's welfare, and so it cannot be a benefit.
>>
>> I hope this helps clear up some confusion.
>
> In fact, such views are the basis of all con-fusion.
No.
> If 'the entity' didnt exist, you would be right,
Prior to existing, the entity didn't exist. An entity must already
exist, with an individual welfare, before it can benefit from anything.
This should make clear that the fact of coming into existence, itself,
cannot benefit the entity: coming into existence establishes the
welfare of the entity; it *cannot* improve that welfare.
> but you do, and you
> had no choice in the matter. Are you saying you have had no experience
> of contributing to your own welfare,not experienced self improvement
> at some level? because comparing 'non being' with being is absurd.
Exactly. That absurdity of the comparison is precisely what shows that
coming into existence, itself, is not a benefit to the entity. Once the
entity exists, it can benefit from something; but the entity didn't
"experience" coming into existence.
>
> We arrive here with a pre programme (you obviously think the dna just
> 'happend'?).
>
> Every experience is a benefit because it enriches our experiences.
No, that's both a false statement, and a non sequitur with respect to
the issue being discussed. First, coming into existence is not
something that the entity experiences. Second, not all experiences are
enriching - or, are you happy for me to whack you on the head with a
tire iron?
ex-PFC Wintergreen
There is no entity after death, so we can't say that death itself made
the entity worse off - there would need to be a welfare-possessing
entity remaining. However, a welfare-possessing entity with a decent
life presumably wants to go on living, and that wish ought to have some
moral value placed on it. By contrast, before an entity exists, there
is no welfare and no wish regarding the welfare, so there is nothing
deserving any moral consideration on the part of others.
dh
Millions of animals experience decent lives of positive value
because humans raise them for food. Many of them have what appear
to be overly restrictive or abusive lives of negative value also,
but even so there are many who have decent lives of positive
value.
Some people are opposed to raising animals for food,
regardless of whether their lives are of positive value or not.
They *pretend* to care about the animals but in reality the only
thing they care about is the fact that they're disturbed by other
people eating meat, so they want to eliminate all animals raised
for food.
People in that position are maniacally opposed to seeing
anyone consider lives of positive value for livestock, because
appreciation for that works directly against their elimination
objective. Considering that suggests that providing decent animal
welfare could be ethically equivalent or superior to complete
elimination, which is the objective of the gross misnomer "animal
rights".
As we can see by this example such people are insisting that
animals don't benefit from their own actual conception, in the
desperate hopes that will somehow make it appear as if animals
never benefit from their lives at all.
"'Confusion' can support deceit"
In their usual position of desperation yes, that's what they
often are attempting. And I guess some people must even fall for
it...
dh
>Once the entity exists, it can benefit from something
� Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. �
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 09:22:51 -0800, Goo wrote:
> >Once the entity exists, it can benefit from something
>
> · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
> if we didn't raise them for that purpose,
"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to them.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:33:54 -0800, Sir Frederick
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:04:17 -0800, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org> wrote:
>
> >>Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit.
> >> It cannot be. A benefit is something that makes a
> >>welfare-experiencing entity better off, i.e., it improves the entity's
> >>welfare. Prior to existing, there is no entity, thus no welfare to be
> >>improved. Therefore, coming into existence does not improve the
> >>entity's welfare, and so it cannot be a benefit.
>
> >>I hope this helps clear up some confusion.
>
> >The "entity" known as human, confabulates and practices
> >stories. Some 'stories' may be "benefit" stories. Often confusion
> >'benefits' these stories and their practice.
> >Deceit works, even self deceit. 'Confusion' can support deceit.
>
> >I hope this helps enhance some meaning giving confusion.
>
> Millions of animals experience decent lives of positive value
> because humans raise them for food.
Billions don't.
Animals "getting to experience life" is not a benefit to them.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:jm3aj51dhc2ber8ll...@4ax.com...
You want to "eliminate" them too, in order to eat them
If you don't mean the living ones then you must mean unborn ones, and so you
prove our case, you believe in the rights of unborn livestock.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:sh4aj51q96s6un7ud...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 09:22:51 -0800, Goo wrote:
>
>>Once the entity exists, it can benefit from something
>
> � Since
Your boilerplate bullshit is as lame as the stuff you make up on the spot.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:jm3aj51dhc2ber8ll...@4ax.com...
He has always been concerned with trying to show that unborn animals
have a "right" to be born and "get to experience life."
Dutch
"ex-PFC Wintergreen" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cdcc55fe-354a-4131...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
------------------->
I don't think that he *consciously* believes that unborn animals have
rights, any more than he *consciously* believes in a pre-existent state,
however the charge that he levels against vegans that they want to prevent
future livestock from existing, as if they were doing a something wrong by
"denying the benefit of life" to animals necessarily equates to assigning
some kind of "life interest" to unborn livestock. In short he is so
dimwitted that he does not understand that there are (il)logical
implications to his arguments. I was feeling generous earlier and offered
him the opportunity to rephrase his ideas in a more logical manner but he
rejected my olive branch, the ungrateful creep.
Zerkon
Prior to this "welfare-experiencing entity" existing, there is existence.
"Welfare" and "Improved" are not defined
"Welfare-experiencing entity" really means y-o-u, correct?
dh
Which ones do you think don't Goo?
>Animals "getting to experience life" is not a benefit to them.
How do you think they are prevented from benefitting from
decent lives Goo, do you have any idea? What do you think
prevents you from benefitting from your own life Goob, and how do
you think it does so?
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:19:11 -0800 (PST), ex-PFC Wintergreen
>
>
>
>
>
> <notgen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 25, 11:18 am, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:33:54 -0800, Sir Frederick
>
> >> <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
> >> >On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:04:17 -0800, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org> wrote:
>
> >> >>Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit.
> >> >> It cannot be. A benefit is something that makes a
> >> >>welfare-experiencing entity better off, i.e., it improves the entity's
> >> >>welfare. Prior to existing, there is no entity, thus no welfare to be
> >> >>improved. Therefore, coming into existence does not improve the
> >> >>entity's welfare, and so it cannot be a benefit.
>
> >> >>I hope this helps clear up some confusion.
>
> >> >The "entity" known as human, confabulates and practices
> >> >stories. Some 'stories' may be "benefit" stories. Often confusion
> >> >'benefits' these stories and their practice.
> >> >Deceit works, even self deceit. 'Confusion' can support deceit.
>
> >> >I hope this helps enhance some meaning giving confusion.
>
> >> Millions of animals experience decent lives of positive value
> >> because humans raise them for food.
>
> >Billions don't.
>
> Which ones
All.
> >Animals "getting to experience life" is not a benefit to them.
>
> How do you think they are prevented from benefitting
Nothing benefits from coming into existence.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:04:17 -0800, ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
> > Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit.
> > It cannot be. A benefit is something that makes a
> > welfare-experiencing entity better off, i.e., it improves the entity's
> > welfare. Prior to existing, there is no entity, thus no welfare to be
> > improved. Therefore, coming into existence does not improve the
> > entity's welfare, and so it cannot be a benefit.
>
> > I hope this helps clear up some confusion.
>
> Prior to this "welfare-experiencing entity" existing, there is existence.
Not of the entity, there isn't. Sorry.
Dutch
>>Animals "getting to experience life" is not a benefit to them.
>
> How do you think they are prevented from benefitting from
> decent lives Goo, do you have any idea? What do you think
> prevents you from benefitting from your own life Goob, and how do
> you think it does so?
Good treatment contributes to decent lives for livestock, not your
convoluted self-serving "consideration".
If your "consideration" does them any good then describe it now, because you
have yet to do so. You won't because it is meaningless.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> <dh@.> wrote
>>> Animals "getting to experience life" is not a benefit to them.
>>
>> How do you think they are prevented from benefitting from
>> decent lives Goo, do you have any idea? What do you think
>> prevents you from benefitting from your own life Goob, and how do
>> you think it does so?
>
> Good treatment contributes to decent lives for livestock, not your
> convoluted self-serving "consideration".
He gives no real consideration to the animals' lives. It's a sham; an
empty pose.
Mr.Smartypants
wrote:
> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> > On Dec 24, 11:04 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> > wrote:
> >> Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit.
> >> It cannot be. A benefit is something that makes a
> >> welfare-experiencing entity better off, i.e., it improves the entity's
> >> welfare. Prior to existing, there is no entity, thus no welfare to be
> >> improved. Therefore, coming into existence does not improve the
> >> entity's welfare, and so it cannot be a benefit.
>
> >> I hope this helps clear up some confusion.
>
>
You claimed coming into existence made you no better off than you WERE
BEFORE.
So Goobs are you telling us that you are NOTHING just as you were
before you came into existence or are you saying you have the exact
same life you had in pre-existence?
You haven't even been able to deal with how you disagree with yourself
on pre-existence\existence and you are starting to blabber away about
post-existence.
What a goober.
Mr.Smartypants
You just made that up, Goobs.
Dutch
"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:5fef2944-c1a6-4a3f...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 24, 2:18 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
wrote:
> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> > On Dec 24, 11:04 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> > wrote:
> >> Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a
> >> benefit.
> >> It cannot be. A benefit is something that makes a
> >> welfare-experiencing entity better off, i.e., it improves the entity's
> >> welfare. Prior to existing, there is no entity, thus no welfare to be
> >> improved. Therefore, coming into existence does not improve the
> >> entity's welfare, and so it cannot be a benefit.
>
> >> I hope this helps clear up some confusion.
>
> > Yet you said you are no better off than
>
> I said coming into existence isn't a benefit. It isn't.
You claimed coming into existence made you no better off than you WERE
BEFORE.
------>
Don't be such a complete idiot.
*****************IF***************** <===SEE THAT?? ==== there were such as
thing as pre-existent state,
***************THEN****************<===SEE THAT?? ==== one cannot say that
existence as we know it makes us better off than we were while in that
state, (because we don't know)
THEREFORE EVEN THEN, coming into existence is NOT a benefit.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Dec 24, 2:18 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> wrote:
>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>> On Dec 24, 11:04 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit.
>>>> It cannot be. A benefit is something that makes a
>>>> welfare-experiencing entity better off, i.e., it improves the entity's
>>>> welfare. Prior to existing, there is no entity, thus no welfare to be
>>>> improved. Therefore, coming into existence does not improve the
>>>> entity's welfare, and so it cannot be a benefit.
>>>> I hope this helps clear up some confusion.
>>> Yet you said you are no better off than
>> I said coming into existence isn't a benefit. It isn't.
>
> You claimed coming into existence made you no better off
I said coming into existence isn't a benefit - and it isn't.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
No, I demonstrated that it is logically true and necessary.
Dutch
"ex-PFC Wintergreen" <pia...@catch-2222222.org> wrote in message
news:qPWdnTrw7O6moKTW...@earthlink.com...
Isn't that "banmilk"? He used to be a self-respecting nutcase, now he's
become a fuckwit clone.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
It's him.
Mr.Smartypants
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote in message
Sez who?
Mr.Smartypants
wrote:
No you didn't.
All you've *ever* done on these ngs is argue with yourself and
contradict yourself and when asked to explain why you disagree with
yourself you either run away or start squealing about computer clock
times etc.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
I did, of course.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Logic coupled with the definitions.
Mr.Smartypants
*Your* definitions !?
We are to accept the "definitions" of a man who constantly disagrees
with himself...............and can't explain why he does so?
I don't think so.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
No, *THE* definitions.
Mr.Smartypants
*THE* definitions as defined by YOU?
Goobs you prattle on then claim that all your blabberings are the
proof of whatever you blubbered about.
However it always works out in the end as you end up disagreeing with
yourself and can never explain "why"?
ex-PFC Wintergreen
No, *THE* definitions as used by all thinking people.
Mr.Smartypants
Goobs there's a rather large (and growing) number of people on these
ngs who kick your ass on a regular basis.
Are these the people whom you claim use *THE* definitions?
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> ngs
No, participation is actually declining.
Mr.Smartypants
So you're keeping track of the ass-kickings that you've been getting?
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Participation in the NGs is declining. I assure you.
Mr.Smartypants
So you're getting fewer ass-kickings?
ex-PFC Wintergreen
So I'm not seeing quite as many idiots such as yourself. I can assure you.
Mr.Smartypants
Then obviously you are becoming more aware that the people who kick
your ass aren't necessarily idiots since they are all smarter and
better informed than you.
Congrats, Goobs. You are making progress.......I can assure you.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> better informed than me.
It doesn't take much to be smarter and better informed than you.
Fred C. Dobbs
> On Dec 24, 11:04 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen<pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> wrote:
>> Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit.
>> It cannot be. A benefit is something that makes a
>> welfare-experiencing entity better off, i.e., it improves the entity's
>> welfare. Prior to existing, there is no entity, thus no welfare to be
>> improved. Therefore, coming into existence does not improve the
>> entity's welfare, and so it cannot be a benefit.
>>
>> I hope this helps clear up some confusion.
>
>
>
> Yet you said you are no better off
Correct. Coming into existence doesn't make an entity better off.
--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs