Re: Faith of the Eliminationists
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:05:51 +0100, Derek <usenet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:37:27 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>> Derek <usenet...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:13:54 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>>>> Derek <usenet...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:31:31 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like the elimination of animals has anything to do with
>>>>>>> providing them with rights.
>>>>>> No, it hasn't.
>>>>> I know.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What made you believe it has?
>>>>> I point out that it's a misnomer,
>>>> No, you haven't established that the term 'animal rights' is a
>>>> misnomer - that it's a misnamed concept.
>> :Restore
>> :>>And you certainly
>> :>>won't do it by referring to your imaginary preconceived
>> :>>farm animals. Only a fool would try to promote the idea that
>> :>>'they' ought to be recognised as rights-holders, and that the
>> :>>animal rights camp is being selfish or wrong by withholding
>> :>>rights from 'them' by preventing 'them' from being born.
>> :End restore
>>
>> I knew you'd try to avoid addressing that, Harrison.
>>
>>> It's certainly a gross misnomer in regards to domestic animals
>> Domestic animals would be freed from being owned by farmers
>
> They would be "freed" by death
No, that's false.
Mr.Smartypants
wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:05:51 +0100, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:37:27 -0100, dh@. wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:13:54 -0100, dh@. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:31:31 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Like the elimination of animals has anything to do with
> >>>>>>> providing them with rights.
> >>>>>> No, it hasn't.
> >>>>> I know.
>
> >>>>>> What made you believe it has?
> >>>>> I point out that it's a misnomer,
> >>>> No, you haven't established that the term 'animal rights' is a
> >>>> misnomer - that it's a misnamed concept.
> >> :Restore
> >> :>>And you certainly
> >> :>>won't do it by referring to your imaginary preconceived
> >> :>>farm animals. Only a fool would try to promote the idea that
> >> :>>'they' ought to be recognised as rights-holders, and that the
> >> :>>animal rights camp is being selfish or wrong by withholding
> >> :>>rights from 'them' by preventing 'them' from being born.
> >> :End restore
>
> >> I knew you'd try to avoid addressing that, Harrison.
>
> >>> It's certainly a gross misnomer in regards to domestic animals
> >> Domestic animals would be freed from being owned by farmers
>
> > They would be "freed" by death
>
So they'd go to a post-existent state to remain as slaves?
How do you know that, Goobs?
Do you now claim you know about the post-existent state and how it
compares to existence?
dh
The possibility of multiple lives keeps coming up. If it's a
real aspect, then that's another point in favor of decent AW over
the misnomer. This is all I'm aware of from the Bible that says
anything in relation to it:
Ge 9:5 - And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an
accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And
from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of
his fellow man.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
No, it doesn't.
dh
It must Goo, when you feel that:
"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo
If you're right about it Goober, it should come up in every
discussion about whether live was of positive or negative value
for every being that ever exists.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:11acl55t0fblsr2pg...@4ax.com...
Stop using vague made up terms you obfuscating moron.
Mr.Smartypants
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:11acl55t0fblsr2pg...@4ax.com...
LOL!
Then try explaining why Goobs continually disagrees with himselves.
Start with his admission that he believes in the pre-existent state
and tell us why he disagees with himselves about it.