"The" answer? Or...?

[meaningoflife@quest]

"A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus
never existing" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with
never existing - proved." - Goo

"It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to
experience life" instead of never existing" - Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence." - Goo

"animals' "getting to experience life" is nonsense." - Goo

"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo

"It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life
than never to live at all." - Goo

"...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit
compared with never existing." - Goo

"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared with
never existing." - Goo

"according to me, existence is not a benefit - ever." - Goo

"*NO* right-thinking person attempts to "balance" the death with some
bullshit about the animal's "getting to experience life."" - Goo

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

[George Plimpton]

On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

> never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

True.

>
> "Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with

> never existing - proved." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

True.

>
> "It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to

> experience life" instead of never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

True.

>
> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing

> benefits from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

True.


>
> "animals' "getting to experience life" is nonsense." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

Not a quote, but true.


>
> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

True.

>
> "It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life

> than never to live at all." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

True.

>
> "...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit

> compared with never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

Not a quote, but true.

> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared with

> never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

True.


>
> "according to me, existence is not a benefit - ever." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

Not a quote, but true.

>
> "*NO* right-thinking person attempts to "balance" the death with some

> bullshit about the animal's "getting to experience life."" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

True.


>
> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

True.

[Dakota]

No one asked to be born.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>
>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus
>> never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE
>
> True.

I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
benefitted" by the non-existence.

<snip the rest>

--
sbalneav | Books are lighthouses erected in the great sea of time.
a.a #2171 | -- Edwin P. Whipple
alt-atheism.org |

[R@notto.can SpamƁusteᴙ]

On 4/2/2013 12:50 PM, sbalneav wrote:


> Path: not-for-mail
> From: sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.philosophy,sci.skeptic,alt.atheism,alt.education,can.politics
> Subject: Re: "The" answer? Or...?
> Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC)
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 20
> Message-ID: <kjfcpu$ap0$1...@dont-email.me>
> References: <g56ml896m9ee9l4d4...@4ax.com> <20bf0$515b1f7e$414e828e$30...@EVERESTKC.NET>
> Injection-Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5fbfb2ffa4068df8495df253679c86a1";
> logging-data="11040"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19819YcLlK+BietCHZetDupex64rmaGvNg="
> User-Agent: tin/2.1.1-20120623 ("Mulindry") (UNIX) (Linux/3.2.0-4-amd64 (x86_64))
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:JAYvBsMwMwYeo1349FV5zf8pDXI=
> sha1:NXZ6agk6ZshzLf7+HqEncd06EBo=
> X-Received-Bytes: 1794
> Xref: Hurricane alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:176460 alt.philosophy:856032 sci.skeptic:407714 alt.atheism:5071628 alt.education:228618 can.politics:146072



=====================================================================
SPAMMED INTO NON-RELEVANT GROUPS / COUNTRIES
=====================================================================

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 13:43:24 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by meaningoflife@quest.:

Trying to sneak out of my killfile, huh?

Back y'go...

--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[George Plimpton]

On 4/3/2013 10:27 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 13:43:24 -0400, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by meaningoflife@quest.:
>
> Trying to sneak out of my killfile, huh?
>
> Back y'go...

Yes, it's Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - trying to troll under a new
nym. He already got slapped senseless, again, over it.

[dh]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
wrote:

>In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>> never existing" - Goo

>>
>> True.
>
>I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>benefitted" by the non-existence.

Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
benefitting from your own existence now.

[dh]

How do you want people to think that prevents every living creature from
benefitting from its own life, as billions of them certainly appear to do?

[dh]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:14:37 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, dh quoted Goo:

>
>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>> never existing" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>
>True.
>
>
>>
>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with

>> never existing - proved." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>
>True.
>
>
>>
>> "It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to

>> experience life" instead of never existing" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>
>True.
>
>
>>
>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing

>> benefits from coming into existence." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>
>True.
>
>
>>
>> "animals' "getting to experience life" is nonsense." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>
>Not a quote, but true.
>
>
>>

>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>
>True.
>
>
>>
>> "It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life

>> than never to live at all." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>
>True.
>
>
>>
>> "...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit

>> compared with never existing." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>
>Not a quote, but true.
>
>
>
>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared with

>> never existing." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>
>True.
>
>
>>
>> "according to me, existence is not a benefit - ever." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>
>Not a quote, but true.
>
>
>>
>> "*NO* right-thinking person attempts to "balance" the death with some

>> bullshit about the animal's "getting to experience life."" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>
>True.
>
>
>>
>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>
>True.

You're lying about any of them not being quotes Goob. Since they are all
your quotes, I'm curious how you picked the ones to lie about that you decided
lie about. Is it just that you feel you always have to lie in every post you
make or what, Goo?

[sbalneav]

I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
from my existence. My existance must come first before I begin benefitting
from anything. If I did not exist, *I* would not suffer any inconvenience.

By the same token, *I* do not experience death. I am not inconvenienced by my
death. My *dying* may be inconvenient. My death, however, is nothing to me.

Sitting beside me is a non-existant talking purple dragon. What lack of
benefit is it suffering from? Does that statement even make sense?

--
sbalneav | The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible
a.a #2171 | worlds; the pessimist fears it is true.
alt-atheism.org | -- James Branch Cabell

[Dutch]

"benefitting from your own existence" is bullshit, you *are* your
existence.

[Dutch]

No they don't, that's bullshit.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/3/2013 12:38 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On 4/2/2013 11:14 AM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>

>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an
>>> animal versus

>>> never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with

>>> never existing - proved." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to

>>> experience life" instead of never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing

>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE
>>
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "animals' "getting to experience life" is nonsense." - Prof. Geo.
>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>
>> Not a quote, but true.
>>
>>
>>>

>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Prof. Geo.
>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life

>>> than never to live at all." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit

>>> compared with never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>
>> Not a quote, but true.
>>
>>
>>
>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared with

>>> never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE
>>
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "according to me, existence is not a benefit - ever." - Prof. Geo.
>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>
>> Not a quote, but true.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "*NO* right-thinking person attempts to "balance" the death with some

>>> bullshit about the animal's "getting to experience life."" - Prof.
>>> Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you ever

>>> wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>
>> True.
>>
>>
>
> You're lying about any of them not being quotes

No. Some of them are not quotes. You part-quoted me and removed
context. Even so, some of them still contain true statements.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/3/2013 2:19 PM, sbalneav wrote:
> In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus
>>>>> never existing" - Goo
>>>>
>>>> True.
>>>
>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>
>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>
> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
> from my existence. My existance must come first before I begin benefitting
> from anything. If I did not exist, *I* would not suffer any inconvenience.

Exactly right. Existence is a necessary condition to be able to receive
any benefit; it is not a benefit itself.

[uste R@notto.can SpamƁusteᴙ]

On 4/2/2013 12:50 PM, sbalneav wrote:

--

[George Plimpton]

On 4/3/2013 12:38 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:12:34 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>

>> On 4/2/2013 12:43 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an
>>> animal versus

>>> never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE
>>
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>

>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with

>>> never existing - proved." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE
>>
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>

>>> "It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to

>>> experience life" instead of never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE
>>
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>

>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing

>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE
>>
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>

>>> "animals' "getting to experience life" is nonsense." - Prof. Geo.
>>> Plimpton, CBE
>>
>> Not a quote, but true.
>>
>>
>>>

>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Prof. Geo.
>>> Plimpton, CBE
>>
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>

>>> "It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life

>>> than never to live at all." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE
>>
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>

>>> "...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit

>>> compared with never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>
>> Not a quote, but true.
>>
>>
>>

>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared with

>>> never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE
>>
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "according to me, existence is not a benefit - ever." - Prof. Geo.

>>> Plimpton, CBE
>>
>> Not a quote, but true.
>>
>>
>>>

>>> "*NO* right-thinking person attempts to "balance" the death with some

>>> bullshit about the animal's "getting to experience life."" - Prof.
>>> Geo. Plimpton, CBE
>>
>> True.
>>
>>
>>>

>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you ever

>>> wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE
>>
>> True.
>>>

>> No one asked to be born.
>
> How do you want people to think that prevents every living creature from
> benefitting from its own life, as billions of them certainly appear to do?

No animal "benefits" from existence, or "getting to experience life".
They don't benefit from it, nor do they "appear" to benefit from it.

Fact.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/3/2013 3:24 PM, Karen Gordon, the HIV-oozing mackerel crotch town
whore of Nanaimo, blabbered:

No.

[dh]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>

wrote:

>In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus
>>>>> never existing" - Goo
>>>>
>>>> True.
>>>
>>>I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>>really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>
>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>
>I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>from my existence.

You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well. WHAT do you
want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do you want them to
think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to believe it?

>My existance must come first before I begin benefitting
>from anything.

WHAT do you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do
you want them to think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to
believe it?

[dh]

[dh]

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:46:53 -0700, Goo lied:

>On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 15:38:12 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:14:37 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, dh quoted Goo:

>>>
>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>>> never existing" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>

>>>True.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with

>>>> never existing - proved." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>
>>>True.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to

>>>> experience life" instead of never existing" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>
>>>True.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing

>>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>
>>>True.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "animals' "getting to experience life" is nonsense." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>
>>>Not a quote, but true.
>>>
>>>
>>>>

>>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>
>>>True.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life

>>>> than never to live at all." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>
>>>True.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit

>>>> compared with never existing." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>
>>>Not a quote, but true.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared with

>>>> never existing." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>
>>>True.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "according to me, existence is not a benefit - ever." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>
>>>Not a quote, but true.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "*NO* right-thinking person attempts to "balance" the death with some

>>>> bullshit about the animal's "getting to experience life."" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>
>>>True.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>
>>>True.
>>

>> You're lying about any of them not being quotes Goob. Since they are all
>>your quotes, I'm curious how you picked the ones to lie about that you decided
>>lie about. Is it just that you feel you always have to lie in every post you
>>make or what, Goo?
>

>No. Some of them are not quotes.

That's a blatant lie Goo.

>You part-quoted me and removed
>context.

If you want people to think you disagree with any of them then YOU have to
try to say which one Gootsy, and HOW.

>Even so, some of them still contain true statements.

Goober you agree with yourself about every one of them. You prove it by not
being able to say how you want people to think you disagree with yourself about
a single one of them, Goo.

[dh]

You appear to benefit from your life.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
> wrote:
>
>>In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus
>>>>>> never existing" - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>>I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>>>really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>
>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>
>>I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>>from my existence.
>
> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well.

No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existance. I have to *exist*
first, before I can accrue the benefit.

> WHAT do you
> want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do you want them to
> think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to believe it?

Because if *I* did not exist, *I* would not be injured, as *I* would not have
existed to BE injured.

>>My existance must come first before I begin benefitting
>>from anything.
>
> WHAT do you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do
> you want them to think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to
> believe it?

Word salad.

--
sbalneav | Eating words has never given me indigestion.
a.a #2171 | -- Winston Churchill
alt-atheism.org |

[George Plimpton]

On 4/4/2013 1:32 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate

cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 4/3/2013 2:46 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 4/3/2013 12:38 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>> On 4/2/2013 11:14 AM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM,
>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>

>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an
>>>>> animal versus

>>>>> never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>
>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with

>>>>> never existing - proved." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>
>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to

>>>>> experience life" instead of never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>
>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing

>>>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE
>>>>
>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "animals' "getting to experience life" is nonsense." - Prof. Geo.
>>>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>>>
>>>> Not a quote, but true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Prof. Geo.
>>>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>>>
>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life

>>>>> than never to live at all." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>
>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit

>>>>> compared with never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>
>>>> Not a quote, but true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared with

>>>>> never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE
>>>>
>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "according to me, existence is not a benefit - ever." - Prof. Geo.
>>>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>>>
>>>> Not a quote, but true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "*NO* right-thinking person attempts to "balance" the death with some

>>>>> bullshit about the animal's "getting to experience life."" - Prof.
>>>>> Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>
>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you ever

>>>>> wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>
>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're lying about any of them not being quotes
>>

>> No. Some of them are not quotes. You part-quoted me and removed
>> context. Even so, some of them still contain true statements.

>
> That's a blatant lie

Not a lie.


>> You part-quoted me and removedcontext.

>
> If you want people to think you

You removed context and part quoted. They're not quotes.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/4/2013 1:32 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate

cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
> wrote:
>

>> In alt.atheism Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus
>>>>>> never existing" - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>
>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>
>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>> from my existence.
>
> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well.

No, no living entity does, Fuckwit. They don't benefit from existence,
nor do they "seem" or "appear" to do so. Existence - "getting to
experience life" - is not a benefit because it *cannot* be one, *Goo*. A
benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity, and coming
into existence doesn't do that - nor does it "appear" to do it.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/4/2013 1:33 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate

cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:27:04 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>

>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:12:34 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/2/2013 12:43 PM, meaningoflife@quest. wrote:
>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>>>> never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton,CBE

>>>>>
>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with

>>>>> never existing - proved." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton,CBE

>>>>>
>>>>> "It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to

>>>>> experience life" instead of never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton,CBE

>>>>>
>>>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing

>>>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton,CBE
>>>>>
>>>>> "animals' "getting to experience life" is nonsense." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton,CBE
>>>>>
>>>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton,CBE

>>>>>
>>>>> "It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life

>>>>> than never to live at all." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton,CBE

>>>>>
>>>>> "...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit

>>>>> compared with never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton,CBE

>>>>>
>>>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared with

>>>>> never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton,CBE
>>>>>
>>>>> "according to me, existence is not a benefit - ever." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton,CBE

>>>>>
>>>>> "*NO* right-thinking person attempts to "balance" the death with some

>>>>> bullshit about the animal's "getting to experience life."" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton,CBE
>>>>>
>>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton,CBE

>>>>>
>>>> No one asked to be born.
>>>
>>> How do you want people to think that prevents every living creature from
>>> benefitting from its own life, as billions of them certainly appear to do?
>>>
>>
>> No they don't
>
> You appear to benefit from your life.

No.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/4/2013 1:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:
> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>>>>>> never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>
>>>>>> True.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>
>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>>
>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>>> from my existence.
>>
>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well.
>
> No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existance. I have to *exist*
> first, before I can accrue the benefit.

Exactly. A benefit is defined as something that improves the welfare of
an experiential entity. Existence doesn't do that; it establishes the
welfare.

>
>> WHAT do you
>> want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do you want them to
>> think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to believe it?
>
> Because if *I* did not exist, *I* would not be injured, as *I* would not have
> existed to BE injured.
>
>>> My existance must come first before I begin benefitting
>> >from anything.
>>
>> WHAT do you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do
>> you want them to think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to
>> believe it?
>
> Word salad.

"Boys, I may not know much, but I know the difference
between chicken shit and chicken salad."
--Lyndon B. Johnson (1908—1973)
American Democratic statesman, President [1963—1969].
(When asked (as majority leader) if he took seriously
a particular speech by Vice President Nixon.
In David Halberstam _The Best and the Brightest_ [1972].

*Goo* - Fuckwit David Harrison - has been trying and failing at this
since 1999.

[sbalneav]

He seems to be conflating "enjoying existing" with "benefitting from existing".
Do I *enjoy* my existance? Sure. But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
"not existing".

It's the primary reason why death isn't anything to be afraid of; *you* don't
ever experience death. Dying, you may experience. Death you don't.

>>> WHAT do you
>>> want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do you want them to
>>> think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to believe it?
>>
>> Because if *I* did not exist, *I* would not be injured, as *I* would not have
>> existed to BE injured.
>>
>>>> My existance must come first before I begin benefitting
>>> >from anything.
>>>
>>> WHAT do you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do
>>> you want them to think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to
>>> believe it?
>>
>> Word salad.
>
> "Boys, I may not know much, but I know the difference
> between chicken shit and chicken salad."

> --Lyndon B. Johnson (1908?1973)
> American Democratic statesman, President [1963?1969].

> (When asked (as majority leader) if he took seriously
> a particular speech by Vice President Nixon.
> In David Halberstam _The Best and the Brightest_ [1972].
>
> *Goo* - Fuckwit David Harrison - has been trying and failing at this
> since 1999.

Is this the guy who's the physicist? I think I might have debated him before.

Seems like an odd argument to be carrying on for 14 years, especially when the
solution is so trivially obvious.

--
sbalneav | Nullius in verba ("Take nobody's word for it")
a.a #2171 | -- Motto of the Royal Society
alt-atheism.org |

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Apr 3, 4:43 am, meaningoflife@quest. wrote:
> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

> never existing" - Goo

Good excuse for killing them.

[dh]

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 15:41:20 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:32:09 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>wrote:
>>

>>>In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>>In alt.atheism Goo wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, dh pointed out:

>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus
>>>>>>> never existing" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>>>>really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>>benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>
>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>>
>>>I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>>>from my existence.
>>

>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well. WHAT do you
>>want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do you want them to
>>think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to believe it?
>>
>>>My existance must come first before I begin benefitting
>>>from anything.
>>
>> WHAT do you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do
>>you want them to think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to
>>believe it?
>

> A benefit is
_________________________________________________________
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
���������������������������������������������������������
WHAT do you want people to think is preventing being alive from being to
your advantage, HOW do you want them to think whatever it is is doing so, and
WHY do you want anyone to believe it, Goo?

[dh]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 00:04:53 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:

>On Apr 4, 5:01�pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alt-atheism.org> wrote:

>> In alt.atheism Goo wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 4/4/2013 1:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>> >> v
>>
>> >>>> dh pointed out
>>
>> >>>>>> In alt.atheism Goo wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, dh pointed out:

>>
>> >>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>> >>>>>>>> never existing" - Goo

>>
>> >>>>>>> True.
>>
>> >>>>>> I'd agree. �Existence merely "is". �Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>> >>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>> >>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>
>> >>>>> � � Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>> >>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>
>> >>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. �*I* don't benefit
>> >>>> from my existence.
>>
>> >>> � � You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well.
>>
>> >> No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existance. �I have to *exist*
>> >> first, before I can accrue the benefit.
>>
>> > Exactly. �A benefit is defined as something that improves the welfare of
>> > an experiential entity. �Existence doesn't do that; it establishes the
>> > welfare.
>>
>> He seems to be conflating "enjoying existing" with "benefitting from existing".
>> Do I *enjoy* my existance? �Sure. �But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>> "not existing".
>>
>> It's the primary reason why death isn't anything to be afraid of; *you* don't
>> ever experience death. �Dying, you may experience. �Death you don't.
>>
>
>

>and you know this how?

Maybe Goo told him?

[dh]

Eliminationists want livestock animals to continue experiencing their lives
and not be killed, while at the same time they want to prevent potential future
similar animals from experiencing any life at all. From the ground up those
people appear idiotic from my pov.

[dh]

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 15:41:18 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:32:50 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:46:53 -0700, Goo lied:
>>
>>>On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 15:38:12 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>

>>>>On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:14:37 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, dh quoted Goo:

>>>>>
>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>>>>> never existing" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>

>>>>>True.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with

>>>>>> never existing - proved." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>
>>>>>True.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to

>>>>>> experience life" instead of never existing" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>
>>>>>True.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing

>>>>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>
>>>>>True.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "animals' "getting to experience life" is nonsense." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>
>>>>>Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>
>>>>>True.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life

>>>>>> than never to live at all." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>
>>>>>True.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit

>>>>>> compared with never existing." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>
>>>>>Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared with

>>>>>> never existing." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>
>>>>>True.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "according to me, existence is not a benefit - ever." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>
>>>>>Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "*NO* right-thinking person attempts to "balance" the death with some

>>>>>> bullshit about the animal's "getting to experience life."" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>
>>>>>True.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>
>>>>>True.
>>>>

>>>> You're lying about any of them not being quotes Goob. Since they are all
>>>>your quotes, I'm curious how you picked the ones to lie about that you decided
>>>>lie about. Is it just that you feel you always have to lie in every post you
>>>>make or what, Goo?
>>>

>>>No. Some of them are not quotes.
>>

>> That's a blatant lie Goo.

>>
>>>You part-quoted me and removed
>>>context.
>>

>> If you want people to think you disagree with any of them then YOU have to
>>try to say which one Gootsy, and HOW.
>>

>>>Even so, some of them still contain true statements.
>>

>> Goober you agree with yourself about every one of them. You prove it by not
>>being able to say how you want people to think you disagree with yourself about
>>a single one of them, Goo.
>

>You

YOU DO agree with yourself about every one of your quotes I presented and
everyone knows it Goob. We know it because you have proven it consistently, Goo.

[dh]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 20:55:43 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>

wrote:

>In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus
>>>>>>> never existing" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>>>>really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>>benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>
>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>>
>>>I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>>>from my existence.
>>
>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well.
>
>No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existance. I have to *exist*
>first, before I can accrue the benefit.

Existence of course is one of the benefits that make all others possible. So
is life.

>> WHAT do you
>> want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do you want them to
>> think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to believe it?
>
>Because if *I* did not exist, *I* would not be injured, as *I* would not have
>existed to BE injured.

WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is preventing you from
benefitting from your existence NOW?

>>>My existance must come first before I begin benefitting
>>>from anything.
>>
>> WHAT do you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do
>> you want them to think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to
>> believe it?
>
>Wor

You've shown that you have no clue what it is you want people to think you
think you're trying to talk about.

[dh]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:01:50 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
wrote:

>In alt.atheism Goo wrote:
>> On 4/4/2013 1:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>>> dh pointed out

>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> dh challeged:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In alt.atheism Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, dh pointed out:

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Goo

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>>>>> from my existence.
>>>>
>>>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well.
>>>
>>> No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existance. I have to *exist*
>>> first, before I can accrue the benefit.
>>
>> Exactly. A benefit is defined as something that improves the welfare of
>> an experiential entity. Existence doesn't do that; it establishes the
>> welfare.
>
>He seems to be conflating "enjoying existing" with "benefitting from existing".
>Do I *enjoy* my existance? Sure.

You need to say WHAT you want people to think is preventing you from
benefitting from it, since so far you certainly clearly appear to be.

>But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>"not existing".

WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is preventing you from
benefitting from your own existence NOW?

>It's the primary reason why death isn't anything to be afraid of; *you* don't
>ever experience death. Dying, you may experience. Death you don't.
>
>>>> WHAT do you
>>>> want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do you want them to
>>>> think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to believe it?
>>>
>>> Because if *I* did not exist, *I* would not be injured, as *I* would not have
>>> existed to BE injured.
>>>
>>>>> My existance must come first before I begin benefitting
>>>> >from anything.
>>>>
>>>> WHAT do you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do
>>>> you want them to think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to
>>>> believe it?
>>>
>>> Word salad.
>>
>> "Boys, I may not know much, but I know the difference
>> between chicken shit and chicken salad."
>> --Lyndon B. Johnson (1908?1973)
>> American Democratic statesman, President [1963?1969].
>> (When asked (as majority leader) if he took seriously
>> a particular speech by Vice President Nixon.
>> In David Halberstam _The Best and the Brightest_ [1972].
>>
>> *Goo* - Fuckwit David Harrison - has been trying and failing at this
>> since 1999.
>
>Is this the guy who's the physicist? I think I might have debated him before.

If you want to say nothing can go ftl, you need to specify relative to what.
I'm also interested in what you think adjusts the velocity of light so that all
of it arrives in this area of space at the same velocity relative to this area
but regardless of the velocity of the observer relative to the emitter.

>Seems like an odd argument to be carrying on for 14 years,

Eliminationists are desperate that most consumers don't learn to appreciate
the value of life for any domestic animals, and of course especially not for
livestock animals. That of course is because appreciating decent lives for
domestic animals works in favor of decent AW which works AGAINST elimination:
_________________________________________________________
. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights.

. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.

. . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition ends.
This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual reasons.

. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace
at which animal rights goals are achieved.
. . .

"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
���������������������������������������������������������

>especially when the solution is so trivially obvious.

What do you think you want people to believe that is, do you have any idea?

[George Plimpton]

On 4/8/2013 2:10 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate

cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:01:50 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
> wrote:
>

>> In alt.George Plimpton, CBE, wrote:
>>> On 4/4/2013 1:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton, CBE, wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, dh pointed out:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - George Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>>>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>>>>>> from my existence.
>>>>>
>>>>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well.
>>>>
>>>> No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existance. I have to *exist*
>>>> first, before I can accrue the benefit.
>>>
>>> Exactly. A benefit is defined as something that improves the welfare of
>>> an experiential entity. Existence doesn't do that; it establishes the
>>> welfare.
>>
>> He seems to be conflating "enjoying existing" with "benefitting from existing".
>> Do I *enjoy* my existance? Sure.
>
> You need to say WHAT you want people to think is preventing you from
> benefitting from it

No, he doesn't - I already did that.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/8/2013 2:10 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate

cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 20:55:43 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
> wrote:
>

>> In alt.atheism Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>

>>>> In alt.atheism Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>>>>>>> never existing" - George Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>>>
>>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>>> >from my existence.
>>>
>>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well.
>>
>> No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existance. I have to *exist*
>> first, before I can accrue the benefit.
>
> Existence of course is one of the benefits

Existence is not a benefit. This has been proved to you beyond dispute,
and you accept it as truth.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/8/2013 2:10 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate

cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing

but wasting time ever since, lied: > On 4/4/2013 3:41 PM, George

Plimpton wrote:
>> On 4/4/2013 1:32 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 4/3/2013 2:46 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2013 12:38 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>> On 4/2/2013 11:14 AM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM,

>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an
>>>>>>> animal versus

>>>>>>> never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>
>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with

>>>>>>> never existing - proved." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>
>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to

>>>>>>> experience life" instead of never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton,
>>>>>>> CBE

>>>>>>
>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing

>>>>>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "animals' "getting to experience life" is nonsense." - Prof. Geo.
>>>>>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Prof. Geo.
>>>>>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>
>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life

>>>>>>> than never to live at all." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>
>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit

>>>>>>> compared with never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared with

>>>>>>> never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "according to me, existence is not a benefit - ever." - Prof. Geo.
>>>>>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "*NO* right-thinking person attempts to "balance" the death with some

>>>>>>> bullshit about the animal's "getting to experience life."" - Prof.
>>>>>>> Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>
>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you ever

>>>>>>> wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>
>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're lying about any of them not being quotes
>>>>

>>>> No. Some of them are not quotes. You part-quoted me and removed
>>>> context. Even so, some of them still contain true statements.

>>>
>>> That's a blatant lie
>>

>> Not a lie.
>>
>>
>>>> You part-quoted me and removedcontext.
>>>

>>> If you want people to think you
>>

>> You removed context and part quoted. They're not quotes.
>

> YOU DO agree with yourself

Of course I agree with myself, *Goo*. But I *don't* agree with many of
your mangled part quotes that are saying something opposite to what I said.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/8/2013 2:09 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate

cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 04:33:53 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
> <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 3, 4:43 am, meaningoflife@quest. wrote:
>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus
>>> never existing" - Goo
>>
>> Good excuse for killing them.
>
> Eliminationists want livestock animals to continue experiencing their lives
> and not be killed

Ergo, they are not "eliminationists."

[George Plimpton]

On 4/8/2013 2:08 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate

cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 4/4/2013 3:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

>> On 4/4/2013 1:32 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>

>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>

>>>> In alt.atheism Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate

>>>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing
>>>> nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an
>>>>>>>> animal versus
>>>>>>>> never existing" - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes
>>>>>> essence, you can't
>>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing
>>>>> you from
>>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>>>
>>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't
>>>> benefit
>>>> from my existence.
>>>
>>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well.
>>

>> No, no living entity does, Fuckwit. They don't benefit from existence,
>> nor do they "seem" or "appear" to do so. Existence - "getting to
>> experience life" - is not a benefit because it *cannot* be one, *Goo*. A
>> benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity, and coming
>> into existence doesn't do that - nor does it "appear" to do it.

> _________________________________________________________
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit
>
> ben�e�fit [ben-uh-fit] noun,

A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity. Existence
- "getting to experience life" - does not do that, and *therefore*
existence is not a benefit: QED

[sbalneav]

Benefit is a comparative word:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/benefit

"Something that promotes or *enhances* wellbeing.

If I don't exist, my wellbeing is not enhanced, since there is no "me" to
have an enhancement. "I" can't have any benefits until "I" exist.

>>But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>>"not existing".
>
> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is preventing you from
> benefitting from your own existence NOW?

Any benefits I obtain *must*, by definition, be compared to a previous state of
mine to be termed a benefit for me.

Allow me to ask a couple of questions:

Am *I* impeded when I die? What benefit do I lose when I die? On what basis
do you make this comparision? At what point to benefits begin to accrue to me?
When sperm first meets egg? When I become multicellular? When I develop a
brain? At what point do they stop? When my heart stops? When my brain fully
shuts down? 10 minutes after? When "I" begin to decompose?

Wha?

>>Seems like an odd argument to be carrying on for 14 years,
>
> Eliminationists are desperate that most consumers don't learn to appreciate
> the value of life for any domestic animals, and of course especially not for
> livestock animals. That of course is because appreciating decent lives for
> domestic animals works in favor of decent AW which works AGAINST elimination:

No one's not apreciating the value of life; once you have it, it's kind of a
nice thing to hold on to. But saying your life has value *to you* is different
from saying life is a benefit compared to NON LIVING.

> _________________________________________________________
> . . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
> separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
> practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
> those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
> enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
> achievement of animal rights.
>
> . . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
> philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.
>
> . . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
> welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition ends.
> This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual reasons.
>
> . . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace
> at which animal rights goals are achieved.
> . . .
>
> "A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
> By Tom Regan and Gary Francione

> ￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜ

>>especially when the solution is so trivially obvious.
>
> What do you think you want people to believe that is, do you have any idea?

I do, but you obviously don't.

--
sbalneav | And, because you have conceived of Gandalf the Grey in
a.a #2171 | your understanding, then he *MUST* exist in this world.
alt-atheism.org | -- Calvin Ramsay, in <k37p9v$ivr$1...@dont-email.me>

[sbalneav]

OK, so we can, in theory, provide an exact count on the number of things that
"benefit" from existance. What's the count of the number of things that do not
have this "benefit"?

Let's quantify the harm in non-existance, shall we?

>>> WHAT do you
>>> want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do you want them to
>>> think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to believe it?
>>
>>Because if *I* did not exist, *I* would not be injured, as *I* would not have
>>existed to BE injured.
>
> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is preventing you from
> benefitting from your existence NOW?

That *I* will not exist eventually to suffer a loss of benefits. Thats what.

Tell me, does Sir Isaac Newton suffer any disadvanatges from non-existance at
this point?

How about Zaphod Beeblebrox? Or Gandalf the Grey. Do *they* suffer
disadvantages from non existing?

>>>>My existance must come first before I begin benefitting
>>>>from anything.
>>>
>>> WHAT do you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do
>>> you want them to think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to
>>> believe it?
>>
>>Wor
>
> You've shown that you have no clue what it is you want people to think you
> think you're trying to talk about.

Whoever the hell you are, you've got piss-poor critical thinking skills.

--
sbalneav | No man is free who is not master of himself.
a.a #2171 | -- Epictetus
alt-atheism.org |

[George Plimpton]

That's exactly it.

[dh]

What do you want people to think is preventing being alive from being to
your advantage NOW, Goo?

[dh]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 23:12:42 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>

Just as I see advantage in existence, I see no "harm" in non-existance. What
do you want us to pretend that has to do with anything if anything, do you have
any idea about that?

>>>> WHAT do you
>>>> want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do you want them to
>>>> think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to believe it?
>>>
>>>Because if *I* did not exist, *I* would not be injured, as *I* would not have
>>>existed to BE injured.
>>
>> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is preventing you from
>> benefitting from your existence NOW?
>
>That *I* will not exist eventually to suffer a loss of benefits. Thats what.

HOW do you want people to think anything about your pre-existence or/and
post-existence is preventing being alive from being to your advantage NOW?

[dh]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 15:21:40 -0700, Goo wussed horribly:

>On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:08:54 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 15:41:20 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:32:09 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>

>>>>On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>>In alt.atheism Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, dh pointed out:

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus
>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>>>>>>really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>>>>benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>>>>
>>>>>I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>>>>>from my existence.
>>>>

>>>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well. WHAT do you
>>>>want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do you want them to
>>>>think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to believe it?
>>>>
>>>>>My existance must come first before I begin benefitting
>>>>>from anything.
>>>>
>>>> WHAT do you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do
>>>>you want them to think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to
>>>>believe it?
>>>
>>> A benefit is

>>_________________________________________________________
>>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
>>���������������������������������������������������������
>> WHAT do you want people to think is preventing being alive from being to
>>your advantage, HOW do you want them to think whatever it is is doing so, and
>>WHY do you want anyone to believe it, Goo?
>

>A benefit is
_________________________________________________________
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit

[dh]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 15:21:39 -0700, Goo wussed on:

>On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:10:13 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 15:41:18 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:32:50 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:46:53 -0700, Goo lied:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 15:38:12 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>>On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:14:37 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, dh quoted Goo:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>>>>>>> never existing" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with

>>>>>>>> never existing - proved." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to

>>>>>>>> experience life" instead of never existing" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing

>>>>>>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "animals' "getting to experience life" is nonsense." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life

>>>>>>>> than never to live at all." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit

>>>>>>>> compared with never existing." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared with

>>>>>>>> never existing." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "according to me, existence is not a benefit - ever." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "*NO* right-thinking person attempts to "balance" the death with some

>>>>>>>> bullshit about the animal's "getting to experience life."" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> You're lying about any of them not being quotes Goob. Since they are all
>>>>>>your quotes, I'm curious how you picked the ones to lie about that you decided
>>>>>>lie about. Is it just that you feel you always have to lie in every post you
>>>>>>make or what, Goo?
>>>>>

>>>>>No. Some of them are not quotes.
>>>>

>>>> That's a blatant lie Goo.

>>>>
>>>>>You part-quoted me and removed
>>>>>context.
>>>>

>>>> If you want people to think you disagree with any of them then YOU have to
>>>>try to say which one Gootsy, and HOW.
>>>>

>>>>>Even so, some of them still contain true statements.
>>>>

>>>> Goober you agree with yourself about every one of them. You prove it by not
>>>>being able to say how you want people to think you disagree with yourself about
>>>>a single one of them, Goo.
>>>
>>>You
>>
>> YOU DO agree with yourself about every one of your quotes I presented and
>>everyone knows it Goob. We know it because you have proven it consistently, Goo.
>

>Of course I agree with myself, *Goo*. But I *don't* agree with many of
>your mangled part quotes that are saying something opposite to what I said.

You can't present any examples of me quoting you saying something you
disagree with Goob. I've given you countless chances to try but you haven't been
able to present a single example of what you want people to think you think
you're trying to talk about, Goo. Try doing it now Goots. GO!!!!:

[dh]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 23:06:24 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>

_________________________________________________________
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
���������������������������������������������������������

>If I don't exist, my wellbeing is not enhanced, since there is no "me" to
>have an enhancement. "I" can't have any benefits until "I" exist.

Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being alive from
being to your advantage NOW. Go:

>>>But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>>>"not existing".
>>
>> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is preventing you from
>> benefitting from your own existence NOW?
>
>Any benefits I obtain *must*, by definition, be compared to a previous state of
>mine

Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being alive from
being to your advantage NOW. Go:

>to be termed a benefit for me.
>
>Allow me to ask a couple of questions:
>
>Am *I* impeded when I die? What benefit do I lose when I die?

Every one that you have at the time of your death.

>On what basis
>do you make this comparision?

I base it on the fact that you can no longer benefit from anything you
benefit from when you're alive, after you're no longer alive.

>At what point to benefits begin to accrue to me?
>When sperm first meets egg?

Yes, even though you weren't aware of it.

>When I become multicellular? When I develop a
>brain? At what point do they stop? When my heart stops? When my brain fully
>shuts down? 10 minutes after? When "I" begin to decompose?

When you are no longer alive.

You seem to have no idea about that topic.

>>>Seems like an odd argument to be carrying on for 14 years,
>>
>> Eliminationists are desperate that most consumers don't learn to appreciate
>> the value of life for any domestic animals, and of course especially not for
>> livestock animals. That of course is because appreciating decent lives for
>> domestic animals works in favor of decent AW which works AGAINST elimination:
>
>No one's not apreciating the value of life;

The Goos certainly are not, and so far you haven't either. The Goos are
opposed to people taking it into consideration because and ONLY because doing so
works against the elimination objective. Is that why you're opposed to it too?

>once you have it, it's kind of a
>nice thing to hold on to. But saying your life has value *to you* is different
>from saying life is a benefit compared to NON LIVING.
>
>> _________________________________________________________
>> . . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
>> separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
>> practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
>> those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
>> enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
>> achievement of animal rights.
>>
>> . . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
>> philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.
>>
>> . . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
>> welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition ends.
>> This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual reasons.
>>
>> . . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace
>> at which animal rights goals are achieved.
>> . . .
>>
>> "A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
>> By Tom Regan and Gary Francione

>> ���������������������������������������������������������

>>>especially when the solution is so trivially obvious.
>>
>> What do you think you want people to believe that is, do you have any idea?
>
>I do, but you obviously don't.

You obviously don't either, so what do you think you could have gained by
trying to pretend that you do?

[George Plimpton]

On 4/9/2013 2:37 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate

cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 4/8/2013 3:21 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 4/8/2013 2:10 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>> On 4/4/2013 3:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 4/4/2013 1:32 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>>>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>>>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/3/2013 2:46 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/3/2013 12:38 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 11:14 AM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM,

>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an
>>>>>>>>> animal versus

>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with

>>>>>>>>> never existing - proved." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to

>>>>>>>>> experience life" instead of never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton,
>>>>>>>>> CBE

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing

>>>>>>>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "animals' "getting to experience life" is nonsense." - Prof. Geo.
>>>>>>>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Prof.
>>>>>>>>> Geo.
>>>>>>>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life

>>>>>>>>> than never to live at all." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit

>>>>>>>>> compared with never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared with

>>>>>>>>> never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "according to me, existence is not a benefit - ever." - Prof. Geo.
>>>>>>>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "*NO* right-thinking person attempts to "balance" the death with
>>>>>>>>> some

>>>>>>>>> bullshit about the animal's "getting to experience life."" - Prof.
>>>>>>>>> Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you ever

>>>>>>>>> wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're lying about any of them not being quotes
>>>>>>

>>>>>> No. Some of them are not quotes. You part-quoted me and removed
>>>>>> context. Even so, some of them still contain true statements.

>>>>>
>>>>> That's a blatant lie
>>>>

>>>> Not a lie.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> You part-quoted me and removedcontext.
>>>>>

>>>>> If you want people to think you
>>>>

>>>> You removed context and part quoted. They're not quotes.
>>>

>>> YOU DO agree with yourself
>>

>> Of course I agree with myself, *Goo*. But I *don't* agree with many of
>> your mangled part quotes that are saying something opposite to what I said.
>
> You can't present any examples of me quoting you saying something you
> disagree with

Yes, and I have presented them.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/9/2013 2:37 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate

cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 4/8/2013 3:21 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 4/8/2013 2:08 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 4/4/2013 3:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 4/4/2013 1:32 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>>>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>>>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>

>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> In alt.atheism Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate

>>>>>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing
>>>>>> nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

>>>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in
>>>>>>>>> 1999 and
>>>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an
>>>>>>>>>> animal versus
>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Goo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes
>>>>>>>> essence, you can't
>>>>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing
>>>>>>> you from
>>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't
>>>>>> benefit
>>>>>> from my existence.
>>>>>
>>>>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well.
>>>>

>>>> No, no living entity does, Fuckwit. They don't benefit from existence,
>>>> nor do they "seem" or "appear" to do so. Existence - "getting to
>>>> experience life" - is not a benefit because it *cannot* be one, *Goo*. A
>>>> benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity, and coming
>>>> into existence doesn't do that - nor does it "appear" to do it.

>>> _________________________________________________________
>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit
>>>
>>> ben·e·fit [ben-uh-fit] noun,
>>

>> A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity. Existence
>> - "getting to experience life" - does not do that, and *therefore*
>> existence is not a benefit: QED

> _________________________________________________________
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit
>
> ben·e·fit

Only an existing entity can realize a benefit. Existence - "getting to
experience life" - is not a benefit.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/9/2013 2:37 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate

cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 23:12:42 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
> wrote:
>

>> In alt.atheism Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 20:55:43 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>

>>>> In alt.atheism Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> In alt.atheism Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - George Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>>>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>>>>> >from my existence.
>>>>>
>>>>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well.
>>>>
>>>> No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existance. I have to *exist*
>>>> first, before I can accrue the benefit.
>>>
>>> Existence of course is one of the benefits that make all others possible. So
>>> is life.
>>
>> OK, so we can, in theory, provide an exact count on the number of things that
>> "benefit" from existance. What's the count of the number of things that do not
>> have this "benefit"?
>>
>> Let's quantify the harm in non-existance, shall we?
>
> Just as I see advantage in existence

You're wrong. There is no "advantage" to an entity to exist, rather
than never existing.

>
>>>>> WHAT do you
>>>>> want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do you want them to
>>>>> think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to believe it?
>>>>
>>>> Because if *I* did not exist, *I* would not be injured, as *I* would not have
>>>> existed to BE injured.
>>>
>>> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is preventing you from
>>> benefitting from your existence NOW?
>>
>> That *I* will not exist eventually to suffer a loss of benefits. Thats what.
>
> HOW do you want people to think anything about your pre-existence

He never said anything about "pre-existence", *Goo*. That's 100% your
thing.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/9/2013 2:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate

cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 4/8/2013 4:19 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 4/8/2013 4:06 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>>> In alt.atheism Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:01:50 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/4/2013 3:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/4/2013 1:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and
>>>>>>> convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but
>>>>>>> wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and
>>>>>>>>> convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but
>>>>>>>>> wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>>>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

>>>>>>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal versus

>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes
>>>>>>>>>>> essence, you can't
>>>>>>>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>>>>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing
>>>>>>>>>> you from
>>>>>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't
>>>>>>>>> benefit
>>>>>>>>> from my existence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existance. I have to
>>>>>>> *exist*
>>>>>>> first, before I can accrue the benefit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly. A benefit is defined as something that improves the welfare of
>>>>>> an experiential entity. Existence doesn't do that; it establishes the
>>>>>> welfare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> WHAT do you
>>>>>>>> want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do you
>>>>>>>> want them to
>>>>>>>> think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to
>>>>>>>> believe it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because if *I* did not exist, *I* would not be injured, as *I* would
>>>>>>> not have
>>>>>>> existed to BE injured.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My existance must come first before I begin benefitting
>>>>>>>> >from anything.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHAT do you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>>>>>> benefitting, HOW do
>>>>>>>> you want them to think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you
>>>>>>>> want anyone to
>>>>>>>> believe it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Word salad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Boys, I may not know much, but I know the difference
>>>>>> between chicken shit and chicken salad."

>>>>>> --Lyndon B. Johnson (1908—1973)

>>>>>> American Democratic statesman, President [1963—1969].

>>>>>> (When asked (as majority leader) if he took seriously
>>>>>> a particular speech by Vice President Nixon.
>>>>>> In David Halberstam _The Best and the Brightest_ [1972].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Goo* - Fuckwit David Harrison - has been trying and failing at this
>>>>>> since 1999.
>>>>>

>>>>> He seems to be conflating "enjoying existing" with "benefitting from
>>>>> existing".
>>>>> Do I *enjoy* my existance? Sure.
>>>>
>>>> You need to say WHAT you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>> benefitting from it, since so far you certainly clearly appear to be.
>>>
>>> Benefit is a comparative word:
>>>
>>> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/benefit
>>>
>>> "Something that promotes or *enhances* wellbeing.
>>>
>>> If I don't exist, my wellbeing is not enhanced, since there is no "me" to
>>> have an enhancement. "I" can't have any benefits until "I" exist.
>>
>> That's exactly it.
>
> What do you want people to think is preventing being alive from being to
> your advantage NOW

The *definition* of advantage, *Goo*. That's what.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/9/2013 2:38 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 23:06:24 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
> wrote:
>
>> In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:01:50 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/4/2013 1:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

>>>>>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>>>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>>>>>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>>>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>>>>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>>>>>>>> from my existence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existance. I have to *exist*
>>>>>> first, before I can accrue the benefit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly. A benefit is defined as something that improves the welfare of
>>>>> an experiential entity. Existence doesn't do that; it establishes the
>>>>> welfare.
>>>>
>>>> He seems to be conflating "enjoying existing" with "benefitting from existing".

>>>> Do I *enjoy* my existance? Sure. But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>>>> "not existing".
>>>>

>>>> It's the primary reason why death isn't anything to be afraid of; *you* don't
>>>> ever experience death. Dying, you may experience. Death you don't.
>>>

>>> You need to say WHAT you want people to
>>

>> Benefit is a comparative word:
> _________________________________________________________
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit
>
> ben·e·fit

A benefit is something that *only* can be realized by an entity that
already exists.

¯¯

>> If I don't exist, my wellbeing is not enhanced, since there is no "me" to
>> have an enhancement. "I" can't have any benefits until "I" exist.
>
> Try to explain what

A benefit is something that *only* can be realized by an entity that
already exists.

>>>> But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>>>> "not existing".
>>>
>>> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is preventing you from
>>> benefitting from your own existence NOW?
>>
>> Any benefits I obtain *must*, by definition, be compared to a previous state of
>> mine
>
> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being alive from

A benefit can *only* occur to some entity that already exists.

>> to be termed a benefit for me.
>>
>> Allow me to ask a couple of questions:
>>
>> Am *I* impeded when I die? What benefit do I lose when I die?
>
> Every one that

No.

>> On what basis
>> do you make this comparision?
>
> I base it on

Cracker nonsense.

>> At what point to benefits begin to accrue to me?
>> When sperm first meets egg?
>
> Yes, even though

No. The egg and the sperm have no experiential reality - they have no
welfare.

This is the guy who is a 53-year-old drunk and fuckwit.

[dh]

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013, Dutch maundered probably cluelessly:

>dh@. wrote:
>> What do you want people to think is preventing being alive from being to
>> your advantage NOW, Goo?
>

>You're implying that not existing is a disadvantage

Not to me I'm not but you claim it's an implication to you. That means YOU
must know what you want people to think it's implying a disadvantage TO, so,
WHAT do you want people to think it's implying a disadvantage TO?

[dh]

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 16:45:53 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 17:38:18 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 23:06:24 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:01:50 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In alt.atheism Goo wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/4/2013 1:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>>>>>>> dh pointed out

>>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> dh challeged:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, dh pointed out:

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Goo

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>>>>>>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>>>>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>>>>>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>>>>>>>>> from my existence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existance. I have to *exist*
>>>>>>> first, before I can accrue the benefit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly. A benefit is defined as something that improves the welfare of
>>>>>> an experiential entity. Existence doesn't do that; it establishes the
>>>>>> welfare.
>>>>>
>>>>>He seems to be conflating "enjoying existing" with "benefitting from existing".
>>>>>Do I *enjoy* my existance? Sure.
>>>>

>>>> You need to say WHAT you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>> benefitting from it, since so far you certainly clearly appear to be.
>>>

>>>Benefit is a comparative word:
>>_________________________________________________________
>>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
>>���������������������������������������������������������

>>>If I don't exist, my wellbeing is not enhanced, since there is no "me" to
>>>have an enhancement. "I" can't have any benefits until "I" exist.
>>

>> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being alive from

>>being to your advantage NOW. Go:
>>

>>>>>But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>>>>>"not existing".
>>>>
>>>> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>> benefitting from your own existence NOW?
>>>
>>>Any benefits I obtain *must*, by definition, be compared to a previous state of
>>>mine
>>
>> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being alive from

>>being to your advantage NOW. Go:
>>

>>>to be termed a benefit for me.
>>>
>>>Allow me to ask a couple of questions:
>>>
>>>Am *I* impeded when I die? What benefit do I lose when I die?
>>

>> Every one that you have at the time of your death.
>

>No.

Which benefits do you want people to think you're somehow going to retain
after you die and how do you want people to think you're going to retain them,
Goo?

>>>On what basis
>>>do you make this comparision?
>>

>> I base it on the fact that you can no longer benefit from anything you
>>benefit from when you're alive, after you're no longer alive.
>>

>>>At what point to benefits begin to accrue to me?
>>>When sperm first meets egg?
>>

>> Yes, even though you weren't aware of it.
>

>No. The egg and the sperm have no experiential reality

What if they did, Goots?

> - they have no welfare.

So apparently you don't think plants can benefit from anything Goob. That
seems remarkably stupid from my pov, Goo.
. . .

[dh]

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 16:45:53 -0700, Goo lied:

>On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 17:37:52 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 15:21:39 -0700, Goo wussed on:
>>
>>>On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:10:13 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 15:41:18 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:32:50 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:46:53 -0700, Goo lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 15:38:12 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:14:37 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, dh quoted Goo:

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with

>>>>>>>>>> never existing - proved." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to

>>>>>>>>>> experience life" instead of never existing" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing

>>>>>>>>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "animals' "getting to experience life" is nonsense." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life

>>>>>>>>>> than never to live at all." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit

>>>>>>>>>> compared with never existing." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared with

>>>>>>>>>> never existing." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "according to me, existence is not a benefit - ever." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "*NO* right-thinking person attempts to "balance" the death with some

>>>>>>>>>> bullshit about the animal's "getting to experience life."" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> You're lying about any of them not being quotes Goob. Since they are all
>>>>>>>>your quotes, I'm curious how you picked the ones to lie about that you decided
>>>>>>>>lie about. Is it just that you feel you always have to lie in every post you
>>>>>>>>make or what, Goo?
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>No. Some of them are not quotes.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> That's a blatant lie Goo.

>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You part-quoted me and removed
>>>>>>>context.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> If you want people to think you disagree with any of them then YOU have to
>>>>>>try to say which one Gootsy, and HOW.
>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Even so, some of them still contain true statements.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Goober you agree with yourself about every one of them. You prove it by not
>>>>>>being able to say how you want people to think you disagree with yourself about
>>>>>>a single one of them, Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>You
>>>>
>>>> YOU DO agree with yourself about every one of your quotes I presented and
>>>>everyone knows it Goob. We know it because you have proven it consistently, Goo.
>>>

>>>Of course I agree with myself, *Goo*. But I *don't* agree with many of
>>>your mangled part quotes that are saying something opposite to what I said.
>>
>> You can't present any examples of me quoting you saying something you

>>disagree with Goob. I've given you countless chances to try but you haven't been
>>able to present a single example of what you want people to think you think
>>you're trying to talk about, Goo.
>

>Yes

Try presenting them now you inept Goober or it will be more proof that
you're lying. Go:

[dh]

On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 23:57:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 11:38:04 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 22:53:46 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>
>> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 8, 3:09�pm, dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 00:04:53 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote:

>>
>> >> >On Apr 4, 5:01 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alt-atheism.org> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> In alt.atheism Goo wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> > On 4/4/2013 1:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>

>> >> >> >> v
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>>> dh pointed out
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> In alt.atheism Goo wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, dh pointed out:

>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> never existing" - Goo
>>
>> >>
>>

>> >> >> >>>>>>> True.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>>
>> >> >> >>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>>
>> >> >> >>>> from my existence.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existance. I have to *exist*
>>
>> >> >> >> first, before I can accrue the benefit.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> > Exactly. A benefit is defined as something that improves the welfare of
>>
>> >> >> > an experiential entity. Existence doesn't do that; it establishes the
>>
>> >> >> > welfare.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> He seems to be conflating "enjoying existing" with "benefitting from existing".
>>

>> >> >> Do I *enjoy* my existance? Sure. But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>>
>> >> >> "not existing".
>>
>> >>
>>

>> >> >> It's the primary reason why death isn't anything to be afraid of; *you* don't
>>
>> >> >> ever experience death. Dying, you may experience. Death you don't.
>>
>> >>
>>

>> >> >and you know this how?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> � � Maybe Goo told him?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >That's possible. I remember Goo starting to blubber about post-
>>
>> >existence here and then shut his pie-hole rather quickly. He may have
>>
>> >kept blabbering about it on other newsgroups though.
>>
>>
>>
>> He did shut up pretty quickly on that one. That's a lot for Goo. We've known
>>
>> him to go on for years about things he had no idea what he was trying to talk
>>
>> about to the point that he wasn't even aware he had no idea, like his pet food
>>
>> cattle. Goo still goes on acting like he made the comparison between living and
>>
>> never living though, regardless of the fact that he can't even pretend to
>>
>> attempt to explain how he wants people to think he found out that life has never
>>
>> been a benefit for a single creature that has ever existed: "no matter its
>>
>> quality of live" - Goo
>
>He has explained that.

He can't even pretend to make an attempt. I challenge him to try doing it
now. He loses.

>He thinks he found it out as follows. Ascribing a benefit to an entity involves comparing its level of well-being in the actual world with its level of well-being in some other possible world.

No it doesn't. For example many beings appear to benefit from their
existence REGARDLESS of anything at all to do with some imaginary other possible
world, or even actual other worlds like Mars and Venus. Duh.

>It is required that the other possible world be one in which the entity actually exists.

It has nothing to do with imaginary worlds or other existing worlds. It
doesn't even have anything to do with different countries, states or counties.
Duh again.

>So it is not correct to say that an organism benefits from coming into existence.
>
>This has been explained to you many times.

It never has but since you think you can, try to explain WHAT you want
people to think about some other possible world is preventing being alive from
being an advantage to you NOW, and HOW you want them to think whatever it is is
doing so. Go:

[George Plimpton]

On 4/11/2013 12:41 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 23:57:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

>> He thinks he found it out as follows. Ascribing a benefit to an entity involves comparing its level of well-being in the actual world with its level of well-being in some other possible world.
>
> No it doesn't.

It does.

> For example many beings appear to benefit from their
> existence

*NO* beings benefit from their existence. They benefit from *things* in
their existence, but not from existence itself.

This is settled.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/11/2013 12:40 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 4/9/2013 4:45 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 4/9/2013 2:37 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 4/8/2013 3:21 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 4/8/2013 2:10 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>>>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>>>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>> On 4/4/2013 3:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/4/2013 1:32 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>> illiterate
>>>>>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing
>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/3/2013 2:46 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2013 12:38 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 11:14 AM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM,

>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an
>>>>>>>>>>> animal versus

>>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with

>>>>>>>>>>> never existing - proved." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to

>>>>>>>>>>> experience life" instead of never existing" - Prof. Geo.
>>>>>>>>>>> Plimpton,
>>>>>>>>>>> CBE

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing

>>>>>>>>>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "animals' "getting to experience life" is nonsense." - Prof. Geo.
>>>>>>>>>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Prof.
>>>>>>>>>>> Geo.
>>>>>>>>>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life

>>>>>>>>>>> than never to live at all." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit

>>>>>>>>>>> compared with never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared with

>>>>>>>>>>> never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "according to me, existence is not a benefit - ever." - Prof.
>>>>>>>>>>> Geo.
>>>>>>>>>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "*NO* right-thinking person attempts to "balance" the death with
>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit about the animal's "getting to experience life."" -

>>>>>>>>>>> Prof.
>>>>>>>>>>> Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
>>>>>>>>>>> ever

>>>>>>>>>>> wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're lying about any of them not being quotes
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> No. Some of them are not quotes. You part-quoted me and removed
>>>>>>>> context. Even so, some of them still contain true statements.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a blatant lie
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Not a lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You part-quoted me and removedcontext.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> If you want people to think you
>>>>>>

>>>>>> You removed context and part quoted. They're not quotes.
>>>>>

>>>>> YOU DO agree with yourself
>>>>

>>>> Of course I agree with myself, *Goo*. But I *don't* agree with many of
>>>> your mangled part quotes that are saying something opposite to what I
>>>> said.
>>>
>>> You can't present any examples of me quoting you saying something
>>> you
>>> disagree with
>>

>> Yes, and I have presented them.
>

> Try presenting them now

Go look them up.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/11/2013 12:39 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 4/9/2013 4:45 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

>> On 4/9/2013 2:38 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 23:06:24 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:01:50 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/4/2013 1:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and
>>>>>>>> convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but
>>>>>>>> wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and
>>>>>>>>>> convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>>>>>>>>>> but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>>>>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

>>>>>>>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1999 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an animal versus

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes
>>>>>>>>>>>> essence, you can't
>>>>>>>>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or
>>>>>>>>>>>> "is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's
>>>>>>>>>>> preventing you from
>>>>>>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I*
>>>>>>>>>> don't benefit
>>>>>>>>>> from my existence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as
>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existance. I have
>>>>>>>> to *exist*
>>>>>>>> first, before I can accrue the benefit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly. A benefit is defined as something that improves the
>>>>>>> welfare of
>>>>>>> an experiential entity. Existence doesn't do that; it establishes
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> welfare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He seems to be conflating "enjoying existing" with "benefitting
>>>>>> from existing".

>>>>>> Do I *enjoy* my existance? Sure. But it's not like I wouldn't

>>>>>> "not enjoy"
>>>>>> "not existing".
>>>>>>

>>>>>> It's the primary reason why death isn't anything to be afraid of;
>>>>>> *you* don't
>>>>>> ever experience death. Dying, you may experience. Death you don't.
>>>>>

>>>>> You need to say WHAT you want people to
>>>>

>>>> Benefit is a comparative word:
>>> _________________________________________________________
>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit
>>>
>>> ben�e�fit
>>

>> A benefit is something that *only* can be realized by an entity that
>> already exists.
>>

>> ��
>>>> If I don't exist, my wellbeing is not enhanced, since there is no
>>>> "me" to
>>>> have an enhancement. "I" can't have any benefits until "I" exist.
>>>
>>> Try to explain what
>>

>> A benefit is something that *only* can be realized by an entity that
>> already exists.
>>
>>

>>>>>> But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>>>>>> "not existing".
>>>>>
>>>>> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is
>>>>> preventing you from
>>>>> benefitting from your own existence NOW?
>>>>
>>>> Any benefits I obtain *must*, by definition, be compared to a
>>>> previous state of
>>>> mine
>>>
>>> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being
>>> alive from
>>

>> A benefit can *only* occur to some entity that already exists.
>>
>>
>>

>>>> to be termed a benefit for me.
>>>>
>>>> Allow me to ask a couple of questions:
>>>>
>>>> Am *I* impeded when I die? What benefit do I lose when I die?
>>>
>>> Every one that
>>

>> No.
>
> Which benefits do you want people to think you're somehow going to retain

A benefit only pertains to a state of existence. Existence is not a
benefit.

>>>> On what basis
>>>> do you make this comparision?
>>>
>>> I base it on the fact that you can no longer benefit from anything you
>>> benefit from when you're alive, after you're no longer alive.
>>>
>>>> At what point to benefits begin to accrue to me?
>>>> When sperm first meets egg?
>>>
>>> Yes, even though you weren't aware of it.
>>

>> No. The egg and the sperm have no experiential reality - they have no
>> welfare.
>
> What if they did

They don't. Therefore, nothing can be a benefit to them.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/11/2013 12:39 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 4/9/2013 3:05 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>> What do you want people to think is preventing being alive from
>>> being to
>>> your advantage NOW, Goo?
>>

>> You're implying that not existing is a disadvantage, which is nonsense.

>
> Not to me I'm not but you claim it's an implication to you.

No, he doesn't. It's why he knows existence is not a benefit.

[sbalneav]

> benï¿œeï¿œfit [ben-uh-fit] noun, verb, benï¿œeï¿œfitï¿œed or benï¿œeï¿œfitï¿œted,
> benï¿œeï¿œfitï¿œing or benï¿œeï¿œfitï¿œting.

> noun
> 1. something that is advantageous or good; an advantage

> ￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜ

>>If I don't exist, my wellbeing is not enhanced, since there is no "me" to
>>have an enhancement. "I" can't have any benefits until "I" exist.
>
> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being alive from
> being to your advantage NOW. Go:

That sentence doesn't parse.

>>>>But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>>>>"not existing".
>>>
>>> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is preventing you from
>>> benefitting from your own existence NOW?
>>
>>Any benefits I obtain *must*, by definition, be compared to a previous state of
>>mine
>
> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being alive from
> being to your advantage NOW. Go:

Again, that sentence doesn't parse.

>>to be termed a benefit for me.
>>
>>Allow me to ask a couple of questions:
>>
>>Am *I* impeded when I die? What benefit do I lose when I die?
>
> Every one that you have at the time of your death.

What advantages do I have in the heartbeat before I die, versus the heartbeat
after. At what EXACT POINT do I lose these advantages?

>>On what basis
>>do you make this comparision?
>
> I base it on the fact that you can no longer benefit from anything you
> benefit from when you're alive, after you're no longer alive.

Of course I can no longer benefit: "I" am not there any more. So how is death
a disadvantage to "me", when, where death is, there is no "me"?

>>At what point to benefits begin to accrue to me?
>>When sperm first meets egg?
>
> Yes, even though you weren't aware of it.

How? On what basis do you make this assertion? What exact advantages to I
accrue? Did "I" have those advantages when "I" was still a separated ovum and
sperm? Is this "advantage" of life a simple case of combined chromosomes?
What "advantage" is there in a particular arrangement of chemicals and/or
atoms?

A hint to you: I keep pulling away a grain of sand out of the pile. Each time
I pull away a grain, I'm going to ask you "Is it still a pile of sand". At
some point, you're going to have to draw the line and tell me "This is where
the "benefit" starts, or we're going to get down to the quark level really
quick. So put your thinking cap on, because that's where this is heading.

>>When I become multicellular? When I develop a
>>brain? At what point do they stop? When my heart stops? When my brain fully
>>shuts down? 10 minutes after? When "I" begin to decompose?
>
> When you are no longer alive.

Can you define "living" for me, please? Exactly, if you could, so that I can
determine exactly when I lose the benefit. Keep in mind that for me to lose
the benefit, you have to pick a point where "me" still exists, but the benefit
goes away. If I go away first, then there is no "me" to lose the benefit.

I have lots of ideas on that topic. It was just a complete non-sequitor for
the conversation at hand. Do you often find it hard to concentrate? To stay
on topic?

>>>>Seems like an odd argument to be carrying on for 14 years,
>>>
>>> Eliminationists are desperate that most consumers don't learn to appreciate
>>> the value of life for any domestic animals, and of course especially not for
>>> livestock animals. That of course is because appreciating decent lives for
>>> domestic animals works in favor of decent AW which works AGAINST elimination:
>>
>>No one's not apreciating the value of life;
>
> The Goos certainly are not, and so far you haven't either. The Goos are
> opposed to people taking it into consideration because and ONLY because doing so
> works against the elimination objective. Is that why you're opposed to it too?

Have you stopped raping your children yet?

Please quit with the loaded questions, non-sequitors, and straw men.

>>once you have it, it's kind of a
>>nice thing to hold on to. But saying your life has value *to you* is different
>>from saying life is a benefit compared to NON LIVING.
>>
>>> _________________________________________________________
>>> . . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
>>> separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
>>> practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
>>> those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
>>> enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
>>> achievement of animal rights.
>>>
>>> . . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
>>> philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.
>>>
>>> . . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
>>> welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition ends.
>>> This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual reasons.
>>>
>>> . . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace
>>> at which animal rights goals are achieved.
>>> . . .
>>>
>>> "A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
>>> By Tom Regan and Gary Francione

>>> ￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜ

>>>>especially when the solution is so trivially obvious.
>>>
>>> What do you think you want people to believe that is, do you have any idea?
>>
>>I do, but you obviously don't.
>
> You obviously don't either, so what do you think you could have gained by
> trying to pretend that you do?

Do you often go into newsgroups and spout incoherent nonsense?

--
sbalneav | No furniture so charming as books.
a.a #2171 | -- Sydney Smith
alt-atheism.org |

[George Plimpton]

It's a style peculiar to Fuckwit David Harrison. Who knows why he
thinks it's clever or erudite; he doesn't seem to understand that it
reinforces the conviction that he's a stupid cracker.

>>>>> But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>>>>> "not existing".
>>>>
>>>> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>> benefitting from your own existence NOW?
>>>
>>> Any benefits I obtain *must*, by definition, be compared to a previous state of
>>> mine
>>
>> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being alive from
>> being to your advantage NOW. Go:
>
> Again, that sentence doesn't parse.

Same as above.

>>> to be termed a benefit for me.
>>>
>>> Allow me to ask a couple of questions:
>>>
>>> Am *I* impeded when I die? What benefit do I lose when I die?
>>
>> Every one that you have at the time of your death.
>
> What advantages do I have in the heartbeat before I die, versus the heartbeat
> after. At what EXACT POINT do I lose these advantages?
>
>>> On what basis
>>> do you make this comparision?
>>
>> I base it on the fact that you can no longer benefit from anything you
>> benefit from when you're alive, after you're no longer alive.
>
> Of course I can no longer benefit: "I" am not there any more.

That, of course, is the gist of the matter. And prior to existing, "you"
didn't have some alternate state of existence - the "pre-existence" in
which Fuckwit believes - with a welfare that could be compared with your
welfare once you do exist.

> So how is death a disadvantage to "me", when, where death is, there is no "me"?

He can't answer.

The truth is that death is something most people, most of the time, want
to defer. If one's life is good, or at least tolerable, one usually
wishes to continue living.

>>> At what point to benefits begin to accrue to me?
>>> When sperm first meets egg?
>>
>> Yes, even though you weren't aware of it.
>
> How? On what basis do you make this assertion?

On the basis of his cracker stupidity and fuckwittery. It is simply a
fact that nothing can be a "benefit" to a sperm or an egg, because they
do not have a welfare that can be improved.

Relative to light, you stupid cracker fuckstain.

>>>> I'm also interested in what you think adjusts the velocity of light so that all
>>>> of it arrives in this area of space at the same velocity relative to this area
>>>> but regardless of the velocity of the observer relative to the emitter.
>>>
>>> Wha?
>>
>> You seem to have no idea about that topic.
>
> I have lots of ideas on that topic. It was just a complete non-sequitor for
> the conversation at hand. Do you often find it hard to concentrate? To stay
> on topic?

Fuckwit always introduces off-topic bullshit. Get used to it.

>>>>> Seems like an odd argument to be carrying on for 14 years,
>>>>
>>>> Eliminationists

No such thing.

>>>> are desperate that most consumers don't learn to appreciate
>>>> the value of life for any domestic animals, and of course especially not for
>>>> livestock animals. That of course is because appreciating decent lives for
>>>> domestic animals works in favor of decent AW which works AGAINST elimination:
>>>
>>> No one's not apreciating the value of life;
>>
>> The Goos certainly are not,

Nothing to appreciate. It is not a "benefit" to come into existence.
No one's welfare is improved by coming into existence.

>> and so far you haven't either. The Goos are
>> opposed to people taking it into consideration because and ONLY because doing so
>> works against the elimination objective. Is that why you're opposed to it too?
>
> Have you stopped raping your children yet?

He'll never stop.

> Please quit with the loaded questions, non-sequitors, and straw men.
>
>>> once you have it, it's kind of a
>>> nice thing to hold on to. But saying your life has value *to you* is different
>> >from saying life is a benefit compared to NON LIVING.
>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________
>>>> . . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
>>>> separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
>>>> practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
>>>> those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
>>>> enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
>>>> achievement of animal rights.
>>>>
>>>> . . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
>>>> philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.
>>>>
>>>> . . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
>>>> welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition ends.
>>>> This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual reasons.
>>>>
>>>> . . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace
>>>> at which animal rights goals are achieved.
>>>> . . .
>>>>
>>>> "A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
>>>> By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
>>>> ￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜ
>>>>> especially when the solution is so trivially obvious.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think you want people to believe that is, do you have any idea?

There's that fuckwitted cracker style again.

>>> I do, but you obviously don't.
>>
>> You obviously don't either, so what do you think you could have gained by
>> trying to pretend that you do?
>
> Do you often go into newsgroups and spout incoherent nonsense?

He *always* goes into newsgroups and spouts incoherent nonsense.

[BruceS]

On 04/11/2013 06:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 4/11/2013 4:50 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>> In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:

<snip>

>>> You obviously don't either, so what do you think you could have
>>> gained by
>>> trying to pretend that you do?
>>
>> Do you often go into newsgroups and spout incoherent nonsense?
>
> He *always* goes into newsgroups and spouts incoherent nonsense.

What is perhaps more surprising is that he usually gets coherent
responses to his incoherent nonsense. I'm one of what I'm sure is a
large group, who no longer see dh posts except through responses. Your
argument to him, which you have repeated so very many times, is without
rational opposition. I'm simply amazed that you continue to have time
and inclination to attempt any sort of discussion with him. Not that
there's anything wrong with that.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/8/2013 2:10 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate

cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:01:50 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
> wrote:
>

>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton, CBE, wrote:
>>> On 4/4/2013 1:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied and presented *NO* challenge:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton, CBE, wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - George Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>>>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>>>>>> from my existence.
>>>>>
>>>>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well.
>>>>
>>>> No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existance. I have to *exist*
>>>> first, before I can accrue the benefit.
>>>
>>> Exactly. A benefit is defined as something that improves the welfare of
>>> an experiential entity. Existence doesn't do that; it establishes the
>>> welfare.
>>
>> He seems to be conflating "enjoying existing" with "benefitting from existing".
>> Do I *enjoy* my existance? Sure.
>
> You need to say WHAT you want people to think is preventing you from
> benefitting from it

He has told you, and I have told you: the definition of "benefit".
Because existence does not improve his welfare over some alternate
state, it therefore is not - *cannot* be - a benefit. Proved.

>> But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>> "not existing".
>
> WHAT about non-existence

Nothing.

>> It's the primary reason why death isn't anything to be afraid of; *you* don't
>> ever experience death. Dying, you may experience. Death you don't.
>>
>>>>> WHAT do you
>>>>> want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do you want them to
>>>>> think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to believe it?
>>>>
>>>> Because if *I* did not exist, *I* would not be injured, as *I* would not have
>>>> existed to BE injured.
>>>>
>>>>>> My existance must come first before I begin benefitting
>>>>> >from anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> WHAT do you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do
>>>>> you want them to think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to
>>>>> believe it?
>>>>
>>>> Word salad.
>>>
>>> "Boys, I may not know much, but I know the difference
>>> between chicken shit and chicken salad."
>>> --Lyndon B. Johnson (1908?1973)
>>> American Democratic statesman, President [1963?1969].
>>> (When asked (as majority leader) if he took seriously
>>> a particular speech by Vice President Nixon.
>>> In David Halberstam _The Best and the Brightest_ [1972].
>>>
>>> *Goo* - Fuckwit David Harrison - has been trying and failing at this
>>> since 1999.
>>
>> Is this the guy who's the physicist? I think I might have debated him before.
>
> If you want to say nothing can go ftl

Shut up. You can barely even spell "physics" - you know nothing about it.

>> Seems like an odd argument to be carrying on for 14 years,
>
> Eliminationists

No.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/12/2013 6:42 AM, BruceS wrote:
> On 04/11/2013 06:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 4/11/2013 4:50 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>> In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
> <snip>
>>>> You obviously don't either, so what do you think you could have
>>>> gained by
>>>> trying to pretend that you do?
>>>
>>> Do you often go into newsgroups and spout incoherent nonsense?
>>
>> He *always* goes into newsgroups and spouts incoherent nonsense.
>
> What is perhaps more surprising is that he usually gets coherent
> responses to his incoherent nonsense.

Usually, only a few times. Very quickly, most people figure out he's
not a serious and reasonable participant, so they just ignore him.

> I'm one of what I'm sure is a
> large group, who no longer see dh posts except through responses.

Yes, I think most do that.

> Your argument to him, which you have repeated so very many times, is
> without rational opposition.

Exactly.

> I'm simply amazed that you continue to have time
> and inclination to attempt any sort of discussion with him.

I think of it as a combination of beating up a bully - Fuckwit's willful
refusal to engage seriously and reasonably with people while attacking
their positions is a form of Usenet bullying - and a public service.

Everyone who keeps whacking at him is convinced he knows he lost the
debate long ago. As stupid and dull as he is, he can't *not* know it.

[@notto.can SpamƁusteᴙ]

On 4/12/2013 6:42 AM, BruceS wrote:

Path: not-for-mail
From: BruceS <bruc...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.philosophy,sci.skeptic,alt.atheism,alt.education,can.politics
Subject: Re: "The" answer? Or...?
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 07:42:08 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <kk92qg$cif$1...@dont-email.me>
References: <g56ml896m9ee9l4d4...@4ax.com>
<20bf0$515b1f7e$414e828e$30...@EVERESTKC.NET>
<kjfcpu$ap0$1...@dont-email.me>
<j81pl85pir3baoa65...@4ax.com>
<kji6dd$53g$1...@dont-email.me>
<5porl8563m8oj54b4...@4ax.com>
<kjkpce$klm$1...@dont-email.me>
<48803$515e0109$414e828e$19...@EVERESTKC.NET>
<kjl0ot$7jf$1...@dont-email.me>
<0ic6m8pd271eamqb5...@4ax.com>
<kjvihg$6gq$1...@dont-email.me>
<th29m8t0hl0k1k6sa...@4ax.com> <kk7i8e$tb$1...@dont-email.me>
<bb78$516756d1$414e828e$60...@EVERESTKC.NET>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:39:28 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
posting-host="d97dd1844b300b636cd7a7fd8d5d5c65";
logging-data="12879";
mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org";
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18FzZ+5beMVzAUIiIW4aqQc5QYjI0nLjtI="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120605
Thunderbird/13.0
In-Reply-To: <bb78$516756d1$414e828e$60...@EVERESTKC.NET>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ImoAfmNAzQZ9ZLaxcnb7bVobpyM=
X-Received-Bytes: 2667
Xref: Hurricane alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:176772
alt.philosophy:856932 sci.skeptic:407920 alt.atheism:5080109
alt.education:228758 can.politics:1461915



--

=====================================================================
SPAMMED INTO NON-RELEVANT GROUPS / COUNTRY
=====================================================================

[dh]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:50:38 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>

>> 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

>>>If I don't exist, my wellbeing is not enhanced, since there is no "me" to
>>>have an enhancement. "I" can't have any benefits until "I" exist.
>>
>> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being alive from
>> being to your advantage NOW. Go:
>
>That sentence doesn't parse.

It's a challeng to Goo to try telling people what he wants them to think,
but he can't do it. Maybe you can help him try?

>>>>>But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>>>>>"not existing".
>>>>
>>>> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>> benefitting from your own existence NOW?
>>>
>>>Any benefits I obtain *must*, by definition, be compared to a previous state of
>>>mine
>>
>> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being alive from
>> being to your advantage NOW. Go:
>
>Again, that sentence doesn't parse.

It's the same challenge whether you like it or not.

>>>to be termed a benefit for me.
>>>
>>>Allow me to ask a couple of questions:
>>>
>>>Am *I* impeded when I die? What benefit do I lose when I die?
>>
>> Every one that you have at the time of your death.
>
>What advantages do I have in the heartbeat before I die, versus the heartbeat
>after. At what EXACT POINT do I lose these advantages?

When either you are no longer alive or being alive is no longer of positive
value to you. Duh.

>>>On what basis
>>>do you make this comparision?
>>
>> I base it on the fact that you can no longer benefit from anything you
>> benefit from when you're alive, after you're no longer alive.
>
>Of course I can no longer benefit

Which shows that being alive is to your advantage.

>: "I" am not there any more. So how is death
>a disadvantage to "me", when, where death is, there is no "me"?
>
>>>At what point to benefits begin to accrue to me?
>>>When sperm first meets egg?
>>
>> Yes, even though you weren't aware of it.
>
>How? On what basis do you make this assertion? What exact advantages to I
>accrue?

The advantage of being able to benefit from other advantages for one.

>Did "I" have those advantages when "I" was still a separated ovum and
>sperm? Is this "advantage" of life a simple case of combined chromosomes?
>What "advantage" is there in a particular arrangement of chemicals and/or
>atoms?
>
>A hint to you: I keep pulling away a grain of sand out of the pile. Each time
>I pull away a grain, I'm going to ask you "Is it still a pile of sand".

What do you want us to think is being pulled away from you preventing life
from being to your advantage NOW?
. . .

>>>>>Is this the guy who's the physicist? I think I might have debated him before.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to say nothing can go ftl, you need to specify relative to what.
>>>> I'm also interested in what you think adjusts the velocity of light so that all
>>>> of it arrives in this area of space at the same velocity relative to this area
>>>> but regardless of the velocity of the observer relative to the emitter.
>>>
>>>Wha?
>>
>> You seem to have no idea about that topic.
>
>I have lots of ideas on that topic.

Then WHAT do you think makes the adjustment, and HOW?

>It was just a complete non-sequitor for
>the conversation at hand. Do you often find it hard to concentrate? To stay
>on topic?
>
>>>>>Seems like an odd argument to be carrying on for 14 years,
>>>>
>>>> Eliminationists are desperate that most consumers don't learn to appreciate
>>>> the value of life for any domestic animals, and of course especially not for
>>>> livestock animals. That of course is because appreciating decent lives for
>>>> domestic animals works in favor of decent AW which works AGAINST elimination:
>>>
>>>No one's not apreciating the value of life;
>>
>> The Goos certainly are not, and so far you haven't either. The Goos are
>> opposed to people taking it into consideration because and ONLY because doing so
>> works against the elimination objective. Is that why you're opposed to it too?
>
>Have you stopped raping your children yet?
>
>Please quit with the loaded questions

Why do you want people to think you're opposed to it if not because you're
in favor of elimination?

>, non-sequitors, and straw men.
>
>>>once you have it, it's kind of a
>>>nice thing to hold on to. But saying your life has value *to you* is different
>>>from saying life is a benefit compared to NON LIVING.
>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________
>>>> . . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
>>>> separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
>>>> practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
>>>> those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
>>>> enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
>>>> achievement of animal rights.
>>>>
>>>> . . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
>>>> philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.
>>>>
>>>> . . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
>>>> welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition ends.
>>>> This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual reasons.
>>>>
>>>> . . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace
>>>> at which animal rights goals are achieved.
>>>> . . .
>>>>
>>>> "A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
>>>> By Tom Regan and Gary Francione

>>>> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

>>>>>especially when the solution is so trivially obvious.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think you want people to believe that is, do you have any idea?
>>>
>>>I do, but you obviously don't.
>>
>> You obviously don't either, so what do you think you could have gained by
>> trying to pretend that you do?
>
>Do you often go into newsgroups and spout incoherent nonsense?

I often point out that people like you have no clue at all what they're
trying to talk about as I did with you. You're still more than welcome to try
pretending you have some idea of course, but by now we both know you're not
capable of even pretending.

[dh]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 07:42:08 -0600, BruceS <bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 04/11/2013 06:38 PM, Goo wrote:
>> On 4/11/2013 4:50 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>> In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
><snip>
>>>> You obviously don't either, so what do you think you could have
>>>> gained by
>>>> trying to pretend that you do?
>>>
>>> Do you often go into newsgroups and spout incoherent nonsense?
>>
>> He *always* goes into newsgroups and spouts incoherent nonsense.
>
>What is perhaps more surprising is that he usually gets coherent
>responses

So far no one has been able to explain what they want people to think is
preventing being alive from being to their advantage. Try doing it. Go:

>to his incoherent nonsense. I'm one of what I'm sure is a
>large group, who no longer see dh posts except through responses.

I point out some significant aspects of things that people don't like to
think about because they work against what they want to believe.

>Your
>argument to him, which you have repeated so very many times, is without
>rational opposition.

Up until now he hasn't been able to explain what he wants people to think is
preventing being alive from being to his advantage OR how he wants people to
think that opposing consideration for the lives of other beings is ethically
equivalent or superior to taking them into consideration. Maybe you can help him
try to?

[dh]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 07:48:13 -0700, Goo lied:

>he knows he lost the debate long ago.

Not only is that a lie Goober but you can't even say how you want people to
think I could have lost. In order to show that you have some idea what you want
people to think you think you're trying to talk about you would need to present
the exact quotes you want people to think defeated the fact that millions of
livestock animals appear to benefit from lives of positive value Goob. Try
presenting them now, Goo. Go:

[dh]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:31:25 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:39:40 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 16:45:53 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 17:38:18 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>

>>>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 23:06:24 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:01:50 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In alt.atheism Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/4/2013 1:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>>>>>>>>> dh pointed out

>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> dh challeged:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, dh pointed out:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Goo

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>>>>>>>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>>>>>>>>>>> from my existence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existance. I have to *exist*
>>>>>>>>> first, before I can accrue the benefit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Exactly. A benefit is defined as something that improves the welfare of
>>>>>>>> an experiential entity. Existence doesn't do that; it establishes the
>>>>>>>> welfare.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He seems to be conflating "enjoying existing" with "benefitting from existing".
>>>>>>>Do I *enjoy* my existance? Sure.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> You need to say WHAT you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>>>> benefitting from it, since so far you certainly clearly appear to be.
>>>>>

>>>>>Benefit is a comparative word:
>>>>_________________________________________________________
>>>>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

>>>>>If I don't exist, my wellbeing is not enhanced, since there is no "me" to
>>>>>have an enhancement. "I" can't have any benefits until "I" exist.
>>>>

>>>> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being alive from

>>>>being to your advantage NOW. Go:
>>>>

>>>>>>>But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>>>>>>>"not existing".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence NOW?
>>>>>
>>>>>Any benefits I obtain *must*, by definition, be compared to a previous state of
>>>>>mine
>>>>
>>>> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being alive from

>>>>being to your advantage NOW. Go:
>>>>

>>>>>to be termed a benefit for me.
>>>>>
>>>>>Allow me to ask a couple of questions:
>>>>>
>>>>>Am *I* impeded when I die? What benefit do I lose when I die?
>>>>

>>>> Every one that you have at the time of your death.
>>>

>>>No.
>>
>> Which benefits do you want people to think you're somehow going to retain

>>after you die and how do you want people to think you're going to retain them,
>>Goo?
>

>A benefit only pertains to a state of existence.

Try to explain WHAT you want people to think is preventing being alive from
being to their advantage, HOW you want them to think whatever it is is doing so,
and WHY you want them to think it is, Goo. Go:

>>>>>On what basis
>>>>>do you make this comparision?
>>>>
>>>> I base it on the fact that you can no longer benefit from anything you
>>>>benefit from when you're alive, after you're no longer alive.
>>>>
>>>>>At what point to benefits begin to accrue to me?
>>>>>When sperm first meets egg?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, even though you weren't aware of it.
>>>
>>>No. The egg and the sperm have no experiential reality
>>

>> What if they did, Goots?
>

>They don't.

What difference do you think you want people to believe there is between
whether they do or whether they don't, Goo?

. . .
>>>>>> _________________________________________________________
>>>>>> . . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
>>>>>> separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
>>>>>> practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
>>>>>> those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
>>>>>> enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
>>>>>> achievement of animal rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> . . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
>>>>>> philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> . . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
>>>>>> welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition ends.
>>>>>> This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> . . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace
>>>>>> at which animal rights goals are achieved.
>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
>>>>>> By Tom Regan and Gary Francione

>>>>>> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

[dh]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013, Goo wussed horribly because he's lying:

>On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:40:19 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 16:45:53 -0700, Goo lied:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 17:37:52 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 15:21:39 -0700, Goo wussed on:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:10:13 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 15:41:18 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:32:50 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:46:53 -0700, Goo lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 15:38:12 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:14:37 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, dh quoted Goo:

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with

>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing - proved." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to

>>>>>>>>>>>> experience life" instead of never existing" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing

>>>>>>>>>>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "animals' "getting to experience life" is nonsense." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life

>>>>>>>>>>>> than never to live at all." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit

>>>>>>>>>>>> compared with never existing." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared with

>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "according to me, existence is not a benefit - ever." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "*NO* right-thinking person attempts to "balance" the death with some

>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit about the animal's "getting to experience life."" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> You're lying about any of them not being quotes Goob. Since they are all
>>>>>>>>>>your quotes, I'm curious how you picked the ones to lie about that you decided
>>>>>>>>>>lie about. Is it just that you feel you always have to lie in every post you
>>>>>>>>>>make or what, Goo?
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>No. Some of them are not quotes.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> That's a blatant lie Goo.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You part-quoted me and removed
>>>>>>>>>context.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> If you want people to think you disagree with any of them then YOU have to
>>>>>>>>try to say which one Gootsy, and HOW.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>Even so, some of them still contain true statements.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Goober you agree with yourself about every one of them. You prove it by not
>>>>>>>>being able to say how you want people to think you disagree with yourself about
>>>>>>>>a single one of them, Goo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YOU DO agree with yourself about every one of your quotes I presented and
>>>>>>everyone knows it Goob. We know it because you have proven it consistently, Goo.
>>>>>

>>>>>Of course I agree with myself, *Goo*. But I *don't* agree with many of
>>>>>your mangled part quotes that are saying something opposite to what I said.
>>>>
>>>> You can't present any examples of me quoting you saying something you

>>>>disagree with Goob. I've given you countless chances to try but you haven't been
>>>>able to present a single example of what you want people to think you think
>>>>you're trying to talk about, Goo.
>>>
>>>Yes
>>
>> Try presenting them now you inept Goober or it will be more proof that
>>you're lying. Go:
>

>Go look them up.

You being unable to present them is more proof that you're lying, Goo.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/15/2013 2:25 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:50:38 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
> wrote:
>

>> In alt.atheism Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 23:06:24 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>

>>>> In alt.atheism Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:01:50 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton, CBE, wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/4/2013 1:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton, CBE, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>>>>>>>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>>>>>>>>>> from my existence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You certainly seem to,
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existence. I have to *exist*

>>>>>>>> first, before I can accrue the benefit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly. A benefit is defined as something that improves the welfare of
>>>>>>> an experiential entity. Existence doesn't do that; it establishes the
>>>>>>> welfare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He seems to be conflating "enjoying existing" with "benefitting from existing".
>>>>>> Do I *enjoy* my existance? Sure.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to say WHAT you want people to
>>>>

>>>> Benefit is a comparative word:
>>> _________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>> If I don't exist, my wellbeing is not enhanced, since there is no "me" to
>>>> have an enhancement. "I" can't have any benefits until "I" exist.
>>>
>>> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being alive from
>>> being to your advantage NOW. Go:
>>
>> That sentence doesn't parse.
>
> It's a challeng

No. It's gibberish.

>>>>>> But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>>>>>> "not existing".
>>>>>
>>>>> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>>> benefitting from your own existence NOW?
>>>>
>>>> Any benefits I obtain *must*, by definition, be compared to a previous state of
>>>> mine
>>>
>>> Try to explain what you want people to
>>

>> Again, that sentence doesn't parse.
>
> It's the same challenge

No - it's not a challenge. It's not English.

>>>> to be termed a benefit for me.
>>>>
>>>> Allow me to ask a couple of questions:
>>>>
>>>> Am *I* impeded when I die? What benefit do I lose when I die?
>>>
>>> Every one that you have at the time of your death.
>>
>> What advantages do I have in the heartbeat before I die, versus the heartbeat
>> after. At what EXACT POINT do I lose these advantages?
>
> When either you are no longer alive or being alive is no longer of positive
> value to you.

It's not an advantage to be alive versus never existing. It may be
advantageous to go on living rather than dying.

>>>> On what basis
>>>> do you make this comparision?
>>>
>>> I base it on the fact that you can no longer benefit from anything you
>>> benefit from when you're alive, after you're no longer alive.
>>
>> Of course I can no longer benefit
>
> Which shows that being alive is to your advantage

*NOT* compared with never existing.

>> : "I" am not there any more. So how is death
>> a disadvantage to "me", when, where death is, there is no "me"?
>>
>>>> At what point to benefits begin to accrue to me?
>>>> When sperm first meets egg?
>>>
>>> Yes, even though you weren't aware of it.
>>
>> How? On what basis do you make this assertion? What exact advantages to I
>> accrue?
>
> The advantage of being able to benefit from other advantages

Not an advantage.

>> Did "I" have those advantages when "I" was still a separated ovum and
>> sperm? Is this "advantage" of life a simple case of combined chromosomes?
>> What "advantage" is there in a particular arrangement of chemicals and/or
>> atoms?
>>
>> A hint to you: I keep pulling away a grain of sand out of the pile. Each time
>> I pull away a grain, I'm going to ask you "Is it still a pile of sand".
>
> What do you want us to think is being pulled away from

That's not English.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/15/2013 2:26 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 4/12/2013 7:48 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 4/12/2013 6:42 AM, BruceS wrote:
>>> On 04/11/2013 06:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/2013 4:50 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>>>>> In alt.atheism Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>> <snip>
>>>>>> You obviously don't either, so what do you think you could have
>>>>>> gained by
>>>>>> trying to pretend that you do?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you often go into newsgroups and spout incoherent nonsense?
>>>>
>>>> He *always* goes into newsgroups and spouts incoherent nonsense.
>>>
>>> What is perhaps more surprising is that he usually gets coherent
>>> responses to his incoherent nonsense.
>>
>> Usually, only a few times. Very quickly, most people figure out he's
>> not a serious and reasonable participant, so they just ignore him.
>>
>>
>>> I'm one of what I'm sure is a
>>> large group, who no longer see dh posts except through responses.
>>
>> Yes, I think most do that.
>>
>>
>>> Your argument to him, which you have repeated so very many times, is
>>> without rational opposition.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>>
>>> I'm simply amazed that you continue to have time
>>> and inclination to attempt any sort of discussion with him.
>>
>> I think of it as a combination of beating up a bully - Fuckwit's willful
>> refusal to engage seriously and reasonably with people while attacking
>> their positions is a form of Usenet bullying - and a public service.
>>
>> Everyone who keeps whacking at him is convinced he knows he lost the
>> debate long ago. As stupid and dull as he is, he can't *not* know it.
>

> Not only is that a lie

Not a lie.

> you can't even say how you want people to
> think I could have lost.

You lost because I (and others) showed in 1999 that your position is
complete nonsense.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/15/2013 2:31 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 4/11/2013 2:31 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 4/11/2013 12:39 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 4/9/2013 4:45 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 4/9/2013 2:38 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 23:06:24 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:01:50 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/4/2013 1:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and
>>>>>>>>>> convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but
>>>>>>>>>> wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>>>>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and
>>>>>>>>>>>> convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>> but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* -

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupid,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1999 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an animal versus

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essence, you can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> preventing you from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I*
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't benefit
>>>>>>>>>>>> from my existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as
>>>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existance. I have
>>>>>>>>>> to *exist*
>>>>>>>>>> first, before I can accrue the benefit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Exactly. A benefit is defined as something that improves the
>>>>>>>>> welfare of
>>>>>>>>> an experiential entity. Existence doesn't do that; it establishes
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> welfare.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He seems to be conflating "enjoying existing" with "benefitting
>>>>>>>> from existing".

>>>>>>>> Do I *enjoy* my existance? Sure. But it's not like I wouldn't

>>>>>>>> "not enjoy"
>>>>>>>> "not existing".
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> It's the primary reason why death isn't anything to be afraid of;
>>>>>>>> *you* don't
>>>>>>>> ever experience death. Dying, you may experience. Death you don't.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> You need to say WHAT you want people to
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Benefit is a comparative word:
>>>>> _________________________________________________________
>>>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit
>>>>>
>>>>> ben·e·fit
>>>>

>>>> A benefit is something that *only* can be realized by an entity that
>>>> already exists.
>>>>

>>>> ¯¯

>>>>>> If I don't exist, my wellbeing is not enhanced, since there is no
>>>>>> "me" to
>>>>>> have an enhancement. "I" can't have any benefits until "I" exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to explain what
>>>>

>>>> A benefit is something that *only* can be realized by an entity that
>>>> already exists.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>>>> But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>>>>>>>> "not existing".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is
>>>>>>> preventing you from
>>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence NOW?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any benefits I obtain *must*, by definition, be compared to a
>>>>>> previous state of
>>>>>> mine
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being
>>>>> alive from
>>>>

>>>> A benefit can *only* occur to some entity that already exists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>> to be termed a benefit for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Allow me to ask a couple of questions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am *I* impeded when I die? What benefit do I lose when I die?
>>>>>
>>>>> Every one that
>>>>

>>>> No.
>>>
>>> Which benefits do you want people to think you're somehow going
>>> to retain
>>

>> A benefit only pertains to a state of existence. Existence is not a
>> benefit.
>

> Try to explain WHAT you want people to think is preventing being alive from

Done.

>>
>>>>>> On what basis
>>>>>> do you make this comparision?
>>>>>
>>>>> I base it on the fact that you can no longer benefit from
>>>>> anything you
>>>>> benefit from when you're alive, after you're no longer alive.
>>>>>
>>>>>> At what point to benefits begin to accrue to me?
>>>>>> When sperm first meets egg?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, even though you weren't aware of it.
>>>>

>>>> No. The egg and the sperm have no experiential reality - they have no
>>>> welfare.
>>>
>>> What if they did
>>
>> They don't. Therefore, nothing can be a benefit to them.
>

> What difference do you think you want people to believe

Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, *Goo*.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/15/2013 2:32 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 11:14 AM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 4/2/2013
>>>>>>>>>>> 10:43 AM,

>>>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal versus

>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with

>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing - proved." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to

>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience life" instead of never existing" - Prof. Geo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plimpton,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing

>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CBE
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "animals' "getting to experience life" is nonsense." - Prof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Prof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life

>>>>>>>>>>>>> than never to live at all." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit

>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared with never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared with

>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "according to me, existence is not a benefit - ever." - Prof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "*NO* right-thinking person attempts to "balance" the death
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit about the animal's "getting to experience life."" -

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever

>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You're lying about any of them not being quotes
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> No. Some of them are not quotes. You part-quoted me and removed
>>>>>>>>>> context. Even so, some of them still contain true statements.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's a blatant lie
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Not a lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You part-quoted me and removedcontext.
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> If you want people to think you
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> You removed context and part quoted. They're not quotes.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> YOU DO agree with yourself
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Of course I agree with myself, *Goo*. But I *don't* agree with
>>>>>> many of
>>>>>> your mangled part quotes that are saying something opposite to what I
>>>>>> said.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't present any examples of me quoting you saying something
>>>>> you
>>>>> disagree with
>>>>

>>>> Yes, and I have presented them.
>>>
>>> Try presenting them now
>>

>> Go look them up.
>
> You being unable to present them

I've presented them. Go look them up.

[BruceS]

I think most rational people could see that "existence is a benefit to
that which exists" is complete nonsense without your having pointed it
out. Now I won't say that the existence of one thing cannot be a
benefit (or at least *of* benefit) to another thing, because that would
also be nonsense. For instance, bacon. The existence of pigs is not
any sort of benefit to the pigs themselves (though the existence of one
pig could benefit another pig), but certainly their existence provides a
benefit (e.g. bacon) to me. Without their existence, I would not get to
experience that benefit. Worse yet, if pigs had never existed, people
would not even know what they're missing. I shudder to consider the
empty lives of those who, for religious or other reasons, have never
experienced crispy stripey bacon. I have discovered, to my horror, that
some of these same people have never tasted molluscs, while others, for
similar reasons, eschew beef, or even alcohol. To lessen my sense of
pity for all such, as well as to celebrate the wonders of this planet, I
think I'll have a nice rare filet mignon with sauteed sea scallops
wrapped in bacon, possibly with a side of asparagus and some nice wine.

[George Plimpton]

You would think so, but Fuckwit David Harrison claims to think that
existence - or, "getting to experience life", as he wretchedly puts it -
is a benefit to living entities. He claims to believe that the many
billions of livestock animals that exist are getting a benefit out of
existence /per se/, and that if "animal rights activists" ever succeeded
in persuading everyone to become vegetarian, thereby eliminating the
demand for meat, which in turn would eliminate the demand for livestock
animals, those billions of animal lives would be "prevented", which in
Fuckwit's claimed view would be a bad thing.

Fuckwit assigns some kind of value to animals "getting to experience
life" that no one else does. In fact, there is no value to it. If meat
and other animal products could be made out of recycled cardboard and
plastic bottles, and so no more animals were bred into existence, it
would have no meaning at all in terms of the "lost" experience of life.

> Now I won't say that the existence of one thing cannot be a
> benefit (or at least *of* benefit) to another thing, because that would
> also be nonsense.

Yes, of course.

> For instance, bacon. The existence of pigs is not
> any sort of benefit to the pigs themselves (though the existence of one
> pig could benefit another pig), but certainly their existence provides a
> benefit (e.g. bacon) to me.

It's the bacon that's a benefit to you. The pig "getting to experience
life" is of no benefit and no *meaning* to anyone or anything.

> Without their existence, I would not get to
> experience that benefit. Worse yet, if pigs had never existed, people
> would not even know what they're missing. I shudder to consider the
> empty lives of those who, for religious or other reasons, have never
> experienced crispy stripey bacon. I have discovered, to my horror, that
> some of these same people have never tasted molluscs, while others, for
> similar reasons, eschew beef, or even alcohol. To lessen my sense of
> pity for all such, as well as to celebrate the wonders of this planet, I
> think I'll have a nice rare filet mignon with sauteed sea scallops
> wrapped in bacon, possibly with a side of asparagus and some nice wine.

None of that has anything to do with what Fuckwit is talking about.

[BruceS]

Yes, that is a great turn of phrase. Those who exist, are alive, and
are sentient, "get to experience life." LOL.

> is a benefit to living entities. He claims to believe that the many
> billions of livestock animals that exist are getting a benefit out of
> existence /per se/, and that if "animal rights activists" ever succeeded
> in persuading everyone to become vegetarian, thereby eliminating the
> demand for meat, which in turn would eliminate the demand for livestock
> animals, those billions of animal lives would be "prevented", which in
> Fuckwit's claimed view would be a bad thing.

There are plenty of things I could say against self-styled "animal
rights activists", but Fdw's are, of course, just silly. Using that
same logic, humans should reproduce as fast as possible, regardless of
the abysmal quality of life the extras would have.

> Fuckwit assigns some kind of value to animals "getting to experience
> life" that no one else does. In fact, there is no value to it. If meat
> and other animal products could be made out of recycled cardboard and
> plastic bottles, and so no more animals were bred into existence, it
> would have no meaning at all in terms of the "lost" experience of life.

No, none at all.

>> Now I won't say that the existence of one thing cannot be a
>> benefit (or at least *of* benefit) to another thing, because that would
>> also be nonsense.
>
> Yes, of course.
>
>
>> For instance, bacon. The existence of pigs is not
>> any sort of benefit to the pigs themselves (though the existence of one
>> pig could benefit another pig), but certainly their existence provides a
>> benefit (e.g. bacon) to me.
>
> It's the bacon that's a benefit to you. The pig "getting to experience
> life" is of no benefit and no *meaning* to anyone or anything.

If I could get bacon that really *tasted* like the pig variety, and had
the same wonderful texture as good bacon, but was made from some sort of
vegetable, I'd probably eat it. So far, the best we have is "turkey
bacon", which tastes nasty and still comes from an animal.

>> Without their existence, I would not get to
>> experience that benefit. Worse yet, if pigs had never existed, people
>> would not even know what they're missing. I shudder to consider the
>> empty lives of those who, for religious or other reasons, have never
>> experienced crispy stripey bacon. I have discovered, to my horror, that
>> some of these same people have never tasted molluscs, while others, for
>> similar reasons, eschew beef, or even alcohol. To lessen my sense of
>> pity for all such, as well as to celebrate the wonders of this planet, I
>> think I'll have a nice rare filet mignon with sauteed sea scallops
>> wrapped in bacon, possibly with a side of asparagus and some nice wine.
>
> None of that has anything to do with what Fuckwit is talking about.

No, but I suspect it's more entertaining to many to hear about my supper
plans than to read his claims. My supper changes from day to day, and
makes a sort of sense. Somehow, the whole thing got me thinking of
bacon, and it just segued from there. In a way, it's surprising, given
his style of writing, that it didn't make me think more in terms of
lettuce, with various cut raw vegetables mixed in, and a nice
vinaigrette. The few times I've looked at his writings rather than just
seeing the responses, a lot of it seemed a sort of word salad. The
wine, on the other hand, makes perfect sense. I'll leave that without
further explanation.

[George Plimpton]

Exactly.

>
>> Fuckwit assigns some kind of value to animals "getting to experience
>> life" that no one else does. In fact, there is no value to it. If meat
>> and other animal products could be made out of recycled cardboard and
>> plastic bottles, and so no more animals were bred into existence, it
>> would have no meaning at all in terms of the "lost" experience of life.
>
> No, none at all.
>
>>> Now I won't say that the existence of one thing cannot be a
>>> benefit (or at least *of* benefit) to another thing, because that would
>>> also be nonsense.
>>
>> Yes, of course.
>>
>>
>>> For instance, bacon. The existence of pigs is not
>>> any sort of benefit to the pigs themselves (though the existence of one
>>> pig could benefit another pig), but certainly their existence provides a
>>> benefit (e.g. bacon) to me.
>>
>> It's the bacon that's a benefit to you. The pig "getting to experience
>> life" is of no benefit and no *meaning* to anyone or anything.
>
> If I could get bacon that really *tasted* like the pig variety, and had
> the same wonderful texture as good bacon, but was made from some sort of
> vegetable, I'd probably eat it. So far, the best we have is "turkey
> bacon", which tastes nasty and still comes from an animal.

I've never eaten any fake meat, e.g. "tofurkey", etc. If someone wants
to sell a vegetable product as a vegetarian substitute for meat, fine;
but trying to dress up processed vegetable matter *as* meat is
invariably going to fail. I ate some tasty black bean patties today for
lunch that were just presented as black bean patties, not as some kind
of pseudo-meat. They were really good.

>
>>> Without their existence, I would not get to
>>> experience that benefit. Worse yet, if pigs had never existed, people
>>> would not even know what they're missing. I shudder to consider the
>>> empty lives of those who, for religious or other reasons, have never
>>> experienced crispy stripey bacon. I have discovered, to my horror, that
>>> some of these same people have never tasted molluscs, while others, for
>>> similar reasons, eschew beef, or even alcohol. To lessen my sense of
>>> pity for all such, as well as to celebrate the wonders of this planet, I
>>> think I'll have a nice rare filet mignon with sauteed sea scallops
>>> wrapped in bacon, possibly with a side of asparagus and some nice wine.
>>
>> None of that has anything to do with what Fuckwit is talking about.
>
> No, but I suspect it's more entertaining to many to hear about my supper
> plans than to read his claims. My supper changes from day to day, and
> makes a sort of sense. Somehow, the whole thing got me thinking of
> bacon, and it just segued from there. In a way, it's surprising, given
> his style of writing, that it didn't make me think more in terms of
> lettuce, with various cut raw vegetables mixed in, and a nice
> vinaigrette. The few times I've looked at his writings rather than just
> seeing the responses, a lot of it seemed a sort of word salad.

That's usually all it is. He has the most stilted, turgid style of
writing you're ever likely to see in Usenet, and that's saying
something. One of his favorite shitty constructions is "HOW do you want
people to think [some bullshit you never said], do you have any idea?"
He has been beating that one to death lately.

He knows he's stupid, he knows he's inarticulate, and of course he knows
he's wrong.

[BruceS]

On 04/15/2013 10:55 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 4/15/2013 4:19 PM, BruceS wrote:

<with snippage>

>> If I could get bacon that really *tasted* like the pig variety, and had
>> the same wonderful texture as good bacon, but was made from some sort of
>> vegetable, I'd probably eat it. So far, the best we have is "turkey
>> bacon", which tastes nasty and still comes from an animal.
>
> I've never eaten any fake meat, e.g. "tofurkey", etc. If someone wants
> to sell a vegetable product as a vegetarian substitute for meat, fine;
> but trying to dress up processed vegetable matter *as* meat is
> invariably going to fail. I ate some tasty black bean patties today for
> lunch that were just presented as black bean patties, not as some kind
> of pseudo-meat. They were really good.

Now *that* I can go for. I've had portobello mushroom sandwiches that
were very tasty in their own right (and would expect similar of been
patties), rather than pretending to be hamburger. I enjoy tofu as tofu,
not as faux chicken. But imitation seems to be a big trend, and one
doomed to failure.

<snip>

>> No, but I suspect it's more entertaining to many to hear about my supper
>> plans than to read his claims. My supper changes from day to day, and
>> makes a sort of sense. Somehow, the whole thing got me thinking of
>> bacon, and it just segued from there. In a way, it's surprising, given
>> his style of writing, that it didn't make me think more in terms of
>> lettuce, with various cut raw vegetables mixed in, and a nice
>> vinaigrette. The few times I've looked at his writings rather than just
>> seeing the responses, a lot of it seemed a sort of word salad.
>
> That's usually all it is. He has the most stilted, turgid style of
> writing you're ever likely to see in Usenet, and that's saying
> something. One of his favorite shitty constructions is "HOW do you want
> people to think [some bullshit you never said], do you have any idea?"
> He has been beating that one to death lately.
>
> He knows he's stupid, he knows he's inarticulate, and of course he knows
> he's wrong.

He's certainly not wrong about *those* two things! If he truly knows
that he's stupid and inarticulate, he should celebrate that knowledge,
and revel in it. Quietly. This parallels arguments about my favorite
e-local loon. Some claim that he knows he's delusional, insane,
completely without any special "powers", and living in abject poverty.
Others believe that he believes his delusions. I'm uncertain. Each
day, I expect to see that he's returned to these groups, pretending that
his last exit never happened, and presenting a new delusion. Until
then, I guess I'll sift the dregs that are Fdh's mumbles.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/16/2013 10:53 AM, BruceS wrote:
> On 04/15/2013 10:55 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 4/15/2013 4:19 PM, BruceS wrote:
> <with snippage>
>>> If I could get bacon that really *tasted* like the pig variety, and had
>>> the same wonderful texture as good bacon, but was made from some sort of
>>> vegetable, I'd probably eat it. So far, the best we have is "turkey
>>> bacon", which tastes nasty and still comes from an animal.
>>
>> I've never eaten any fake meat, e.g. "tofurkey", etc. If someone wants
>> to sell a vegetable product as a vegetarian substitute for meat, fine;
>> but trying to dress up processed vegetable matter *as* meat is
>> invariably going to fail. I ate some tasty black bean patties today for
>> lunch that were just presented as black bean patties, not as some kind
>> of pseudo-meat. They were really good.
>
> Now *that* I can go for. I've had portobello mushroom sandwiches that
> were very tasty in their own right (and would expect similar of been
> patties), rather than pretending to be hamburger. I enjoy tofu as tofu,
> not as faux chicken. But imitation seems to be a big trend, and one
> doomed to failure.

I am the same way about tofu. I like the stuff, when it is presented as
tofu. Tofu with black bean sauce is one of my favorite Asian dishes.

The attempt at imitating meat somehow seems to make vegetarianism a
little suspect in my eyes.

[Derek]

The Borg?

[dh]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:42:23 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:31:23 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:31:25 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:39:40 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 16:45:53 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 17:38:18 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 23:06:24 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:01:50 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In alt.atheism Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/4/2013 1:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> dh pointed out

>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh challeged:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, dh pointed out:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Goo

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from my existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existance. I have to *exist*
>>>>>>>>>>> first, before I can accrue the benefit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Exactly. A benefit is defined as something that improves the welfare of
>>>>>>>>>> an experiential entity. Existence doesn't do that; it establishes the
>>>>>>>>>> welfare.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>He seems to be conflating "enjoying existing" with "benefitting from existing".
>>>>>>>>>Do I *enjoy* my existance? Sure.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> You need to say WHAT you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>>>>>> benefitting from it, since so far you certainly clearly appear to be.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Benefit is a comparative word:
>>>>>>_________________________________________________________
>>>>>>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

>>>>>>���������������������������������������������������������

>>>>>>>If I don't exist, my wellbeing is not enhanced, since there is no "me" to
>>>>>>>have an enhancement. "I" can't have any benefits until "I" exist.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being alive from

>>>>>>being to your advantage NOW. Go:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>>>>>>>>>"not existing".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence NOW?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Any benefits I obtain *must*, by definition, be compared to a previous state of
>>>>>>>mine
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being alive from

>>>>>>being to your advantage NOW. Go:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>>to be termed a benefit for me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Allow me to ask a couple of questions:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Am *I* impeded when I die? What benefit do I lose when I die?
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Every one that you have at the time of your death.
>>>>>

>>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>> Which benefits do you want people to think you're somehow going to retain

>>>>after you die and how do you want people to think you're going to retain them,
>>>>Goo?
>>>

>>>A benefit only pertains to a state of existence.
>>

>> Try to explain WHAT you want people to think is preventing being alive from

>>being to their advantage, HOW you want them to think whatever it is is doing so,
>>and WHY you want them to think it is, Goo. Go:
>>

>>>>>>>On what basis
>>>>>>>do you make this comparision?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I base it on the fact that you can no longer benefit from anything you
>>>>>>benefit from when you're alive, after you're no longer alive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>At what point to benefits begin to accrue to me?
>>>>>>>When sperm first meets egg?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, even though you weren't aware of it.
>>>>>
>>>>>No. The egg and the sperm have no experiential reality
>>>>

>>>> What if they did, Goots?
>>>
>>>They don't.
>>
>> What difference do you think you want people to believe there is between
>>whether they do or whether they don't, Goo?
>

>Exi

[dh]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:06:13 -0600, BruceS <bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 04/15/2013 03:39 PM, Goo wrote:
>> On 4/15/2013 2:26 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>

>>> On 4/12/2013 7:48 AM, Goo wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2013 6:42 AM, BruceS wrote:

He and now you need to point out WHAT you want people to think is preventing
your own existence from being to your advantage, and HOW you want them to think
it's doing so. Go:

>Now I won't say that the existence of one thing cannot be a
>benefit (or at least *of* benefit) to another thing,

That's a completely different thing but still a significant aspect.

>because that would
>also be nonsense. For instance, bacon. The existence of pigs is not
>any sort of benefit to the pigs themselves

To some it is and to some it's not. That is the starting line, and
eliminationists can't even get that "far". Can you?

>(though the existence of one
>pig could benefit another pig),

If so that would make their existence a benefit to themselves as well.

[dh]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:19:37 -0700, Goo wrote:

>those billions of animal lives would be "prevented", which in
>Fuckwit's claimed view would be a bad thing.

A person doesn't have to consider it "bad" that we don't raise porcupines
for food, in order to appreciate the fact that millions of other animals
experience lives of positive value because we DO raise them Goob. You're just
not mentally able of comprehending how that could be, Goo.

>Fuckwit assigns some kind of value to animals "getting to experience
>life" that no one else does. In fact, there is no value to it.

It certainly has every bit as much or more than the aspect of their deaths,
Goo.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/16/2013 1:45 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 4/15/2013 2:42 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 4/15/2013 2:31 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 4/11/2013 2:31 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/2013 12:39 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/9/2013 4:45 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/9/2013 2:38 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 23:06:24 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:01:50 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/4/2013 1:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and
>>>>>>>>>>>> convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but
>>>>>>>>>>>> wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* -

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupid,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1999 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an animal versus

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>> Do I *enjoy* my existance? Sure. But it's not like I wouldn't

>>>>>>>>>> "not enjoy"
>>>>>>>>>> "not existing".
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> It's the primary reason why death isn't anything to be afraid of;
>>>>>>>>>> *you* don't
>>>>>>>>>> ever experience death. Dying, you may experience. Death you
>>>>>>>>>> don't.
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> You need to say WHAT you want people to
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Benefit is a comparative word:
>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ben�e�fit
>>>>>>

>>>>>> A benefit is something that *only* can be realized by an entity that
>>>>>> already exists.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> ��
>>>>>>>> If I don't exist, my wellbeing is not enhanced, since there is no
>>>>>>>> "me" to
>>>>>>>> have an enhancement. "I" can't have any benefits until "I" exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try to explain what
>>>>>>

>>>>>> A benefit is something that *only* can be realized by an entity that
>>>>>> already exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>>>>>>>>>> "not existing".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is
>>>>>>>>> preventing you from
>>>>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence NOW?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any benefits I obtain *must*, by definition, be compared to a
>>>>>>>> previous state of
>>>>>>>> mine
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being
>>>>>>> alive from
>>>>>>

>>>>>> A benefit can *only* occur to some entity that already exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> to be termed a benefit for me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Allow me to ask a couple of questions:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am *I* impeded when I die? What benefit do I lose when I die?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every one that
>>>>>>

>>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which benefits do you want people to think you're somehow going
>>>>> to retain
>>>>

>>>> A benefit only pertains to a state of existence. Existence is not a
>>>> benefit.
>>>

>>> Try to explain WHAT you want people to think is preventing being
>>> alive from
>>

>> Done.

>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> On what basis
>>>>>>>> do you make this comparision?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I base it on the fact that you can no longer benefit from
>>>>>>> anything you
>>>>>>> benefit from when you're alive, after you're no longer alive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At what point to benefits begin to accrue to me?
>>>>>>>> When sperm first meets egg?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, even though you weren't aware of it.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> No. The egg and the sperm have no experiential reality - they
>>>>>> have no
>>>>>> welfare.
>>>>>
>>>>> What if they did
>>>>
>>>> They don't. Therefore, nothing can be a benefit to them.
>>>

>>> What difference do you think you want people to believe
>>

>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, *Goo*.
>

> What difference do you think you want people to believe

[dh]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:37:43 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:25:02 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:50:38 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>wrote:
>>

>>>In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 23:06:24 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:01:50 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In alt.atheism Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/4/2013 1:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>>>>>>>>> dh pointed out

>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> dh challeged:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, dh pointed out:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Goo

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>>>>>>>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>>>>>>>>>>> from my existence.
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well.
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existance. I have to *exist*

>>>>>>>>> first, before I can accrue the benefit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Exactly. A benefit is defined as something that improves the welfare of
>>>>>>>> an experiential entity. Existence doesn't do that; it establishes the
>>>>>>>> welfare.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He seems to be conflating "enjoying existing" with "benefitting from existing".
>>>>>>>Do I *enjoy* my existance? Sure.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> You need to say WHAT you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>>>> benefitting from it, since so far you certainly clearly appear to be.
>>>>>

>>>>>Benefit is a comparative word:
>>>> _________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>>If I don't exist, my wellbeing is not enhanced, since there is no "me" to
>>>>>have an enhancement. "I" can't have any benefits until "I" exist.
>>>>
>>>> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being alive from
>>>> being to your advantage NOW. Go:
>>>
>>>That sentence doesn't parse.
>>

>> It's a challeng to Goo to try telling people what he wants them to think,
>>but he can't do it. Maybe you can help him try?
>

>No. It's gibberish.

It's a challenge that you can't even attempt to meet Goober, though
sometimes you amusingly try to get people to believe that you've met it more
than once. The most amusing part of that is that you can't provide a single
example of you ever having tried to do it, Goo.

[dh]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:46:12 -0700, Goo kept lying:

>On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:32:54 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Apr 2013, Goo wussed horribly because he's lying:
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:40:19 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 16:45:53 -0700, Goo lied:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 17:37:52 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 15:21:39 -0700, Goo wussed on:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:10:13 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 15:41:18 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:32:50 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:46:53 -0700, Goo lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 15:38:12 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:14:37 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, dh quoted Goo:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing - proved." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience life" instead of never existing" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "animals' "getting to experience life" is nonsense." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than never to live at all." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared with never existing." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared with

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "according to me, existence is not a benefit - ever." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "*NO* right-thinking person attempts to "balance" the death with some

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit about the animal's "getting to experience life."" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> You're lying about any of them not being quotes Goob. Since they are all
>>>>>>>>>>>>your quotes, I'm curious how you picked the ones to lie about that you decided
>>>>>>>>>>>>lie about. Is it just that you feel you always have to lie in every post you
>>>>>>>>>>>>make or what, Goo?
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>No. Some of them are not quotes.
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> That's a blatant lie Goo.

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You part-quoted me and removed
>>>>>>>>>>>context.
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> If you want people to think you disagree with any of them then YOU have to
>>>>>>>>>>try to say which one Gootsy, and HOW.
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>Even so, some of them still contain true statements.
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Goober you agree with yourself about every one of them. You prove it by not
>>>>>>>>>>being able to say how you want people to think you disagree with yourself about
>>>>>>>>>>a single one of them, Goo.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> YOU DO agree with yourself about every one of your quotes I presented and
>>>>>>>>everyone knows it Goob. We know it because you have proven it consistently, Goo.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Of course I agree with myself, *Goo*. But I *don't* agree with many of
>>>>>>>your mangled part quotes that are saying something opposite to what I said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't present any examples of me quoting you saying something you

>>>>>>disagree with Goob. I've given you countless chances to try but you haven't been
>>>>>>able to present a single example of what you want people to think you think
>>>>>>you're trying to talk about, Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes
>>>>
>>>> Try presenting them now you inept Goober or it will be more proof that
>>>>you're lying. Go:
>>>

>>>Go look them up.
>>

>> You being unable to present them is more proof that you're lying, Goo.
>

>I've pre

You're lying Goo.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/16/2013 1:50 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 4/15/2013 3:06 PM, BruceS wrote:

:> On 04/15/2013 03:39 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 4/15/2013 2:26 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>
>>>> On 4/12/2013 7:48 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On 4/12/2013 6:42 AM, BruceS wrote:

>>>>>> On 04/11/2013 06:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/11/2013 4:50 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>>>>>>>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing
>>>>>>>> nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>> You obviously don't either, so what do you think you could have
>>>>>>>>> gained by
>>>>>>>>> trying to pretend that you do?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you often go into newsgroups and spout incoherent nonsense?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He *always* goes into newsgroups and spouts incoherent nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is perhaps more surprising is that he usually gets coherent
>>>>>> responses to his incoherent nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Usually, only a few times. Very quickly, most people figure out he's
>>>>> not a serious and reasonable participant, so they just ignore him.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm one of what I'm sure is a

>>>>>> large group, who no longer see Fuckwit's posts except through responses.

>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I think most do that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your argument to him, which you have repeated so very many times, is
>>>>>> without rational opposition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm simply amazed that you continue to have time
>>>>>> and inclination to attempt any sort of discussion with him.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think of it as a combination of beating up a bully - Fuckwit's
>>>>> willful
>>>>> refusal to engage seriously and reasonably with people while attacking
>>>>> their positions is a form of Usenet bullying - and a public service.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone who keeps whacking at him is convinced he knows he lost the
>>>>> debate long ago. As stupid and dull as he is, he can't *not* know it.
>>>>
>>>> Not only is that a lie
>>>
>>> Not a lie.
>>>
>>>
>>>> you can't even say how you want people to
>>>> think I could have lost.
>>>
>>> You lost because I (and others) showed in 1999 that your position is
>>> complete nonsense.
>>
>> I think most rational people could see that "existence is a benefit to
>> that which exists" is complete nonsense without your having pointed it
>> out.
>
> He and now you need to point out WHAT you want people to think is preventing

No. That's done.

>> Now I won't say that the existence of one thing cannot be a

>> benefit (or at least *of* benefit) to another thing, because that would

>> also be nonsense. For instance, bacon. The existence of pigs is not
>> any sort of benefit to the pigs themselves
>
> To some it is and to some it's not.

Their own existence isn't a benefit to *any* pigs, Fuckwit.

>> (though the existence of one
>> pig could benefit another pig),
>
> If so that would make their existence a benefit to themselves as well.

No.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/16/2013 1:53 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>> animals, those billions of animal lives would be "prevented", which in

>> Fuckwit's claimed view would be a bad thing.
>
> A person doesn't have to consider it "bad" that we don't raise porcupines
> for food,

You don't give a damn about animals "getting to experience life", Fuckwit:

It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999

I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
to make the effort.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - July 31, 2003

>> Fuckwit assigns some kind of value to animals "getting to experience
>> life" that no one else does. In fact, there is no value to it.
>
> It certainly has every bit as much or more than the aspect of their deaths

No, it has no value at all.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/16/2013 1:56 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 4/15/2013 2:37 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 4/15/2013 2:25 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>

>>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:50:38 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>

>>>> In alt.atheism Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate

>>>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing
>>>> nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 23:06:24 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> In alt.atheism Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate

>>>>>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing
>>>>>> nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:01:50 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton, CBE, wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/4/2013 1:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and
>>>>>>>>>> convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>>>>>>>>>> but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>>>>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker
>>>>>>>>>>>> and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing
>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton, CBE, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* -

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "benefit" to an animal versus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precedes essence, you can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or "is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>> *I* don't benefit
>>>>>>>>>>>> from my existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You certainly seem to,
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existence. I

>>>>>>>>>> have to *exist*
>>>>>>>>>> first, before I can accrue the benefit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Exactly. A benefit is defined as something that improves the
>>>>>>>>> welfare of
>>>>>>>>> an experiential entity. Existence doesn't do that; it
>>>>>>>>> establishes the
>>>>>>>>> welfare.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He seems to be conflating "enjoying existing" with "benefitting
>>>>>>>> from existing".
>>>>>>>> Do I *enjoy* my existance? Sure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You need to say WHAT you want people to
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Benefit is a comparative word:
>>>>> _________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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

>>>>> ���������������������������������������������������������

>>>>>> If I don't exist, my wellbeing is not enhanced, since there is no
>>>>>> "me" to
>>>>>> have an enhancement. "I" can't have any benefits until "I" exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being
>>>>> alive from
>>>>> being to your advantage NOW. Go:
>>>>
>>>> That sentence doesn't parse.
>>>
>>> It's a challeng
>>

>> No. It's gibberish.
>
> It's a challenge that

It's not a challenge. It's cracker gibberish.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/16/2013 1:58 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 11:14 AM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 4/2/2013
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:43 AM,

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal versus

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing - proved." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience life" instead of never existing" - Prof. Geo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plimpton,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CBE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "animals' "getting to experience life" is nonsense." - Prof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." -

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than never to live at all." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared with never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared with

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "according to me, existence is not a benefit - ever." - Prof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "*NO* right-thinking person attempts to "balance" the death
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit about the animal's "getting to experience life."" -

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're lying about any of them not being quotes
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> No. Some of them are not quotes. You part-quoted me and
>>>>>>>>>>>> removed
>>>>>>>>>>>> context. Even so, some of them still contain true statements.

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's a blatant lie
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Not a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You part-quoted me and removedcontext.
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> If you want people to think you
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> You removed context and part quoted. They're not quotes.
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> YOU DO agree with yourself
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Of course I agree with myself, *Goo*. But I *don't* agree with
>>>>>>>> many of
>>>>>>>> your mangled part quotes that are saying something opposite to
>>>>>>>> what I
>>>>>>>> said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can't present any examples of me quoting you saying
>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> disagree with
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Yes, and I have presented them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try presenting them now
>>>>

>>>> Go look them up.
>>>
>>> You being unable to present them
>>

>> I've presented them. Go look them up.
>
> You're lying

No, *Goo*. I've presented your mangled part quotes. So has Derek.

[BruceS]

On 04/16/2013 11:53 AM, BruceS wrote:
<snip>

> This parallels arguments about my favorite
> e-local loon. Some claim that he knows he's delusional, insane,
> completely without any special "powers", and living in abject poverty.
> Others believe that he believes his delusions. I'm uncertain. Each
> day, I expect to see that he's returned to these groups, pretending that
> his last exit never happened, and presenting a new delusion. Until
> then, I guess I'll sift the dregs that are Fdh's mumbles.

Speak of the devil, and he shall appear. The loon in question has just,
for the first time in weeks, posted again to another of his groups. It
appears that he is as yet too shy to appear in sci.skeptic, but it's
just a matter of time. Now, to coax the quarry into the open, and hope
the call doesn't frighten him back into his hidey-hole...

[BruceS]

If you're asking if the loon in question is know as The Borg, then no,
and I don't know who that would be. I'm speaking of the self-claimed
possessor of multiple magical personalities, with many magical powers,
including the ability to effectively guess the throw of a fair die once
out of six times, or the toss of a fair coin half the time. He can
prove that Cantor was wrong, to the complete satisfaction of everyone
except other people. His wealth is incredible, literally. And he's
"saving himself" for someone who went to the trouble of taking out a
restraining order against him, but that's everyone's fault but his own.
Stay tuned, and you may get to see a full-on caps-lock f-bombing from
him soon.

If you're asking if his new delusion will be that he's The Borg, or the
inspiration for The Borg (not a far stretch for him), or in charge of
The Borg, then we'll just have to wait and see. I'm actually hoping,
with little confidence, that he's been under professional treatment, and
will demonstrate a better grasp of reality than he has to date.

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:53:41 -0600, BruceS <bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote

in alt.atheism:

>On 04/15/2013 10:55 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 4/15/2013 4:19 PM, BruceS wrote:
><with snippage>
>>> If I could get bacon that really *tasted* like the pig variety, and had
>>> the same wonderful texture as good bacon, but was made from some sort of
>>> vegetable, I'd probably eat it. So far, the best we have is "turkey
>>> bacon", which tastes nasty and still comes from an animal.
>>
>> I've never eaten any fake meat, e.g. "tofurkey", etc. If someone wants
>> to sell a vegetable product as a vegetarian substitute for meat, fine;
>> but trying to dress up processed vegetable matter *as* meat is
>> invariably going to fail. I ate some tasty black bean patties today for
>> lunch that were just presented as black bean patties, not as some kind
>> of pseudo-meat. They were really good.
>
>Now *that* I can go for. I've had portobello mushroom sandwiches that
>were very tasty in their own right (and would expect similar of been
>patties), rather than pretending to be hamburger. I enjoy tofu as tofu,
>not as faux chicken.

I thought that chicken was faux tofu.

[Derek]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:41:45 -0600, BruceS <bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 04/16/2013 12:10 PM, Derek wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:53:41 -0600, BruceS <bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[]

>>> This parallels arguments about my favorite
>>> e-local loon. Some claim that he knows he's delusional, insane,
>>> completely without any special "powers", and living in abject poverty.
>>> Others believe that he believes his delusions. I'm uncertain. Each
>>> day, I expect to see that he's returned to these groups, pretending that
>>> his last exit never happened, and presenting a new delusion.
>>
>> The Borg?
>
>If you're asking if the loon in question is know as The Borg, then no,
>and I don't know who that would be.

The Borg used to be a regular in alt.philosophy for years and
disappeared quite a while ago, leaving some of the bemused regulars
there wondering whether she was a troll or a lunatic who genuinely
believed her own delusion and will return one day as if nothing happened
to make her leave in the first place, as has happened so many times
before, similar to the person you describe above.

>I'm speaking of the self-claimed
>possessor of multiple magical personalities, with many magical powers,
>including the ability to effectively guess the throw of a fair die once
>out of six times, or the toss of a fair coin half the time. He can
>prove that Cantor was wrong, to the complete satisfaction of everyone
>except other people. His wealth is incredible, literally. And he's
>"saving himself" for someone who went to the trouble of taking out a
>restraining order against him, but that's everyone's fault but his own.
> Stay tuned, and you may get to see a full-on caps-lock f-bombing from
>him soon.

Okay.

>If you're asking if his new delusion will be that he's The Borg, or the
>inspiration for The Borg (not a far stretch for him), or in charge of
>The Borg, then we'll just have to wait and see.

No, I think I made a mistake now that you've described your idiot more
fully.

>I'm actually hoping,
>with little confidence, that he's been under professional treatment, and
>will demonstrate a better grasp of reality than he has to date.

I doubt that that will happen if he's anything like David Harrison dh@ .
If there's one thing I've learned from Harrison, it's that Usenet holds
a different reality for some people. He shows that, for some people,
Usenet becomes a place where rational thinking and being honest about
one's reality outside it gets pushed into the background if it
interferes with their participation in it. Participating is all that
matters to them, even if it means bending the reality of what they're
participating in.

Unfortunately for Harrison, the reality is that Usenet is a place where
thinking people plainly see when a view or long-held position has been
lost or found to be accepted as true. Now, Harrison's views, all of
them, have been beaten into the ground for over fourteen years here on
a.a.e.v., and at least one hundred years before that by a British
philosopher named Salt. Harrison, undeterred, continues by changing the
reality of Usenet into a place where everyone participating suffers from
amnesia and can't recall the last time when his position was defeated,
even if it was just five minutes ago.

[BruceS]

On 04/16/2013 05:43 PM, Derek wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:41:45 -0600, BruceS <bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 04/16/2013 12:10 PM, Derek wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:53:41 -0600, BruceS <bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> []
>>>> This parallels arguments about my favorite
>>>> e-local loon. Some claim that he knows he's delusional, insane,
>>>> completely without any special "powers", and living in abject poverty.
>>>> Others believe that he believes his delusions. I'm uncertain. Each
>>>> day, I expect to see that he's returned to these groups, pretending that
>>>> his last exit never happened, and presenting a new delusion.
>>>
>>> The Borg?
>>
>> If you're asking if the loon in question is know as The Borg, then no,
>> and I don't know who that would be.
>
> The Borg used to be a regular in alt.philosophy for years and
> disappeared quite a while ago, leaving some of the bemused regulars
> there wondering whether she was a troll or a lunatic who genuinely
> believed her own delusion and will return one day as if nothing happened
> to make her leave in the first place, as has happened so many times
> before, similar to the person you describe above.

It sounds like I missed yet another amusing lunatic. That's bad news.
The good news is that there is no shortage of them on Usenet.

LOL, that sounds about right for him. I killfiled him long ago, after
having decided that his lunacy was even more single-tracked and boring
than Artie's. The person I was describing, however, has a wealth of
delusions and modes, and can be quite entertaining. As it turns out, it
appears that this time around, he's avoiding sci.skeptic (and aus.tv,
which used to be his only real home), and is instead posting in
rec.org.mensa and some others. He also seems to be (so far) avoiding
his themes of
-I'm able to read people's minds
-I'm the son of God
-I'm Adam of the Bible
-I'm Truman of the Truman Show
-The CIA and others have satellites and helicopters beaming thoughts
into my brain
-the local radio station reads my mind and plays all my thoughts
-I make the clouds form interesting shapes
-I own a porn empire (though they know nothing of me)
-I'm incredibly rich, though I live in a shed in the woods
-The Australian government is all set against me (he's Aussie)
and probably a few others that escape me at the moment. Instead, he's
just blathering on a bit about math, where he's been trounced time and
again. He seems a bit upset that I'm talking to him.

If you want a laugh or two, read up on Graham Cooper. He gets into
trouble with the law from time to time, for minor things like stalking
some poor woman (he claims she's the Eve to his Adam), to threatening to
put poison in supermarket food.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 23:12:42 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
> wrote:
>
>>In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 20:55:43 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>

>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>>In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Goo

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>>>>>>>really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>>>>>benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>>>>>

>>>>>>I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>>>>>>from my existence.
>>>>>

>>>>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well.
>>>>

>>>>No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existance. I have to *exist*

>>>>first, before I can accrue the benefit.
>>>

>>> Existence of course is one of the benefits that make all others possible. So
>>> is life.
>>
>>OK, so we can, in theory, provide an exact count on the number of things that
>>"benefit" from existance. What's the count of the number of things that do not
>>have this "benefit"?
>>
>>Let's quantify the harm in non-existance, shall we?
>
> Just as I see advantage in existence, I see no "harm" in non-existance.

You can't have it both ways. In order for existance to be an advantage, then
non-existance has to be a disadvantage.

> What
> do you want us to pretend that has to do with anything if anything, do you have
> any idea about that?

Yes, my idea is you're desperately flapping around, trying to deal with the
logical inconsistency you've created for yourself, and both George, and I, are
handing you your ass on a silver platter, and you really don't like the
feeling.

>>>>> WHAT do you
>>>>> want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do you want them to
>>>>> think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to believe it?
>>>>
>>>>Because if *I* did not exist, *I* would not be injured, as *I* would not have
>>>>existed to BE injured.
>>>
>>> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is preventing you from
>>> benefitting from your existence NOW?
>>
>>That *I* will not exist eventually to suffer a loss of benefits. Thats what.

>
> HOW do you want people to think

Differently from you, i.e. logically.

> anything about your pre-existence or/and
> post-existence is preventing being alive from being to your advantage NOW?

I have all kinds of advantages and disadvantages NOW, because I *AM* alive at
this point. But compared to when I wasn't, or will not be, I didn't, or won't
exist then.

Existance itself is NOT an advantage; existance simply *is*.

--
sbalneav | Frustra fit per plura quod potest
a.a #2171 | fieri per pauciora.
alt-atheism.org | -- William of Occam. (c. 1323)

[George Plimpton]

*Exactly* right. That's just what he's trying to do, and in fact, he's
even lying, because he *does* see harm in non-existence - specifically,
in never getting to exist.

Here is Fuckwit David Harrison's 14-year-old discredited bullshit in a
nutshell. It's how he thinks he has shown "animal rights activists" to
be doing something "bad":

1. Most humans eat meat. They breed livestock animals - billions of them -
into existence to satisfy the demand for meat. These animals would not
otherwise exist.

2. "Animal rights activists" ('aras') want to persuade - or compel -
people
to stop eating meat. If they succeed in that effort, especially if
it's compulsory, countless animals - billions in any given year - will
never exist and "get to experience life" (that's Fuckwit's phrase.)

3. Fuckwit believes this is a morally bad thing for 'aras' to want to do.

Here's a number of things Fuckwit has said over the years that prove,
beyond rational dispute, that he believes exactly what I have said he
believes:

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Fuckwit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Fuckwit - 10/19/1999


About that first one - that animals that might have existed but never do
due to a change in human consumption habits - Fuckwit claimed that he
couldn't possibly believe that because, as he put it, he claimed the
not-yet-existing animals are "just 'nothing'" until they exist, and he,
Fuckwit, couldn't be so stupid and illogical as to believe that
"nothing" could suffer a loss. But of course, he was lying and is still
lying about it - he believes the animals that might exist, and /will/
exist if humans keep eating them, are a morally considerable "something":

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999

> In order for existance to be an advantage, then
> non-existance has to be a disadvantage.

Specifically, never existing is what Fuckwit necessarily has to view as
a disadvantage, and that's exactly what he believes; necessarily, he is
lying when he says he doesn't see never existing as a disadvantage to
livestock animals that might have existed. In fact, Fuckwit thinks it's
"unfair" to the animals that might have existed if they never do; see
the last quote of the first three above.

>> What do you want us to pretend that has to do with anything if anything,
>> do you have any idea about that?

By the way, this run-on construction with an incorrectly used comma is
one of Fuckwit's favorites.

>
> Yes, my idea is you're desperately flapping around, trying to deal with the
> logical inconsistency you've created for yourself, and both George, and I, are
> handing you your ass on a silver platter, and you really don't like the
> feeling.

He knows he's defeated, too. He's known it since the summer of 1999.

>>>>>> WHAT do you
>>>>>> want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do you want them to
>>>>>> think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to believe it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because if *I* did not exist, *I* would not be injured, as *I* would not have
>>>>> existed to BE injured.
>>>>
>>>> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>> benefitting from your existence NOW?
>>>
>>> That *I* will not exist eventually to suffer a loss of benefits. Thats what.
>>
>> HOW do you want people to think
>
> Differently from you, i.e. logically.

LOL! Good one!

>> anything about your pre-existence or/and
>> post-existence is preventing being alive from being to your advantage NOW?
>
> I have all kinds of advantages and disadvantages NOW, because I *AM* alive at
> this point. But compared to when I wasn't, or will not be, I didn't, or won't
> exist then.
>
> Existance itself is NOT an advantage; existance simply *is*.

Existence (of a welfare-bearing entity) is a condition for receiving
benefits. It is not - *cannot* be - a benefit itself.