Existence is not a benefit

[George Plimpton]

Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage
to an entity, compared with never existing. A benefit or advantage is a
feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the benefit
or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity. Benefit
and advantage only pertain to different states of existence. Existence
itself is not a benefit or advantage.

This is settled.

[sbalneav]

Yes.

> This is settled.

Agreed.

--
sbalneav | The road uphill and the road downhill
a.a #2171 | are one and the same.
alt-atheism.org | -- Heraclitus

[M Purcell]

The existence of food is very beneficial.

> This is settled.

Say no more.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/10/2013 8:47 AM, Rupert wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 5:18:18 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton wrote:
>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage
>>
>> to an entity, compared with never existing. A benefit or advantage is a
>>
>> feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the benefit
>>
>> or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity. Benefit
>>
>> and advantage only pertain to different states of existence. Existence
>>
>> itself is not a benefit or advantage.
>>
>>
>>

>> This is settled.
>
> So what purpose was achieved by making this post?

Undetermined yet. We'll find out perhaps in this afternoon's Fuckwit
*Goo* David Harrison shit hemorrhage.

[raven1]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:19:11 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

This is piffle.

[George Plimpton]

It's not. It's a succinct explanation of why Fuckwit's entire 14 year
jihad against "vegans" is based on bullshit.

[Ben Kaufman]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:19:11 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

Clearly a benefit to being the jury.

[George Plimpton]

You missed both the presentation of the case and the deliberations.

[@notto.can SpamƁusteᴙ]

On 4/10/2013 12:07 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote:

> Path: not-for-mail
> From: Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.philosophy,sci.skeptic,alt.atheism,alt.education,can.politics
> Subject: Re: Existence is not a benefit
> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:07:35 -0400
> Message-ID: <l0ebm896gjp7fqu12...@4ax.com>
> References: <c02dc$5165823a$414e828e$26...@EVERESTKC.NET>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 12
> Organization: Optimum Online
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.202.122
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@cv.net
> X-Received-Bytes: 1447
> Xref: Hurricane alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:176715 alt.philosophy:856710 sci.skeptic:407866 alt.atheism:5078789 alt.education:228715 can.politics:1461739

--

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

[@notto.can SpamƁusteᴙ]

On 4/10/2013 8:45 AM, M Purcell wrote:

> X-Received: by 10.224.160.65 with SMTP id m1mr1745965qax.2.1365608740223;
> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-Received: by 10.182.190.4 with SMTP id gm4mr75031obc.36.1365608739887; Wed,
> 10 Apr 2013 08:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
> Path: not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: alt.philosophy,sci.skeptic,alt.atheism,alt.education,can.politics
> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
> Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> Injection-Info: sq2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.2.41.221; posting-account=2QqkNgkAAABTvVb9jC5WWXPb4CXoYpHE
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.2.41.221
> References: <c02dc$5165823a$414e828e$26...@EVERESTKC.NET>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.0; Trident/5.0),gzip(gfe)
> Message-ID: <c81309c7-fbd7-42df...@sq2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>

> Subject: Re: Existence is not a benefit

> From: M Purcell <sacs...@aol.com>
> Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:45:40 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Received-Bytes: 1780
> Xref: Hurricane alt.philosophy:856693 sci.skeptic:407859 alt.atheism:5078707 alt.education:228711 can.politics:1461725

[@notto.can SpamƁusteᴙ]

On 4/10/2013 12:24 PM, Clyde Armstrong wrote:

> X-Received: by 10.224.207.2 with SMTP id
fw2mr2148208qab.6.1365621855973;
> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
> X-Received: by 10.182.104.228 with SMTP id gh4mr94722obb.27.1365621855826;
> Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
> Path: not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: can.politics
> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
> In-Reply-To: <c02dc$5165823a$414e828e$26...@EVERESTKC.NET>
> Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=99.228.11.26; posting-account=10zs-AoAAACY9Bwq5AwQq_9ru9IiY5nd
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 99.228.11.26
> References: <c02dc$5165823a$414e828e$26...@EVERESTKC.NET>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Message-ID: <b2cac7d9-3461-456c...@googlegroups.com>

> Subject: Re: Existence is not a benefit

> From: Clyde Armstrong <clay...@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 19:24:15 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> X-Received-Bytes: 1713
> Xref: Hurricane can.politics:1461743

[Ben Kaufman]

Have you considered existence of non-living entities, such as sentient
artificial intelligence programs that don't get to experience life?

Ben

[George Plimpton]

No such thing - yet. There is a lot of turgid blabber about it, but the
phenomenon doesn't exist.

[Ben Kaufman]

So you've done an exhaustive amount of research into this field?

[dh]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:42:43 -0400, raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:19:11 -0700, Goo

>wrote:
>
>>Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage
>>to an entity, compared with never existing. A benefit or advantage is a
>>feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the benefit
>>or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity. Benefit
>>and advantage only pertain to different states of existence. Existence
>>itself is not a benefit or advantage.
>>
>>This is settled.
>
>This is piffle.

Not as much as it might seem on the surface. People who use the gross
mi$nomer "animal rights" to conceal their true objective toward domestic animals
really want to bring about their elimination, NOT provide them with rights or
anything at all. Those type people are better referred to as eliminationists, or
misnomer advocates/addicts...

It can be argued that providing millions of animals with decent lives of
positive value to the animals, including animals raised for food, can be
considered ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of all domestic
animals. THAT is what Goo is really opposing. Goo has spent over a decade trying
to encourage acceptance of the elimination objective, and insisting that living
is not a benefit is one of the ways he tries to do it.

[dh]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 06:27:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:28:18 PM UTC+2, Ben Kaufman wrote:

>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 22:19:29 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 4/10/2013 5:51 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote:
>>

>> >> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:10:41 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>> On 4/10/2013 12:07 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote:
>>

>> >>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:19:11 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >>>>
>>
>> >>>>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage
>>
>> >>>>> to an entity, compared with never existing. A benefit or advantage is a
>>
>> >>>>> feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the benefit
>>
>> >>>>> or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity. Benefit
>>
>> >>>>> and advantage only pertain to different states of existence. Existence
>>
>> >>>>> itself is not a benefit or advantage.
>>
>> >>>>>
>>
>> >>>>> This is settled.
>>
>> >>>>
>>
>> >>>> Clearly a benefit to being the jury.
>>
>> >>>
>>
>> >>> You missed both the presentation of the case and the deliberations.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Have you considered existence of non-living entities, such as sentient
>>
>> >> artificial intelligence programs that don't get to experience life?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >No such thing - yet. There is a lot of turgid blabber about it, but the
>>
>> >phenomenon doesn't exist.
>>
>>
>>
>> So you've done an exhaustive amount of research into this field?
>

>I think that you'll find that what he said is the consensus view.

You still need to try explaining what you want people to think prevents
being alive from being to your advantage. Your piss poor attempts in the past
were useless since you could never explain how you want people to think anything
to do with imaginary nonexistent worlds, is doing anything to prevent it in this
one.

>One organization which is interested in the implications of developing artificial intelligence in the future is the Singularity Institute.

Do they consider whether the experience would be of positive or negative
value to the entity? You couldn't know though since you can't comprehend how
that aspect means anything even in your own life or that of your friends and
loved one, much less for any types of animals, much much less could you for an
entity that wouldn't be alive as we know "life".

[dh]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 20:51:20 -0400, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:10:41 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>>On 4/10/2013 12:07 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote:

>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:19:11 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage
>>>> to an entity, compared with never existing. A benefit or advantage is a
>>>> feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the benefit
>>>> or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity. Benefit
>>>> and advantage only pertain to different states of existence. Existence
>>>> itself is not a benefit or advantage.
>>>>
>>>> This is settled.
>>>
>>> Clearly a benefit to being the jury.
>>
>>You missed both the presentation of the case and the deliberations.
>
>Have you considered existence of non-living entities, such as sentient
>artificial intelligence programs that don't get to experience life?

Goo doesn't even consider beings that DO exist. Experiencing life certainly
appears to be a benefit since after losing that benefit nothing can benefit from
anything else. For that reason it really couldn't be any more apparent that Goo
is lying even if he's not. IF he were not, he would either:

1. be able to tell us exactly WHAT he wants people to think is preventing life
from being a benefit, and HOW he wants us to think whatever it is is doing so.

and/or

2. be able to tell us HOW he wants people to think beings can continue to
benefit after losing the apparent benefit of being alive.

Goo and his boys have been making their claim for years because it works in
favor of the elimination objective, BUT!, between the four of them (Goo,
"Dutch", Derek, Rupert) they have never been able to answer the above questions.
As long as they remain unable to it will remain clear and apparent not only that
Goo is lying about this, but also that the stupid Googoots doesn't have any idea
at all what he wants people to think he's trying to talk about to the extent
that he can't even try to pretend that he does. That is Goo's usual position,
afaik.

[dh]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 5:18:18 PM UTC+2, Goo wrote:
>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage
>>
>> to an entity, compared with never existing. A benefit or advantage is a
>>
>> feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the benefit
>>
>> or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity. Benefit
>>
>> and advantage only pertain to different states of existence. Existence
>>
>> itself is not a benefit or advantage.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is settled.
>

>So what purpose was achieved by making this post?

Goo wants to reassure everyone that there's nothing wrong with the
elimination objective, and this is one of the ways he's trying to do it. Duh.

[dh]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:19:11 -0700, the Googoots wrote:

>Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage
>to an entity, compared with never existing.

Tell us how you want people to think you could possibly have found out what
never existing is like in order to make your comparison Goo. Go:

>A benefit or advantage is a
>feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the benefit
>or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity. Benefit
>and advantage only pertain to different states of existence.

Try to explain how you want people to think that prevents being alive from
being to your extremely stupid existence now Goober. 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 4/10/2013 8:19 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage

>> to an entity, compared with never existing. A benefit or advantage is a

>> feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the benefit
>> or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity. Benefit

>> and advantage only pertain to different states of existence. Existence
>> itself is not a benefit or advantage.
>>
>> This is settled.

>
> Tell us how you want people to think you could possibly have found out

Through analyzing the definition of benefit and clearly understanding
the logic.

[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 Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>

>> On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 5:18:18 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton, OBE, wrote:
>>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage
>>>
>>> to an entity, compared with never existing. A benefit or advantage is a
>>>
>>> feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the benefit
>>>
>>> or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity. Benefit
>>>
>>> and advantage only pertain to different states of existence. Existence
>>>
>>> itself is not a benefit or advantage.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is settled.
>>
>> So what purpose was achieved by making this post?
>

> George wants to reassure everyone that there's nothing wrong with the
> elimination objective

No such objective. What I want to do is remind everyone that your
rationale for opposing "ar" is bullshit.

[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 Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:42:43 -0400, raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>

>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:19:11 -0700, George Plimpton, OBE, wrote:
>>
>>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage
>>> to an entity, compared with never existing. A benefit or advantage is a
>>> feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the benefit
>>> or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity. Benefit
>>> and advantage only pertain to different states of existence. Existence
>>> itself is not a benefit or advantage.
>>>
>>> This is settled.
>>
>> This is piffle.
>
> Not as much as

It isn't at all.

> It can be argued that providing millions of animals with decent lives of
> positive value to the animals

Meaningless.

[Ben Kaufman]

I think that Plimpton is correct in what he meant to say, but stating "entity"
as opposed to "living entity" opened the door to investigate the ramifications
of artificial intelligence, where experiencing life is no longer an intrinsic
property of existence.

Ben

[George Plimpton]

On 4/12/2013 7:54 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:41:04 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 20:51:20 -0400, Ben Kaufman
>> <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:10:41 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/10/2013 12:07 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:19:11 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage
>>>>>> to an entity, compared with never existing. A benefit or advantage is a
>>>>>> feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the benefit
>>>>>> or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity. Benefit
>>>>>> and advantage only pertain to different states of existence. Existence
>>>>>> itself is not a benefit or advantage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is settled.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly a benefit to being the jury.
>>>>
>>>> You missed both the presentation of the case and the deliberations.
>>>
>>> Have you considered existence of non-living entities, such as sentient
>>> artificial intelligence programs that don't get to experience life?
>>
>> Goo doesn't even consider beings that DO exist. Experiencing life certainly
>> appears to be a benefit since after losing that benefit nothing can benefit from
>> anything else. For that reason it really couldn't be any more apparent that Goo
>> is lying even if he's not. IF he were not, he would either:
>>
>> 1. be able to tell us exactly WHAT he wants people to think is preventing life
>>from being a benefit,

I've told you. A benefit is something that improves an entity's
welfare, and can *only* accrue to an existing entity with a welfare
subject to change. Existence - "getting to experience life", in your
wretched cracker way of writing - is not a benefit because it doesn't
improve an entity's welfare - it establishes it.

>> and/or
>>
>> 2. be able to tell us HOW he wants people to think beings can continue to
>> benefit after losing the apparent benefit of being alive.

I never said anything about that.

>> Goo and his boys have been making their claim for years because it works in
>> favor of the elimination objective, BUT!, between the four of them (Goo,
>> "Dutch", Derek, Rupert) they have never been able to answer the above questions.
>> As long as they remain unable to it will remain clear and apparent not only that
>> Goo is lying about this, but also that the stupid Googoots doesn't have any idea
>> at all what he wants people to think he's trying to talk about to the extent
>> that he can't even try to pretend that he does. That is Goo's usual position,
>> afaik.
>
> I think that Plimpton is correct in what he meant to say, but stating "entity"
> as opposed to "living entity" opened the door to investigate the ramifications
> of artificial intelligence, where experiencing life is no longer an intrinsic
> property of existence.

Fuckwit Harrison has been trying this same failed tack for 14 years.
His silly cracker complaint is that "animal rights activists" ('aras')
seek to deny the "benefit" of existence to livestock animals, and they
are thereby committing an immoral harm to livestock animals that don't
exist.

1. 'aras' want people not to eat meat.
2. If people don't eat meat, there will be no demand for livestock animals,
and so they'll no longer be bred - in practice, livestock animals
will cease to exist.
3. Countless livestock animals who would have existed will never exist,
and so will never "get to experience life."
4. People who fail or refuse to assign moral weight to the missing
"experiences of life" are doing something bad and wrong.

It's pure fuckwittery. It was demolished long ago, but Fuckwit, an
uneducated, low-time-value idiot and animal abuser living in Buford, GA
- figures - has nothing better to do with his time than be a trolling
asshole, so he keeps at it. In fact, he knows he's only trolling. He
has admitted it:

I see stuff like it all the time, and in real life I often can't
make a big deal about stupid things that have a negative influence
on me, whether I have a good point about it or not. But in these
ngs I can point things out, and tough shit if the other guy doesn't
like it. So these places are a place to take out frustration.

Fuckwit David Harrison 25 May 2009 http://tinyurl.com/ye6zsv8


He's only taking out a "frustration" he feels at "aras" for their moral
condemnation of him for killing animals. He can't say what's wrong with
their position - I can and do, but Fuckwit can't - so instead he just
trolls and spouts bullshit.

[M Purcell]

That seems an excessive use of a strawman, I'm sure Harrison is
capable of speaking for himself. Your argument excludes the humane
treatment of livestock and the frequent killing of people by other
people. And with no regard to the validity of other people's dietary
choices, you also seem to exclude humanity along with the existence of
non-living things. Since most people would prefer life to death they
obviously find it beneficial, and your very obsession with your
argument would tend to dissuade other people of it's validity.

[George Plimpton]

It's not a "strawman" [sic]. I have described Fuckwit's yarn in
painstaking detail and accuracy.

> I'm sure Harrison is capable of speaking for himself.

Not articulately.

> Your argument excludes the humane
> treatment of livestock and the frequent killing of people by other
> people.

It excludes those because they have nothing to do with Fuckwit's yarn.


> And with no regard to the validity [sic] of other people's dietary
> choices,

What kind of "regard" do I need to have to the "validity" [sic] of other
people's dietary choices? In any case, it's not part of the discussion
at all.

> you also seem to exclude humanity along with the existence of
> non-living things. Since most people would prefer life to death they
> obviously find it beneficial, and your very obsession with your
> argument would tend to dissuade other people of it's validity.

You are clearly inarticulate and only semi-literate.

The issue is *not* about an existing person preferring life to death.
The issue is whether it is a "benefit" for a person to exist versus
never existing. It isn't - it cannot be. A benefit is something that
improves the welfare of an entity that has an experiential reality:
improves it in comparison with an alternate state of *existence*. But
existence doesn't do that.

[@notto.can SpamƁusteᴙ]

On 4/10/2013 5:51 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote:

Path: not-for-mail
From: Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.philosophy,sci.skeptic,alt.atheism,alt.education,can.politics

Subject: Re: Existence is not a benefit

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 20:51:20 -0400
Message-ID: <mo0cm8tonomv155qe...@4ax.com>
References: <c02dc$5165823a$414e828e$26...@EVERESTKC.NET>
<l0ebm896gjp7fqu12...@4ax.com>
<7d093$5165b87a$414e828e$16...@EVERESTKC.NET>

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Lines: 22
Organization: Optimum Online
X-Complaints-To: ab...@cv.net
X-Received-Bytes: 1862
Xref: Hurricane alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:176721
alt.philosophy:856762 sci.skeptic:407876 alt.atheism:5079045
alt.education:228723 can.politics:1461783

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

[@notto.can SpamƁusteᴙ]

On 4/12/2013 7:54 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote:

[@notto.can SpamƁusteᴙ]

On 4/11/2013 5:28 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote:


Path: not-for-mail
From: Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.philosophy,sci.skeptic,alt.atheism,alt.education,can.politics
Subject: Re: Existence is not a benefit

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:28:18 -0400
Message-ID: <d2bdm81fccp0cje1f...@4ax.com>
References: <c02dc$5165823a$414e828e$26...@EVERESTKC.NET>
<l0ebm896gjp7fqu12...@4ax.com>
<7d093$5165b87a$414e828e$16...@EVERESTKC.NET>
<mo0cm8tonomv155qe...@4ax.com>
<9e3c1$516646f1$414e828e$21...@EVERESTKC.NET>

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Lines: 28

Organization: Optimum Online
X-Complaints-To: ab...@cv.net

X-Received-Bytes: 2306
Xref: Hurricane alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:176723
alt.philosophy:856811 sci.skeptic:407887 alt.atheism:5079361
alt.education:228728 can.politics:1461828

[dh]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:54:51 -0400, Ben Kaufman

Then you need to explain exactly WHAT you want people to think is preventing
life from being a benefit and HOW whatever it is is doing so, or HOW you want

people to think beings can continue to benefit after losing the apparent benefit
of being alive.

>but stating "entity"
>as opposed to "living entity" opened the door to investigate the ramifications
>of artificial intelligence, where experiencing life is no longer an intrinsic
>property of existence.

Such a being could benefit from its existence as well even if it's not
alive.

[dh]

You need to tell us WHAT you want people to think is preventing it from
being to your advantage that you're still alive, and HOW you want them to think
whatever it is is preventing it Goots.

>>> and/or
>>>
>>> 2. be able to tell us HOW he wants people to think beings can continue to
>>> benefit after losing the apparent benefit of being alive.
>
>I never said anything about that.

You would still need to be able to tell us IF you were correct, Goo.

>>> Goo and his boys have been making their claim for years because it works in
>>> favor of the elimination objective, BUT!, between the four of them (Goo,
>>> "Dutch", Derek, Rupert) they have never been able to answer the above questions.
>>> As long as they remain unable to it will remain clear and apparent not only that
>>> Goo is lying about this, but also that the stupid Googoots doesn't have any idea
>>> at all what he wants people to think he's trying to talk about to the extent
>>> that he can't even try to pretend that he does. That is Goo's usual position,
>>> afaik.
>>

>> I think that ...[Goo] is correct in what he meant to say, but stating "entity"

>> as opposed to "living entity" opened the door to investigate the ramifications
>> of artificial intelligence, where experiencing life is no longer an intrinsic
>> property of existence.
>
>Fuckwit Harrison has been trying this same failed tack for 14 years.
>His silly cracker complaint is that "animal rights activists" ('aras')
>seek to deny the "benefit" of existence to livestock animals

I point out that they don't want to provide rights or anything at all for
domestic animals Goob, in case some people mistakely believe they really do want
to provide them with rights. There's nothing wrong with pointing that aspect out
Goober, and the fact that you're opposed to seeing it pointed out is yet another
way you and your boys reveal yourselves.

[dh]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:31:32 -0700 (PDT), M Purcell <sacs...@aol.com> wrote:

To people like Goo the quality of life and the value of life to the animals
themselves means nothing at all:

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

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

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

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

"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

>and the frequent killing of people by other
>people. And with no regard to the validity of other people's dietary
>choices, you also seem to exclude humanity along with the existence of
>non-living things. Since most people would prefer life to death they
>obviously find it beneficial, and your very obsession with your
>argument would tend to dissuade other people of it's validity.

People like Goo are desperate that people in general don't learn to
appreciate lives of positive value for domestic animals because doing so works
against the elimination objective. If everyone learned to appreciate them there
would be no more contributions to eliminationist organizations.

[dh]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:33:47 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On 4/12/2013 10:31 AM, M Purcell wrote:
>
>> Your argument excludes the humane
>> treatment of livestock and the frequent killing of people by other
>> people.
>
>It excludes those because they have nothing to do with Fuckwit's yarn.

The value of life for the animals is dependant on their treatment Goob. That
remains true even though you people can't appreciate how because appreciating
things like that work against the elimination objective, Goo.

[dh]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:31:22 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:41:10 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>

>>>On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 5:18:18 PM UTC+2, Goo wrote:
>>>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage
>>>>
>>>> to an entity, compared with never existing. A benefit or advantage is a
>>>>
>>>> feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the benefit
>>>>
>>>> or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity. Benefit
>>>>
>>>> and advantage only pertain to different states of existence. Existence
>>>>
>>>> itself is not a benefit or advantage.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is settled.
>>>
>>>So what purpose was achieved by making this post?
>>

>> Goo wants to reassure everyone that there's nothing wrong with the
>>elimination objective, and this is one of the ways he's trying to do it. Duh.
>

>No such objective.

Which rights do you want people to believe misnomer addicts really do want
to provide for which livestock animals Goob? Why do you want people to think
they lied about wanting to eliminate pets, Goo?

[dh]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:31:21 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:41:15 -0400, dh@. wrote:

>
>>On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:19:11 -0700, the Googoots wrote:
>>
>>>Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage
>>>to an entity, compared with never existing.
>>

>> Tell us how you want people to think you could possibly have found out what
>>never existing is like in order to make your comparison Goo. Go:
>

>Through analyzing the definition of benefit and clearly understanding
>the logic.

You're lying Goober. Nothing you could have done could teach you what never
existing is like, Goo.

>>>A benefit or advantage is a
>>>feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the benefit
>>>or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity. Benefit
>>>and advantage only pertain to different states of existence.
>>

[George Plimpton]

On 4/15/2013 2:14 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 11:33 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 4/12/2013 10:31 AM, M Purcell wrote:

>>> On Apr 12, 9:59 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2013 7:54 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:41:04 -0400, 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, 10 Apr 2013 20:51:20 -0400, Ben Kaufman
>>>>>> <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:10:41 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2013 12:07 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote:

>>> Your argument excludes the humane
>>> treatment of livestock and the frequent killing of people by other
>>> people.
>>
>> It excludes those because they have nothing to do with Fuckwit's yarn.
>
> The value of life for the animals is

The value of "getting to experience life" for animals is zero.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/15/2013 2:13 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, 12 Apr 2013 09:59:44 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On 4/12/2013 7:54 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote:

>>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:41:04 -0400, 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, 10 Apr 2013 20:51:20 -0400, Ben Kaufman
>>>> <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:10:41 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/10/2013 12:07 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote:

>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:19:11 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or
>>>>>>>> advantage
>>>>>>>> to an entity, compared with never existing. A benefit or
>>>>>>>> advantage is a
>>>>>>>> feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the
>>>>>>>> benefit
>>>>>>>> or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity.
>>>>>>>> Benefit
>>>>>>>> and advantage only pertain to different states of existence.
>>>>>>>> Existence
>>>>>>>> itself is not a benefit or advantage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is settled.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clearly a benefit to being the jury.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You missed both the presentation of the case and the deliberations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you considered existence of non-living entities, such as sentient
>>>>> artificial intelligence programs that don't get to experience life?
>>>>

>>>> doesn't even consider beings that DO exist. Experiencing life certainly
>>>> appears to be a benefit since after losing that benefit nothing can
>>>> benefit from anything else. For that reason it really couldn't be any more
>>>> apparent that Goo is lying even if he's not. IF he were not, he would either:
>>>>
>>>> 1. be able to tell us exactly WHAT he wants people to think is
>>>> preventing life
>>>> from being a benefit,
>>

>> I've told you. A benefit is something that improves an entity's
>> welfare, and can *only* accrue to an existing entity with a welfare
>> subject to change. Existence - "getting to experience life", in your
>> wretched cracker way of writing - is not a benefit because it doesn't
>> improve an entity's welfare - it establishes it.
>

> You need to tell us WHAT you want people to think is preventing it

Have done. You know what the answer is. You know it's right.

>>>> and/or
>>>>
>>>> 2. be able to tell us HOW he wants people to think beings can continue to
>>>> benefit after losing the apparent benefit of being alive.
>>
>> I never said anything about that.
>
> You would still need to be able to

No.

>>>> have been making their claim for years because
>>>

>>> I think that Plimpton is correct in what he meant to say, but stating

>>> "entity"
>>> as opposed to "living entity" opened the door to investigate the
>>> ramifications
>>> of artificial intelligence, where experiencing life is no longer an
>>> intrinsic
>>> property of existence.
>>
>> Fuckwit Harrison has been trying this same failed tack for 14 years. His
>> silly cracker complaint is that "animal rights activists" ('aras') seek

> I point out

No.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/15/2013 2:11 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, 12 Apr 2013 10:54:51 -0400, Ben Kaufman
> <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>

>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:41:04 -0400, 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, 10 Apr 2013 20:51:20 -0400, Ben Kaufman
>>> <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:10:41 -0700, George Plimpton, CBE, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/10/2013 12:07 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote:

>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:19:11 -0700, George Plimpton, CBE, wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage
>>>>>>> to an entity, compared with never existing. A benefit or advantage is a
>>>>>>> feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the benefit
>>>>>>> or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity. Benefit
>>>>>>> and advantage only pertain to different states of existence. Existence
>>>>>>> itself is not a benefit or advantage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is settled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clearly a benefit to being the jury.
>>>>>
>>>>> You missed both the presentation of the case and the deliberations.
>>>>
>>>> Have you considered existence of non-living entities, such as sentient
>>>> artificial intelligence programs that don't get to experience life?
>>>

>>> doesn't even consider beings that DO exist.

False.

>>> Experiencing life certainly appears to be a benefit since

No. It isn't one, and it doesn't "appear" to be one.

>>> IF he were not, he would either:
>>>
>>> 1. be able to tell us exactly WHAT he wants people to think is preventing life
>> >from being a benefit

Have done.

>>> and/or
>>>
>>> 2. be able to tell us HOW he wants people to think beings can continue to

>>> benefit after losing [...]being alive.

No one said they can.

>>
>> I think that Plimpton is correct in what he meant to say,
>
> Then you need to explain exactly WHAT you want people to think is preventing
> life from being a benefit

The fact that existence - "getting to experience life" - doesn't improve
welfare. That's what prevents it.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/15/2013 2:15 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 12:41 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 4/10/2013 8:19 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage

>>>> to an entity, compared with never existing. A benefit or advantage is a

>>>> feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the benefit
>>>> or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity. Benefit

>>>> and advantage only pertain to different states of existence. Existence
>>>> itself is not a benefit or advantage.
>>>>
>>>> This is settled.

>>>
>>> Tell us how you want people to think you could possibly have
>>> found out
>>

>> Through analyzing the definition of benefit and clearly understanding
>> the logic.
>
> You're lying

No.

>>>> A benefit or advantage is a
>>>> feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the benefit
>>>> or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity. Benefit
>>>> and advantage only pertain to different states of existence.

Thus, by definition, existence - "getting to experience life" - cannot
be a benefit.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/15/2013 2:15 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 12:41 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 Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>

>>>> On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 5:18:18 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton, OBE,

>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or
>>>>> advantage
>>>>>
>>>>> to an entity, compared with never existing. A benefit or advantage
>>>>> is a
>>>>>
>>>>> feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the benefit
>>>>>
>>>>> or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity. Benefit
>>>>>
>>>>> and advantage only pertain to different states of existence. Existence
>>>>>
>>>>> itself is not a benefit or advantage.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is settled.
>>>>
>>>> So what purpose was achieved by making this post?
>>>

>>> George wants to reassure everyone that there's nothing wrong with
>>> the

>>> elimination objective
>>
>> No such objective. What I want to do is remind everyone that your
>> rationale for opposing "ar" is bullshit.
>

> misnomer addicts

No such thing.

[M Purcell]

On Apr 15, 2:14 pm, dh@. wrote:

I believe it would mean the most to the animal in question.

A happy cow is a healthy cow.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/15/2013 2:14 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, 12 Apr 2013 10:31:32 -0700 (PDT), M Purcell <sacs...@aol.com> wrote:
>

>> On Apr 12, 9:59 am, George Plimpton, Fuckwit David Harrison's better in every way, wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2013 7:54 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:41:04 -0400, 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, 10 Apr 2013 20:51:20 -0400, Ben Kaufman
>>>>> <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:10:41 -0700, George Plimpton, Fuckwit David Harrison's better in every way, wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/10/2013 12:07 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote:

> To people like the quality of life and the value of life to the animals

> themselves means nothing at all:
>
> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to

Not a quote.

>
> "the moral harm caused by killing them

Not a quote.

>
> "no matter how "decent" the

Not a quote.

>
> "it is not "better" that

Not a quote.

>
> "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
> of animals" at any point "get to experience life."

> ZERO importance to it." - George Plimpton

True.

>
> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it."

A pointless quote.


>
> "you MUST believe that

Not a quote.

>
> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to

> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - George Plimpton

True statement.

>
>> and the frequent killing of people by other
>> people. And with no regard to the validity of other people's dietary
>> choices, you also seem to exclude humanity along with the existence of
>> non-living things. Since most people would prefer life to death they
>> obviously find it beneficial, and your very obsession with your
>> argument would tend to dissuade other people of it's validity.
>

> People like are desperate that people in general don't learn to

> appreciate lives of positive value

Nothing to appreciate.

[Ben Kaufman]

<SNIP>

Is the ability of carbon to form organic molecules a benefit to the carbon? No.

Is the ability of an organic molecule to be stable a benefit to the organic
molecule? No. (maybe a benefit to the formation of life, but not to the
molecule)

So we keep on going up the chain of chemical complexity, and at each level the
property that makes this "thing" distinctive, is not of benefit to itself, but
to the next level up that depends upon it.

So when we get up to the level of non-sentient living organisms, it's the same ,
the organism's existence is not of benefit to itself but, to the next level up
(for example to the food chain or nitrogen cycle etc).

Now, somewhere along the way as animals evolved they developed an ability to
flee from predators and other dangers, which gave them a better chance at
survival so these instinctive, "love of life" traits were passed on.

We as humans, can cognitively process this "love of life" drive, and, quite
understandably, attach a tremendous value upon this oldest and strongest
instinct programmed into us, but that is an emotional rather than qualitative
assessment of life.

This is not to say that we can't put meaning in our life, and enjoy stuff, and
respect each other, and make laws that put the highest value upon life, and
prevent animal cruelty, but this is all about our feelings of self-importance
and judgement, not nature. The Universe couldn't care less, and we are all part
of the Universe.

Ben

[George Plimpton]

No, it's not a "benefit" to the formation of life - it's a necessary
condition for the formation of carbon-based life.

>
> So we keep on going up the chain of chemical complexity, and at each level the
> property that makes this "thing" distinctive, is not of benefit to itself, but
> to the next level up that depends upon it.

It's a required condition for the next step up. The steps of a building
process are not welfare-bearing entities.

>
> So when we get up to the level of non-sentient living organisms, it's the same ,
> the organism's existence is not of benefit to itself but, to the next level up
> (for example to the food chain or nitrogen cycle etc).

Now you've arrived, finally, at the level of entity that can realize a
benefit. As you state, existence of a living entity is not a benefit to
the entity, but rather a condition for the entity to be able to realize
any benefit. It is not, as Fuckwit laughably calls it, the "benefit
that makes all other benefits possible." Existence is not a benefit to
the entity - period.

[dh]

To each one of them what they experience is everything. Sometimes it's of
positive value to them and sometimes it's of negative value, but eliminationists
can't even acknowledge that much because doing so works against the elimination

Cows produce a lot more milk when they're content and not bothered by
anything. All farmers know that. Because of that it's easy to know that
eliminationists are being dishonest by acting like dairy cows experience a lot
of suffering. I'm sure it sometimes gets uncomfortable when they have a full bag
right before milking, but it doesn't seem the sort of thing that's so bad that
it makes life of negative value for them. For some few who suffer from disease
or infections etc I feel sure it is, but not for dairy cows in general.

[dh]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:36:53 -0400, Ben Kaufman

>Is the ability of carbon to form organic molecules a benefit to the carbon? No.
>
>Is the ability of an organic molecule to be stable a benefit to the organic
>molecule? No. (maybe a benefit to the formation of life

Do you consider "the formation of life" to be some sort of living entity?

>, but not to the
>molecule)
>
>So we keep on going up the chain of chemical complexity, and at each level the
>property that makes this "thing" distinctive, is not of benefit to itself, but
>to the next level up that depends upon it.
>
>So when we get up to the level of non-sentient living organisms, it's the same ,
>the organism's existence is not of benefit to itself but, to the next level up
>(for example to the food chain or nitrogen cycle etc).
>
>Now, somewhere along the way as animals evolved they developed an ability to
>flee from predators and other dangers, which gave them a better chance at
>survival so these instinctive, "love of life" traits were passed on.
>
>We as humans, can cognitively process this "love of life" drive, and, quite
>understandably, attach a tremendous value upon this oldest and strongest
>instinct programmed into us, but that is an emotional rather than qualitative
>assessment of life.

How do you want people to think any of that prevents being alive from being
to your advantage?

>This is not to say that we can't put meaning in our life, and enjoy stuff, and
>respect each other, and make laws that put the highest value upon life, and
>prevent animal cruelty, but this is all about our feelings of self-importance
>and judgement, not nature. The Universe couldn't care less, and we are all part
>of the Universe.

Billions of animals exist only because they're raised for food and a high
percentage of them experience lives that are of positive value to them imo. Also
there are those whose lives are of negative value. I can and do consider both,
and so far no one has provided a single decent reason why I should refuse to
consider either. The ONLY people who have good reason to refuse to consider both
are eliminationists, and of course that's because doing so works AGAINST
elimination.

[dh]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:28:17 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:14:48 -0400, dh@. wrote:

>> The value of life for the animals is dependant on their treatment Goob. That
>>remains true even though you people can't appreciate how because appreciating
>>things like that work against the elimination objective, Goo.
>

>The value of "getting to experience life" for ...[my son] is zero.

Did you tell him that Goots? What does his mother say when you tell her
that, Goo?

[George Plimpton]

On 4/16/2013 1:26 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 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:30:46 -0700 (PDT), M Purcell <sacs...@aol.com> wrote:
>

>> On Apr 15, 2:14 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, 12 Apr 2013 10:31:32 -0700 (PDT), M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 12, 9:59 am, George Plimpton, CBE, wrote:
>>>>> On 4/12/2013 7:54 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote:
>>>

>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:41:04 -0400, 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, 10 Apr 2013 20:51:20 -0400, Ben Kaufman
>>>>>>> <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:10:41 -0700, George Plimpton, CBE, wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2013 12:07 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote:

Existence - "*Getting* to experience life" - is nothing to them. That's
why it deserves, and gets, no consideration from them. *Getting* decent
treatment, if they exist, is meaningful to them and deserves our
consideration; but existing, or "getting to experience life", is
meaningless to them and deserves - and gets - no consideration.

[dh]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:28:26 -0700, Goo lied:

>On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:15:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:31:22 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:41:10 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>

>>>>On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 5:18:18 PM UTC+2, Goo wrote:
>>>>>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to an entity, compared with never existing. A benefit or advantage is a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the benefit
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity. Benefit
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and advantage only pertain to different states of existence. Existence
>>>>>>
>>>>>> itself is not a benefit or advantage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is settled.
>>>>>
>>>>>So what purpose was achieved by making this post?
>>>>

>>>> Goo wants to reassure everyone that there's nothing wrong with the
>>>>elimination objective, and this is one of the ways he's trying to do it. Duh.
>>>
>>>No such objective.
>>
>> Which rights do you want people to believe misnomer addicts really do want
>>to provide for which livestock animals Goob? Why do you want people to think
>>they lied about wanting to eliminate pets, Goo?
>

>No such thing.

They TOLD US that they want to eliminate pets, Goo.

[dh]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:28:18 -0700, Goo lied:

>On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:13:51 -0400, dh@. wrote:

>
>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 09:59:44 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On 4/12/2013 7:54 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote:

>>>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:41:04 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 20:51:20 -0400, Ben Kaufman
>>>>> <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:10:41 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/10/2013 12:07 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote:

>>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:19:11 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage
>>>>>>>>> to an entity, compared with never existing. A benefit or advantage is a
>>>>>>>>> feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the benefit
>>>>>>>>> or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity. Benefit
>>>>>>>>> and advantage only pertain to different states of existence. Existence
>>>>>>>>> itself is not a benefit or advantage.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is settled.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clearly a benefit to being the jury.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You missed both the presentation of the case and the deliberations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you considered existence of non-living entities, such as sentient
>>>>>> artificial intelligence programs that don't get to experience life?
>>>>>

>>>>> Goo doesn't even consider beings that DO exist. Experiencing life certainly

>>>>> appears to be a benefit since after losing that benefit nothing can benefit from
>>>>> anything else. For that reason it really couldn't be any more apparent that Goo
>>>>> is lying even if he's not. IF he were not, he would either:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. be able to tell us exactly WHAT he wants people to think is preventing life
>>>>>from being a benefit,
>>>
>>>I've told you. A benefit is
>>

>> You need to tell us WHAT you want people to think is preventing it from
>>being to your advantage that you're still alive, and HOW you want them to think
>>whatever it is is preventing it Goots.
>

>Have done.

That's a lie Goob. Try proving that I'm wrong, Goo. Go:

>>>>> and/or
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. be able to tell us HOW he wants people to think beings can continue to
>>>>> benefit after losing the apparent benefit of being alive.
>>>
>>>I never said anything about that.
>>

>> You would still need to be able to tell us IF you were correct, Goo.
>

>No.

You're lying again Goober. You would IF you were correct but you're wrong so
you can't, Goo.

>>>>> Goo and his boys have been making their claim for years because it works in
>>>>> favor of the elimination objective, BUT!, between the four of them (Goo,
>>>>> "Dutch", Derek, Rupert) they have never been able to answer the above questions.
>>>>> As long as they remain unable to it will remain clear and apparent not only that
>>>>> Goo is lying about this, but also that the stupid Googoots doesn't have any idea
>>>>> at all what he wants people to think he's trying to talk about to the extent
>>>>> that he can't even try to pretend that he does. That is Goo's usual position,
>>>>> afaik.
>>>>

>>>> I think that ...[Goo] is correct in what he meant to say, but stating "entity"

>>>> as opposed to "living entity" opened the door to investigate the ramifications
>>>> of artificial intelligence, where experiencing life is no longer an intrinsic
>>>> property of existence.
>>>
>>>Fuckwit Harrison has been trying this same failed tack for 14 years.
>>>His silly cracker complaint is that "animal rights activists" ('aras')

>>>seek to deny the "benefit" of existence to livestock animals
>>
>> I point out that they don't want to provide rights or anything at all for
>>domestic animals Goob, in case some people mistakely believe they really do want
>>to provide them with rights. There's nothing wrong with pointing that aspect out
>>Goober, and the fact that you're opposed to seeing it pointed out is yet another
>>way you and your boys reveal yourselves.
>

>No.

You're lying again Goots. ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose
pointing out that eliminationists don't want to provide anything at all for
domestic animals Goob. You can't even tell us why you want people to think they
lied and said that they do, Goo.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/16/2013 1:35 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, 16 Apr 2013 10:36:53 -0400, Ben Kaufman
> <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>

>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:11:21 -0400, 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, 12 Apr 2013 10:54:51 -0400, Ben Kaufman
>>> <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>> I think that Plimpton is correct in what he meant to say,
>>>
>>> Then you need to explain exactly WHAT you want people to think is preventing
>>> life from being a benefit and HOW whatever it is is doing so, or HOW you want
>>> people to think beings can continue to benefit after losing the apparent benefit
>>> of being alive.
>>
>> Is the ability of carbon to form organic molecules a benefit to the carbon? No.
>>
>> Is the ability of an organic molecule to be stable a benefit to the organic
>> molecule? No. (maybe a benefit to the formation of life
>
> Do you consider "the formation of life" to be some sort of living entity?

Just answer the question, Fuckwit.

>> , but not to the
>> molecule)
>>
>> So we keep on going up the chain of chemical complexity, and at each level the
>> property that makes this "thing" distinctive, is not of benefit to itself, but
>> to the next level up that depends upon it.
>>
>> So when we get up to the level of non-sentient living organisms, it's the same ,
>> the organism's existence is not of benefit to itself but, to the next level up
>> (for example to the food chain or nitrogen cycle etc).
>>
>> Now, somewhere along the way as animals evolved they developed an ability to
>> flee from predators and other dangers, which gave them a better chance at
>> survival so these instinctive, "love of life" traits were passed on.
>>
>> We as humans, can cognitively process this "love of life" drive, and, quite
>> understandably, attach a tremendous value upon this oldest and strongest
>> instinct programmed into us, but that is an emotional rather than qualitative
>> assessment of life.
>
> How do you want people to think any of that prevents being alive from being
> to your advantage?

Prove that existence, or "getting to experience life", is a benefit or
advantage compared with never existing.

>> This is not to say that we can't put meaning in our life, and enjoy stuff, and
>> respect each other, and make laws that put the highest value upon life, and
>> prevent animal cruelty, but this is all about our feelings of self-importance
>> and judgement, not nature. The Universe couldn't care less, and we are all part
>> of the Universe.
>
> Billions of animals exist only because they're raised for food

That's meaningless *to the animals*.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/16/2013 1:39 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 4/15/2013 2:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 4/15/2013 2:15 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 12:41 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 Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>> <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 5:18:18 PM UTC+2, George Plimpton, OBE,

>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or
>>>>>>> advantage
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to an entity, compared with never existing. A benefit or advantage
>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the
>>>>>>> benefit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity.
>>>>>>> Benefit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and advantage only pertain to different states of existence.
>>>>>>> Existence
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> itself is not a benefit or advantage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is settled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what purpose was achieved by making this post?
>>>>>

>>>>> George wants to reassure everyone that there's nothing wrong with
>>>>> the

>>>>> elimination objective
>>>>
>>>> No such objective. What I want to do is remind everyone that your
>>>> rationale for opposing "ar" is bullshit.
>>>
>>> misnomer addicts
>>

>> No such thing.
>
> They TOLD US that they want to eliminate pets

No, they didn't. They said they want to end ownership of animals.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/16/2013 1:37 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 4/15/2013 2:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

>> On 4/15/2013 2:14 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 11:33 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2013 10:31 AM, M Purcell wrote:

>>>>> Your argument excludes the humane
>>>>> treatment of livestock and the frequent killing of people by other
>>>>> people.
>>>>
>>>> It excludes those because they have nothing to do with Fuckwit's yarn.
>>>
>>> The value of life for the animals is
>>

>> The value of "getting to experience life" for animals is zero.

>
> Did you tell him that

Animals? No. They can't appreciate of understand it.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/16/2013 1:39 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 4/15/2013 2:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

>> On 4/15/2013 2:13 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, 12 Apr 2013 09:59:44 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/12/2013 7:54 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote:

>>>>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:41:04 -0400, 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, 10 Apr 2013 20:51:20 -0400, Ben Kaufman
>>>>>> <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:10:41 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2013 12:07 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:19:11 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or
>>>>>>>>>> advantage
>>>>>>>>>> to an entity, compared with never existing. A benefit or
>>>>>>>>>> advantage is a
>>>>>>>>>> feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the
>>>>>>>>>> benefit
>>>>>>>>>> or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity.
>>>>>>>>>> Benefit
>>>>>>>>>> and advantage only pertain to different states of existence.
>>>>>>>>>> Existence
>>>>>>>>>> itself is not a benefit or advantage.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is settled.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Clearly a benefit to being the jury.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You missed both the presentation of the case and the deliberations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you considered existence of non-living entities, such as
>>>>>>> sentient
>>>>>>> artificial intelligence programs that don't get to experience life?
>>>>>>

>>>>>> doesn't even consider beings that DO exist. Experiencing life
>>>>>> certainly
>>>>>> appears to be a benefit since after losing that benefit nothing can
>>>>>> benefit from anything else. For that reason it really couldn't be
>>>>>> any more
>>>>>> apparent that Goo is lying even if he's not. IF he were not, he
>>>>>> would either:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. be able to tell us exactly WHAT he wants people to think is
>>>>>> preventing life
>>>>>> from being a benefit,
>>>>

>>>> I've told you. A benefit is something that improves an entity's
>>>> welfare, and can *only* accrue to an existing entity with a welfare
>>>> subject to change. Existence - "getting to experience life", in your
>>>> wretched cracker way of writing - is not a benefit because it doesn't
>>>> improve an entity's welfare - it establishes it.
>>>

>>> You need to tell us WHAT you want people to think is preventing it
>>

>> Have done. You know what the answer is. You know it's right.
>>
>>

>>>>>> and/or
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. be able to tell us HOW he wants people to think beings can
>>>>>> continue to
>>>>>> benefit after losing the apparent benefit of being alive.
>>>>
>>>> I never said anything about that.
>>>
>>> You would still need to be able to
>>

>> No.

>>
>>
>>>>>> have been making their claim for years because
>>>>>

>>>>> I think that Plimpton is correct in what he meant to say, but stating

>>>>> "entity"
>>>>> as opposed to "living entity" opened the door to investigate the
>>>>> ramifications
>>>>> of artificial intelligence, where experiencing life is no longer an
>>>>> intrinsic
>>>>> property of existence.
>>>>
>>>> Fuckwit Harrison has been trying this same failed tack for 14 years. His
>>>> silly cracker complaint is that "animal rights activists" ('aras') seek

> You're lying

No. You do not "point out" - ever.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Ben Kaufman" <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:ql8qm892e50idpq4f...@4ax.com...

How wood you know ?

[M Purcell]

They appreciate it enough to do any thing they could to preserve it.

[George Plimpton]

>> Animals? No. They can't appreciate or understand it.

>
> They appreciate it enough to do any thing they could to preserve it.

They have a powerful survival instinct. They do not "appreciate" that
they came into existence, and "got to experience life." They do not
consider it to be a "benefit" versus never having come into existence.

[M Purcell]

Any benefit is relative to the individual. You seem to be saying a
benefit is not a benefit and an existence is not existence. I fail to
see what benefit you hope to obtain by such an argument but I'm sure
we're not related.

[George Plimpton]

I'm saying nothing of the kind, and you have to be a special kind of
idiot to think I am.

> I fail to
> see what benefit you hope to obtain by such an argument but

I never made such an argument.

[dh]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 20:08:23 -0700 (PDT), M Purcell <sacs...@aol.com> wrote:

Goo can't get that "far" with it. Goo can't comprehend how existence could
be a benefit to anything, much less comprehend a distinction between when it is
and when it's not. Goo is as clueless about this as it's possible to get afawk,
yet he acts like he considers himself to be an authority.

>You seem to be saying a
>benefit is not a benefit and an existence is not existence. I fail to
>see what benefit you hope to obtain by such an argument

Other than promoting acceptance of the elimination objective Goo can't say
what he thinks he could gain if he could persuade people to accept the
apparently stupid idea that being alive has never been to any being's advantage.

[M Purcell]

On Apr 17, 1:03 pm, dh@. wrote:

In the sense of society being composed of people, I would also suggest
the advantage of being a benefit to society, or at least those around
you.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/17/2013 1:03 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, 16 Apr 2013 20:08:23 -0700 (PDT), M Purcell <sacs...@aol.com> wrote:
>

>> On Apr 16, 7:49 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>> On 4/16/2013 7:46 PM, M Purcell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>>> They appreciate it enough to do any thing they could to preserve it.
>>>
>>> They have a powerful survival instinct. They do not "appreciate" that
>>> they came into existence, and "got to experience life." They do not
>>> consider it to be a "benefit" versus never having come into existence.
>>
>> Any benefit is relative to the individual.
>

> can't get that "far" with it.

I get infinitely farther than you, *Goo*. You don't get it at all.

>> You seem to be saying a
>> benefit is not a benefit and an existence is not existence. I fail to
>> see what benefit you hope to obtain by such an argument
>
> Other than promoting acceptance of the elimination objective

No.

Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit. If "aras"
work to stop meat eating, and as a side effect livestock animals cease
to exist, no harm is done.

[M Purcell]

No harm can come to something that doesn't exist. Any harm would come
from an imposition on other people.

[Dutch]

"M Purcell" <sacs...@aol.com> wrote

> No harm can come to something that doesn't exist. Any harm would come
> from an imposition on other people.

By the same logic no benefit can come to a non-existent entity.

[M Purcell]

On Apr 17, 5:53 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "M Purcell" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote

>
> > No harm can come to something that doesn't exist. Any harm would come
> > from an imposition on other people.
>
> By the same logic no benefit can come to a non-existent entity.

Indeed. However our actions could affect beings that don't yet exist
but, with the advantage of precognition, will exist.

[Dutch]

"M Purcell" <sacs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f7745758-c6e7-4e0e...@aw7g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...

Right, and for those actions to be meaningful in the future those animals
must actually come into existence.

[George Plimpton]

Nor can any benefit come to something that doesn't exist. That's why
existence itself is not a benefit.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/17/2013 6:15 PM, M Purcell wrote:
> On Apr 17, 5:53 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> "M Purcell" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote
>>
>>> No harm can come to something that doesn't exist. Any harm would come
>>> from an imposition on other people.
>>
>> By the same logic no benefit can come to a non-existent entity.
>
> Indeed. However our actions could affect beings that don't yet exist

No, they can't. You can do things today that /will/ affect any beings,
if they exist, in future, but your actions today didn't affect any
beings today if they didn't already exist; and if they never exist,
there will be no effect.

[M Purcell]

On Apr 17, 7:38 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "M Purcell" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote in message

And for those animals to actually come into existence, there must be
meaningful actions.

[M Purcell]

Our actions definitely could't effect what will never exist.

[M Purcell]

So much for your existence.

[George Plimpton]

It is not and was never a benefit to me, compared with never existing.
That's clear and indisputable.

[M Purcell]

On Apr 17, 8:51 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/17/2013 8:23 PM, M Purcell wrote:
>
> > On Apr 17, 8:05 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 4/17/2013 5:26 PM, M Purcell wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 17, 4:45 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> On 4/17/2013 1:03 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
> >>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
> >>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> >>>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit.  If "aras"
> >>>> work to stop meat eating, and as a side effect livestock animals cease
> >>>> to exist, no harm is done.
>
> >>> No harm can come to something that doesn't exist.
>
> >> Nor can any benefit come to something that doesn't exist.  That's why
> >> existence itself is not a benefit.
>
> > So much for your existence.
>
> It is not and was never a benefit to me, compared with never existing.
> That's clear and indisputable.

Really? Why aren't you dead?

[George Plimpton]

Why would I be? What does that have to do with existence not being a
benefit compared with never existing?

[M Purcell]

You're a masochist?

[George Plimpton]

No.

[Dutch]

"M Purcell" <sacs...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:effeb6f4-f7ac-4168...@hc4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

Not really, the actions by humans which lead to animals having offspring are
neither necessary nor morally meaningful. Animals do that quite well without
our help.

Morally meaningful actions involve such things as preparing proper
facilities for providing humane care.

[Dutch]

"M Purcell" <sacs...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:ac4cee1c-ca01-4b0e...@mq5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

You can't die if you never exist, just like you can't be harmed or receive a
benefit of any kind. The very notion contains a contradiction, *you* can't
actually "not exist", it's just a figure of speech. It would be more correct
to say that one can imagine an alternate reality where there is no you.
Similarly, "making one's life a benefit" is just rhetorical speech for
making the most of life, life can't actually *be* a benefit.

[Dutch]

"M Purcell" <sacs...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:4e1717c7-f79f-4fa2...@id10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

You're talking about life being good or something like that, not a benefit.

[Ben Kaufman]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:35:53 -0400, dh@. wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:36:53 -0400, Ben Kaufman

><spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:11:21 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:54:51 -0400, Ben Kaufman

>>><spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:

>>>
>>>>On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:41:04 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 20:51:20 -0400, Ben Kaufman

>>>>><spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:

>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:10:41 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 4/10/2013 12:07 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote:

>>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:19:11 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage
>>>>>>>>> to an entity, compared with never existing. A benefit or advantage is a
>>>>>>>>> feature of one state of existence for an entity; not having the benefit
>>>>>>>>> or advantage is a different state of existence for the entity. Benefit
>>>>>>>>> and advantage only pertain to different states of existence. Existence
>>>>>>>>> itself is not a benefit or advantage.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is settled.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clearly a benefit to being the jury.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You missed both the presentation of the case and the deliberations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Have you considered existence of non-living entities, such as sentient
>>>>>>artificial intelligence programs that don't get to experience life?
>>>>>
>>>>> Goo doesn't even consider beings that DO exist. Experiencing life certainly
>>>>>appears to be a benefit since after losing that benefit nothing can benefit from
>>>>>anything else. For that reason it really couldn't be any more apparent that Goo
>>>>>is lying even if he's not. IF he were not, he would either:
>>>>>
>>>>>1. be able to tell us exactly WHAT he wants people to think is preventing life

>>>>>from being a benefit, and HOW he wants us to think whatever it is is doing so.
>>>>>

>>>>>and/or
>>>>>
>>>>>2. be able to tell us HOW he wants people to think beings can continue to
>>>>>benefit after losing the apparent benefit of being alive.
>>>>>

>>>>>Goo and his boys have been making their claim for years because it works in
>>>>>favor of the elimination objective, BUT!, between the four of them (Goo,
>>>>>"Dutch", Derek, Rupert) they have never been able to answer the above questions.
>>>>>As long as they remain unable to it will remain clear and apparent not only that
>>>>>Goo is lying about this, but also that the stupid Googoots doesn't have any idea
>>>>>at all what he wants people to think he's trying to talk about to the extent
>>>>>that he can't even try to pretend that he does. That is Goo's usual position,
>>>>>afaik.
>>>>
>>>>I think that Plimpton is correct in what he meant to say,
>>>

>>> Then you need to explain exactly WHAT you want people to think is preventing
>>>life from being a benefit and HOW whatever it is is doing so, or HOW you want

>>>people to think beings can continue to benefit after losing the apparent benefit
>>>of being alive.
>>

>>Is the ability of carbon to form organic molecules a benefit to the carbon? No.
>>

>>Is the ability of an organic molecule to be stable a benefit to the organic
>>molecule? No. (maybe a benefit to the formation of life
>
> Do you consider "the formation of life" to be some sort of living entity?

Is a Carbon atom a living entity? Of course not. Neither is an organic molecule
(molecule with Carbon in it). I am just working up the chain here in an
inductive manner.

>
>>, but not to the
>>molecule)
>>
>>So we keep on going up the chain of chemical complexity, and at each level the
>>property that makes this "thing" distinctive, is not of benefit to itself, but
>>to the next level up that depends upon it.
>>
>>So when we get up to the level of non-sentient living organisms, it's the same ,
>>the organism's existence is not of benefit to itself but, to the next level up
>>(for example to the food chain or nitrogen cycle etc).
>>
>>Now, somewhere along the way as animals evolved they developed an ability to
>>flee from predators and other dangers, which gave them a better chance at
>>survival so these instinctive, "love of life" traits were passed on.
>>
>>We as humans, can cognitively process this "love of life" drive, and, quite
>>understandably, attach a tremendous value upon this oldest and strongest
>>instinct programmed into us, but that is an emotional rather than qualitative
>>assessment of life.
>
> How do you want people to think any of that prevents being alive from being
>to your advantage?
>
>>This is not to say that we can't put meaning in our life, and enjoy stuff, and
>>respect each other, and make laws that put the highest value upon life, and
>>prevent animal cruelty, but this is all about our feelings of self-importance
>>and judgement, not nature. The Universe couldn't care less, and we are all part
>>of the Universe.
>
> Billions of animals exist only because they're raised for food and a high
>percentage of them experience lives that are of positive value to them imo. Also
>there are those whose lives are of negative value. I can and do consider both,
>and so far no one has provided a single decent reason why I should refuse to
>consider either. The ONLY people who have good reason to refuse to consider both
>are eliminationists, and of course that's because doing so works AGAINST
>elimination.

It seems that you are more interested in repeating your beliefs without
addressing my response to your question.

[M Purcell]

On Apr 17, 11:20 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "M Purcell" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote in message

A benefit is something that is advantageous or good. If your life is
not better than death, why are you alive?

[Dutch]

"M Purcell" <sacs...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:03977307-b78f-47c5...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com...

A benefit is something that is advantageous or good *to an entity*. If I'm
not alive then nothing is a benefit to me, there is no me. If I'm alive then
*I am my life*, and saying that my life is a benefit to me is sloppy
rhetorical speech at best, but literally, it's just nonsense.

Also, *if I exist* then from that point of view I prefer to remain living,
however if I do not exist, then the question is meaningless.

[George Plimpton]

No, we are not talking about continuing to live being compared with
death. We're talking about existence being a benefit to a living
entity, versus never existing at all. Existence is *not* a benefit
compared with never existing at all. It cannot be.

[M Purcell]

"I am my life" is rhetorical nonsense.

> Also, *if I exist* then from that point of view I prefer to remain living,
> however if I do not exist, then the question is meaningless.

As is your *existance*.

[Dutch]

"M Purcell" <sacs...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:f44813ad-a133-46e3...@j5g2000pby.googlegroups.com...

No it isn't, it's quite profound actually. If you aren't your life then what
are you? 'My life is a benefit to me' is rhetorical, which is fine, but it
ought to recognized as such.

>> Also, *if I exist* then from that point of view I prefer to remain
>> living,
>> however if I do not exist, then the question is meaningless.
>
> As is your *existance*.

That's not true either. Now you're just swinging wildly hoping to hit
something.

[M Purcell]

Nope, nothing there to hit.

[George Plimpton]

Actually, with that last comment, he was just being a prick.

[Dutch]

"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
news:dd889$5170b0b5$414e828e$56...@EVERESTKC.NET...

He's being defensive because he's out of his depth.

[Dutch]

"M Purcell" <sacs...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:a1c9278c-3bcc-4b6f...@pl9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

There are insights available there but you've chosen to take the easy road
and go for the cheap insult. Not very ambitious of you, but it's no skin off
my nose..

[M Purcell]

At least my existance is beneficial.

[George Plimpton]

Your "existance" [sic] is not beneficial to you compared with never
existing in the first place.

[Dutch]

"M Purcell" <sacs...@aol.com> wrote

> At least my existance is beneficial.

Which newsgroup are you posting from? I don't see one on the list that would
justify the kind of superficial approach you've taken to this subject.
You're within your rights to not give a shit of course, but why not take the
opportunity to gain a little philosophical insight?

This essay http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.htm should
help.

[M Purcell]

On Apr 19, 1:23 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "M Purcell" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote

It's a silly argument, homo sapiens has evolved as a meat eater. My
existence as a human being does not require justification such as
needing a moral reason for what I eat, drink or breath. Giving other
animals rights is a superficial attempt to impose your ideology on
other people.

[M Purcell]

Nothing compares to never existing.

[Dutch]

"M Purcell" <sacs...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:9ce3ac10-2c52-40eb...@mf10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 19, 1:23 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> "M Purcell" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote
>>
>> > At least my existance is beneficial.
>>
>> Which newsgroup are you posting from? I don't see one on the list that
>> would
>> justify the kind of superficial approach you've taken to this subject.
>> You're within your rights to not give a shit of course, but why not take
>> the
>> opportunity to gain a little philosophical insight?
>>
>> This essayhttp://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.htmshould
>> help.
>
> It's a silly argument,

It's not, it's an excellent argument, for the purpose intended.

> homo sapiens has evolved as a meat eater. My
> existence as a human being does not require justification such as
> needing a moral reason for what I eat, drink or breath. Giving other
> animals rights is a superficial attempt to impose your ideology on
> other people.

That's very well put, I agree with all of that; eating meat requires no
justification per se, I'm no fan of "ethical vegetarianism" I think it's
sanctimonious bullshit. But the point I am making with the essay is about
one specific argument and that is "The Logic of the Larder" or the "LoL".
Proponents of the LoL like "dh@" aka "fuckwit" or "goober" take the position
that since eating meat leads to livestock animals "getting to experience
life", that every bit of animal pleasure those animals experience should be
accounted for when arguing against vegetarians that eating meat is a moral
activity. The argument says that meat eaters are granting them a benefit.
The essay demonstrates conclusively that the LoL argument is nothing but
shabby sophistry that detracts from legitimate, honest moral positions like
the one you stated so succinctly right above.

[M Purcell]

On Apr 20, 2:25 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "M Purcell" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote in message

Perhaps a little too succinctly. Beyond the necessities we do have
choices as to what we eat, drink, and breath and some of those choices
affect other people. Clean air and water are of benefit to everyone,
including those not yet born. Although there are advantages to eating
less meat, choices of what to eat can have unforeseen consequences:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/vegans-stomach-unpalatable-truth-quinoa

People do not raise livestock for the benefit of the livestock however
other animals can experience life although not to the same extent that
people do.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/19/2013 7:12 PM, M Purcell wrote:
> On Apr 19, 1:23 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> "M Purcell" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote
>>
>>> At least my existance is beneficial.
>>
>> Which newsgroup are you posting from? I don't see one on the list that would
>> justify the kind of superficial approach you've taken to this subject.
>> You're within your rights to not give a shit of course, but why not take the
>> opportunity to gain a little philosophical insight?
>>
>> This essayhttp://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.htmshould
>> help.
>
> It's a silly argument, homo sapiens has evolved as a meat eater.

No one here is contesting that.

> My existence as a human being does not require justification such as
> needing a moral reason for what I eat, drink or breath. Giving other
> animals rights is a superficial attempt to impose your ideology on
> other people.

Dutch isn't trying to impose any ideology on anyone.

[George Plimpton]

*Exactly* - but Fuckwit David Harrison insists that existence, or
"getting to experience life" as he so wretchedly puts it, is a benefit
compared with never existing.

[Mr.Smartypants]

And you have insisted at times that you're existence is no better off
than your pre-existence.

[M Purcell]

On Apr 20, 8:26 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/19/2013 7:12 PM, M Purcell wrote:
>
> > On Apr 19, 1:23 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> "M Purcell" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote
>
> >>> At least my existance is beneficial.
>
> >> Which newsgroup are you posting from? I don't see one on the list that would
> >> justify the kind of superficial approach you've taken to this subject.
> >> You're within your rights to not give a shit of course, but why not take the
> >> opportunity to gain a little philosophical insight?
>
> >> This essayhttp://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.htmshould
> >> help.
>
> > It's a silly argument, homo sapiens has evolved as a meat eater.
>
> No one here is contesting that.

I'm glad you realize it's a silly argument.

> > My existence as a human being does not require justification such as
> > needing a moral reason for what I eat, drink or breath. Giving other
> > animals rights is a superficial attempt to impose your ideology on
> > other people.
>
> Dutch isn't trying to impose any ideology on anyone.

He posted a link to animal rights as an authority however he already
cleared that up. Are you too cracked to see that?

http://www.vnews.com/opinion/5731850-95/column-be-skeptical-of-what-you-believe-is-true