Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Donald Trump puts catsup on overcooked steak
63 views
Skip to first unread message
Clarence Callahan
Mar 6, 2017, 12:17:00 PM3/6/17
to
"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
any other kind of animal.
any other kind of animal.
Rupert
Mar 6, 2017, 2:54:32 PM3/6/17
to
On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Clarence Callahan wrote:
> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
> any other kind of animal.
Why is that?
> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
> any other kind of animal.
Clarence Callahan
Mar 6, 2017, 4:19:06 PM3/6/17
to
and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
Rupert
Mar 7, 2017, 1:22:15 AM3/7/17
to
mur
Mar 9, 2017, 9:34:15 PM3/9/17
to
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 11:54:31 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>> any other kind of animal.
>
>Why is that?
"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo
"Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Goo
"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged.
Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare
improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
life we can detect, we cannot conclude that life is a
benefit to it." - Goo
"Coming into existence was not a "benefit"
for me - it didn't improve my welfare. " - Goo
"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was for the animals; one simply
cannot know." - Goo
"It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to experience life"
instead of never existing" - Goo
"Animals do not "benefit" in any way from coming into existence, versus
never existing." - Goo
"...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit compared
with never existing." - Goo
"Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage
to an entity, compared with never existing." - Goo
wrote:
>On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>> any other kind of animal.
>
>Why is that?
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo
"Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Goo
"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged.
Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare
improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
life we can detect, we cannot conclude that life is a
benefit to it." - Goo
"Coming into existence was not a "benefit"
for me - it didn't improve my welfare. " - Goo
"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was for the animals; one simply
cannot know." - Goo
"It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to experience life"
instead of never existing" - Goo
"Animals do not "benefit" in any way from coming into existence, versus
never existing." - Goo
"...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit compared
with never existing." - Goo
"Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage
to an entity, compared with never existing." - Goo
mur
Mar 9, 2017, 9:36:10 PM3/9/17
to
On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 22:13:07 GMT, Goo replied to himself:
.
Try explaining to him exactly how you want people to think anything about
"prior to existence" could possibly prevent "getting to experience life" from
being a "benefit to livestock animals, or any other kind of animal" Goob. You
can't do it and never will be able to, Goo.
.
>Goo wrote:
>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>
>>> Why is that?
>>
>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>
>I'm surprised Rupert doesn't understand that.
>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>
>>> Why is that?
>>
>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>
Try explaining to him exactly how you want people to think anything about
"prior to existence" could possibly prevent "getting to experience life" from
being a "benefit to livestock animals, or any other kind of animal" Goob. You
can't do it and never will be able to, Goo.
mur
Mar 9, 2017, 9:36:31 PM3/9/17
to
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:22:15 -0800 (PST), Rupert challenged Goo:
.
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - 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
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit to livestock
animals (or any other living entity) and deserves no moral consideration
at all, and gets none from rational people." - Goo
"It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to experience life"
instead of never existing" - Goo
"the comparison is nonsense and cannot be made." - Goo
"A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus
never existing" - Goo
"I *never* make such a comparison" - Goo
"Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with never existing - proved."
- Goo
"the comparison between existence and non-existence, from the
perspective of the entity, cannot be made" - Goo
"...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit compared
with never existing." - Goo
"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo
"If ... you believe that 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, then 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
"IF one believes that the moral harm caused by killing
them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might
derive from "decent lives", then logically one MUST
conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo
"Life "justifying" death is the
stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo
"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo
.
>On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 10:19:06 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> > On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>> >> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>> >> any other kind of animal.
>> >
>> > Why is that?
>>
>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>
>How about death, then, is death a harm?
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>> >> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>> >> any other kind of animal.
>> >
>> > Why is that?
>>
>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>
>How about death, then, is death a harm?
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - 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
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit to livestock
animals (or any other living entity) and deserves no moral consideration
at all, and gets none from rational people." - Goo
"It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to experience life"
instead of never existing" - Goo
"A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus
never existing" - Goo
"I *never* make such a comparison" - Goo
"Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with never existing - proved."
- Goo
"the comparison between existence and non-existence, from the
perspective of the entity, cannot be made" - Goo
"...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit compared
with never existing." - Goo
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo
"If ... you believe that 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, then 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
"IF one believes that the moral harm caused by killing
them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might
derive from "decent lives", then logically one MUST
conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo
"Life "justifying" death is the
stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo
"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo
mur
Mar 9, 2017, 9:37:00 PM3/9/17
to
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 13:19:14 -0800, Goo wussed horribly as always:
.
You need to try to explain how anything about "prior to existence" could
possibly prevent existing entities from benefitting from experiencing life as
I've pointed out for you countless times, you stupid STUPID Goober. But you
never could explain it, can't explain it now, and never will be able to even
attempt to explain it, Goo.
.
>On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>> any other kind of animal.
>>
>> Why is that?
>
>...prior to existence
>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>> any other kind of animal.
>>
>> Why is that?
>
You need to try to explain how anything about "prior to existence" could
possibly prevent existing entities from benefitting from experiencing life as
I've pointed out for you countless times, you stupid STUPID Goober. But you
never could explain it, can't explain it now, and never will be able to even
attempt to explain it, Goo.
Rupert
Mar 10, 2017, 2:30:35 AM3/10/17
to
On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 3:36:10 AM UTC+1, mur wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 22:13:07 GMT, Goo replied to himself:
> .
> >Goo wrote:
> >> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
> >>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
> >>>> any other kind of animal.
> >>>
> >>> Why is that?
> >>
> >> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
> >> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
> >> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
> >
> >I'm surprised Rupert doesn't understand that.
I can't see your messages, Ted.
> On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 22:13:07 GMT, Goo replied to himself:
> .
> >Goo wrote:
> >> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
> >>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
> >>>> any other kind of animal.
> >>>
> >>> Why is that?
> >>
> >> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
> >> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
> >> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
> >
> >I'm surprised Rupert doesn't understand that.
Rupert
Mar 10, 2017, 10:44:42 AM3/10/17
to
On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 3:36:10 AM UTC+1, mur wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 22:13:07 GMT, Goo replied to himself:
> .
> >Goo wrote:
> >> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
> >>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
> >>>> any other kind of animal.
> >>>
> >>> Why is that?
> >>
> >> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
> >> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
> >> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
> >
> >I'm surprised Rupert doesn't understand that.
I don't regard it as a clear-cut matter that coming into existence is not a benefit. One interesting discussion of the matter can be found in an appendix to Derek Parfit's book "Reasons and Persons". Another discussion of the issue appears in a recent paper by Nils Holtug, which unfortunately is no longer available on-line for free. Jonathan Ball treats the issue as though his views about the matter are beyond rational dispute, but that is not in fact the case.
> .
> >Goo wrote:
> >> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
> >>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
> >>>> any other kind of animal.
> >>>
> >>> Why is that?
> >>
> >> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
> >> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
> >> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
> >
> >I'm surprised Rupert doesn't understand that.
On the other hand, assuming for the sake of argument that we confer a benefit on a non-human animal by bringing it into existence, I don't think that David Harrison has shown that that means that we are justified in imposing suffering or premature death on it so long as it remains the case that its life was on balance a benefit to it.
Rudy Canoza
Mar 12, 2017, 3:30:56 PM3/12/17
to
On 3/9/2017 6:36 PM, mur@. Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
> On 3/6/2017 2:13 PM, Ted wrote:
> On 3/6/2017 2:13 PM, Ted wrote:
>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Clarence Callahan wrote:
>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>
>>>> Why is that?
>>>
>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>
>> I'm surprised Rupert doesn't understand that.
>
> Try explaining to him exactly how you want people to think
LOL!
>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>
>>>> Why is that?
>>>
>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>
>> I'm surprised Rupert doesn't understand that.
>
> Try explaining to him exactly how you want people to think
Rudy Canoza
Mar 12, 2017, 3:32:03 PM3/12/17
to
On 3/9/2017 6:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, revealed
his stupidity again:
his stupidity again:
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:22:15 -0800 (PST), Rupert wrote:
> .
> .
>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 10:19:06 PM UTC+1, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>
>>>> Why is that?
>>>
>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>
>> How about death, then, is death a harm?
>
>
>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>
>>>> Why is that?
>>>
>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>
>> How about death, then, is death a harm?
>
>
> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance."
Correct.
Rudy Canoza
Mar 12, 2017, 3:32:36 PM3/12/17
to
On 3/9/2017 6:36 PM, mur@. wrote:
> On 3/6/2017 1:19 PM, Clarence Callahan wrote:
>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Clarence Callahan wrote:
>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>
>>> Why is that?
>>
>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>
>>> Why is that?
>>
>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>
>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>
> You need to try to explain
No.
Clarence Callahan
Mar 13, 2017, 3:21:55 PM3/13/17
to
On 3/13/2017 12:17 PM, Kick wy's ass wrote:
> Ted, I think you forgot to deactivate Tard-Block®, so Rupert was unable
> to see your post.
Rupert can't see Ted's or "Kick wy's ass" posts because they're posted
using Tard-Block®, which prevents retards from being able to see them.
> to see your post.
Rupert can't see Ted's or "Kick wy's ass" posts because they're posted
using Tard-Block®, which prevents retards from being able to see them.
Rupert
Mar 13, 2017, 3:52:17 PM3/13/17
to
Clarence Callahan
Mar 14, 2017, 2:04:22 AM3/14/17
to
Rupert
Mar 14, 2017, 2:12:40 AM3/14/17
to
Ted
Mar 14, 2017, 6:50:58 PM3/14/17
to
usenet posts, but apparently it also works to block ultra-intelligent
people like you.
--
"This troll is one of the dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and
also the most arrogant septic idiots one can come across."
http://kingofwallpapers.com/ted/ted-005.jpg
Clarence Callahan
Mar 14, 2017, 9:39:18 PM3/14/17
to
> from a vegan lifestyle are the reason Tard-Block® affects Rupert in the
> same way it affects retards?
That's a promising line of inquiry.
Rupert
Mar 14, 2017, 10:23:25 PM3/14/17
to
Rupert
Mar 15, 2017, 10:40:35 AM3/15/17
to
mur
Apr 5, 2017, 11:47:09 PM4/5/17
to
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 07:44:41 -0800 (PST), Ru wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:36:03 -0500, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 22:13:07 GMT, Goo replied to himself:
>>.
>>>Goo wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>
>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>
>>>I'm surprised Rupert doesn't understand that.
>>
>
>I don't regard it as a clear-cut matter that coming into existence is not a benefit. One interesting discussion of the matter can be found in an appendix to Derek Parfit's book "Reasons and Persons". Another discussion of the issue appears in a recent paper by Nils Holtug, which unfortunately is no longer available on-line for free. ..[Goo] treats the issue as though his views about the matter are beyond rational dispute, but that is not in fact the case.
Goo can't even attempt to back up his own stupid claims and we all know it.
>>You can't do it and never will be able to, Goo.
>
>or premature death
Anyone of less than idiot level intelligence could comprehend that "by
bringing it into existence" any life the beings experience are life they would
not have had otherwise so whenever they are killed it could not be "premature
death" relative to the alternative which is no life at all.
>on it so long as it remains the case that its life was on balance a benefit to it.
At some point in the past you pretended you could imagine how life could be
'good' or whatever limitted concept you're capable of for some: humans, free
range chickens and grass raised cattle. Those are the only types of creatures on
this planet you've ever pretended to comprehend how life could possibly be
'good' for. But you have always backed away from those three making it clear
that you like your hero Goo agree: ""it is not "better" that the animal exist,
>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:36:03 -0500, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 22:13:07 GMT, Goo replied to himself:
>>.
>>>Goo wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>
>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>
>>>I'm surprised Rupert doesn't understand that.
>>
>> Try explaining to him exactly how you want people to think anything about
>>"prior to existence" could possibly prevent "getting to experience life" from
>>being a "benefit to livestock animals, or any other kind of animal" Goob.
>>"prior to existence" could possibly prevent "getting to experience life" from
>
>I don't regard it as a clear-cut matter that coming into existence is not a benefit. One interesting discussion of the matter can be found in an appendix to Derek Parfit's book "Reasons and Persons". Another discussion of the issue appears in a recent paper by Nils Holtug, which unfortunately is no longer available on-line for free. ..[Goo] treats the issue as though his views about the matter are beyond rational dispute, but that is not in fact the case.
Goo can't even attempt to back up his own stupid claims and we all know it.
>>You can't do it and never will be able to, Goo.
>
>On the other hand, assuming for the sake of argument that we confer a benefit on a non-human animal by bringing it into existence, I don't think that David Harrison has shown that that means that we are justified in imposing suffering
Like what?
>or premature death
Anyone of less than idiot level intelligence could comprehend that "by
bringing it into existence" any life the beings experience are life they would
not have had otherwise so whenever they are killed it could not be "premature
death" relative to the alternative which is no life at all.
>on it so long as it remains the case that its life was on balance a benefit to it.
'good' or whatever limitted concept you're capable of for some: humans, free
range chickens and grass raised cattle. Those are the only types of creatures on
this planet you've ever pretended to comprehend how life could possibly be
'good' for. But you have always backed away from those three making it clear
that you like your hero Goo agree: ""it is not "better" that the animal exist,
mur
Apr 5, 2017, 11:47:25 PM4/5/17
to
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:32:11 -0700, Goo agree with himself:
.
>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:36:24 -0500, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:22:15 -0800 (PST), Rupert challenged Goo:
>>.
>Correct.
We see consistently that you and Ru agree completely about all of your above
claims, Goo.
.
>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:36:24 -0500, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:22:15 -0800 (PST), Rupert challenged Goo:
>>.
>>>On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 10:19:06 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>> > On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>>>> >> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>> >> any other kind of animal.
>>>> >
>>>> > Why is that?
>>>>
>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>
>>>How about death, then, is death a harm?
>>
>>>> >> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>> >> any other kind of animal.
>>>> >
>>>> > Why is that?
>>>>
>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>
>>>How about death, then, is death a harm?
>>
We see consistently that you and Ru agree completely about all of your above
claims, Goo.
mur
Apr 5, 2017, 11:51:41 PM4/5/17
to
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:32:44 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:36:53 -0500, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 13:19:14 -0800, Goo wussed horribly as always:
>>.
>>>On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Ru wrote:
>No.
QED, Goo.
>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:36:53 -0500, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 13:19:14 -0800, Goo wussed horribly as always:
>>.
>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>
>>>> Why is that?
>>>
>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>
>>>> Why is that?
>>>
>>>...prior to existence
>>
>> You need to try to explain how anything about "prior to existence" could
>>possibly prevent existing entities from benefitting from experiencing life as
>>I've pointed out for you countless times, you stupid STUPID Goober. But you
>>never could explain it, can't explain it now, and never will be able to even
>>attempt to explain it, Goo.
Quod est demonstrandum. (What IS demonstrated, in this case by Goo:)
>>
>> You need to try to explain how anything about "prior to existence" could
>>possibly prevent existing entities from benefitting from experiencing life as
>>I've pointed out for you countless times, you stupid STUPID Goober. But you
>>never could explain it, can't explain it now, and never will be able to even
>>attempt to explain it, Goo.
>No.
QED, Goo.
Rudy Canoza
Apr 6, 2017, 12:54:18 PM4/6/17
to
On 4/5/2017 8:47 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *THE* Fuckwit - helpfully
confessed:
confessed:
> On 3/12/2017 12:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 3/9/2017 6:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, revealed
>> his stupidity again:
>> On 3/9/2017 6:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, revealed
>> his stupidity again:
>>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:22:15 -0800 (PST), Rupert wrote:
>>> .
>>> .
>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 10:19:06 PM UTC+1, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock
>>>>>>> animals, or
>>>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>>
>>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
>>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>>
>>>> How about death, then, is death a harm?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock
>>>>>>> animals, or
>>>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>>
>>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
>>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>>
>>>> How about death, then, is death a harm?
>>>
>>>
>>> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance."
>>
>>
>> Correct.
>
> We see consistently that
"Getting to experience life" has no significance. Correct.
>
> We see consistently that
Rudy Canoza
Apr 6, 2017, 12:55:32 PM4/6/17
to
On 4/5/2017 8:51 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *THE* Fuckwit - helpfully
>
> Quack quack.
>
Very good, Fuckwit.
confessed:
> On 3/12/2017 12:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 3/9/2017 6:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *THE* Fuckwit - helpfully confessed:
> On 3/12/2017 12:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2017 1:19 PM, Clarence Callahan wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Clarence Callahan wrote:
>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>
>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>
>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>
>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>
>>> You need to try to explain
>>
>> No.
>>
>
> Quack quack.
>
Very good, Fuckwit.
mur
May 11, 2017, 11:11:33 PM5/11/17
to
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:54:18 -0700, Goo agreed:
.
>>>>.
>>>Correct.
>>
Quod est demonstrandum, Goo. Quod est demonstrandum, Ru.
.
>On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:47:26 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:32:11 -0700, Goo agree with himself:
>>.
>>>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:36:24 -0500, mur@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:22:15 -0800 (PST), Rupert challenged Goo:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:32:11 -0700, Goo agree with himself:
>>.
>>>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:36:24 -0500, mur@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>.
>>>>>On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 10:19:06 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>> > On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>>>>>> >> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>>>> >> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Why is that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
>>>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>>>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>>>
>>>>>How about death, then, is death a harm?
>>>>
>>>>>> >> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>>>> >> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Why is that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
>>>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>>>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>>>
>>>>>How about death, then, is death a harm?
>>>>
>>
>> We see consistently that you and Ru agree completely about all of your above
>>claims, Goo.
>
>Correct.
>>claims, Goo.
>
Quod est demonstrandum, Goo. Quod est demonstrandum, Ru.
mur
May 11, 2017, 11:12:00 PM5/11/17
to
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:55:32 -0700, Goo agreed:
>On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:51:42 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:32:44 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:36:53 -0500, mur@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 13:19:14 -0800, Goo wussed horribly as always:
>>>>.
>>>>>On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Ru wrote:
You demonstrated me correct Goober, and then pointed out that I did very
good, Goo.
>On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:51:42 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:32:44 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:36:53 -0500, mur@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 13:19:14 -0800, Goo wussed horribly as always:
>>>>.
>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>>
>>>>>...prior to existence
>>>>
>>>> You need to try to explain how anything about "prior to existence" could
>>>>possibly prevent existing entities from benefitting from experiencing life as
>>>>I've pointed out for you countless times, you stupid STUPID Goober. But you
>>>>never could explain it, can't explain it now, and never will be able to even
>>>>attempt to explain it, Goo.
>>
>> Quod est demonstrandum. (What IS demonstrated, in this case by Goo:)
>>
>>>No.
>>
>> QED, Goo.
>
>Very good, Fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>> You need to try to explain how anything about "prior to existence" could
>>>>possibly prevent existing entities from benefitting from experiencing life as
>>>>I've pointed out for you countless times, you stupid STUPID Goober. But you
>>>>never could explain it, can't explain it now, and never will be able to even
>>>>attempt to explain it, Goo.
>>
>> Quod est demonstrandum. (What IS demonstrated, in this case by Goo:)
>>
>>>No.
>>
>> QED, Goo.
>
You demonstrated me correct Goober, and then pointed out that I did very
good, Goo.
mur
May 11, 2017, 11:12:12 PM5/11/17
to
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:47:10 -0400, mur@. reprised:
Rupert
May 12, 2017, 2:45:31 AM5/12/17
to
Starting with the first one,
`the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives"'
it would be interesting to think about what that might mean, you could try to interpret it along consequentialist lines but I doubt that Ball would accept that interpretation of what he wrote. I think his point is that if you have brought some conscious being into existence, and therefore in your view conferred a benefit on that being assuming that its life is on the whole worth living, it doesn't follow from that that you are morally justified in taking steps to end that being's life, any moral justification for doing that must be sought on other grounds. Think for example about a hypothetical situation in which we brought human beings into existence for the purpose of harvesting their organs (once they had become fully cognitively normal full-grown adult human beings). I think Ball might be saying that, in that situation, even supposing for the sake of argument that you did benefit them by bringing them into existence, that doesn't mean that you would be morally justified in ending their lives because you want to harvest the organs and that's the purpose for which you brought them into existence. He's saying that that act would not be morally justifiable, it wouldn't be the right thing to do. Do you think he might be onto something there, or do you think he's got that all wrong?
Rupert
May 12, 2017, 2:52:17 AM5/12/17
to
On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 5:12:12 AM UTC+2, mur wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:47:10 -0400, mur@. reprised:
>
> >On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 07:44:41 -0800 (PST), Ru wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:36:03 -0500, mur@. wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 22:13:07 GMT, Goo replied to himself:
> >>>.
> >>>>Goo wrote:
> >>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
> >>>>>>> any other kind of animal.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why is that?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
> >>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
> >>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
> >>>>
> >>>>I'm surprised Rupert doesn't understand that.
> >>>
> >>> Try explaining to him exactly how you want people to think anything about
> >>>"prior to existence" could possibly prevent "getting to experience life" from
> >>>being a "benefit to livestock animals, or any other kind of animal" Goob.
> >>
> >>I don't regard it as a clear-cut matter that coming into existence is not a benefit. One interesting discussion of the matter can be found in an appendix to Derek Parfit's book "Reasons and Persons". Another discussion of the issue appears in a recent paper by Nils Holtug, which unfortunately is no longer available on-line for free. ..[Goo] treats the issue as though his views about the matter are beyond rational dispute, but that is not in fact the case.
> >
> > Goo can't even attempt to back up his own stupid claims and we all know it.
> >
> >
> >>>You can't do it and never will be able to, Goo.
> >>
> >>On the other hand, assuming for the sake of argument that we confer a benefit on a non-human animal by bringing it into existence, I don't think that David Harrison has shown that that means that we are justified in imposing suffering
> >
> > Like what?
Now, here you're asking me to be specific about the nature of the suffering experienced by farm animals. Now, of course you know that I've directed you towards factual information on this topic many times in the past and you've refused to read it. So you're saying there's some good reason why I should post the link for you again, is there?
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:47:10 -0400, mur@. reprised:
>
> >On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 07:44:41 -0800 (PST), Ru wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:36:03 -0500, mur@. wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 22:13:07 GMT, Goo replied to himself:
> >>>.
> >>>>Goo wrote:
> >>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
> >>>>>>> any other kind of animal.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why is that?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
> >>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
> >>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
> >>>>
> >>>>I'm surprised Rupert doesn't understand that.
> >>>
> >>> Try explaining to him exactly how you want people to think anything about
> >>>"prior to existence" could possibly prevent "getting to experience life" from
> >>>being a "benefit to livestock animals, or any other kind of animal" Goob.
> >>
> >>I don't regard it as a clear-cut matter that coming into existence is not a benefit. One interesting discussion of the matter can be found in an appendix to Derek Parfit's book "Reasons and Persons". Another discussion of the issue appears in a recent paper by Nils Holtug, which unfortunately is no longer available on-line for free. ..[Goo] treats the issue as though his views about the matter are beyond rational dispute, but that is not in fact the case.
> >
> > Goo can't even attempt to back up his own stupid claims and we all know it.
> >
> >
> >>>You can't do it and never will be able to, Goo.
> >>
> >>On the other hand, assuming for the sake of argument that we confer a benefit on a non-human animal by bringing it into existence, I don't think that David Harrison has shown that that means that we are justified in imposing suffering
> >
> > Like what?
If you really want to get hold of factual information about the nature of the suffering endured by farm animals, it's very easy to find. I would recommend having a look at the Compassion in World Farming website.
> >>or premature death
> >
> > Anyone of less than idiot level intelligence could comprehend that "by
> >bringing it into existence" any life the beings experience are life they would
> >not have had otherwise so whenever they are killed it could not be "premature
> >death" relative to the alternative which is no life at all.
> >>on it so long as it remains the case that its life was on balance a benefit to it.
> >
> > At some point in the past you pretended you could imagine how life could be
> >'good' or whatever limitted concept you're capable of for some: humans, free
> >range chickens and grass raised cattle. Those are the only types of creatures on
> >this planet you've ever pretended to comprehend how life could possibly be
> >'good' for. But you have always backed away from those three making it clear
> >that you like your hero Goo agree: ""it is not "better" that the animal exist,
> >no matter its quality of live" - Goo"
Rudy Canoza
May 12, 2017, 2:17:44 PM5/12/17
to
On 5/11/2017 8:11 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison stopped sexually abusing
his grandmother long enough to lie:
>
> Quod est demonstrandum
Yes - and I did.
his grandmother long enough to lie:
> On 4/6/2017 9:54 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 4/5/2017 8:47 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *THE* Fuckwit - helpfully
>> confessed:
>>> On 3/12/2017 12:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 3/9/2017 6:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, revealed
>>>> his stupidity again:
>> On 4/5/2017 8:47 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *THE* Fuckwit - helpfully
>> confessed:
>>> On 3/12/2017 12:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 3/9/2017 6:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, revealed
>>>> his stupidity again:
>>>>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:22:15 -0800 (PST), Rupert wrote:
>>>>> .
>>>>> .
>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 10:19:06 PM UTC+1, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock
>>>>>>>>> animals, or
>>>>>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's
>>>>>>> welfare,
>>>>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it -
>>>>>>> prior to
>>>>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about death, then, is death a harm?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock
>>>>>>>>> animals, or
>>>>>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's
>>>>>>> welfare,
>>>>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it -
>>>>>>> prior to
>>>>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about death, then, is death a harm?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Correct.
>>>
>>> We see consistently that
>>
>> "Getting to experience life" has no significance. Correct.
>>>
>>> We see consistently that
>>
>
> Quod est demonstrandum
Yes - and I did.
Rudy Canoza
May 12, 2017, 2:18:52 PM5/12/17
to
On 5/11/2017 8:11 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison stopped sexually abusing
his grandmother long enough to lie:
his grandmother long enough to lie:
> On 4/6/2017 9:55 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 4/5/2017 8:51 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *THE* Fuckwit - helpfully
>> confessed:
>>> On 3/12/2017 12:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 3/9/2017 6:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *THE* Fuckwit -
>>>> helpfully confessed:
>>>>> On 3/6/2017 1:19 PM, Clarence Callahan wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> On 4/5/2017 8:51 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *THE* Fuckwit - helpfully
>> confessed:
>>> On 3/12/2017 12:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 3/9/2017 6:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *THE* Fuckwit -
>>>> helpfully confessed:
>>>>> On 3/6/2017 1:19 PM, Clarence Callahan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Clarence Callahan
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock
>>>>>>>> animals, or
>>>>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock
>>>>>>>> animals, or
>>>>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's
>>>>>> welfare,
>>>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>>>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>>>
>>>>>> welfare,
>>>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>>>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to try to explain
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Quack quack.
>>>
>>
>> Very good, Fuckwit.
>
> You demonstrated me to be a stupid cousin-fucking cracker, Prof. Canoza.
Yes, indeed.
mur
Jun 22, 2017, 10:20:44 PM6/22/17
to
On Thu, 11 May 2017 23:45:30 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
.
>My stance on all these various statements that you have quoted from ...[Goo] is more complicated than "agree completely",
There has never been any evidence of that.
>and in any case I haven't looked through all these statements carefully in recent memory.
>
>Starting with the first one,
>
>`the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives"'
>
>it would be interesting to think about what that might mean,
I present you with the opportunity to do that below, and feel confident you
will fail to make the attempt because doing so works against what you WANT TO
believe.
>you could try to interpret it along consequentialist lines but I doubt that ...[Goo] would accept that interpretation of what he wrote. I think his point is that if you have brought some conscious being into existence, and therefore in your view conferred a benefit on that being assuming that its life is on the whole worth living, it doesn't follow from that that you are morally justified in taking steps to end that being's life, any moral justification for doing that must be sought on other grounds.
It's one of the very significant aspects of the situation. You
eliminationists don't want to take that particular aspect into consideration
because it works against what you WANT TO believe, but it still exists and still
is very significant.
>Think for example about a hypothetical situation in which we brought human beings into existence for the purpose of harvesting their organs (once they had become fully cognitively normal full-grown adult human beings). I think ...[Goo] might be saying that, in that situation, even supposing for the sake of argument that you did benefit them by bringing them into existence, that doesn't mean that you would be morally justified in ending their lives because you want to harvest the organs and that's the purpose for which you brought them into existence. He's saying that that act would not be morally justifiable, it wouldn't be the right thing to do. Do you think he might be onto something there, or do you think he's got that all wrong?
We could consider the same sort of thing with the animals who die to provide
us with crops which you have no problem consuming. The very same sort of
hypothetical situation in which the animals who die in crop production are human
instead of non-human. Well, no, it wouldn't be the very same because they would
exist even if they were not killed in crop production, where your hypothetical
organ humans as well as domestic animals would NOT exist if they weren't raised
for that purpose.
wrote:
.
There has never been any evidence of that.
>and in any case I haven't looked through all these statements carefully in recent memory.
>
>Starting with the first one,
>
>`the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives"'
>
>it would be interesting to think about what that might mean,
will fail to make the attempt because doing so works against what you WANT TO
believe.
>you could try to interpret it along consequentialist lines but I doubt that ...[Goo] would accept that interpretation of what he wrote. I think his point is that if you have brought some conscious being into existence, and therefore in your view conferred a benefit on that being assuming that its life is on the whole worth living, it doesn't follow from that that you are morally justified in taking steps to end that being's life, any moral justification for doing that must be sought on other grounds.
It's one of the very significant aspects of the situation. You
eliminationists don't want to take that particular aspect into consideration
because it works against what you WANT TO believe, but it still exists and still
is very significant.
>Think for example about a hypothetical situation in which we brought human beings into existence for the purpose of harvesting their organs (once they had become fully cognitively normal full-grown adult human beings). I think ...[Goo] might be saying that, in that situation, even supposing for the sake of argument that you did benefit them by bringing them into existence, that doesn't mean that you would be morally justified in ending their lives because you want to harvest the organs and that's the purpose for which you brought them into existence. He's saying that that act would not be morally justifiable, it wouldn't be the right thing to do. Do you think he might be onto something there, or do you think he's got that all wrong?
We could consider the same sort of thing with the animals who die to provide
us with crops which you have no problem consuming. The very same sort of
hypothetical situation in which the animals who die in crop production are human
instead of non-human. Well, no, it wouldn't be the very same because they would
exist even if they were not killed in crop production, where your hypothetical
organ humans as well as domestic animals would NOT exist if they weren't raised
for that purpose.
mur
Jun 22, 2017, 10:20:51 PM6/22/17
to
On Fri, 12 May 2017 11:17:46 -0700, Goo continued to agree:
.
>>>>>>.
>>>>>Correct.
>>>>
.
>On Thu, 11 May 2017 23:11:34 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:54:18 -0700, Goo agreed:
>>.
>>>On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:47:26 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:32:11 -0700, Goo agree with himself:
>>>>.
>>>>>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:36:24 -0500, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:22:15 -0800 (PST), Rupert challenged Goo:
>
>>On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:54:18 -0700, Goo agreed:
>>.
>>>On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:47:26 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:32:11 -0700, Goo agree with himself:
>>>>.
>>>>>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:36:24 -0500, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 10:19:06 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>> > On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>>>>>> >> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > Why is that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
>>>>>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>>>>>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How about death, then, is death a harm?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>>>>>> >> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > Why is that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
>>>>>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>>>>>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How about death, then, is death a harm?
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We see consistently that you and Ru agree completely about all of your above
>>>>claims, Goo.
>>>
>>>Correct.
>>
>> Quod est demonstrandum, Goo. Quod est demonstrandum, Ru.
>
>>>>claims, Goo.
>>>
>>>Correct.
>>
>> Quod est demonstrandum, Goo. Quod est demonstrandum, Ru.
>
>Yes - and I did.
Quod est demonstrandum, Goo.
mur
Jun 22, 2017, 10:20:58 PM6/22/17
to
On Fri, 12 May 2017 11:18:54 -0700, Goo continued to prove me correct:
.
>>
QED, Goo.
.
>On Thu, 11 May 2017 23:11:56 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:55:32 -0700, Goo agreed:
>>
>>>On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:51:42 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:32:44 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:36:53 -0500, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 13:19:14 -0800, Goo wussed horribly as always:
>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Ru wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:55:32 -0700, Goo agreed:
>>
>>>On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:51:42 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:32:44 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:36:53 -0500, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 13:19:14 -0800, Goo wussed horribly as always:
>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>>>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>>>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>...prior to existence
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to try to explain how anything about "prior to existence" could
>>>>>>possibly prevent existing entities from benefitting from experiencing life as
>>>>>>I've pointed out for you countless times, you stupid STUPID Goober. But you
>>>>>>never could explain it, can't explain it now, and never will be able to even
>>>>>>attempt to explain it, Goo.
>>>>
>>>> Quod est demonstrandum. (What IS demonstrated, in this case by Goo:)
>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>> QED, Goo.
>>>
>>>Very good, Fuckwit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to try to explain how anything about "prior to existence" could
>>>>>>possibly prevent existing entities from benefitting from experiencing life as
>>>>>>I've pointed out for you countless times, you stupid STUPID Goober. But you
>>>>>>never could explain it, can't explain it now, and never will be able to even
>>>>>>attempt to explain it, Goo.
>>>>
>>>> Quod est demonstrandum. (What IS demonstrated, in this case by Goo:)
>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>> QED, Goo.
>>>
>>
>> You demonstrated me correct Goober, and then pointed out that I did very
>>good, Goo.
>
>Yes, indeed.
>>good, Goo.
>
QED, Goo.
mur
Jun 22, 2017, 10:21:03 PM6/22/17
to
On Thu, 11 May 2017 23:52:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
.
I challenged you to provide evidence that you might have some clue what YOU
want people to think you think you're trying to talk about.
>Now, of course you know that I've directed you towards factual information on this topic many times in the past and you've refused to read it.
Now you're trying to promote a lie that I've never read any of it, when the
truth is that I've read at least some of it and challenged you regarding
specific aspects of it which you haven't been able to defend.
>So you're saying there's some good reason why I should post the link for you again, is there?
No and there never was since you can't present any particular suffering you
feel makes life of negative value. Just posting a link is of no value and never
will be, as I've pointed out for you countless times.
>If you really want to get hold of factual information about the nature of the suffering endured by farm animals, it's very easy to find. I would recommend having a look at the Compassion in World Farming website.
>
>> >>or premature death
>> >
>> > Anyone of less than idiot level intelligence could comprehend that "by
>> >bringing it into existence" any life the beings experience are life they would
>> >not have had otherwise so whenever they are killed it could not be "premature
>> >death" relative to the alternative which is no life at all.
>
>Riiiight, so that would mean if my parents decided to kill me that wouldn't be a premature death?
Relative to the alternative which is no life at all it could not be. It
seems even a retard should be able to comprehend something as obvious as that.
>> >>on it so long as it remains the case that its life was on balance a benefit to it.
>> >
>> > At some point in the past you pretended you could imagine how life could be
>> >'good' or whatever limitted concept you're capable of for some: humans, free
>> >range chickens and grass raised cattle. Those are the only types of creatures on
>> >this planet you've ever pretended to comprehend how life could possibly be
>> >'good' for. But you have always backed away from those three making it clear
>> >that you like your hero Goo agree: ""it is not "better" that the animal exist,
>> >no matter its quality of live" - Goo"
>
>I have no memory of having said I agree with that.
Even so every single time you encourage veganism you prove that you agree
with it.
wrote:
.
want people to think you think you're trying to talk about.
>Now, of course you know that I've directed you towards factual information on this topic many times in the past and you've refused to read it.
truth is that I've read at least some of it and challenged you regarding
specific aspects of it which you haven't been able to defend.
>So you're saying there's some good reason why I should post the link for you again, is there?
feel makes life of negative value. Just posting a link is of no value and never
will be, as I've pointed out for you countless times.
>If you really want to get hold of factual information about the nature of the suffering endured by farm animals, it's very easy to find. I would recommend having a look at the Compassion in World Farming website.
>
>> >>or premature death
>> >
>> > Anyone of less than idiot level intelligence could comprehend that "by
>> >bringing it into existence" any life the beings experience are life they would
>> >not have had otherwise so whenever they are killed it could not be "premature
>> >death" relative to the alternative which is no life at all.
>
>Riiiight, so that would mean if my parents decided to kill me that wouldn't be a premature death?
seems even a retard should be able to comprehend something as obvious as that.
>> >>on it so long as it remains the case that its life was on balance a benefit to it.
>> >
>> > At some point in the past you pretended you could imagine how life could be
>> >'good' or whatever limitted concept you're capable of for some: humans, free
>> >range chickens and grass raised cattle. Those are the only types of creatures on
>> >this planet you've ever pretended to comprehend how life could possibly be
>> >'good' for. But you have always backed away from those three making it clear
>> >that you like your hero Goo agree: ""it is not "better" that the animal exist,
>> >no matter its quality of live" - Goo"
>
>I have no memory of having said I agree with that.
with it.
Rudy Canoza
Jun 23, 2017, 11:21:09 AM6/23/17
to
On 6/22/2017 7:20 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison stopped sexually abusing
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Clarence Callahan
>>>>>
>>>>> Quack quack.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Very good, Fuckwit.
>>>
Yes, exactly.
his grandmother long enough to lie:
> On 5/12/2017 11:18 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 5/11/2017 8:11 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison stopped sexually abusing his grandmother long enough to lie:
>>> On 4/6/2017 9:55 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 4/5/2017 8:51 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison stopped sexually abusing his grandmother long enough to lie:
>> On 5/11/2017 8:11 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison stopped sexually abusing his grandmother long enough to lie:
>>> On 4/6/2017 9:55 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 3/12/2017 12:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/9/2017 6:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison stopped sexually abusing his grandmother long enough to lie:
>>>>>>> On 3/6/2017 1:19 PM, Clarence Callahan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Clarence Callahan
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock
>>>>>>>>>> animals, or any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock
>>>>>>>>>> animals, or any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's
>>>>>>>> welfare, and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it -
>>>>>>>> prior to existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> welfare, and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it -
>>>>>>>> prior to existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You need to try to explain
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Done, many times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Quack quack.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Very good, Fuckwit.
>>>
>>> You demonstrated me to be a stupid cousin-fucking cracker, Prof. Canoza.
>>
>> Yes, indeed.
>
> QED
>>
>> Yes, indeed.
>
Yes, exactly.
Rudy Canoza
Jun 23, 2017, 11:23:50 AM6/23/17
to
On 6/22/2017 7:20 PM, mur@. wrote:
>>>
>>> Quod est demonstrandum
>>
>>
>> *WRONG*, Fuckwit - the Latin phrase is "Quod *erat* demonstrandum", you ignorant pig-fucking lout.
>
> Quod est demonstrandum
Still wrong, Fuckwit. You are at least 55 years old and ignorant as a
fence post, Fuckwit. That is never going to change.
> On 5/12/2017 11:17 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 5/11/2017 8:11 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison stopped sexually abusing
>> his grandmother long enough to lie:
>>> On 4/6/2017 9:54 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 4/5/2017 8:47 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *THE* Fuckwit - helpfully
>>>> confessed:
>>>>> On 3/12/2017 12:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/9/2017 6:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, revealed
>>>>>> his stupidity again:
>> On 5/11/2017 8:11 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison stopped sexually abusing
>> his grandmother long enough to lie:
>>> On 4/6/2017 9:54 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 4/5/2017 8:47 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *THE* Fuckwit - helpfully
>>>> confessed:
>>>>> On 3/12/2017 12:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/9/2017 6:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon, revealed
>>>>>> his stupidity again:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:22:15 -0800 (PST), Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 10:19:06 PM UTC+1, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock
>>>>>>>>>>> animals, or
>>>>>>>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's
>>>>>>>>> welfare,
>>>>>>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it -
>>>>>>>>> prior to
>>>>>>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about death, then, is death a harm?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock
>>>>>>>>>>> animals, or
>>>>>>>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's
>>>>>>>>> welfare,
>>>>>>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it -
>>>>>>>>> prior to
>>>>>>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about death, then, is death a harm?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> We see consistently that
>>>>
>>>> "Getting to experience life" has no significance. Correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> We see consistently that
>>>>
>>>
>>> Quod est demonstrandum
>>
>>
>> *WRONG*, Fuckwit - the Latin phrase is "Quod *erat* demonstrandum", you ignorant pig-fucking lout.
>
> Quod est demonstrandum
Still wrong, Fuckwit. You are at least 55 years old and ignorant as a
fence post, Fuckwit. That is never going to change.
mur
Jul 10, 2017, 10:56:54 PM7/10/17
to
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 08:23:50 -0700, Goo still agrees:
.
>>>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>Correct.
>>>>>>
Yup.
.
>On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:20:48 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 May 2017 11:17:46 -0700, Goo continued to agree:
>>.
>>>On Thu, 11 May 2017 23:11:34 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:54:18 -0700, Goo agreed:
>>>>.
>>>>>On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:47:26 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:32:11 -0700, Goo agree with himself:
>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:36:24 -0500, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:22:15 -0800 (PST), Rupert challenged Goo:
>
>>On Fri, 12 May 2017 11:17:46 -0700, Goo continued to agree:
>>.
>>>On Thu, 11 May 2017 23:11:34 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:54:18 -0700, Goo agreed:
>>>>.
>>>>>On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:47:26 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:32:11 -0700, Goo agree with himself:
>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:36:24 -0500, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>>>On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 10:19:06 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> > On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>>>>>>>> >> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > Why is that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
>>>>>>>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>>>>>>>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>How about death, then, is death a harm?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>>>>>>>> >> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > Why is that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's welfare,
>>>>>>>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it - prior to
>>>>>>>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>How about death, then, is death a harm?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We see consistently that you and Ru agree completely about all of your above
>>>>>>claims, Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>Correct.
>>>>
>>>> Quod est demonstrandum, Goo. Quod est demonstrandum, Ru.
>>>
>>>Yes - and I did.
>>
>> Quod est demonstrandum, Goo.
>
>Still
>>>>>>claims, Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>Correct.
>>>>
>>>> Quod est demonstrandum, Goo. Quod est demonstrandum, Ru.
>>>
>>>Yes - and I did.
>>
>> Quod est demonstrandum, Goo.
>
Yup.
mur
Jul 10, 2017, 10:56:57 PM7/10/17
to
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 08:21:10 -0700, Goo still agrees:
.
>>>>
.
>On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:20:55 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 May 2017 11:18:54 -0700, Goo continued to prove me correct:
>>.
>>>On Thu, 11 May 2017 23:11:56 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:55:32 -0700, Goo agreed:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:51:42 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:32:44 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:36:53 -0500, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 13:19:14 -0800, Goo wussed horribly as always:
>>>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>>>On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Ru wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 May 2017 11:18:54 -0700, Goo continued to prove me correct:
>>.
>>>On Thu, 11 May 2017 23:11:56 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:55:32 -0700, Goo agreed:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:51:42 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:32:44 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:36:53 -0500, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 13:19:14 -0800, Goo wussed horribly as always:
>>>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>>>>>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock animals, or
>>>>>>>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>...prior to existence
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You need to try to explain how anything about "prior to existence" could
>>>>>>>>possibly prevent existing entities from benefitting from experiencing life as
>>>>>>>>I've pointed out for you countless times, you stupid STUPID Goober. But you
>>>>>>>>never could explain it, can't explain it now, and never will be able to even
>>>>>>>>attempt to explain it, Goo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quod est demonstrandum. (What IS demonstrated, in this case by Goo:)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> QED, Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>Very good, Fuckwit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You need to try to explain how anything about "prior to existence" could
>>>>>>>>possibly prevent existing entities from benefitting from experiencing life as
>>>>>>>>I've pointed out for you countless times, you stupid STUPID Goober. But you
>>>>>>>>never could explain it, can't explain it now, and never will be able to even
>>>>>>>>attempt to explain it, Goo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quod est demonstrandum. (What IS demonstrated, in this case by Goo:)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> QED, Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You demonstrated me correct Goober, and then pointed out that I did very
>>>>good, Goo.
>>>
>>>Yes, indeed.
>>
>> QED, Goo.
>
>Yes, exactly.
>>>>good, Goo.
>>>
>>>Yes, indeed.
>>
>> QED, Goo.
>
Rudy Canoza
Jul 10, 2017, 11:30:39 PM7/10/17
to
On 7/10/2017 7:56 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison stopped anally raping his
Yep.
grandmother long enough to lie:
> On 6/23/2017 8:23 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 6/22/2017 7:20 PM, mur@. wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2017 11:17 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 5/11/2017 8:11 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison stopped sexually abusing
>>>> his grandmother long enough to lie:
>>>>> On 4/6/2017 9:54 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/5/2017 8:47 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *THE* Fuckwit -
>>>>>> helpfully
>>>>>> confessed:
>>>>>>> On 3/12/2017 12:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2017 6:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon,
>>>>>>>> revealed
>>>>>>>> his stupidity again:
>> On 6/22/2017 7:20 PM, mur@. wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2017 11:17 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 5/11/2017 8:11 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison stopped sexually abusing
>>>> his grandmother long enough to lie:
>>>>> On 4/6/2017 9:54 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/5/2017 8:47 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *THE* Fuckwit -
>>>>>> helpfully
>>>>>> confessed:
>>>>>>> On 3/12/2017 12:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2017 6:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon,
>>>>>>>> revealed
>>>>>>>> his stupidity again:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:22:15 -0800 (PST), Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 10:19:06 PM UTC+1, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock
>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's
>>>>>>>>>>> welfare,
>>>>>>>>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it -
>>>>>>>>>>> prior to
>>>>>>>>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How about death, then, is death a harm?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock
>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's
>>>>>>>>>>> welfare,
>>>>>>>>>>> and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot do it -
>>>>>>>>>>> prior to
>>>>>>>>>>> existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How about death, then, is death a harm?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We see consistently that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We see consistently that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" has no significance. Correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quod est demonstrandum
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *WRONG*, Fuckwit - the Latin phrase is "Quod *erat* demonstrandum",
>>>> you ignorant pig-fucking lout.
>>>
>>> Quod est demonstrandum
>>
>> Still wrong, Fuckwit. You are at least 55 years old and ignorant as a
>> fence post, Fuckwit. That is never going to change.
>
> Yup.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quod est demonstrandum
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *WRONG*, Fuckwit - the Latin phrase is "Quod *erat* demonstrandum",
>>>> you ignorant pig-fucking lout.
>>>
>>> Quod est demonstrandum
>>
>> Still wrong, Fuckwit. You are at least 55 years old and ignorant as a
>> fence post, Fuckwit. That is never going to change.
>
Yep.
Rudy Canoza
Jul 10, 2017, 11:31:54 PM7/10/17
to
On 7/10/2017 7:56 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison stopped anally raping his
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Clarence Callahan
>>>>>
You don't know what QED means, Goo.
grandmother long enough to lie:
> On 6/23/2017 8:21 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 6/22/2017 7:20 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison stopped sexually abusing
>> his grandmother long enough to lie:
>>> On 5/12/2017 11:18 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 5/11/2017 8:11 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison stopped sexually abusing
>>>> his grandmother long enough to lie:
>>>>> On 4/6/2017 9:55 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/5/2017 8:51 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison stopped sexually
>>>>>> abusing his grandmother long enough to lie:
>>>>>>> On 3/12/2017 12:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2017 6:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison stopped sexually
>>>>>>>> abusing his grandmother long enough to lie:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2017 1:19 PM, Clarence Callahan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2017 11:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> On 6/22/2017 7:20 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison stopped sexually abusing
>> his grandmother long enough to lie:
>>> On 5/12/2017 11:18 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 5/11/2017 8:11 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison stopped sexually abusing
>>>> his grandmother long enough to lie:
>>>>> On 4/6/2017 9:55 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/5/2017 8:51 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison stopped sexually
>>>>>> abusing his grandmother long enough to lie:
>>>>>>> On 3/12/2017 12:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2017 6:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison stopped sexually
>>>>>>>> abusing his grandmother long enough to lie:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2017 1:19 PM, Clarence Callahan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:17:00 PM UTC+1, Clarence Callahan
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock
>>>>>>>>>>>> animals, or any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to livestock
>>>>>>>>>>>> animals, or any other kind of animal.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A benefit to an entity is something that improves the entity's
>>>>>>>>>> welfare, and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot
>>>>>>>>>> do it -
>>>>>>>>>> prior to existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> welfare, and coming into existence doesn't do that. It cannot
>>>>>>>>>> do it -
>>>>>>>>>> prior to existence, there was no welfare to be improved.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You need to try to explain
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Done, many times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quack quack.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Very good, Fuckwit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quack quack.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You demonstrated me to be a stupid cousin-fucking cracker, Prof.
>>>>> Canoza.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, indeed.
>>>
>>> QED
>>
>> Yes, exactly.
Yes, exactly.
>>>>> Canoza.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, indeed.
>>>
>>> QED
>>
>> Yes, exactly.
You don't know what QED means, Goo.
0 new messages