"The" answer? Or...?

meaningoflife@quest

unread,

Apr 2, 2013, 1:43:24 PM4/2/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 2, 2013, 2:14:37 PM4/2/13

to

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

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

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

True.

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

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

True.

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

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

True.

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

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

True.

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

Not a quote, but true.

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

True.

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

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

True.

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

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

Not a quote, but true.

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

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

True.

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

Not a quote, but true.

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

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

True.

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

True.

Dakota

unread,

Apr 2, 2013, 3:12:34 PM4/2/13

to

No one asked to be born.

sbalneav

unread,

Apr 2, 2013, 3:50:22 PM4/2/13

to

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

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

<snip the rest>

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

R@notto.can SpamƁusteᴙ

unread,

Apr 2, 2013, 7:16:34 PM4/2/13

to

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

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

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

Bob Casanova

unread,

Apr 3, 2013, 1:27:38 PM4/3/13

to

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

Trying to sneak out of my killfile, huh?

Back y'go...

--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 3, 2013, 2:08:01 PM4/3/13

to

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

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

dh

unread,

Apr 3, 2013, 3:37:58 PM4/3/13

to

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

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

>>> never existing" - Goo

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

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

dh

unread,

Apr 3, 2013, 3:38:04 PM4/3/13

to

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

dh

unread,

Apr 3, 2013, 3:38:12 PM4/3/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sbalneav

unread,

Apr 3, 2013, 5:19:41 PM4/3/13

to

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

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

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

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

Dutch

unread,

Apr 3, 2013, 5:26:33 PM4/3/13

to

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

Dutch

unread,

Apr 3, 2013, 5:27:04 PM4/3/13

to

No they don't, that's bullshit.

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 3, 2013, 5:46:53 PM4/3/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 3, 2013, 5:49:52 PM4/3/13

to

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

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

uste R@notto.can SpamƁusteᴙ

unread,

Apr 3, 2013, 6:24:57 PM4/3/13

to

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

--

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 3, 2013, 6:49:34 PM4/3/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact.

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 3, 2013, 6:53:08 PM4/3/13

to

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

No.

dh

unread,

Apr 4, 2013, 4:32:09 PM4/4/13

to

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

wrote:

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

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

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

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

dh

unread,

Apr 4, 2013, 4:32:25 PM4/4/13

to

dh

unread,

Apr 4, 2013, 4:32:50 PM4/4/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>No. Some of them are not quotes.

That's a blatant lie Goo.

>You part-quoted me and removed
>context.

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

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

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

dh

unread,

Apr 4, 2013, 4:33:16 PM4/4/13

to

You appear to benefit from your life.

sbalneav

unread,

Apr 4, 2013, 4:55:43 PM4/4/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

Word salad.

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

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 4, 2013, 6:41:18 PM4/4/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>
> That's a blatant lie

Not a lie.

>> You part-quoted me and removedcontext.

>
> If you want people to think you

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

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 4, 2013, 6:41:20 PM4/4/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 4, 2013, 6:41:21 PM4/4/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 4, 2013, 6:41:27 PM4/4/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sbalneav

unread,

Apr 4, 2013, 7:01:50 PM4/4/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr.Smartypants

unread,

Apr 5, 2013, 3:04:53 AM4/5/13

to

On Apr 4, 5:01 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alt-atheism.org> wrote:
> In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4/4/2013 1:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:
> >> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

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

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

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

and you know this how?

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Apr 5, 2013, 7:33:53 AM4/5/13

to

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

> never existing" - Goo

Good excuse for killing them.

dh

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 5:08:54 PM4/8/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ben�e�fit [ben-uh-fit] noun, verb, ben�e�fit�ed or ben�e�fit�ted,
ben�e�fit�ing or ben�e�fit�ting.
noun
1. something that is advantageous or good; an advantage
��
WHAT do you want people to think is preventing being alive from being to
your advantage, HOW do you want them to think whatever it is is doing so, and
WHY do you want anyone to believe it, Goo?

dh

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 5:09:05 PM4/8/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe Goo told him?

dh

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 5:09:23 PM4/8/13

to

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

dh

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 5:10:13 PM4/8/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>> That's a blatant lie Goo.

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

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

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

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

>You

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

dh

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 5:10:22 PM4/8/13

to

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

wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

dh

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 5:10:38 PM4/8/13

to

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

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

>>> dh pointed out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>especially when the solution is so trivially obvious.

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

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 6:21:37 PM4/8/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 6:21:38 PM4/8/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 6:21:39 PM4/8/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> YOU DO agree with yourself

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

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 6:21:39 PM4/8/13

to

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

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

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

Ergo, they are not "eliminationists."

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 6:21:40 PM4/8/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sbalneav

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 7:06:24 PM4/8/13

to

Benefit is a comparative word:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/benefit

"Something that promotes or *enhances* wellbeing.

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

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

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

Allow me to ask a couple of questions:

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

Wha?

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

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

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

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

I do, but you obviously don't.

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

sbalneav

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 7:12:42 PM4/8/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 8, 2013, 7:19:00 PM4/8/13

to

That's exactly it.

Mr.Smartypants

unread,

Apr 9, 2013, 1:53:46 AM4/9/13

to

That's possible. I remember Goo starting to blubber about post-
existence here and then shut his pie-hole rather quickly. He may have
kept blabbering about it on other newsgroups though.

dh

unread,

Apr 9, 2013, 5:36:17 PM4/9/13

to

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

dh

unread,

Apr 9, 2013, 5:37:11 PM4/9/13

to

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

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

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

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

dh

unread,

Apr 9, 2013, 5:37:20 PM4/9/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>ben�e�fit [ben-uh-fit] noun, verb, ben�e�fit�ed or ben�e�fit�ted,
>>ben�e�fit�ing or ben�e�fit�ting.
>>noun
>>1. something that is advantageous or good; an advantage
>>��
>> WHAT do you want people to think is preventing being alive from being to
>>your advantage, HOW do you want them to think whatever it is is doing so, and
>>WHY do you want anyone to believe it, Goo?
>

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

dh

unread,

Apr 9, 2013, 5:37:52 PM4/9/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dh

unread,

Apr 9, 2013, 5:38:04 PM4/9/13

to

He did shut up pretty quickly on that one. That's a lot for Goo. We've known
him to go on for years about things he had no idea what he was trying to talk
about to the point that he wasn't even aware he had no idea, like his pet food
cattle. Goo still goes on acting like he made the comparison between living and
never living though, regardless of the fact that he can't even pretend to
attempt to explain how he wants people to think he found out that life has never
been a benefit for a single creature that has ever existed: "no matter its
quality of live" - Goo

dh

unread,

Apr 9, 2013, 5:38:18 PM4/9/13

to

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

_________________________________________________________
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit

ben�e�fit [ben-uh-fit] noun, verb, ben�e�fit�ed or ben�e�fit�ted,
ben�e�fit�ing or ben�e�fit�ting.
noun
1. something that is advantageous or good; an advantage
��

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

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

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

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

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

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

>On what basis
>do you make this comparision?

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

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

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

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

When you are no longer alive.

You seem to have no idea about that topic.

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

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

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

>> ��

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

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

Dutch

unread,

Apr 9, 2013, 6:05:18 PM4/9/13

to

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

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

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 9, 2013, 7:45:53 PM4/9/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>> YOU DO agree with yourself
>>

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

Yes, and I have presented them.

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 9, 2013, 7:45:54 PM4/9/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 9, 2013, 7:45:54 PM4/9/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 9, 2013, 7:45:55 PM4/9/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 9, 2013, 7:45:53 PM4/9/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¯¯

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

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

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

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

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

No.

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

Cracker nonsense.

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

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

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

Rupert

unread,

Apr 10, 2013, 2:57:41 AM4/10/13

to

> >> ï¿½ ï¿½ Maybe Goo told him?

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

He has explained that. He thinks he found it out as follows. Ascribing a benefit to an entity involves comparing its level of well-being in the actual world with its level of well-being in some other possible world. It is required that the other possible world be one in which the entity actually exists. So it is not correct to say that an organism benefits from coming into existence.

This has been explained to you many times.

dh

unread,

Apr 11, 2013, 3:39:22 PM4/11/13

to

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

>dh@. wrote:
>> What do you want people to think is preventing being alive from being to
>> your advantage NOW, Goo?
>
>You're implying that not existing is a disadvantage

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

dh

unread,

Apr 11, 2013, 3:39:40 PM4/11/13

to

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

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

>>>>>>> dh pointed out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>ben�e�fit [ben-uh-fit] noun, verb, ben�e�fit�ed or ben�e�fit�ted,
>>ben�e�fit�ing or ben�e�fit�ting.
>>noun
>>1. something that is advantageous or good; an advantage
>>��

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What if they did, Goots?

> - they have no welfare.

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

dh

unread,

Apr 11, 2013, 3:40:19 PM4/11/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>Yes

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

dh

unread,

Apr 11, 2013, 3:41:30 PM4/11/13

to

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

>> >> � � Maybe Goo told him?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 11, 2013, 5:31:21 PM4/11/13

to

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

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

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

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

It does.

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

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

This is settled.

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 11, 2013, 5:31:24 PM4/11/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>> Yes, and I have presented them.
>

> Try presenting them now

Go look them up.

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 11, 2013, 5:31:25 PM4/11/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 11, 2013, 5:31:25 PM4/11/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

sbalneav

unread,

Apr 11, 2013, 7:50:38 PM4/11/13

to

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

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

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

That sentence doesn't parse.

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

Again, that sentence doesn't parse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you stopped raping your children yet?

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

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

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

Do you often go into newsgroups and spout incoherent nonsense?

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

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 11, 2013, 8:38:56 PM4/11/13

to

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

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

Same as above.

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

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

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

He can't answer.

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

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

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

Relative to light, you stupid cracker fuckstain.

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

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

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

No such thing.

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

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

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

He'll never stop.

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

There's that fuckwitted cracker style again.

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

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

Dutch

unread,

Apr 11, 2013, 10:39:43 PM4/11/13

to

dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Apr 2013, Dutch maundered probably cluelessly:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> What do you want people to think is preventing being alive from being to
>>> your advantage NOW, Goo?
>>
>> You're implying that not existing is a disadvantage
>
> Not to me

Yes, to you. Your argument states or at least implies that vegetarians
are causing a disadvantage to animals by not wanting them to exist. The
only way your argument could have any merit is if what I said were true.
But it isn't.

Rupert

unread,

Apr 11, 2013, 11:00:30 PM4/11/13

to

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:41:30 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 23:57:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 11:38:04 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
>
> >> He did shut up pretty quickly on that one. That's a lot for Goo. We've known
>
> >>
>
> >> him to go on for years about things he had no idea what he was trying to talk
>
> >>
>
> >> about to the point that he wasn't even aware he had no idea, like his pet food
>
> >>
>
> >> cattle. Goo still goes on acting like he made the comparison between living and
>
> >>
>
> >> never living though, regardless of the fact that he can't even pretend to
>
> >>
>
> >> attempt to explain how he wants people to think he found out that life has never
>
> >>
>
> >> been a benefit for a single creature that has ever existed: "no matter its
>
> >>
>
> >> quality of live" - Goo
>
> >
>
> >He has explained that.
>
>
>
> He can't even pretend to make an attempt. I challenge him to try doing it
>
> now. He loses.
>
>
>
> >He thinks he found it out as follows. Ascribing a benefit to an entity involves comparing its level of well-being in the actual world with its level of well-being in some other possible world.
>
>
>
> No it doesn't. For example many beings appear to benefit from their
>
> existence REGARDLESS of anything at all to do with some imaginary other possible
>
> world, or even actual other worlds like Mars and Venus. Duh.
>

I'm just about to go and pour myself a cup of coffee. So let's say that I benefit from the fact that there is coffee in my kitchen. That involves a comparison between the actual world and a possible world in which there isn't any coffee in my kitchen.

Saying "no it doesn't" without any argument doesn't really cut it. If you think that this account of the semantics of ascriptions of benefit is in some way mistaken then you have to explain why. Possible worlds semantics is nothing to do with other planets.

>
>
> >It is required that the other possible world be one in which the entity actually exists.
>
>
>
> It has nothing to do with imaginary worlds or other existing worlds. It
>
> doesn't even have anything to do with different countries, states or counties.
>
> Duh again.
>
>
>
> >So it is not correct to say that an organism benefits from coming into existence.
>
> >
>
> >This has been explained to you many times.
>
>
>
> It never has but since you think you can, try to explain WHAT you want
>
> people to think about some other possible world is preventing being alive from
>
> being an advantage to you NOW,

An advantage, compared with which alternative possible state of affairs?

Rupert

unread,

Apr 12, 2013, 1:29:00 AM4/12/13

to

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

> >It's the primary reason why death isn't anything to be afraid of; *you* don't
>
> >ever experience death. Dying, you may experience. Death you don't.
>
> >
>
> >>>> WHAT do you
>
> >>>> want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do you want them to
>
> >>>> think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to believe it?
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Because if *I* did not exist, *I* would not be injured, as *I* would not have
>
> >>> existed to BE injured.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>>> My existance must come first before I begin benefitting
>
> >>>> >from anything.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> WHAT do you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting, HOW do
>

> >>>> you want them to think whatever it is is doing so, and WHY do you want anyone to
>
> >>>> believe it?
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Word salad.
>
> >>
>
> >> "Boys, I may not know much, but I know the difference
>
> >> between chicken shit and chicken salad."
>
> >> --Lyndon B. Johnson (1908?1973)
>
> >> American Democratic statesman, President [1963?1969].
>
> >> (When asked (as majority leader) if he took seriously
>
> >> a particular speech by Vice President Nixon.
>
> >> In David Halberstam _The Best and the Brightest_ [1972].
>
> >>
>
> >> *Goo* - Fuckwit David Harrison - has been trying and failing at this
>
> >> since 1999.
>
> >
>
> >Is this the guy who's the physicist? I think I might have debated him before.
>
>
>
> If you want to say nothing can go ftl, you need to specify relative to what.
>

> I'm also interested in what you think adjusts the velocity of light so that all
>
> of it arrives in this area of space at the same velocity relative to this area
>
> but regardless of the velocity of the observer relative to the emitter.
>

Nothing can go faster than light, relative to any object at all.

The velocity of light is the same in all reference frames.

Let's say you have one system of co-ordinates for space-time which assigns co-ordinates (x,y,z,t) to each point in space-time. Then you have another system of co-ordinates which assigns co-ordinates (x', y', z', t') to each point in space-time. And the second reference frame is moving with respect to the first along the x-axis, with velocity v.

In Newtonian mechanics, the laws of transformation would be:

x' = x - vt
y' = y
z' = z
t' = t

This can be proved if you assume that the distance between two points is the same in all reference frames, and that simultaneity between two events is the same in all reference frames. But these assumptions have been proved false by experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment for example. If these were the correct laws of transformation, then Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism could not be true in all reference frames, because they are not invariant with respect to these transformations. But experiment shows that Maxwell's equations are true in all reference frames. So we need to pick a different group of transformations of systems of co-ordinates, with respect to which Maxwell's equations are invariant.

The correct equations of transformation are:

x' = (x - vt) / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
y' = y
z' = z
t' = (t - vx / c^2) / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

where c is the velocity of light.

So suppose that in the (x, y, z, t) - reference frame, you have a ray of light moving with velocity c. Now apply the equations of transformation and work out what the velocity of that ray of light will be measured to be in the (x', y', z', t') - reference frame. If you work it out correctly you will find that it is still c. So it's all about understanding what are the correct equations of transformation between co-ordinates for different reference frames.

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

> Eliminationists are desperate that most consumers don't learn to appreciate

>
> the value of life for any domestic animals, and of course especially not for
>
> livestock animals.

Abolitionist animal rights theorists such as Tom Regan and Gary Francione are not especially concerned about the Logic of the Larder. That is not a very common argument among animal welfarists. What they are opposed to is the idea that it is possible effectively to reduce animal suffering by making welfare reforms which still leave animals in a situation of exploitation. Not all animal rights advocates subscribe to this view, however. There are some people who could still reasonably be called animal rights advocates given what they regard as the ideal situation, but are also still prepared to countenance working for welfare reforms which are contrary to Francione's "abolitionist" criteria. Also there are some people who are in favour of radical reform in our treatment of animals, such as Peter Singer, who are not rights theorists at all.

BruceS

unread,

Apr 12, 2013, 9:42:08 AM4/12/13

to

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

<snip>

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

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

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 12, 2013, 10:41:51 AM4/12/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing.

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

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

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

No.

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 12, 2013, 10:48:13 AM4/12/13

to

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

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

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

Yes, I think most do that.

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

Exactly.

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

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

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

@notto.can SpamƁusteᴙ

unread,

Apr 12, 2013, 2:55:56 PM4/12/13

to

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

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

--

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

dh

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 5:22:56 PM4/15/13

to

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:29:00 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

That's impossible.

>The velocity of light is the same in all reference frames.
>
>Let's say you have one system of co-ordinates for space-time which assigns co-ordinates (x,y,z,t) to each point in space-time. Then you have another system of co-ordinates which assigns co-ordinates (x', y', z', t') to each point in space-time. And the second reference frame is moving with respect to the first along the x-axis, with velocity v.
>
>In Newtonian mechanics, the laws of transformation would be:
>
>x' = x - vt
>y' = y
>z' = z
>t' = t
>
>This can be proved if you assume that the distance between two points is the same in all reference frames, and that simultaneity between two events is the same in all reference frames.

If an object that's moving toward us at 1/4 c emits light that's moving at
c relative to it, WHAT do you want people to think eliminates the combined
velocities and HOW do you want them to think whatever it is does so?

Bonus question:

If an object that's moving away us at 1/4 c emits light that's moving at c
relative to it, WHAT do you want people to think speeds the light up so it
arrives at c relative to us and not to the object that emitted it, and HOW do
you want them to think whatever it is does so?

>But these assumptions have been proved false by experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment for example. If these were the correct laws of transformation, then Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism could not be true in all reference frames, because they are not invariant with respect to these transformations. But experiment shows that Maxwell's equations are true in all reference frames. So we need to pick a different group of transformations of systems of co-ordinates, with respect to which Maxwell's equations are invariant.
>
>The correct equations of transformation are:
>
>x' = (x - vt) / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
>y' = y
>z' = z
>t' = (t - vx / c^2) / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
>
>where c is the velocity of light.
>
>So suppose that in the (x, y, z, t) - reference frame, you have a ray of light moving with velocity c. Now apply the equations of transformation and work out what the velocity of that ray of light will be measured to be in the (x', y', z', t') - reference frame. If you work it out correctly you will find that it is still c. So it's all about understanding what are the correct equations of transformation between co-ordinates for different reference frames.
>
>>
>>
>> >Seems like an odd argument to be carrying on for 14 years,
>>
>>
>>
>> Eliminationists are desperate that most consumers don't learn to appreciate
>>
>> the value of life for any domestic animals, and of course especially not for
>>
>> livestock animals.
>
>Abolitionist animal rights theorists such as Tom Regan and Gary Francione are not especially concerned about the Logic of the Larder. That is not a very common argument among animal welfarists.

Do you think they can appreciate the distinction between lives of positive
and negative value? What about the distinction between lives of positive value
which are good, and those which are not good?

>What they are opposed to is the idea that it is possible effectively to reduce animal suffering by making welfare reforms which still leave animals in a situation of exploitation.

That's because they really suck at trying to think things through,
especially considering the fact that millions of animals already experience
decent lives because of being raised for food. You can't either afawk, though
you like to pretend you can for some very few grass raised cattle and free range
chickens.

>Not all animal rights advocates subscribe to this view, however. There are some people who could still reasonably be called animal rights advocates given what they regard as the ideal situation, but are also still prepared to countenance working for welfare reforms which are contrary to Francione's "abolitionist" criteria. Also there are some people who are in favour of radical reform in our treatment of animals, such as Peter Singer, who are not rights theorists at all.

Do you think Singer can appreciate lives of positive value for any creatures
at all? If so, do you think any of them are animals raised by humans? If so, do
you think any of them are livestock animals?

dh

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 5:23:37 PM4/15/13

to

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:00:30 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:41:30 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 23:57:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 11:38:04 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> He did shut up pretty quickly on that one. That's a lot for Goo. We've known
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> him to go on for years about things he had no idea what he was trying to talk
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> about to the point that he wasn't even aware he had no idea, like his pet food
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> cattle. Goo still goes on acting like he made the comparison between living and
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> never living though, regardless of the fact that he can't even pretend to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> attempt to explain how he wants people to think he found out that life has never
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> been a benefit for a single creature that has ever existed: "no matter its
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> quality of live" - Goo
>>
>> >
>>
>> >He has explained that.
>>
>>
>>
>> He can't even pretend to make an attempt. I challenge him to try doing it
>>
>> now. He loses.
>>
>>
>>
>> >He thinks he found it out as follows. Ascribing a benefit to an entity involves comparing its level of well-being in the actual world with its level of well-being in some other possible world.
>>
>>
>>
>> No it doesn't. For example many beings appear to benefit from their
>>
>> existence REGARDLESS of anything at all to do with some imaginary other possible
>>
>> world, or even actual other worlds like Mars and Venus. Duh.
>>
>
>I'm just about to go and pour myself a cup of coffee. So let's say that I benefit from the fact that there is coffee in my kitchen. That involves a comparison between the actual world and a possible world in which there isn't any coffee in my kitchen.
>
>Saying "no it doesn't" without any argument doesn't really cut it.

The argument is that you appear to benefit from it REGARDLESS of anything to
do with imaginary worlds. That much is fact. So now YOU need to tell us WHAT you
want us to believe about imaginary worlds prevents you from benefitting from
your coffee as you appear to do, and HOW you want us to believe it does so. Go:

>If you think that this account of the semantics of ascriptions of benefit is in some way mistaken then you have to explain why. Possible worlds semantics is nothing to do with other planets.

Which possible worlds do you want us to believe have nothing to do with
planets?

>> >It is required that the other possible world be one in which the entity actually exists.
>>
>>
>>
>> It has nothing to do with imaginary worlds or other existing worlds. It
>>
>> doesn't even have anything to do with different countries, states or counties.
>>
>> Duh again.
>>
>>
>>
>> >So it is not correct to say that an organism benefits from coming into existence.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >This has been explained to you many times.
>>
>>
>>
>> It never has but since you think you can, try to explain WHAT you want
>>
>> people to think about some other possible world is preventing being alive from
>>
>> being an advantage to you NOW,
>
>An advantage, compared with which alternative possible state of affairs?

Any in which life doesn't appear to be to your advantage as it does in this
one, afawk.

>> and HOW you want them to think whatever it is is
>>
>> doing so. Go:

Now try answering that question. Go:

dh

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 5:23:56 PM4/15/13

to

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:39:43 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:39:22 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2013, Dutch maundered probably cluelessly:
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>> What do you want people to think is preventing being alive from being to
>>>> your advantage NOW, Goo?
>>>
>>>You're implying that not existing is a disadvantage
>>

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

>Yes, to you. Your argument states or at least implies that vegetarians
>are causing a disadvantage to animals

dh

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 5:25:02 PM4/15/13

to

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

>> ben·e·fit [ben-uh-fit] noun, verb, ben·e·fit·ed or ben·e·fit·ted,
>> ben·e·fit·ing or ben·e·fit·ting.

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

>> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which shows that being alive is to your advantage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

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

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

dh

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 5:25:44 PM4/15/13

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dh

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 5:26:21 PM4/15/13

to

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

>he knows he lost the debate long ago.

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

dh

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 5:31:23 PM4/15/13

to

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

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

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

>>>>>>>>> dh pointed out

>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> dh challeged:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, dh pointed out:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Goo

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>>>>>>>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>>>>>>>>>>> from my existence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existance. I have to *exist*
>>>>>>>>> first, before I can accrue the benefit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Exactly. A benefit is defined as something that improves the welfare of
>>>>>>>> an experiential entity. Existence doesn't do that; it establishes the
>>>>>>>> welfare.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He seems to be conflating "enjoying existing" with "benefitting from existing".
>>>>>>>Do I *enjoy* my existance? Sure.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> You need to say WHAT you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>>>> benefitting from it, since so far you certainly clearly appear to be.
>>>>>

>>>>>Benefit is a comparative word:
>>>>_________________________________________________________
>>>>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit
>>>>

>>>>ben·e·fit [ben-uh-fit] noun, verb, ben·e·fit·ed or ben·e·fit·ted,

>>>>ben·e·fit·ing or ben·e·fit·ting.
>>>>noun
>>>>1. something that is advantageous or good; an advantage

>>>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

>>>>>If I don't exist, my wellbeing is not enhanced, since there is no "me" to
>>>>>have an enhancement. "I" can't have any benefits until "I" exist.
>>>>

>>>> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being alive from

>>>>being to your advantage NOW. Go:
>>>>

>>>>>>>But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>>>>>>>"not existing".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence NOW?
>>>>>
>>>>>Any benefits I obtain *must*, by definition, be compared to a previous state of
>>>>>mine
>>>>
>>>> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being alive from

>>>>being to your advantage NOW. Go:
>>>>

>>>>>to be termed a benefit for me.
>>>>>
>>>>>Allow me to ask a couple of questions:
>>>>>
>>>>>Am *I* impeded when I die? What benefit do I lose when I die?
>>>>

>>>> Every one that you have at the time of your death.
>>>

>>>No.
>>
>> Which benefits do you want people to think you're somehow going to retain

>>after you die and how do you want people to think you're going to retain them,
>>Goo?
>

>A benefit only pertains to a state of existence.

Try to explain WHAT you want people to think is preventing being alive from
being to their advantage, HOW you want them to think whatever it is is doing so,
and WHY you want them to think it is, Goo. Go:

>>>>>On what basis
>>>>>do you make this comparision?
>>>>
>>>> I base it on the fact that you can no longer benefit from anything you
>>>>benefit from when you're alive, after you're no longer alive.
>>>>
>>>>>At what point to benefits begin to accrue to me?
>>>>>When sperm first meets egg?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, even though you weren't aware of it.
>>>
>>>No. The egg and the sperm have no experiential reality
>>

>> What if they did, Goots?
>

>They don't.

What difference do you think you want people to believe there is between
whether they do or whether they don't, Goo?

. . .
>>>>>> _________________________________________________________
>>>>>> . . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
>>>>>> separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
>>>>>> practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
>>>>>> those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
>>>>>> enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
>>>>>> achievement of animal rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> . . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
>>>>>> philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> . . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
>>>>>> welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition ends.
>>>>>> This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> . . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace
>>>>>> at which animal rights goals are achieved.
>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
>>>>>> By Tom Regan and Gary Francione

>>>>>> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

dh

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 5:32:54 PM4/15/13

to

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013, Goo wussed horribly because he's lying:

>On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:40:19 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 16:45:53 -0700, Goo lied:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 17:37:52 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 15:21:39 -0700, Goo wussed on:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:10:13 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 15:41:18 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:32:50 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:46:53 -0700, Goo lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 15:38:12 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:14:37 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, dh quoted Goo:

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with

>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing - proved." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to

>>>>>>>>>>>> experience life" instead of never existing" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing

>>>>>>>>>>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "animals' "getting to experience life" is nonsense." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life

>>>>>>>>>>>> than never to live at all." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit

>>>>>>>>>>>> compared with never existing." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared with

>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "according to me, existence is not a benefit - ever." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "*NO* right-thinking person attempts to "balance" the death with some

>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit about the animal's "getting to experience life."" - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>True.
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> You're lying about any of them not being quotes Goob. Since they are all
>>>>>>>>>>your quotes, I'm curious how you picked the ones to lie about that you decided
>>>>>>>>>>lie about. Is it just that you feel you always have to lie in every post you
>>>>>>>>>>make or what, Goo?
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>No. Some of them are not quotes.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> That's a blatant lie Goo.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You part-quoted me and removed
>>>>>>>>>context.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> If you want people to think you disagree with any of them then YOU have to
>>>>>>>>try to say which one Gootsy, and HOW.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>Even so, some of them still contain true statements.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Goober you agree with yourself about every one of them. You prove it by not
>>>>>>>>being able to say how you want people to think you disagree with yourself about
>>>>>>>>a single one of them, Goo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YOU DO agree with yourself about every one of your quotes I presented and
>>>>>>everyone knows it Goob. We know it because you have proven it consistently, Goo.
>>>>>

>>>>>Of course I agree with myself, *Goo*. But I *don't* agree with many of
>>>>>your mangled part quotes that are saying something opposite to what I said.
>>>>
>>>> You can't present any examples of me quoting you saying something you

>>>>disagree with Goob. I've given you countless chances to try but you haven't been
>>>>able to present a single example of what you want people to think you think
>>>>you're trying to talk about, Goo.
>>>
>>>Yes
>>
>> Try presenting them now you inept Goober or it will be more proof that
>>you're lying. Go:
>

>Go look them up.

You being unable to present them is more proof that you're lying, Goo.

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 5:37:43 PM4/15/13

to

On 4/15/2013 2:25 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:50:38 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
> wrote:
>

>> In alt.atheism Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 23:06:24 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>

>>>> In alt.atheism Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:01:50 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton, CBE, wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/4/2013 1:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton, CBE, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>>>>>>>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>>>>>>>>>> from my existence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You certainly seem to,
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existence. I have to *exist*

>>>>>>>> first, before I can accrue the benefit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly. A benefit is defined as something that improves the welfare of
>>>>>>> an experiential entity. Existence doesn't do that; it establishes the
>>>>>>> welfare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He seems to be conflating "enjoying existing" with "benefitting from existing".
>>>>>> Do I *enjoy* my existance? Sure.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to say WHAT you want people to
>>>>

>>>> Benefit is a comparative word:
>>> _________________________________________________________
>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit
>>>
>>> ben·e·fit [ben-uh-fit] noun, verb, ben·e·fit·ed or ben·e·fit·ted,
>>> ben·e·fit·ing or ben·e·fit·ting.
>>> noun
>>> 1. something that is advantageous or good; an advantage
>>> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>>>> If I don't exist, my wellbeing is not enhanced, since there is no "me" to
>>>> have an enhancement. "I" can't have any benefits until "I" exist.
>>>
>>> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being alive from
>>> being to your advantage NOW. Go:
>>
>> That sentence doesn't parse.
>
> It's a challeng

No. It's gibberish.

>>>>>> But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>>>>>> "not existing".
>>>>>
>>>>> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>>> benefitting from your own existence NOW?
>>>>
>>>> Any benefits I obtain *must*, by definition, be compared to a previous state of
>>>> mine
>>>
>>> Try to explain what you want people to
>>

>> Again, that sentence doesn't parse.
>
> It's the same challenge

No - it's not a challenge. It's not English.

>>>> to be termed a benefit for me.
>>>>
>>>> Allow me to ask a couple of questions:
>>>>
>>>> Am *I* impeded when I die? What benefit do I lose when I die?
>>>
>>> Every one that you have at the time of your death.
>>
>> What advantages do I have in the heartbeat before I die, versus the heartbeat
>> after. At what EXACT POINT do I lose these advantages?
>
> When either you are no longer alive or being alive is no longer of positive
> value to you.

It's not an advantage to be alive versus never existing. It may be
advantageous to go on living rather than dying.

>>>> On what basis
>>>> do you make this comparision?
>>>
>>> I base it on the fact that you can no longer benefit from anything you
>>> benefit from when you're alive, after you're no longer alive.
>>
>> Of course I can no longer benefit
>
> Which shows that being alive is to your advantage

*NOT* compared with never existing.

>> : "I" am not there any more. So how is death
>> a disadvantage to "me", when, where death is, there is no "me"?
>>
>>>> At what point to benefits begin to accrue to me?
>>>> When sperm first meets egg?
>>>
>>> Yes, even though you weren't aware of it.
>>
>> How? On what basis do you make this assertion? What exact advantages to I
>> accrue?
>
> The advantage of being able to benefit from other advantages

Not an advantage.

>> Did "I" have those advantages when "I" was still a separated ovum and
>> sperm? Is this "advantage" of life a simple case of combined chromosomes?
>> What "advantage" is there in a particular arrangement of chemicals and/or
>> atoms?
>>
>> A hint to you: I keep pulling away a grain of sand out of the pile. Each time
>> I pull away a grain, I'm going to ask you "Is it still a pile of sand".
>
> What do you want us to think is being pulled away from

That's not English.

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 5:39:57 PM4/15/13

to

On 4/15/2013 2:26 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 4/12/2013 7:48 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 4/12/2013 6:42 AM, BruceS wrote:
>>> On 04/11/2013 06:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/2013 4:50 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>>>>> In alt.atheism Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>> <snip>
>>>>>> You obviously don't either, so what do you think you could have
>>>>>> gained by
>>>>>> trying to pretend that you do?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you often go into newsgroups and spout incoherent nonsense?
>>>>
>>>> He *always* goes into newsgroups and spouts incoherent nonsense.
>>>
>>> What is perhaps more surprising is that he usually gets coherent
>>> responses to his incoherent nonsense.
>>
>> Usually, only a few times. Very quickly, most people figure out he's
>> not a serious and reasonable participant, so they just ignore him.
>>
>>
>>> I'm one of what I'm sure is a
>>> large group, who no longer see dh posts except through responses.
>>
>> Yes, I think most do that.
>>
>>
>>> Your argument to him, which you have repeated so very many times, is
>>> without rational opposition.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>>
>>> I'm simply amazed that you continue to have time
>>> and inclination to attempt any sort of discussion with him.
>>
>> I think of it as a combination of beating up a bully - Fuckwit's willful
>> refusal to engage seriously and reasonably with people while attacking
>> their positions is a form of Usenet bullying - and a public service.
>>
>> Everyone who keeps whacking at him is convinced he knows he lost the
>> debate long ago. As stupid and dull as he is, he can't *not* know it.
>

> Not only is that a lie

Not a lie.

> you can't even say how you want people to
> think I could have lost.

You lost because I (and others) showed in 1999 that your position is
complete nonsense.

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 5:42:23 PM4/15/13

to

On 4/15/2013 2:31 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 4/11/2013 2:31 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 4/11/2013 12:39 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 4/9/2013 4:45 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 4/9/2013 2:38 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 23:06:24 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:01:50 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/4/2013 1:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and
>>>>>>>>>> convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but
>>>>>>>>>> wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>>>>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and
>>>>>>>>>>>> convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>> but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* -

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupid,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1999 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an animal versus

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essence, you can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> preventing you from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I*
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't benefit
>>>>>>>>>>>> from my existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as
>>>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existance. I have
>>>>>>>>>> to *exist*
>>>>>>>>>> first, before I can accrue the benefit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Exactly. A benefit is defined as something that improves the
>>>>>>>>> welfare of
>>>>>>>>> an experiential entity. Existence doesn't do that; it establishes
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> welfare.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He seems to be conflating "enjoying existing" with "benefitting
>>>>>>>> from existing".

>>>>>>>> Do I *enjoy* my existance? Sure. But it's not like I wouldn't

>>>>>>>> "not enjoy"
>>>>>>>> "not existing".
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> It's the primary reason why death isn't anything to be afraid of;
>>>>>>>> *you* don't
>>>>>>>> ever experience death. Dying, you may experience. Death you don't.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> You need to say WHAT you want people to
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Benefit is a comparative word:
>>>>> _________________________________________________________
>>>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit
>>>>>
>>>>> ben·e·fit
>>>>

>>>> A benefit is something that *only* can be realized by an entity that
>>>> already exists.
>>>>

>>>> ¯¯

>>>>>> If I don't exist, my wellbeing is not enhanced, since there is no
>>>>>> "me" to
>>>>>> have an enhancement. "I" can't have any benefits until "I" exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to explain what
>>>>

>>>> A benefit is something that *only* can be realized by an entity that
>>>> already exists.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>>>> But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>>>>>>>> "not existing".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is
>>>>>>> preventing you from
>>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence NOW?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any benefits I obtain *must*, by definition, be compared to a
>>>>>> previous state of
>>>>>> mine
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being
>>>>> alive from
>>>>

>>>> A benefit can *only* occur to some entity that already exists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>> to be termed a benefit for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Allow me to ask a couple of questions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am *I* impeded when I die? What benefit do I lose when I die?
>>>>>
>>>>> Every one that
>>>>

>>>> No.
>>>
>>> Which benefits do you want people to think you're somehow going
>>> to retain
>>

>> A benefit only pertains to a state of existence. Existence is not a
>> benefit.
>

> Try to explain WHAT you want people to think is preventing being alive from

Done.

>>
>>>>>> On what basis
>>>>>> do you make this comparision?
>>>>>
>>>>> I base it on the fact that you can no longer benefit from
>>>>> anything you
>>>>> benefit from when you're alive, after you're no longer alive.
>>>>>
>>>>>> At what point to benefits begin to accrue to me?
>>>>>> When sperm first meets egg?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, even though you weren't aware of it.
>>>>

>>>> No. The egg and the sperm have no experiential reality - they have no
>>>> welfare.
>>>
>>> What if they did
>>
>> They don't. Therefore, nothing can be a benefit to them.
>

> What difference do you think you want people to believe

Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, *Goo*.

Dutch

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 5:44:11 PM4/15/13

to

I do know what you believe, you've said it. Veg*ns are denying life to
animals that would exist if it were not for them refusing to eat meat.
They are refusing to "support lives of positive value for billions of
animals". You actually think that has meaning and is a valid critique of
veg*nism. You can't think.

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 5:46:12 PM4/15/13

to

On 4/15/2013 2:32 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 11:14 AM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 4/2/2013
>>>>>>>>>>> 10:43 AM,

>>>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal versus

>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with

>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing - proved." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to

>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience life" instead of never existing" - Prof. Geo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plimpton,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing

>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefits from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CBE
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "animals' "getting to experience life" is nonsense." - Prof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Prof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life

>>>>>>>>>>>>> than never to live at all." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit

>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared with never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared with

>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "according to me, existence is not a benefit - ever." - Prof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a quote, but true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "*NO* right-thinking person attempts to "balance" the death
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit about the animal's "getting to experience life."" -

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever

>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You're lying about any of them not being quotes
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> No. Some of them are not quotes. You part-quoted me and removed
>>>>>>>>>> context. Even so, some of them still contain true statements.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's a blatant lie
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Not a lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You part-quoted me and removedcontext.
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> If you want people to think you
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> You removed context and part quoted. They're not quotes.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> YOU DO agree with yourself
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Of course I agree with myself, *Goo*. But I *don't* agree with
>>>>>> many of
>>>>>> your mangled part quotes that are saying something opposite to what I
>>>>>> said.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't present any examples of me quoting you saying something
>>>>> you
>>>>> disagree with
>>>>

>>>> Yes, and I have presented them.
>>>
>>> Try presenting them now
>>

>> Go look them up.
>
> You being unable to present them

I've presented them. Go look them up.

BruceS

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 6:06:13 PM4/15/13

to

I think most rational people could see that "existence is a benefit to
that which exists" is complete nonsense without your having pointed it
out. Now I won't say that the existence of one thing cannot be a
benefit (or at least *of* benefit) to another thing, because that would
also be nonsense. For instance, bacon. The existence of pigs is not
any sort of benefit to the pigs themselves (though the existence of one
pig could benefit another pig), but certainly their existence provides a
benefit (e.g. bacon) to me. Without their existence, I would not get to
experience that benefit. Worse yet, if pigs had never existed, people
would not even know what they're missing. I shudder to consider the
empty lives of those who, for religious or other reasons, have never
experienced crispy stripey bacon. I have discovered, to my horror, that
some of these same people have never tasted molluscs, while others, for
similar reasons, eschew beef, or even alcohol. To lessen my sense of
pity for all such, as well as to celebrate the wonders of this planet, I
think I'll have a nice rare filet mignon with sauteed sea scallops
wrapped in bacon, possibly with a side of asparagus and some nice wine.

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 6:19:37 PM4/15/13

to

You would think so, but Fuckwit David Harrison claims to think that
existence - or, "getting to experience life", as he wretchedly puts it -
is a benefit to living entities. He claims to believe that the many
billions of livestock animals that exist are getting a benefit out of
existence /per se/, and that if "animal rights activists" ever succeeded
in persuading everyone to become vegetarian, thereby eliminating the
demand for meat, which in turn would eliminate the demand for livestock
animals, those billions of animal lives would be "prevented", which in
Fuckwit's claimed view would be a bad thing.

Fuckwit assigns some kind of value to animals "getting to experience
life" that no one else does. In fact, there is no value to it. If meat
and other animal products could be made out of recycled cardboard and
plastic bottles, and so no more animals were bred into existence, it
would have no meaning at all in terms of the "lost" experience of life.

> Now I won't say that the existence of one thing cannot be a
> benefit (or at least *of* benefit) to another thing, because that would
> also be nonsense.

Yes, of course.

> For instance, bacon. The existence of pigs is not
> any sort of benefit to the pigs themselves (though the existence of one
> pig could benefit another pig), but certainly their existence provides a
> benefit (e.g. bacon) to me.

It's the bacon that's a benefit to you. The pig "getting to experience
life" is of no benefit and no *meaning* to anyone or anything.

> Without their existence, I would not get to
> experience that benefit. Worse yet, if pigs had never existed, people
> would not even know what they're missing. I shudder to consider the
> empty lives of those who, for religious or other reasons, have never
> experienced crispy stripey bacon. I have discovered, to my horror, that
> some of these same people have never tasted molluscs, while others, for
> similar reasons, eschew beef, or even alcohol. To lessen my sense of
> pity for all such, as well as to celebrate the wonders of this planet, I
> think I'll have a nice rare filet mignon with sauteed sea scallops
> wrapped in bacon, possibly with a side of asparagus and some nice wine.

None of that has anything to do with what Fuckwit is talking about.

BruceS

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 7:19:28 PM4/15/13

to

Yes, that is a great turn of phrase. Those who exist, are alive, and
are sentient, "get to experience life." LOL.

> is a benefit to living entities. He claims to believe that the many
> billions of livestock animals that exist are getting a benefit out of
> existence /per se/, and that if "animal rights activists" ever succeeded
> in persuading everyone to become vegetarian, thereby eliminating the
> demand for meat, which in turn would eliminate the demand for livestock
> animals, those billions of animal lives would be "prevented", which in
> Fuckwit's claimed view would be a bad thing.

There are plenty of things I could say against self-styled "animal
rights activists", but Fdw's are, of course, just silly. Using that
same logic, humans should reproduce as fast as possible, regardless of
the abysmal quality of life the extras would have.

> Fuckwit assigns some kind of value to animals "getting to experience
> life" that no one else does. In fact, there is no value to it. If meat
> and other animal products could be made out of recycled cardboard and
> plastic bottles, and so no more animals were bred into existence, it
> would have no meaning at all in terms of the "lost" experience of life.

No, none at all.

>> Now I won't say that the existence of one thing cannot be a
>> benefit (or at least *of* benefit) to another thing, because that would
>> also be nonsense.
>
> Yes, of course.
>
>
>> For instance, bacon. The existence of pigs is not
>> any sort of benefit to the pigs themselves (though the existence of one
>> pig could benefit another pig), but certainly their existence provides a
>> benefit (e.g. bacon) to me.
>
> It's the bacon that's a benefit to you. The pig "getting to experience
> life" is of no benefit and no *meaning* to anyone or anything.

If I could get bacon that really *tasted* like the pig variety, and had
the same wonderful texture as good bacon, but was made from some sort of
vegetable, I'd probably eat it. So far, the best we have is "turkey
bacon", which tastes nasty and still comes from an animal.

>> Without their existence, I would not get to
>> experience that benefit. Worse yet, if pigs had never existed, people
>> would not even know what they're missing. I shudder to consider the
>> empty lives of those who, for religious or other reasons, have never
>> experienced crispy stripey bacon. I have discovered, to my horror, that
>> some of these same people have never tasted molluscs, while others, for
>> similar reasons, eschew beef, or even alcohol. To lessen my sense of
>> pity for all such, as well as to celebrate the wonders of this planet, I
>> think I'll have a nice rare filet mignon with sauteed sea scallops
>> wrapped in bacon, possibly with a side of asparagus and some nice wine.
>
> None of that has anything to do with what Fuckwit is talking about.

No, but I suspect it's more entertaining to many to hear about my supper
plans than to read his claims. My supper changes from day to day, and
makes a sort of sense. Somehow, the whole thing got me thinking of
bacon, and it just segued from there. In a way, it's surprising, given
his style of writing, that it didn't make me think more in terms of
lettuce, with various cut raw vegetables mixed in, and a nice
vinaigrette. The few times I've looked at his writings rather than just
seeing the responses, a lot of it seemed a sort of word salad. The
wine, on the other hand, makes perfect sense. I'll leave that without
further explanation.

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 12:55:44 AM4/16/13

to

Exactly.

>
>> Fuckwit assigns some kind of value to animals "getting to experience
>> life" that no one else does. In fact, there is no value to it. If meat
>> and other animal products could be made out of recycled cardboard and
>> plastic bottles, and so no more animals were bred into existence, it
>> would have no meaning at all in terms of the "lost" experience of life.
>
> No, none at all.
>
>>> Now I won't say that the existence of one thing cannot be a
>>> benefit (or at least *of* benefit) to another thing, because that would
>>> also be nonsense.
>>
>> Yes, of course.
>>
>>
>>> For instance, bacon. The existence of pigs is not
>>> any sort of benefit to the pigs themselves (though the existence of one
>>> pig could benefit another pig), but certainly their existence provides a
>>> benefit (e.g. bacon) to me.
>>
>> It's the bacon that's a benefit to you. The pig "getting to experience
>> life" is of no benefit and no *meaning* to anyone or anything.
>
> If I could get bacon that really *tasted* like the pig variety, and had
> the same wonderful texture as good bacon, but was made from some sort of
> vegetable, I'd probably eat it. So far, the best we have is "turkey
> bacon", which tastes nasty and still comes from an animal.

I've never eaten any fake meat, e.g. "tofurkey", etc. If someone wants
to sell a vegetable product as a vegetarian substitute for meat, fine;
but trying to dress up processed vegetable matter *as* meat is
invariably going to fail. I ate some tasty black bean patties today for
lunch that were just presented as black bean patties, not as some kind
of pseudo-meat. They were really good.

>
>>> Without their existence, I would not get to
>>> experience that benefit. Worse yet, if pigs had never existed, people
>>> would not even know what they're missing. I shudder to consider the
>>> empty lives of those who, for religious or other reasons, have never
>>> experienced crispy stripey bacon. I have discovered, to my horror, that
>>> some of these same people have never tasted molluscs, while others, for
>>> similar reasons, eschew beef, or even alcohol. To lessen my sense of
>>> pity for all such, as well as to celebrate the wonders of this planet, I
>>> think I'll have a nice rare filet mignon with sauteed sea scallops
>>> wrapped in bacon, possibly with a side of asparagus and some nice wine.
>>
>> None of that has anything to do with what Fuckwit is talking about.
>
> No, but I suspect it's more entertaining to many to hear about my supper
> plans than to read his claims. My supper changes from day to day, and
> makes a sort of sense. Somehow, the whole thing got me thinking of
> bacon, and it just segued from there. In a way, it's surprising, given
> his style of writing, that it didn't make me think more in terms of
> lettuce, with various cut raw vegetables mixed in, and a nice
> vinaigrette. The few times I've looked at his writings rather than just
> seeing the responses, a lot of it seemed a sort of word salad.

That's usually all it is. He has the most stilted, turgid style of
writing you're ever likely to see in Usenet, and that's saying
something. One of his favorite shitty constructions is "HOW do you want
people to think [some bullshit you never said], do you have any idea?"
He has been beating that one to death lately.

He knows he's stupid, he knows he's inarticulate, and of course he knows
he's wrong.

BruceS

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 1:53:41 PM4/16/13

to

On 04/15/2013 10:55 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 4/15/2013 4:19 PM, BruceS wrote:

>> If I could get bacon that really *tasted* like the pig variety, and had
>> the same wonderful texture as good bacon, but was made from some sort of
>> vegetable, I'd probably eat it. So far, the best we have is "turkey
>> bacon", which tastes nasty and still comes from an animal.
>
> I've never eaten any fake meat, e.g. "tofurkey", etc. If someone wants
> to sell a vegetable product as a vegetarian substitute for meat, fine;
> but trying to dress up processed vegetable matter *as* meat is
> invariably going to fail. I ate some tasty black bean patties today for
> lunch that were just presented as black bean patties, not as some kind
> of pseudo-meat. They were really good.

Now *that* I can go for. I've had portobello mushroom sandwiches that
were very tasty in their own right (and would expect similar of been
patties), rather than pretending to be hamburger. I enjoy tofu as tofu,
not as faux chicken. But imitation seems to be a big trend, and one
doomed to failure.

<snip>

>> No, but I suspect it's more entertaining to many to hear about my supper
>> plans than to read his claims. My supper changes from day to day, and
>> makes a sort of sense. Somehow, the whole thing got me thinking of
>> bacon, and it just segued from there. In a way, it's surprising, given
>> his style of writing, that it didn't make me think more in terms of
>> lettuce, with various cut raw vegetables mixed in, and a nice
>> vinaigrette. The few times I've looked at his writings rather than just
>> seeing the responses, a lot of it seemed a sort of word salad.
>
> That's usually all it is. He has the most stilted, turgid style of
> writing you're ever likely to see in Usenet, and that's saying
> something. One of his favorite shitty constructions is "HOW do you want
> people to think [some bullshit you never said], do you have any idea?"
> He has been beating that one to death lately.
>
> He knows he's stupid, he knows he's inarticulate, and of course he knows
> he's wrong.

He's certainly not wrong about *those* two things! If he truly knows
that he's stupid and inarticulate, he should celebrate that knowledge,
and revel in it. Quietly. This parallels arguments about my favorite
e-local loon. Some claim that he knows he's delusional, insane,
completely without any special "powers", and living in abject poverty.
Others believe that he believes his delusions. I'm uncertain. Each
day, I expect to see that he's returned to these groups, pretending that
his last exit never happened, and presenting a new delusion. Until
then, I guess I'll sift the dregs that are Fdh's mumbles.

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 2:08:57 PM4/16/13

to

On 4/16/2013 10:53 AM, BruceS wrote:
> On 04/15/2013 10:55 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 4/15/2013 4:19 PM, BruceS wrote:
> <with snippage>
>>> If I could get bacon that really *tasted* like the pig variety, and had
>>> the same wonderful texture as good bacon, but was made from some sort of
>>> vegetable, I'd probably eat it. So far, the best we have is "turkey
>>> bacon", which tastes nasty and still comes from an animal.
>>
>> I've never eaten any fake meat, e.g. "tofurkey", etc. If someone wants
>> to sell a vegetable product as a vegetarian substitute for meat, fine;
>> but trying to dress up processed vegetable matter *as* meat is
>> invariably going to fail. I ate some tasty black bean patties today for
>> lunch that were just presented as black bean patties, not as some kind
>> of pseudo-meat. They were really good.
>
> Now *that* I can go for. I've had portobello mushroom sandwiches that
> were very tasty in their own right (and would expect similar of been
> patties), rather than pretending to be hamburger. I enjoy tofu as tofu,
> not as faux chicken. But imitation seems to be a big trend, and one
> doomed to failure.

I am the same way about tofu. I like the stuff, when it is presented as
tofu. Tofu with black bean sauce is one of my favorite Asian dishes.

The attempt at imitating meat somehow seems to make vegetarianism a
little suspect in my eyes.

Derek

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 2:10:15 PM4/16/13

to

The Borg?

dh

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 4:43:09 PM4/16/13

to

dh

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 4:45:13 PM4/16/13

to

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:42:23 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:31:23 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:31:25 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:39:40 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 16:45:53 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 17:38:18 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 23:06:24 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:01:50 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In alt.atheism Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/4/2013 1:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> dh pointed out

>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh challeged:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, dh pointed out:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Goo

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd agree. Existence merely "is". Since existence precedes essence, you can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really say something that doesn't exist has been "harmed" or "is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefitted" by the non-existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to explain how you want people to think that's preventing you from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I benefit from things that arise BECAUSE of my existence. *I* don't benefit
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from my existence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You certainly seem to, and billions of other beings do as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, I benefit from things that arise out of my existance. I have to *exist*
>>>>>>>>>>> first, before I can accrue the benefit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Exactly. A benefit is defined as something that improves the welfare of
>>>>>>>>>> an experiential entity. Existence doesn't do that; it establishes the
>>>>>>>>>> welfare.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>He seems to be conflating "enjoying existing" with "benefitting from existing".
>>>>>>>>>Do I *enjoy* my existance? Sure.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> You need to say WHAT you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>>>>>> benefitting from it, since so far you certainly clearly appear to be.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Benefit is a comparative word:
>>>>>>_________________________________________________________
>>>>>>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit
>>>>>>

>>>>>>ben�e�fit [ben-uh-fit] noun, verb, ben�e�fit�ed or ben�e�fit�ted,

>>>>>>ben�e�fit�ing or ben�e�fit�ting.
>>>>>>noun
>>>>>>1. something that is advantageous or good; an advantage

>>>>>>��

>>>>>>>If I don't exist, my wellbeing is not enhanced, since there is no "me" to
>>>>>>>have an enhancement. "I" can't have any benefits until "I" exist.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being alive from

>>>>>>being to your advantage NOW. Go:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>>>>>>>>>"not existing".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence NOW?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Any benefits I obtain *must*, by definition, be compared to a previous state of
>>>>>>>mine
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being alive from

>>>>>>being to your advantage NOW. Go:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>>to be termed a benefit for me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Allow me to ask a couple of questions:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Am *I* impeded when I die? What benefit do I lose when I die?
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Every one that you have at the time of your death.
>>>>>

>>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>> Which benefits do you want people to think you're somehow going to retain

>>>>after you die and how do you want people to think you're going to retain them,
>>>>Goo?
>>>

>>>A benefit only pertains to a state of existence.
>>

>> Try to explain WHAT you want people to think is preventing being alive from

>>being to their advantage, HOW you want them to think whatever it is is doing so,
>>and WHY you want them to think it is, Goo. Go:
>>

>>>>>>>On what basis
>>>>>>>do you make this comparision?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I base it on the fact that you can no longer benefit from anything you
>>>>>>benefit from when you're alive, after you're no longer alive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>At what point to benefits begin to accrue to me?
>>>>>>>When sperm first meets egg?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, even though you weren't aware of it.
>>>>>
>>>>>No. The egg and the sperm have no experiential reality
>>>>

>>>> What if they did, Goots?
>>>
>>>They don't.
>>
>> What difference do you think you want people to believe there is between
>>whether they do or whether they don't, Goo?
>

>Exi

dh

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 4:50:06 PM4/16/13

to

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:06:13 -0600, BruceS <bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 04/15/2013 03:39 PM, Goo wrote:
>> On 4/15/2013 2:26 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>

>>> On 4/12/2013 7:48 AM, Goo wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2013 6:42 AM, BruceS wrote:

He and now you need to point out WHAT you want people to think is preventing
your own existence from being to your advantage, and HOW you want them to think
it's doing so. Go:

>Now I won't say that the existence of one thing cannot be a
>benefit (or at least *of* benefit) to another thing,

That's a completely different thing but still a significant aspect.

>because that would
>also be nonsense. For instance, bacon. The existence of pigs is not
>any sort of benefit to the pigs themselves

To some it is and to some it's not. That is the starting line, and
eliminationists can't even get that "far". Can you?

>(though the existence of one
>pig could benefit another pig),

If so that would make their existence a benefit to themselves as well.

dh

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 4:53:22 PM4/16/13

to

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:19:37 -0700, Goo wrote:

>those billions of animal lives would be "prevented", which in
>Fuckwit's claimed view would be a bad thing.

A person doesn't have to consider it "bad" that we don't raise porcupines
for food, in order to appreciate the fact that millions of other animals
experience lives of positive value because we DO raise them Goob. You're just
not mentally able of comprehending how that could be, Goo.

>Fuckwit assigns some kind of value to animals "getting to experience
>life" that no one else does. In fact, there is no value to it.

It certainly has every bit as much or more than the aspect of their deaths,
Goo.

George Plimpton

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 4:55:39 PM4/16/13

to

On 4/16/2013 1:45 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,

illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 4/15/2013 2:42 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 4/15/2013 2:31 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 4/11/2013 2:31 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/2013 12:39 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/9/2013 4:45 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/9/2013 2:38 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 23:06:24 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:01:50 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/4/2013 1:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and
>>>>>>>>>>>> convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but
>>>>>>>>>>>> wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:19:41 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:50:22 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sbal...@alt-atheism.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:43 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* -

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupid,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1999 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an animal versus

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never existing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton, CBE

>>>>>>>>>> Do I *enjoy* my existance? Sure. But it's not like I wouldn't

>>>>>>>>>> "not enjoy"
>>>>>>>>>> "not existing".
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> It's the primary reason why death isn't anything to be afraid of;
>>>>>>>>>> *you* don't
>>>>>>>>>> ever experience death. Dying, you may experience. Death you
>>>>>>>>>> don't.
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> You need to say WHAT you want people to
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Benefit is a comparative word:
>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ben�e�fit
>>>>>>

>>>>>> A benefit is something that *only* can be realized by an entity that
>>>>>> already exists.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> ��
>>>>>>>> If I don't exist, my wellbeing is not enhanced, since there is no
>>>>>>>> "me" to
>>>>>>>> have an enhancement. "I" can't have any benefits until "I" exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try to explain what
>>>>>>

>>>>>> A benefit is something that *only* can be realized by an entity that
>>>>>> already exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> But it's not like I wouldn't "not enjoy"
>>>>>>>>>> "not existing".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WHAT about non-existence do you want people to think is
>>>>>>>>> preventing you from
>>>>>>>>> benefitting from your own existence NOW?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any benefits I obtain *must*, by definition, be compared to a
>>>>>>>> previous state of
>>>>>>>> mine
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try to explain what you want people to think is preventing being
>>>>>>> alive from
>>>>>>

>>>>>> A benefit can *only* occur to some entity that already exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> to be termed a benefit for me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Allow me to ask a couple of questions:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am *I* impeded when I die? What benefit do I lose when I die?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every one that
>>>>>>

>>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which benefits do you want people to think you're somehow going
>>>>> to retain
>>>>

>>>> A benefit only pertains to a state of existence. Existence is not a
>>>> benefit.
>>>

>>> Try to explain WHAT you want people to think is preventing being
>>> alive from
>>

>> Done.

>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> On what basis
>>>>>>>> do you make this comparision?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I base it on the fact that you can no longer benefit from
>>>>>>> anything you
>>>>>>> benefit from when you're alive, after you're no longer alive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At what point to benefits begin to accrue to me?
>>>>>>>> When sperm first meets egg?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, even though you weren't aware of it.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> No. The egg and the sperm have no experiential reality - they
>>>>>> have no
>>>>>> welfare.
>>>>>
>>>>> What if they did
>>>>
>>>> They don't. Therefore, nothing can be a benefit to them.
>>>

>>> What difference do you think you want people to believe
>>

>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, *Goo*.
>

> What difference do you think you want people to believe