The influence of "pre-existence"?�?
in [Vegetarian]
|
Prev: Getting Past the 'Protein Myth' That Keeps People from QuittingMeat and Dairy (by Kathy Freston)
Next: "vegans" (fuckwits) and the "inefficiency" of meat
From: dh on 1 Jul 2008 08:49 On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Goo wrote: >dh wrote: > >> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:10:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> He's playing with me again! >> >> Good luck getting him to try to explain anything. > >I have fully explained why your view of animals, You have never even indicated that you can comprehend my view of animals Goo, much less have you ever shown any evidence that you could explain it to anyone. In contrast to that, you have repeatedly and absolutely consistently indicated that you're unable to do so by insisting that my views are different than they actually are. >which depends on "pre-existent entities", No, YOURS does Goober. Do you really want people to believe you're too stupid to grasp even that much, Goo? Let's compare views. Here's mine: Many of the billions of domestic animals on this planet have decent lives of positive value. Is that in any way dependant on "pre-existent entities" Goob? You're stumped dead on that one of course, so I'll just tell you the answer is no Goo. So where does the idea come from if not from my view, Goober? Stumped again, so here's a clue: "Life is not a gain because there *was* no person to experience the gain" - Goo Right there, Goobernicus, is where the concept of any dependance on pre-existence begins...it begins with YOUR views like: "Before being alive, an animal has no well-being to promote. THEREFORE, Fuckwit, existence is not benefit to farm animals." - Goo "coming into existence didn't make me better off than I was before." - Goo "We are not and never were talking about benefits for existing entities" - Goo "Whether or not some entity enjoys life once it does exist is *NOT* the topic." - Goo "We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo "The topic is not and never has been whether or not existing animals enjoy living." - Goo "When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the existence we know" - Goo "I never said they "move from 'pre-existence'"" - Goo "we don't know if that move improves its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged. Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the life we can detect, we cannot conclude that life is a benefit to it." - Goo "EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence" state was" - Goo "you still cannot demonstrate, ever, why it is "beneficial" for souls to incarnate" - Goo ""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not a benefit at all" - Goo "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo Notice that my view is in no way dependant on pre-existence, while the Goobal view--ie YOURS--is entirely dependant on it. >is bullshit. Billions of animals are raised by humans Goober so you certainly can't show that fact to be bullshit. Many of them do have decent lives of positive value so you can't show that fact to be bullshit either, Goo. You can't do it. You're also stumped by your own claims Goob, because you can't explain HOW you think anything to do with pre-existence manages to prevent existing entities from benefitting from decent lives of positive value. Your stumped dead, and stranded on the bottom, Goo.
From: dh on 3 Jul 2008 10:26 On Tue, 01 Jul 2008, the Goober wrote: >dh pointed out to the Goober: > >> You have never even indicated that you can comprehend >> my view of animals > >I comprehend it LOL! You have never indicated that you can, Goo. I challenge you to try, and KNOW that you will fail.
From: dh on 10 Jul 2008 14:23
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008, it appears clear that the Goober lied again: >I have patiently and accurately shown that alllllllll your bullshit >about animals and "benefiting from life" depends on "pre-existence" for >animals. Of course I believe you're lying again, but try doing it now Goo. (Correct prediction: the Goober can not.) |