****WIT David Harrison wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:55:09 -0500, "JG" > wrote:
>
>
> wrote in message ...
>>
>>>On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:12:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball >
>>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Yet another confused person has offered the faulty
>>>>"logic of the larder" as a moral justification for
>>>>human use of animals. That now makes two. Woo and yay.
>>>>
>>>>Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit to any
>>>>creature.
>>>
>>> Then you still need to show how something (animal or not)
>>>can benefit if it's not alive. Since you can't, we're left to
>>>understand that life is the benefit which makes all others
>>>possible.
>>
>>
>>Life is only a benefit if actual benefits follow from its existence. If
>>only harm (or even net harm) is a consequence of the existence of a life,
>>how is it a benefit? Life is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
>>either benefit or harm, but is neither in itself.
>>
>>JA Golczewski, Ph.D.
>>http://users.rcn.com/jigo/jg.HTM
>>Updates, free book on health and life-extension
>
>
> Life itself is the benefit which makes all others possible.

Life itself is NOT a benefit, ****WIT. It cannot be.

> Nothing can benefit if it's not alive.

Exactly, ****WIT! Since there was no entity to receive
the benefit prior to being alive, and since "benefit"
requires a beneficiary, life itself CANNOT be a benefit.

> That doesn't mean that the individual
> lives of every living thing are a benefit to every individual.

The individual lives themselves CANNOT be a benefit,
****WIT.

Everyone sees it but you. You are uniquely stupid.