On Jul 1, 10:49*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Goo wrote:
> >dh wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:10:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > 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, ****wit, 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


Remember when we were discussing the pre-existence of lives? Boobs was
raving that there were no such things as "souls" and yet just like pre-
existence we see the Boober also believes in "souls", yet maintaining
they don't exist.

I'd like to know which clown school Boobs got his degree from.












>
> ""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.