On Thu, 04 Sep 2008, Goo was too stupid to comprehend:

>dh pointed out:
>
>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Rupert pointed out:
>>
>>> On Sep 2, 9:49 am, Goo was too stupid to comprehend:
>>
>>>> dh pointed out:
>
>No "pointing out".

LOL! What a stupid Goober!!!

>>>>> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food
>>>>> on farms have lives which are such that it is better that they live
>>>>> that life than that they not live at all" - Rupert
>>>>> Excellent point,
>>>> No, it's a shit point, as evidenced by the fact that rupie, the clown
>>>> prince of circular arguments, cannot give any meaning to "better". It
>>>> just doesn't mean anything as he has used it. He can't say what is
>>>> "good", so therefore he can't say why something is "better".
>>>>
>>> I did say what is good,
>
>You didn't say what makes it good.

Whether he did or not you've shown that you can't comprehend
what makes it good for anything, Goo.

>>> I said it's good, other things equal, if a
>>> sentient being lives a life that is on the whole worth living.
>>
>> It's pretty obvious by itself.
>
>No. No, it sure isn't.

Goo, what do you think you would gain if you could get me to
believe you really are that stupid, do you have any idea? Tell me
Goober: WHAT do you think you would gain???

>Neither he nor you can make even a tiny bit of
>progress saying what's good about a being existing,

When a being has a life of positive value it is "good" because
we consider things of positive value to be good, Goo. It has to
do with easy definitions of words and some simple math like:
more = more, but even though it's all easy you've shown that you're
too stupid to have the first clue about any of it. Maybe you really are
Goo as you insist, so if you really are too stupid to comprehend what
do you think you could gaing by having people continue to explain?
Could you really be too stupid to understand that you can't understand
things you're too stupid to understand? It's certainly beginning to look
like you are.

>versus never existing.

You claim to be too stupid to understand at all Goo.

>>> I don't have to explain why that's the case.
>
>Yes, you most certainly do.
>
>
>>> Explanation has to stop
>>> somewhere.
>
>Not there.
>
>
>>
>> Goo never tries to explain,
>
>Goo always explains: lucidly, factually, comprehensively.

Then try explaining how you think pre-existence
prevents existing things from benefitting from their
existence Goo. Go:

>>> I will do some reading
>>
>> Have some first hand observation and maybe some
>> interaction.
>
>Haw haw haw! Like you did, at the petting zoo

I've had it with lots of things Goo, including some
animals I raised, killed and ate. In contrast to that:
You have had it with none, never will, and can't
even comprehend the idea.