On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:30:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>>>*No* animals benefit by existing
>>
>> Many appear to Goo, so what do you want people to think prevents them
>> from
>> benefitting as they appear to, and how do you want people to think it
>> prevents
>> them?
>
>Logic, here's one argument:
>
>Two pigs exist, one has a good life provided by the farmer, Salatin, the
>other has a life full of pain,

From what?

>suffering

From what?

>and deprivation

From what?

>provided by Tyson.
>
>One pig benefits, the other suffers and is harmed, yet both exist in equal
>measure.
>
>Therefore existence itself is clearly not the source of benefit.

Life can and often does have positive value for animals, regardless of how
you try to pretend it doesn't. Your little pretendings that nothing has ever
benefitted from its existence is just more STUPID! eliminationist attempts at
STUPID! trickery. Your stupid attempt at stupid trickery not only doesn't work
on me, but you can't give me anything to even try pretending along with you.
Here, I'll give you another chance to try:

What do you want people to believe prevents animals from benefitting from
their lives when they appear to be of positive value to the animals, and how do
you think it prevents it?