<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> 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?

Doesn't matter, anything, sleeping on cold concrete or slats.
>
>>suffering
>
> From what?

What does it matter, it's a theoretical example.
>
>>and deprivation
>
> From what?

Light, space, access to earth, whatever, it's unimportant what from, it's
theoretical.

>
>>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,

Both of the animals in the theoretical example above had "life" in exactly
the same measure and manner, yet one suffered while the other thrived. That
PROVES that "life" is not the source of benefit.

> 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?

It's not trickery, the LoL is verbal trickery and my logic demonstrates it.