On 9/9/2013 2:50 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 9/6/2013 2:44 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 9/6/2013 2:18 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 9/5/2013 7:13 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
>>>>>> animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
>>>>>> livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
>>>>>> animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
>>>>>> better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
>>>>>> the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic
>>>>> animals, and
>>>>
>>>> No, that isn't the question.
>>>
>>> That is ALL you
>>
>> No, *Gloo*. The question is if there is anything to "consider" about
>> livestock animals "getting to experience life" versus never existing,
>> and we have seen that the answer to the question is "no."
>>
>> You're just wasting time, *Gloo*. You lost. Go do something else.
>
> You don't have any idea how you could even pretend to have found that out

Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - cannot be a
benefit because it doesn't improve the entity's welfare.

You're just wasting time, *Gloo*. You lost. Go do something else.