On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 16:01:16 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

> 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.

That is only 'cause you don't consider
your existence to be a benefit to
anyone, including yourself.

Dhu



--
Ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco.