dh@. wrote:

> On 16 Nov 2005 12:16:42 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. pointed out to Goo:
>
>
>>> Since you have no clue how anything could ever
>>>benefit from living--regardless of quality of life
>>
>>NOTHING "benefits" from coming into existence. An entity benefits by
>>having a high quality life compared with a low quality life; NOT
>>comparing it with never existing.
>>
>>Your choice is a FALSE choice: not "decent life" versus "no life at
>>all", rather "decent life" vs "bad life".
>
>
> You may truly be too stupid to understand

I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice.
The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs
"no life".


>>>It doesn't mean none do
>>
>>No animal "benefits" from coming into existence. Animals benefit from
>>humane treatment IF they exist.
>
>
> Either they benefit from their life or they don't.

No animal benefits from coming into existence. Period.