dh@. lied:

> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:49:16 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>
>>Louis Boyd wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Either they benefit from their life or they don't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No animal benefits from coming into existence. Period.
>>>
>>>
>>>Humans don't either.
>>
>>Exactly right.
>>
>>
>>>They have to make something of their lives for
>>>their lives to be of benefit to themselves or other.
>>
>>Exactly right again.
>>
>>But the original poster, ****wit David Harrison,
>>believes that farm animals somehow "benefit" simply by
>>coming into existence. That is, he believes that
>>"getting to experience life", versus never living at
>>all, is in and of itself a "benefit" to farm animals
>>(and, presumably, others.)
>
>
> That's a lie.

It isn't a lie:

"Life itself is the benefit which makes all other
benefits possible." - ****wit David Harrison

You believe that life _per se_ is a benefit. Stop lying.


> I'm aware

Stop lying. You think life _per se_ is *always* a benefit.


>
>>It's easy to see what is wrong with this thinking. A
>>"benefit" is something that improves the welfare of the
>>entity that receives the benefit. But coming into
>>existence itself cannot be a benefit, because it
>>doesn't improve the welfare of the new entity: that
>>new entity didn't *have* a welfare to be improved.
>
>
> That shallow "argument"

It's persuasive and conclusive. YOU sure as hell can't
refute it.