dh@. lied:

> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 05:40:38 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. lied:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:49:16 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>>>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 just more details you can't understand.

There is nothing in the world you understand that I cannot.

Stop lying: you believe that life _per se_ is a
benefit to animals. That belief is wrong and stupid.



>>>>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
>
>
> Not the way you intend it.

Yes, the way I intend it. It is persuasive to all who
think about what "benefit" means.



>>and conclusive.
>
>
> The conclusion is that

The conclusion is that you have to deny the obvious.


>>YOU sure as hell can't
>>refute it.
>
>
> "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:"
>
> Zygotes are new entities, and life is the benefit which
> allows them to grow into conscious beings.

No, life is *NOT* a benefit to "zygotes", because:

a) they didn't have a welfare before they existed, and
b) zygotes don't *EVER* have a welfare


> "that new entity didn't *have* a welfare to be improved."
>
> You're trying to make an overall statement about
> something that you can't even think about it detail.

I can think about it. Unlike you, I *can* think about
it accurately and correctly. Your thoughts on the
matter are worthless, because they are bizarre
fantasies. You imagine that animals and zygotes and
****-knows what else have properties they do not,
CANNOT, have.

You are simply arguing for the sake of arguing and
seeing your crap in usenet.