On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, dh@. wrote:
>
>>
>> * * I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>> decent lives of positive value.-
>
>Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>
>I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.

Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
have to understand that much.

>First
>of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>care of?

If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.

>Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>years old.

Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
for the animals you're referring to, regardless of what wild
animals do or don't get.

>They are crammed into rooms and/or cages. Their diet?
><big eye roll here>

They all eat better than their wild ancestors. We hear
complaints about beef cattle going to feed lots, but the
people I've talked to who have been on them say the
animals love to be able to eat grain all the time, and the
personal experiences I've had feeding and watching
other people feed grain to cattle is enough to make me
believe it.

>All those *icides you mentioned somewhere,
>steroids, hormones, antibiotics, and in cases their own species.

They like it and don't care about any of that.

>They are being raised to produce money.

Which is a good thing.

>You think milk cows produce
>enough milk to meet the yearly quota on their own? You think egg
>chickens produce enough eggs? They are forced to lay (if I remember
>correctly, if not I apologize) 300 percent more eggs per year than
>what is natural to them.

They lay what they lay because they are well fed and watered
and because they have been bred to produce eggs year round.

>And debeaking??

It's no worse than circumcision...probably not as bad. I am very
opposed to battery cages, but feel that cage free methods usually
provide decent lives of positive value.

>Jesus-****in-christ.
>
>http://www.animal-lib.org.au/subject...s--battery.htm
>
>Do I need to mention veal and foie gras? Have you ever spoke to a
>chicken catcher about his/her job?

Yes.

>As for free run animals. Large 'free run' companies, their animals
>are still kept inside, just not in cages. Obviously a better
>environment, barely.

It is MUCH better to the point of making the difference between
whether life is decent or hell for a very high percentage if not all of
the birds who are involved.

>True free run, organic fed, chemical free (as in
>hormones, steroids...) animals are not cost effective on a big scale,
>for producer or buyers.

In some cases they are.

>There are those of us who choose to support
>those companies for whatever reason. But these companies are small
>and you have to really read the labels to find them, do research.

I buy cage free eggs and so should everyone else who cares
anything about chickens. Even if you don't eat eggs you should
buy them and give them to someone who does, or feed them to
some animals, or just throw them away...

>The meat industry for the most part is about money.

LOL! What else could a way of making a living be about?

>Making and saving
>it. Being 'kind to animals' doesn't fatten their wallets, and doesn't
>get the job done.

The farmers I've known have been good to their animals.

>I tried to be a vegetarian. Honestly I couldn't do it. I *do* like
>meat. But I have my choices. We have a Menonite owned butcher shop
>in town. Good stuff. Nice people.

How are the animals raised? How much time on grass?
How much time in the feed lots? How long a truck ride to
the slaughterhouse? How are they stunned and slaughtered?
BTW, you might be in a good position to actually *help* an
animal or more if you wanted to. You could buy a veal calf
who wouldn't get much time to live, and pay a farmer to raise
him for you for two years, or three, or whatever... You could
give him a good, longer life, and then see to it that he has
as comfortable a ride to the slaughterhouse and slaughter
as possible. Then you could do it again...

>As for Satan and God having any part in animal torture...
>
>I think most 'believers' view Satan as some schemeing weaselly being
>with nothing better to do but sit around wringing his hands in glee
>trying to figure out how to break someones heart, make someone mad,
>hurt someone... Please. It's the Satanic view that we are animals too
>on this earth.

Pretty much everyone is up on that one by now.

>We have desires and impulses and needs, as animals,
>that we need to fulfill, and should. It's 'God' that states we are
>better than animals. It's 'God' that supposedly put animals on this
>earth for our food and clothing. It's 'God' that says we need to
>sacrifice. Were animals not sacrificed in the bible for God?

They were. Things have changed. Not for Jews though.

>What did Satan do?

No one knows what all Satan does. He's the accuser,
remember? And a liar. So being an accuser he wants to
be the one pointing the finger, and being a liar he's likely
to lie when the finger points back his way. And also don't
ever forget that if he exists, he told his man Howard Levey
to write a Satanic "bible" telling people that he does not.

>Offer Eve an apple. Pffft.

If Satan exists, of course he will have you believing what he
wants you to believe since you want to go his way instead of
toward the creator.

>Need to get ready for work. Sorry for any spelling errors. I am not
>a morning person.
>
>xo
>Spectre

marques de sade wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 24, 3:23 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>> Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>
>>> I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>> free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>> decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>> begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>> have to understand that much.
>>
>>> First
>>> of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>> them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>> care of?
>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>
>>> Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>> years old.
>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>> really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>
> but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
> right? this is where Rudy loses you, i think (rightly so).

No, that is where Goo - 'dh@' is Goo, better known as
****wit David Harrison - loses the argument, period.
See right above, where Goo/****wit hysterically
emphasizes "*nothing*"? Goo/****wit is showing his
concern, right there, that animals that he believes
"pre-exist" will not get their "chance" at "getting to
experience life", and that this is somehow "bad".

Goo/****wit is simply stuck: he has repeatedly
indicated his belief, over nine miserable and
unproductive years, that animal rights activists -
"aras" - are "denying life" to farm animals that don't
yet exist. Goo/****wit has also said that what "aras"
want to do is impose a "loss" on these farm animals
that don't yet exist, and that what "aras" want to do
is "unfair" to farm animals that don't yet exist. I
have the quotes, which Goo/****wit cannot contest:


The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
****wit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
****wit - 10/19/1999


Goo/****wit tries to say that the second of those was a
"mistake", but that's a lie: it is *exactly* what he
believes, and he thought that answer out carefully over
a six week period.

The conclusion is unavoidable: Goo/****wit believes
that non-existent farm animals are actually in a state
of "pre-existence", and that they have interests.
Goo/****wit believes that these - *HIS* -
"pre-existent" farm animals can experience denial,
loss, deprivation and unfairness.

You said, "But since there's no entity...", but it is
excruciatingly obvious that Goo/****wit believes there
*IS* an entity: a "pre-existent" one. Goo/****wit is
simply insane.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>
>>On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> * * I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>
>>Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>
>>I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>
> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>have to understand that much.
>
>>First
>>of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>care of?
>
> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>
>>Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>years old.
>
> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*

but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).

--

``The white "Christian" supremacists who have historically opposed either all immigration or all non-European immigration ... must not be permitted to play a prominent role in the debate over the way America responds to unprecedented demographic change. Nor should the anti-immigrant demagoguery of some black leadership be permitted to go unchallenged.'' --Stephen Steinlight

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> * * I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>
>>>Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>
>>>I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>
>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>have to understand that much.
>>
>>>First
>>>of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>care of?
>>
>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>
>>>Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>years old.
>>
>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>
>but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).

No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
Goo I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk and
so can't be deprived of anything. I made a mistake in terminology
quite a few years ago, and that has been the Goober's grand prize
ever since. Goo of course only includes part of what I wrote when
he posts, so here's more of it which completes the idea:
__________________________________________________ _______
Date: 2000/08/01

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born if
nothing prevents that from happening, that would
experience the loss if their lives are prevented.
I don't believe that the individual animals exist
in any way before they are conceived, but I am
also aware that billions more animals *will* exist
as a result of the farming industry if nothing
(like ARAs) prevents it from happening. To me that
is a major aspect to take into consideration.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I admitted to the Goober that I had made a mistake
in saying I believe unconceived "animals" can
experience anything, and Goo has been lying about
it ever since. I even gave some examples which
should help even the Goober get a clue, saying I
understand that it's no more of a loss than the facts
that dinosaurs are extinct, rocks are not alive, and
there's no life on Venus.

Millions/billions of people do believe in reincarnation.
It's another example of Goobal lameness that he never
criticises that belief itself in any detail, but simply
accuses me of having such a belief as if it would be
an insult to me if I actually did.

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, the one and only Goo -
blabbered and lied and presented no challenge:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, the one and only Goo - blabbered and lied and presented no challenge:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 3:23 pm, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, the one and only Goo - blabbered and lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>
>>>>> I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>> Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>>
>>>> I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>> free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>> decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>> begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>> have to understand that much.
>>>
>>>> First
>>>> of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>> them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>> care of?
>>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>>
>>>> Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>> years old.
>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>> really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>> but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>> right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>
> No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
> Rudy I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist

No, you did not admit any such thing, Goo. You
pretended to admit it, but then you went right on
whining about dirty meanie "aras" trying to "deny life"
to farm animals that don't exist: because *you*, Goo,
believe they "pre-exist", and can experience "loss",
"deprivation", "denial" and "unfairness":

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
****wit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
****wit - 10/19/1999


You are ****ED, Goo: you believe in "pre-existence"
for farm animals, which is absurd, and now you're
trying to lie about it. You're ****ed.



> I admitted to the Goober that I had made a mistake

No mistake. You *MEANT* it when you wrote:

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000

It's obvious that you meant it, Goo. I had been
pestering you for SIX WEEKS to say who it as that
experienced the loss - you plainly believe there *is* a
loss, Goo - and after SIX WEEKS of considering it, that
was your answer. It is what you believe, Goo; it is
not a "mistake". Stop lying about that, Goo.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:38:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * * I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>>
>>>>Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>>
>>>>I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>>free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>>
>>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>>decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>>begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>>have to understand that much.
>>>
>>>>First
>>>>of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>>them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>>care of?
>>>
>>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>>
>>>>Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>>years old.
>>>
>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>
>>but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>>right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>
> No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
>Goo I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk

well, i just quoted you doing it now... you said it was 2 years or
nothing, as if there was an entity that is better off experiencing
2 years rather than not experiencing anything at all...

i'm correcting you and saying that if nothing exists, then there
is no entity that is worse off than if they existed...

--

``The white "Christian" supremacists who have historically opposed either all immigration or all non-European immigration ... must not be permitted to play a prominent role in the debate over the way America responds to unprecedented demographic change. Nor should the anti-immigrant demagoguery of some black leadership be permitted to go unchallenged.'' --Stephen Steinlight

marques de sade wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:38:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 24, 3:23 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>>> Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>>>
>>>>> I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>>> free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>>> decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>>> begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>>> have to understand that much.
>>>>
>>>>> First
>>>>> of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>>> them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>>> care of?
>>>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>>>
>>>>> Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>>> years old.
>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>> really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>> but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>>> right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>> No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
>> Rudy I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk
>
> well, i just quoted you doing it now... you said it was 2 years or
> nothing, as if there was an entity that is better off experiencing
> 2 years rather than not experiencing anything at all...

You have *exactly* understood where Goo/****wit is
coming from. He's just too stupid to understand all
the implications of what he believes and says.

He believes, as you have caught, that it is better for
farm animals to exist rather than never exist.
*NECESSARILY*, he believes "they" are worse off if they
never exist.



> i'm correcting you and saying that if nothing exists, then there
> is no entity that is worse off than if they existed...
>

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:31:26 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:38:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * * I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>>>
>>>>>Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>>>
>>>>>I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>>>free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>>>
>>>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>>>decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>>>begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>>>have to understand that much.
>>>>
>>>>>First
>>>>>of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>>>them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>>>care of?
>>>>
>>>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>>>
>>>>>Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>>>years old.
>>>>
>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>>
>>>but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>>>right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>>
>> No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
>>Goo I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk
>
>well, i just quoted you doing it now... you said it was 2 years or
>nothing,

That's the deal. It needs to be clarified because some
people act like if these animals weren't born as livestock
they would or could be born as some happy wild animal
instead, which afawk is *not* the case. If you think it's
not then try explaining how.

>as if there was an entity that is better off experiencing
>2 years rather than not experiencing anything at all...

There is when they do. What do you think that has
to do with supposed non-existent entities or whatever,
do you have any idea?

>i'm correcting you

Not yet you sure aren't.

>and saying that if nothing exists, then there
>is no entity that is worse off than if they existed...

I know. What you need to do is explain how that prevents
existing entities from benefitting from lives of positive value.
If you can't do that--which you can't--then your mention of
supposed non-existent entities or whatever is worse than
wasting time--which it is.

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupid lying cracker -
lied and presented no challenge:

> 2nd Bleeding Hemorrhoid lied:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupid lying cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>>
>>> 2nd Bleeding Hemorrhoid lied:
>>>
>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupid lying cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupid lying cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>>>> Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>>>> free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>>>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>>>> decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>>>> begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>>>> have to understand that much.
>>>>>
>>>>>> First
>>>>>> of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>>>> them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>>>> care of?
>>>>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>>>> years old.
>>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>> really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>>> but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>>>> right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>>> No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
>>> Goo I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk
>> well, i just quoted you doing it now... you said it was 2 years or
>> nothing,
>
> That's the deal.

No, Goo. It's no "deal". There is no "choice"
presented to any animal before it's born: "Okay, you
can have two years of existence on earth, and then
you're killed; or you can 'get' no existence on earth."

But thanks again for confirming, you stupid ****wit,
that you believe these non-existent animals actually
"pre-exist" and are offered a "deal".


> It needs to be clarified because some
> people act like if these animals weren't born as livestock
> they would or could be born as some happy wild animal

No, *NO* one believes that or "acts like" that. Your
English is simply awful - truly wretched bullshit.
Tell us again what your terminal level of education
was, Goo/****wit. It was only high school at best, right?


>> as if there was an entity that is better off experiencing
>> 2 years rather than not experiencing anything at all...
>
> There is when they do.

Animals are not "better off" for living, Goo/****wit.
Better off than what? You're ****ed, Goo/****wit.


>> i'm correcting you
>
> Not yet you sure aren't.

He most certainly is, Goo/****wit.


>> and saying that if nothing exists, then there
>> is no entity that is worse off than if they existed...
>
> I know.

You *don't* know, you lying goober. You believe,
stupidly and wrongly, that an animal is "better off"
*MERELY* for having come into existence. This is
established beyond any doubt.


> What you need to do is explain how that prevents
> existing entities from benefitting from lives of positive value.

No, he doesn't need to do any such thing, you lying
cracker. For one thing, the phrase is empty bullshit.

marques de sade wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:09:21 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:31:26 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:38:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 24, 3:23 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>>>>> Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>>>>> free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>>>>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>>>>> decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>>>>> begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>>>>> have to understand that much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First
>>>>>>> of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>>>>> them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>>>>> care of?
>>>>>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>>>>> years old.
>>>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>>> really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>>>> but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>>>>> right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>>>> No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
>>>> Goo I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk
>>> well, i just quoted you doing it now... you said it was 2 years or
>>> nothing,
>> That's the deal. It needs to be clarified because some
>> people act like if these animals weren't born as livestock
>> they would or could be born as some happy wild animal
>> instead, which afawk is *not* the case. If you think it's
>> not then try explaining how.
>
> i don't think that because THERE IS NO ANIMAL that could be born
> or anything else... UNTIL IT'S BORN...

Exactly right. Once again, we see that Goo/****wit has
that "pre-existence" millstone around his neck. He
stupidly keeps denying that he believes in
"pre-existence", and then he stupidly writes something
that unmistakably shows that he *does* believe in it.
His entire spiel is based on it.


>
>>> as if there was an entity that is better off experiencing
>>> 2 years rather than not experiencing anything at all...
>> There is when they do.
>
> i don't base it on comparing how they do now than how they did
> before they existed...
>
>> What do you think that has
>> to do with supposed non-existent entities or whatever,
>> do you have any idea?
>
> because you're saying they're better off existing than in
> oblivion. i'm saying... in oblivion there is no entity that is
> worse off... you're comparing apples and oranges...

No, Goo/****wit is saying, despite his lame denials,
that farm animals "pre-exist" before they exist, and
that they are WORSE OFF if they never get to exist, and
BETTER OFF if they do get to exist. That's what
Goo/****wit is saying. He will now deny it, stupidly,
and then he'll say something again that will show his
denial is bullshit.


>>> i'm correcting you
>> Not yet you sure aren't.
>
> i guess people will make their own minds up.

You corrected him.


>>> and saying that if nothing exists, then there
>>> is no entity that is worse off than if they existed...
>> I know. What you need to do is explain how that prevents
>> existing entities from benefitting from lives of positive value.
>
> i believe they can benefit from lives of positive value.

IF they exist at all. But the opportunity to do so is
NOT a justification for causing them to exist in the
first place. "Getting to experience life" is not a
benefit. Animals don't "get" something out of the
"deal". Once again, as you have noted: they are not
"better off" for existing vs never existing.



>
> i just don't believe in comparing getting to live 2 years with
> getting to not exist at all... that's a bullshit comparison.

Yes, it most certainly is a bullshit comparison. But
Goo/****wit has been trying to make it for nine years,
and for nine years I've been beating him bloody over it.


> when you don't
> exist you dont' exist and so your'e not worse or better or
> anything.

Exactly right, again.


> you just dont' exist... there is no you...

And again.

Everyone can see this but Goo/****wit. The reason he
can't see it? It's because he believes in
"pre-existence" - he thinks not-yet-but-maybe farm
animals "pre-exist" in some kind of limbo, and that
preventing them from existing imposes a "loss" on them,
"denies" something to them, imposes some "unfairness"
on them, "deprives" them of something:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Goo/****wit - 12/09/1999

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Goo/****wit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Goo/****wit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Goo/****wit - 10/19/1999


I *never* tire of reposting these quotes from
Goo/****wit, because they unmistakably show that I am
right in my elaboration of his ****witted beliefs.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:09:21 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:31:26 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:38:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * * I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>>>>free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>>>>decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>>>>begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>>>>have to understand that much.
>>>>>
>>>>>>First
>>>>>>of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>>>>them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>>>>care of?
>>>>>
>>>>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>>>>years old.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>>really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>>>
>>>>but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>>>>right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>>>
>>> No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
>>>Goo I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk
>>
>>well, i just quoted you doing it now... you said it was 2 years or
>>nothing,
>
> That's the deal. It needs to be clarified because some
>people act like if these animals weren't born as livestock
>they would or could be born as some happy wild animal
>instead, which afawk is *not* the case. If you think it's
>not then try explaining how.

i don't think that because THERE IS NO ANIMAL that could be born
or anything else... UNTIL IT'S BORN...

>
>>as if there was an entity that is better off experiencing
>>2 years rather than not experiencing anything at all...
>
> There is when they do.

i don't base it on comparing how they do now than how they did
before they existed...

>What do you think that has
>to do with supposed non-existent entities or whatever,
>do you have any idea?

because you're saying they're better off existing than in
oblivion. i'm saying... in oblivion there is no entity that is
worse off... you're comparing apples and oranges...

>
>>i'm correcting you
>
> Not yet you sure aren't.

i guess people will make their own minds up.

>
>>and saying that if nothing exists, then there
>>is no entity that is worse off than if they existed...
>
> I know. What you need to do is explain how that prevents
>existing entities from benefitting from lives of positive value.

i believe they can benefit from lives of positive value. i just
don't believe in comparing getting to live 2 years with getting to
not exist at all... that's a bullshit comparison. when you don't
exist you dont' exist and so your'e not worse or better or
anything. you just dont' exist... there is no you...

--

``The white "Christian" supremacists who have historically opposed either all immigration or all non-European immigration ... must not be permitted to play a prominent role in the debate over the way America responds to unprecedented demographic change. Nor should the anti-immigrant demagoguery of some black leadership be permitted to go unchallenged.'' --Stephen Steinlight

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 06:56:29 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:09:21 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:31:26 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:38:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * * I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>>>>>free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>>>>>decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>>>>>begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>>>>>have to understand that much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>First
>>>>>>>of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>>>>>them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>>>>>care of?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>>>>>years old.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>>>really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>>>>
>>>>>but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>>>>>right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>>>>
>>>> No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
>>>>Goo I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk
>>>
>>>well, i just quoted you doing it now... you said it was 2 years or
>>>nothing,
>>
>> That's the deal. It needs to be clarified because some
>>people act like if these animals weren't born as livestock
>>they would or could be born as some happy wild animal
>>instead, which afawk is *not* the case. If you think it's
>>not then try explaining how.
>
>i don't think that because THERE IS NO ANIMAL that could be born
>or anything else... UNTIL IT'S BORN...

That's why I say it's what they get or nothing.

>>>as if there was an entity that is better off experiencing
>>>2 years rather than not experiencing anything at all...
>>
>> There is when they do.
>
>i don't base it on comparing how they do now than how they did
>before they existed...

The first thing to consider in regards to them is
whether their life would be worth living or not. Some
would. Some would not. That gets into a LOT to think
about. The Goober has spent the last nine years (or
whatever) defending the eliminationist insistence that
we NOT! consider that huge aspect of the situation.

>>What do you think that has
>>to do with supposed non-existent entities or whatever,
>>do you have any idea?
>
>because you're saying they're better off existing than in
>oblivion. i'm saying... in oblivion there is no entity that is
>worse off... you're comparing apples and oranges...

Present the exact quotes you're referring to.

>>>i'm correcting you
>>
>> Not yet you sure aren't.
>
>i guess people will make their own minds up.
>
>>
>>>and saying that if nothing exists, then there
>>>is no entity that is worse off than if they existed...
>>
>> I know. What you need to do is explain how that prevents
>>existing entities from benefitting from lives of positive value.
>
>i believe they can benefit from lives of positive value. i just
>don't believe in comparing getting to live 2 years with getting to
>not exist at all... that's a bullshit comparison.

That's the way it is. Eliminationists want people to belive
things like instead of being born a dairy cow, it could have
been born a happy "free" cow, so I point out that it would
not. Probably the reason you have the problem, is because
you also want to believe that if "animal rights" were put in
place, those same animals would exist as free ones. That's
not the case. DIFFERENT animals *MIGHT!!!!!!!!* exist
in some cases where dairy farms are elimated, but not in
the cases I've seen. Those have become residential
areas for humans, providing life for entirely different
animals. It always gets back to the question of what you
want to provide living environments--resulting in lives--for.

>when you don't
>exist you dont' exist and so your'e not worse or better or
>anything. you just dont' exist... there is no you...

What is your obsession with non-existence all
of a sudden, do you know? No, don't say it's not
an obsession. You have gone from discussing
farm animals which do exist, to an obsession over
non-existent whatever it is to you, and you have
no longer any consideration at all for what we're
actually talking about. It appears that something
has contaminated your brain, which of course
emediately makes me think you might be the
victim of Goo's email tricks. Has the Goober
been emailing you? You have gone from
understanding and being honest about the
situation:
__________________________________________________ _______
"he's already moved on to showing how you're the only one
preoccupied with pre-existence... he's talking about the NOW."

"i believe his phrasing is more along the lines of 'some farm
animals do benefit from lives of positive value' (which i
interpret to be referring to their current situation in life''

"furthermore, DH has shown plenty of quotes from 'you' which DO
mention pre-existence, so you seem to be the only one who is
preoccupied with pre-existence and it shows in that you constantly
focus on that, even while being told it's not about that."

"stop talking about who or what benefits from passing from
non-existence into existence... no one cares... we care about
animals benefitting from lives of positive value, nothing more."
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
to the complete opposite and acting like the Goober. That's
a very weird thing, and of course makes me wonder what
could have caused you to unlearn.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Goo claimed:

>dh pointed out:
>
>> 2nd Bleeding Hemorrhoid lied:
>>
>>> you said it was 2 years or nothing,
>>
>> That's the deal.
>
>No

What do you think are the options besides
2 years or nothing, Goo?

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest cracker in a state full of
stupid crackers - lied and presented no challenge:
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 06:56:29 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest cracker in a state full of stupid crackers - lied and presented no challenge:
>
> >>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:31:26 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
> >>>Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest cracker in a state full of stupid crackers - lied and presented no challenge:
>
> >>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
> >>>>>Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest cracker in a state full of stupid crackers - lied and presented no challenge:
>
> >>>>>>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest cracker in a state full of stupid crackers - lied and presented no challenge:
>
> >>>>>>>> * * I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
> >>>>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
> >>>>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
> >>>>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>
> >>>>>>>Skimming over this thread. *Grabbing this point to reply to.
>
> >>>>>>>I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
> >>>>>>>free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'. *
>
> >>>>>> * *Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
> >>>>>>decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
> >>>>>>begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
> >>>>>>have to understand that much.
>
> >>>>>>>First
> >>>>>>>of all, animal producers are making money. *How much would it cost
> >>>>>>>them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
> >>>>>>>care of? *
>
> >>>>>> * *If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>
> >>>>>>>Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
> >>>>>>>years old. *
>
> >>>>>> * *Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
> >>>>>>really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>
> >>>>>but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
> >>>>>right? *this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>
> >>>> * *No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
> >>>>Goo I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk
>
> >>>well, i just quoted you doing it now... you said it was 2 years or
> >>>nothing,
>
> >> * *That's the deal. It needs to be clarified because some
> >>people act like if these animals weren't born as livestock
> >>they would or could be born as some happy wild animal
> >>instead, which afawk is *not* the case. If you think it's
> >>not then try explaining how.
>
> >i don't think that because THERE IS NO ANIMAL that could be born
> >or anything else... UNTIL IT'S BORN...
>
> * * That's why I say it's what they get or nothing.

And that's wrong and STUPID, Goo - if there's no "they", then "they"
can't get nothing. There's just no "they", Goo/****wit - The End.

But *you* believe there is a "they" sitting around in "pre-existence",
Goo/****wit. All your writing indicates you believe it.


> >>>as if there was an entity that is better off experiencing
> >>>2 years rather than not experiencing anything at all...
>
> >> * *There is when they do.
>
> >i don't base it on comparing how they do now than how they did
> >before they existed...
>
> * * The first thing to consider in regards to them is
> whether their life would be worth living or not.

No. The ONLY thing to consider is that, irrespective of what life
they might have if they exist, coming into existence is not a
"benefit", and keeping them from coming into existence is not imposing
any "loss" or "unfairness" or "deprivation." THAT is the only thing
to consider in this, Goo/****wit.


> >>What do you think that has
> >>to do with supposed non-existent entities or whatever,
> >>do you have any idea?
>
> >because you're saying they're better off existing than in
> >oblivion. i'm saying... in oblivion there is no entity that is
> >worse off... you're comparing apples and oranges...
>
> * * Present the exact quotes you're referring to.

Here they a

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Goo/****wit - 12/09/1999


Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Goo/****wit - 08/01/2000


What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Goo/****wit - 10/12/2001


What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Goo/****wit - 10/19/1999

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:33:39 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 06:56:29 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:09:21 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:31:26 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:38:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * * I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>>>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>>>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>>>>>>free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>>>>>>decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>>>>>>begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>>>>>>have to understand that much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>First
>>>>>>>>of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>>>>>>them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>>>>>>care of?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>>>>>>years old.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>>>>really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>>>>>>right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
>>>>>Goo I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk
>>>>
>>>>well, i just quoted you doing it now... you said it was 2 years or
>>>>nothing,
>>>
>>> That's the deal. It needs to be clarified because some
>>>people act like if these animals weren't born as livestock
>>>they would or could be born as some happy wild animal
>>>instead, which afawk is *not* the case. If you think it's
>>>not then try explaining how.
>>
>>i don't think that because THERE IS NO ANIMAL that could be born
>>or anything else... UNTIL IT'S BORN...
>
> That's why I say it's what they get or nothing.

nothing is not one of the choices. it's not like the entity is
worse off in the state of nothingness (that is what you suggest).
the entity simply does not exist. it's not better or worse off...

>
>>>>as if there was an entity that is better off experiencing
>>>>2 years rather than not experiencing anything at all...
>>>
>>> There is when they do.
>>
>>i don't base it on comparing how they do now than how they did
>>before they existed...
>
> The first thing to consider in regards to them is
>whether their life would be worth living or not. Some
>would. Some would not. That gets into a LOT to think
>about. The Goober has spent the last nine years (or
>whatever) defending the eliminationist insistence that
>we NOT! consider that huge aspect of the situation.

canoza states his own position rather eloquently...

>
>>>What do you think that has
>>>to do with supposed non-existent entities or whatever,
>>>do you have any idea?
>>
>>because you're saying they're better off existing than in
>>oblivion. i'm saying... in oblivion there is no entity that is
>>worse off... you're comparing apples and oranges...
>
> Present the exact quotes you're referring to.

this one:

>>>>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>>>>really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*

my comment: you're clearly suggesting, getting to live even a
short brief amount of time is preferrable to remaining some 'lost
soul' in a state of pre-existence... or words to that effect. when
you don't exist, you're not better or worse off, you just don't
exist, period. if you can't get that much, you have no hope.

>
>>>>i'm correcting you
>>>
>>> Not yet you sure aren't.
>>
>>i guess people will make their own minds up.
>>
>>>
>>>>and saying that if nothing exists, then there
>>>>is no entity that is worse off than if they existed...
>>>
>>> I know. What you need to do is explain how that prevents
>>>existing entities from benefitting from lives of positive value.
>>
>>i believe they can benefit from lives of positive value. i just
>>don't believe in comparing getting to live 2 years with getting to
>>not exist at all... that's a bullshit comparison.
>
> That's the way it is. Eliminationists want people to belive
>things like instead of being born a dairy cow, it could have
>been born a happy "free" cow, so I point out that it would
>not. Probably the reason you have the problem, is because
>you also want to believe that if "animal rights" were put in
>place, those same animals would exist as free ones. That's
>not the case. DIFFERENT animals *MIGHT!!!!!!!!* exist
>in some cases where dairy farms are elimated, but not in
>the cases I've seen. Those have become residential
>areas for humans, providing life for entirely different
>animals. It always gets back to the question of what you
>want to provide living environments--resulting in lives--for.
>
>>when you don't
>>exist you dont' exist and so your'e not worse or better or
>>anything. you just dont' exist... there is no you...
>
> What is your obsession with non-existence all
>of a sudden, do you know? No, don't say it's not
>an obsession. You have gone from discussing
>farm animals which do exist, to an obsession over
>non-existent whatever it is to you, and you have
>no longer any consideration at all for what we're
>actually talking about. It appears that something
>has contaminated your brain, which of course
>emediately makes me think you might be the
>victim of Goo's email tricks. Has the Goober
>been emailing you? You have gone from
>understanding and being honest about the
>situation:
>_________________________________________________ ________
>"he's already moved on to showing how you're the only one
>preoccupied with pre-existence... he's talking about the NOW."
>
>"i believe his phrasing is more along the lines of 'some farm
>animals do benefit from lives of positive value' (which i
>interpret to be referring to their current situation in life''
>
>"furthermore, DH has shown plenty of quotes from 'you' which DO
>mention pre-existence, so you seem to be the only one who is
>preoccupied with pre-existence and it shows in that you constantly
>focus on that, even while being told it's not about that."
>
>"stop talking about who or what benefits from passing from
>non-existence into existence... no one cares... we care about
>animals benefitting from lives of positive value, nothing more."
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>to the complete opposite and acting like the Goober. That's
>a very weird thing, and of course makes me wonder what
>could have caused you to unlearn.


--

``The white "Christian" supremacists who have historically opposed either all immigration or all non-European immigration ... must not be permitted to play a prominent role in the debate over the way America responds to unprecedented demographic change. Nor should the anti-immigrant demagoguery of some black leadership be permitted to go unchallenged.'' --Stephen Steinlight

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:33:39 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 06:56:29 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:09:21 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:31:26 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:38:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * * I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>>>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>>>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>>>>>>free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>>>>>>decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>>>>>>begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>>>>>>have to understand that much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>First
>>>>>>>>of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>>>>>>them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>>>>>>care of?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>>>>>>years old.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>>>>really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>>>>>>right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
>>>>>Goo I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk
>>>>
>>>>well, i just quoted you doing it now... you said it was 2 years or
>>>>nothing,
>>>
>>> That's the deal. It needs to be clarified because some
>>>people act like if these animals weren't born as livestock
>>>they would or could be born as some happy wild animal
>>>instead, which afawk is *not* the case. If you think it's
>>>not then try explaining how.
>>
>>i don't think that because THERE IS NO ANIMAL that could be born
>>or anything else... UNTIL IT'S BORN...
>
> That's why I say it's what they get or nothing.
>
>>>>as if there was an entity that is better off experiencing
>>>>2 years rather than not experiencing anything at all...
>>>
>>> There is when they do.
>>
>>i don't base it on comparing how they do now than how they did
>>before they existed...
>
> The first thing to consider in regards to them is
>whether their life would be worth living or not. Some
>would. Some would not. That gets into a LOT to think
>about. The Goober has spent the last nine years (or
>whatever) defending the eliminationist insistence that
>we NOT! consider that huge aspect of the situation.
>
>>>What do you think that has
>>>to do with supposed non-existent entities or whatever,
>>>do you have any idea?
>>
>>because you're saying they're better off existing than in
>>oblivion. i'm saying... in oblivion there is no entity that is
>>worse off... you're comparing apples and oranges...
>
> Present the exact quotes you're referring to.
>
>>>>i'm correcting you
>>>
>>> Not yet you sure aren't.
>>
>>i guess people will make their own minds up.
>>
>>>
>>>>and saying that if nothing exists, then there
>>>>is no entity that is worse off than if they existed...
>>>
>>> I know. What you need to do is explain how that prevents
>>>existing entities from benefitting from lives of positive value.
>>
>>i believe they can benefit from lives of positive value. i just
>>don't believe in comparing getting to live 2 years with getting to
>>not exist at all... that's a bullshit comparison.
>
> That's the way it is. Eliminationists want people to belive
>things like instead of being born a dairy cow, it could have
>been born a happy "free" cow, so I point out that it would
>not. Probably the reason you have the problem, is because
>you also want to believe that if "animal rights" were put in
>place, those same animals would exist as free ones. That's
>not the case. DIFFERENT animals *MIGHT!!!!!!!!* exist
>in some cases where dairy farms are elimated, but not in
>the cases I've seen. Those have become residential
>areas for humans, providing life for entirely different
>animals. It always gets back to the question of what you
>want to provide living environments--resulting in lives--for.
>
>>when you don't
>>exist you dont' exist and so your'e not worse or better or
>>anything. you just dont' exist... there is no you...
>
> What is your obsession with non-existence all
>of a sudden, do you know? No, don't say it's not
>an obsession. You have gone from discussing
>farm animals which do exist, to an obsession over
>non-existent whatever it is to you, and you have
>no longer any consideration at all for what we're
>actually talking about. It appears that something
>has contaminated your brain, which of course
>emediately makes me think you might be the
>victim of Goo's email tricks. Has the Goober
>been emailing you? You have gone from
>understanding and being honest about the
>situation:
>_________________________________________________ ________
>"he's already moved on to showing how you're the only one
>preoccupied with pre-existence... he's talking about the NOW."
>
>"i believe his phrasing is more along the lines of 'some farm
>animals do benefit from lives of positive value' (which i
>interpret to be referring to their current situation in life''
>
>"furthermore, DH has shown plenty of quotes from 'you' which DO
>mention pre-existence, so you seem to be the only one who is
>preoccupied with pre-existence and it shows in that you constantly
>focus on that, even while being told it's not about that."
>
>"stop talking about who or what benefits from passing from
>non-existence into existence... no one cares... we care about
>animals benefitting from lives of positive value, nothing more."
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>to the complete opposite and acting like the Goober. That's
>a very weird thing, and of course makes me wonder what
>could have caused you to unlearn.

that's before i saw you do it myself. before i always thought he
was misquoting you...

--

``The white "Christian" supremacists who have historically opposed either all immigration or all non-European immigration ... must not be permitted to play a prominent role in the debate over the way America responds to unprecedented demographic change. Nor should the anti-immigrant demagoguery of some black leadership be permitted to go unchallenged.'' --Stephen Steinlight

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:01:25 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:33:39 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 06:56:29 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:09:21 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:31:26 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:38:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * * I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>>>>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>>>>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>>>>>>>free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>>>>>>>decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>>>>>>>begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>>>>>>>have to understand that much.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>First
>>>>>>>>>of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>>>>>>>them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>>>>>>>care of?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>>>>>>>years old.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>>>>>really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>>>>>>>right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
>>>>>>Goo I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk
>>>>>
>>>>>well, i just quoted you doing it now... you said it was 2 years or
>>>>>nothing,
>>>>
>>>> That's the deal. It needs to be clarified because some
>>>>people act like if these animals weren't born as livestock
>>>>they would or could be born as some happy wild animal
>>>>instead, which afawk is *not* the case. If you think it's
>>>>not then try explaining how.
>>>
>>>i don't think that because THERE IS NO ANIMAL that could be born
>>>or anything else... UNTIL IT'S BORN...
>>
>> That's why I say it's what they get or nothing.
>
>nothing is not one of the choices.

Yes it is. The question now is: Other than the life they get
or nothing, what other possibility(s) do YOU imagine?

>it's not like the entity is
>worse off in the state of nothingness (that is what you suggest).

That's obviously what YOUR mind thinks of when the word
nothing is used. Why does the word nothing somehow suggest
being worse off to you, do you know?

>the entity simply does not exist. it's not better or worse off...
>
>>
>>>>>as if there was an entity that is better off experiencing
>>>>>2 years rather than not experiencing anything at all...
>>>>
>>>> There is when they do.
>>>
>>>i don't base it on comparing how they do now than how they did
>>>before they existed...
>>
>> The first thing to consider in regards to them is
>>whether their life would be worth living or not. Some
>>would. Some would not. That gets into a LOT to think
>>about. The Goober has spent the last nine years (or
>>whatever) defending the eliminationist insistence that
>>we NOT! consider that huge aspect of the situation.
>
>canoza states his own position rather eloquently...

Goo's objective is to keep people from considering
the fact that many livestock animals have lives of
positive value, because doing so suggests that some
alternatives might be ethically equivalent or superior
to the hopes of eliminationists.

>>>>What do you think that has
>>>>to do with supposed non-existent entities or whatever,
>>>>do you have any idea?
>>>
>>>because you're saying they're better off existing than in
>>>oblivion. i'm saying... in oblivion there is no entity that is
>>>worse off... you're comparing apples and oranges...
>>
>> Present the exact quotes you're referring to.
>
>this one:
>
>>>>>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>>>>>really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>
>my comment: you're clearly suggesting, getting to live even a
>short brief amount of time is preferrable to remaining some 'lost
>soul'

Not to me. Why does it to you, do you have any idea?

>in a state of pre-existence... or words to that effect.

What makes you imagine that, do you know?

>when
>you don't exist, you're not better or worse off, you just don't
>exist, period. if you can't get that much, you have no hope.

I understand that part better than you do.

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:07:20 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:

>dh wonders:
>
>>wonder what could have caused you to unlearn.
>
>that's before i saw you do it myself.

You never have seen me do "it".

>before i always thought he was misquoting you...

Why won't you tell the truth? You have gone from
understanding and acknowledging the situation, to
some insane obsession about non-existent "entities"
just like the Goober. You claim to have UNlearned,
plus now when I use the term NOTHING you make
up things imagining it to mean something completely
different than nothing, as you dream of an existence
prior to conception on Earth. Now of course it looks
like as you do things, you get worse at doing them
instead of better.

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Goo lied:

>dh pointed out:
>
>> * * The first thing to consider in regards to them is
>> whether their life would be worth living or not.
>
>No.

Yes it is Goo.

>The ONLY thing to consider is that, irrespective of what life
>they might have if they exist,

They do exist, Goo, every single one of them.

>coming into existence is not a
>"benefit", and keeping them from coming into existence is not imposing
>any "loss" or "unfairness" or "deprivation."

That has nothing to do with anything at all, my Goober.

marques de sade wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:33:39 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 06:56:29 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:09:21 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:31:26 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:38:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 24, 3:23 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>>>>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>>>>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>>>>>>> Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>>>>>>> free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>>>>>>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>>>>>>> decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>>>>>>> begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>>>>>>> have to understand that much.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First
>>>>>>>>> of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>>>>>>> them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>>>>>>> care of?
>>>>>>>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>>>>>>> years old.
>>>>>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>>>>> really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>>>>>> but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>>>>>>> right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>>>>>> No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
>>>>>> Goo I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk
>>>>> well, i just quoted you doing it now... you said it was 2 years or
>>>>> nothing,
>>>> That's the deal. It needs to be clarified because some
>>>> people act like if these animals weren't born as livestock
>>>> they would or could be born as some happy wild animal
>>>> instead, which afawk is *not* the case. If you think it's
>>>> not then try explaining how.
>>> i don't think that because THERE IS NO ANIMAL that could be born
>>> or anything else... UNTIL IT'S BORN...
>> That's why I say it's what they get or nothing.
>
> nothing is not one of the choices. it's not like the entity is
> worse off in the state of nothingness (that is what you suggest).

Goo/****wit believes it is. He believes "getting to
exist", or as he usually used to put it "getting to
experience life", is a benefit in and of itself. The
logical implication of that is that NOT "getting to
experience life" is a loss. Goo/****wit BELIEVES that
a loss is incurred if farm animals that might exist are
prevented from existing:

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Goo/****wit - 08/01/2000


After I first began beating the crap out of him for
that absurd belief, Goo/****wit nervously and hastily
tried to say that it was a "mistake", that he didn't
really mean it. He tried to base his denial on his
supposed, but never-before expressed, belief that
before they exist, the unborn (unconceived) farm
animals are just "nothing". But of course, he didn't
believe *that*, either, as another earlier quote showed:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Goo/****wit - 12/09/1999


Goo/****wit sees unconceived/unborn farm animals as
"more than just 'nothing'"; he sees them having a moral
considerability even before they are conceived, and he
believes this moral considerability means they are
*owed* ultimate existence.

All of these beliefs Goo/****wit holds, and his
statements of them, *NECESSARILY* imply that
Goo/****wit believes unconceived/unborn farm animals
"pre-exist". It doesn't matter if Goo/****wit claims
he doesn't believe in "pre-existence"; his uncoerced,
freely posted statements indicate he does believe in it.


> the entity simply does not exist. it's not better or worse off...

That's correct, but Goo/****wit doesn't believe that.
He believes unconceived farm animals do "pre-exist",
and that they have morally considerable interests while
they are in this state of "pre-existence".


>
>>>>> as if there was an entity that is better off experiencing
>>>>> 2 years rather than not experiencing anything at all...
>>>> There is when they do.
>>> i don't base it on comparing how they do now than how they did
>>> before they existed...
>> The first thing to consider in regards to them is
>> whether their life would be worth living or not. Some
>> would. Some would not. That gets into a LOT to think
>> about. The Goober has spent the last nine years (or
>> whatever) defending the eliminationist insistence that
>> we NOT! consider that huge aspect of the situation.
>
> canoza states his own position rather eloquently...

Because I am educated and thoughtful. Goo/****wit
really is the dumb southern cracker I have depicted.
He really does have only a high school education, from
a shitty high school in a shit area. He really does
live far outside Atlanta, and he really does earn his
living doing quite menial work. He is not an intellect.


>
>>>> What do you think that has
>>>> to do with supposed non-existent entities or whatever,
>>>> do you have any idea?
>>> because you're saying they're better off existing than in
>>> oblivion. i'm saying... in oblivion there is no entity that is
>>> worse off... you're comparing apples and oranges...
>> Present the exact quotes you're referring to.
>
> this one:
>
>>>>>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>>>>> really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>
> my comment: you're clearly suggesting, getting to live even a
> short brief amount of time is preferrable to remaining some 'lost
> soul' in a state of pre-existence...

That is exactly what he believes. And note that he
believes this *irrespective* of the quality of life.
Goo/****wit believes that "getting to experience life"
is *always* preferable for an animal, versus never
existing.


> or words to that effect. when
> you don't exist, you're not better or worse off, you just don't
> exist, period. if you can't get that much, you have no hope.
>
>>>>> i'm correcting you
>>>> Not yet you sure aren't.
>>> i guess people will make their own minds up.
>>>
>>>>> and saying that if nothing exists, then there
>>>>> is no entity that is worse off than if they existed...
>>>> I know. What you need to do is explain how that prevents
>>>> existing entities from benefitting from lives of positive value.

No, no one needs to explain this, because that has
never been the topic of discussion. The topic has
always and only been Goo/****wit's irrational
unhappiness over the desire by "aras" to prevent
"future farm animals" from existing. Goo/****wit is
lying about the focus on "existing entities".


>>> i believe they can benefit from lives of positive value. i just
>>> don't believe in comparing getting to live 2 years with getting to
>>> not exist at all... that's a bullshit comparison.
>> That's the way it is. Eliminationists want people to belive
>> things like instead of being born a dairy cow, it could have
>> been born a happy "free" cow,

No, that's complete bullshit. NO ONE believes that.
It's a straw man; a fabrication.


>> so I point out that it would
>> not. Probably the reason you have the problem, is because
>> you also want to believe that if "animal rights" were put in
>> place, those same animals would exist as free ones.

NO "animal rights activist" believes this. Goo/****wit
himself has posted numerous quotes from well-known
"aras" indicating that they fully understand the
imposition of an "ar" regime would mean extinction of
today's domestic breeds. Goo/****wit is changing his
story when he says bullshit like the above.


>> That's not the case. DIFFERENT animals *MIGHT!!!!!!!!*

This construction tells you all you need to know about
Goo/****wit's appallingly low intellect:
"*MIGHT!!!!!!!!*". That's the construction of a
plodding, badly educated, fundamentally stupid person.



>> exost in some cases where dairy farms are elimated, but
>> not in the cases I've seen.

On Feb 6, 9:23*am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> marques de sade wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:33:39 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>



Goo, tell us WHAT you were and WHERE you were before you came into the
existence that made you no better off than you were BEFORE.

Goo - ****wit David Harrison - lied and presented no
challenge:
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:01:25 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison - lied and presented no challenge:
>>
>>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 06:56:29 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison - lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:31:26 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison - lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison - lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison - lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>>>>>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>>>>>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>>>>>>>> Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>>>>>>>> free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>>>>>>>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>>>>>>>> decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>>>>>>>> begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>>>>>>>> have to understand that much.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> First
>>>>>>>>>> of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>>>>>>>> them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>>>>>>>> care of?
>>>>>>>>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>>>>>>>> years old.
>>>>>>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>>>>>> really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>>>>>>> but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>>>>>>>> right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>>>>>>> No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
>>>>>>> Goo I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk
>>>>>> well, i just quoted you doing it now... you said it was 2 years or
>>>>>> nothing,
>>>>> That's the deal. It needs to be clarified because some
>>>>> people act like if these animals weren't born as livestock
>>>>> they would or could be born as some happy wild animal
>>>>> instead, which afawk is *not* the case. If you think it's
>>>>> not then try explaining how.
>>>> i don't think that because THERE IS NO ANIMAL that could be born
>>>> or anything else... UNTIL IT'S BORN...
>>> That's why I say it's what they get or nothing.
>> nothing is not one of the choices.
>
> Yes it is.

No, it isn't. Animals that don't exist don't GET any
"choices", Goo/****wit.


>> it's not like the entity is
>> worse off in the state of nothingness (that is what you suggest).
>
> That's obviously what YOUR mind thinks of when the word
> nothing is used. Why does the word nothing somehow suggest
> being worse off to you, do you know?

YOU are the one who thinks "getting nothing" means
being worse off, Goo:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Goo/****wit - 12/09/1999

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Goo/****wit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Goo/****wit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Goo/****wit - 10/19/1999


You believe in and are obsessed with "pre-existence"
for farm animals, Goo/****wit. Stop lying about it.

Goo - ****wit David Harrison - lied and presented no
challenge:
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:07:20 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison - lied and presented no challenge
>>
>>> wonder what could have caused you to unlearn.
>> that's before i saw you do it myself.
>
> You never have seen me do "it".

OF COURSE he has, Goo, you ****witted insane liar. We
have *all* seen you do it, for years:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Goo/****wit - 12/09/1999

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Goo/****wit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Goo/****wit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Goo/****wit - 10/19/1999


You believe in and are obsessed with "pre-existence"
for farm animals, Goo/****wit. Stop lying about it.

Goo - ****wit David Harrison - lied and presented no
challenge:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Rudy M. Canoza wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison - lied and presented no challenge:
>>
>>> The first thing to consider in regards to them is
>>> whether their life would be worth living or not.
>> No.
>
> Yes it is Rudy.

No, Goo, it isn't. You beieve that "getting to
experience life", in and of itself, is a benefit, and
is the first thing to consider. Stop lying.


>
>> The ONLY thing to consider is that, irrespective of what life
>> they might have if they exist,
>
> They do exist,

No, Goo. You have *always* been talking about the
"loss" experienced by unborn animals if their lives are
"prevented". This is thoroughly established as your
point, Goo. Stop lying.


>> coming into existence is not a
>> "benefit", and keeping them from coming into existence is not imposing
>> any "loss" or "unfairness" or "deprivation."
>
> That has nothing to do with anything at all

It is YOUR fundamental point, Goo:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Goo/****wit - 12/09/1999

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Goo/****wit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Goo/****wit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Goo/****wit - 10/19/1999


You believe in and are obsessed with "pre-existence"
for farm animals, Goo/****wit. Stop lying about it.

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:01:25 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:

>it's not like the entity is worse off in the state of nothingness
>(that is what you suggest).

Obviously I'm not one of the billions of people who believe
in multiple lives or I would have explained why years ago.

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 Goo again lied blatantly and knowingly:

>He tried to base his denial on his
>supposed, but never-before expressed,

"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
believe the animals exist before conception " - Goo

>belief that before they exist, the unborn
>(unconceived) farm animals are just
>"nothing".

From: dh
Subject: animal welfare poem
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Date: 2000/08/01

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born if
nothing prevents that from happening, that would
experience the loss if their lives are prevented.
I don't believe that the individual animals exist
in any way before they are conceived, but I am
also aware that billions more animals *will* exist
as a result of the farming industry if nothing
(like ARAs) prevents it from happening. To me that
is a major aspect to take into consideration.

marques de sade wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:15:25 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:01:25 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>
>>> it's not like the entity is worse off in the state of nothingness
>>> (that is what you suggest).
>> Obviously I'm not one of the billions of people who believe
>> in multiple lives or I would have explained why years ago.
>
> thanks for ackowledging that your contentions are faith-based...

Oh, yeah:

The soul is created separate from the body it will
reside in--if that is the case, then it is almost
certain that if people stop raising animals for
food, the souls that would have resided in the food
animals, will be born to other bodies instead. My
argument with that is: maybe the animals that are
being raised and eaten by humans, are providing the
life experiences for souls that would have
otherwise been born in wild habitats that humans
have destroyed.
Goo/****wit - 12 Jan 2000 http://tinyurl.com/2psrpw


Goo/****wit fancies himself a theologian. My cat is a
better theologian than Goo/****wit.


>
> we might actually get somewhere if we all know where we stand.
>

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:45:51 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:01:25 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:33:39 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 06:56:29 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:09:21 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:31:26 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:38:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * * I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>>>>>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>>>>>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>>>>>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>>>>>>>>free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>>>>>>>>decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>>>>>>>>begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>>>>>>>>have to understand that much.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>First
>>>>>>>>>>of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>>>>>>>>them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>>>>>>>>care of?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>>>>>>>>years old.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>>>>>>really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>>>>>>>>right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
>>>>>>>Goo I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk
>>>>>>
>>>>>>well, i just quoted you doing it now... you said it was 2 years or
>>>>>>nothing,
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the deal. It needs to be clarified because some
>>>>>people act like if these animals weren't born as livestock
>>>>>they would or could be born as some happy wild animal
>>>>>instead, which afawk is *not* the case. If you think it's
>>>>>not then try explaining how.
>>>>
>>>>i don't think that because THERE IS NO ANIMAL that could be born
>>>>or anything else... UNTIL IT'S BORN...
>>>
>>> That's why I say it's what they get or nothing.
>>
>>nothing is not one of the choices.
>
> Yes it is. The question now is: Other than the life they get
>or nothing, what other possibility(s) do YOU imagine?
>
>>it's not like the entity is
>>worse off in the state of nothingness (that is what you suggest).
>
> That's obviously what YOUR mind thinks of when the word
>nothing is used. Why does the word nothing somehow suggest
>being worse off to you, do you know?
>
>>the entity simply does not exist. it's not better or worse off...
>>
>>>
>>>>>>as if there was an entity that is better off experiencing
>>>>>>2 years rather than not experiencing anything at all...
>>>>>
>>>>> There is when they do.
>>>>
>>>>i don't base it on comparing how they do now than how they did
>>>>before they existed...
>>>
>>> The first thing to consider in regards to them is
>>>whether their life would be worth living or not. Some
>>>would. Some would not. That gets into a LOT to think
>>>about. The Goober has spent the last nine years (or
>>>whatever) defending the eliminationist insistence that
>>>we NOT! consider that huge aspect of the situation.
>>
>>canoza states his own position rather eloquently...
>
> Goo's objective is to keep people from considering
>the fact that many livestock animals have lives of
>positive value, because doing so suggests that some
>alternatives might be ethically equivalent or superior
>to the hopes of eliminationists.
>
>>>>>What do you think that has
>>>>>to do with supposed non-existent entities or whatever,
>>>>>do you have any idea?
>>>>
>>>>because you're saying they're better off existing than in
>>>>oblivion. i'm saying... in oblivion there is no entity that is
>>>>worse off... you're comparing apples and oranges...
>>>
>>> Present the exact quotes you're referring to.
>>
>>this one:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>>>>>>really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>
>>my comment: you're clearly suggesting, getting to live even a
>>short brief amount of time is preferrable to remaining some 'lost
>>soul'
>
> Not to me. Why does it to you, do you have any idea?
>
>>in a state of pre-existence... or words to that effect.
>
> What makes you imagine that, do you know?

inference...

>
>>when
>>you don't exist, you're not better or worse off, you just don't
>>exist, period. if you can't get that much, you have no hope.
>
> I understand that part better than you do.

so how is getting to live 2 years 'better' than not existing...
it's not better or worse... you can't compare the two...

--

``The white "Christian" supremacists who have historically opposed either all immigration or all non-European immigration ... must not be permitted to play a prominent role in the debate over the way America responds to unprecedented demographic change. Nor should the anti-immigrant demagoguery of some black leadership be permitted to go unchallenged.'' --Stephen Steinlight

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:15:25 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:01:25 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>>it's not like the entity is worse off in the state of nothingness
>>(that is what you suggest).
>
> Obviously I'm not one of the billions of people who believe
>in multiple lives or I would have explained why years ago.

thanks for ackowledging that your contentions are faith-based...

we might actually get somewhere if we all know where we stand.

--

``The white "Christian" supremacists who have historically opposed either all immigration or all non-European immigration ... must not be permitted to play a prominent role in the debate over the way America responds to unprecedented demographic change. Nor should the anti-immigrant demagoguery of some black leadership be permitted to go unchallenged.'' --Stephen Steinlight

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:46:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:07:20 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>>dh wonders:
>>
>>>wonder what could have caused you to unlearn.
>>
>>that's before i saw you do it myself.
>
> You never have seen me do "it".
>
>>before i always thought he was misquoting you...
>
> Why won't you tell the truth? You have gone from
>understanding and acknowledging the situation, to
>some insane obsession about non-existent "entities"
>just like the Goober. You claim to have UNlearned,
>plus now when I use the term NOTHING you make
>up things imagining it to mean something completely
>different than nothing, as you dream of an existence
>prior to conception on Earth. Now of course it looks
>like as you do things, you get worse at doing them
>instead of better.

i understand it all now... you're blending your argument about a
creator with your argument in favor of butchery of critters...

--

``The white "Christian" supremacists who have historically opposed either all immigration or all non-European immigration ... must not be permitted to play a prominent role in the debate over the way America responds to unprecedented demographic change. Nor should the anti-immigrant demagoguery of some black leadership be permitted to go unchallenged.'' --Stephen Steinlight

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:58:00 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:46:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:07:20 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>
>>>dh wonders:
>>>
>>>>wonder what could have caused you to unlearn.
>>>
>>>that's before i saw you do it myself.
>>
>> You never have seen me do "it".
>>
>>>before i always thought he was misquoting you...
>>
>> Why won't you tell the truth? You have gone from
>>understanding and acknowledging the situation, to
>>some insane obsession about non-existent "entities"
>>just like the Goober. You claim to have UNlearned,
>>plus now when I use the term NOTHING you make
>>up things imagining it to mean something completely
>>different than nothing, as you dream of an existence
>>prior to conception on Earth. Now of course it looks
>>like as you do things, you get worse at doing them
>>instead of better.
>
>i understand it all now...

Maybe. But that certainly doesn't mean you'll be
honest about it if you do.

>you're blending your argument about a
>creator with your argument in favor of butchery of critters...

How do you think so?

On that subject: I don't believe it's likely a creator
would be in some part or somehow possibly all of
everything in the universe, as you've led me to
believe you do, but I do believe it's likely that
he might have some part in some/many/all
living creatures.

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:50:48 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:45:51 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:01:25 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:33:39 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Present the exact quotes you're referring to.
>>>
>>>this one:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>>>>>>>really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>>
>>>my comment: you're clearly suggesting, getting to live even a
>>>short brief amount of time is preferrable to remaining some 'lost
>>>soul'
>>
>> Not to me. Why does it to you, do you have any idea?
>>
>>>in a state of pre-existence... or words to that effect.
>>
>> What makes you imagine that, do you know?
>
>inference...

You refer to something:

"a state of pre-existence" - you

"Nothing" does not infer something as it refers to nothing, so:

1. What makes you imagine that it ever does?
2. Do you think it does in all cases, or just in this particular
one? If the latter, why in this case?

>>>when
>>>you don't exist, you're not better or worse off, you just don't
>>>exist, period. if you can't get that much, you have no hope.
>>
>> I understand that part better than you do.
>
>so how is getting to live 2 years 'better' than not existing...

If it's a life of positive value it can be thought of as
having positive value.

>it's not better or worse... you can't compare the two...

I can make a judgement as to whether I believe a
particular life would be worth living or not. Why can't
you?

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:56:42 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:15:25 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:01:25 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>
>>>it's not like the entity is worse off in the state of nothingness
>>>(that is what you suggest).
>>
>> Obviously I'm not one of the billions of people who believe
>>in multiple lives or I would have explained why years ago.
>
>thanks for ackowledging that your contentions are faith-based...

Why does pointing out that I'm not one of billions of people
who believe something, make you think I do have faith in
anything?

>we might actually get somewhere if we all know where we stand.

Maybe, but the Goober could never even acknowledge
the fact that I don't have any belief either way about the
possibility of multiple lives, so it could never happen. So
far it might still be able to happen between you and I, but
after you pass a certain point with dishonesty you can
never afford to acknowledge the truth again. Goo passed
that point a long time ago. Still, there was a time--a damn
short time no doubt--when the Goober could still be honest
about this:
__________________________________________________ _______
"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo

"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
sense - no one ever suggested it did " - Goo

"Something that isn't alive cannot benefit, AS
YOU'VE SAID, ****wit." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
but as you've seen, that time is now gone for Goo.

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:12:44 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:50:48 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:45:51 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:01:25 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:33:39 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Present the exact quotes you're referring to.
>>>>
>>>>this one:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>>>>>>>>really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>>>
>>>>my comment: you're clearly suggesting, getting to live even a
>>>>short brief amount of time is preferrable to remaining some 'lost
>>>>soul'
>>>
>>> Not to me. Why does it to you, do you have any idea?
>>>
>>>>in a state of pre-existence... or words to that effect.
>>>
>>> What makes you imagine that, do you know?
>>
>>inference...
>
> You refer to something:
>
>"a state of pre-existence" - you
>
>"Nothing" does not infer something as it refers to nothing, so:
>
>1. What makes you imagine that it ever does?
>2. Do you think it does in all cases, or just in this particular
>one? If the latter, why in this case?
>
>>>>when
>>>>you don't exist, you're not better or worse off, you just don't
>>>>exist, period. if you can't get that much, you have no hope.
>>>
>>> I understand that part better than you do.
>>
>>so how is getting to live 2 years 'better' than not existing...
>
> If it's a life of positive value it can be thought of as
>having positive value.
>
>>it's not better or worse... you can't compare the two...
>
> I can make a judgement as to whether I believe a
>particular life would be worth living or not. Why can't
>you?

you make too much of a big deal out of it all...
octinomos

--

"A visiting rabbinical student from Australia by the name of Yankel Rosenbaum, 29, was killed during the rioting by a mob shouting 'Kill the Jew.' Sharpton has been seen by some commentators as inflaming tensions with remarks such as 'If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house' and referring to Jews as 'diamond merchants.'"

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:14:58 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:56:42 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:15:25 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:01:25 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>
>>>>it's not like the entity is worse off in the state of nothingness
>>>>(that is what you suggest).
>>>
>>> Obviously I'm not one of the billions of people who believe
>>>in multiple lives or I would have explained why years ago.
>>
>>thanks for ackowledging that your contentions are faith-based...
>
> Why does pointing out that I'm not one of billions of people
>who believe something, make you think I do have faith in
>anything?

you appeared to imply that you believed in 'one incarnation per
soul'... as opposed to 'multiple lives per soul'
>
>>we might actually get somewhere if we all know where we stand.
>
> Maybe, but the Goober

i'm snipping the rest... this isn't about canoza right now...

first rephrase the part about you not believing in multiple
lives... do you believe in a soul, period... and if you do, is
that soul eternal and sort of waiting in limbo for incarnation, or
does it begin at the time life(incarnation) begins...
octinomos

--

"A visiting rabbinical student from Australia by the name of Yankel Rosenbaum, 29, was killed during the rioting by a mob shouting 'Kill the Jew.' Sharpton has been seen by some commentators as inflaming tensions with remarks such as 'If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house' and referring to Jews as 'diamond merchants.'"

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:12:01 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:58:00 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:46:52 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:07:20 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>
>>>>dh wonders:
>>>>
>>>>>wonder what could have caused you to unlearn.
>>>>
>>>>that's before i saw you do it myself.
>>>
>>> You never have seen me do "it".
>>>
>>>>before i always thought he was misquoting you...
>>>
>>> Why won't you tell the truth? You have gone from
>>>understanding and acknowledging the situation, to
>>>some insane obsession about non-existent "entities"
>>>just like the Goober. You claim to have UNlearned,
>>>plus now when I use the term NOTHING you make
>>>up things imagining it to mean something completely
>>>different than nothing, as you dream of an existence
>>>prior to conception on Earth. Now of course it looks
>>>like as you do things, you get worse at doing them
>>>instead of better.
>>
>>i understand it all now...
>
> Maybe. But that certainly doesn't mean you'll be
>honest about it if you do.
>
>>you're blending your argument about a
>>creator with your argument in favor of butchery of critters...
>
> How do you think so?
>
> On that subject: I don't believe it's likely a creator
>would be in some part or somehow possibly all of
>everything in the universe, as you've led me to
>believe you do, but I do believe it's likely that
>he might have some part in some/many/all
>living creatures.

i see it all as one... no division whatsoever... not even between
the material and the spiritual... it's all one... everything,
everyone, the stars, the skies, the oceans, the rocks, the birds,
you, me, turtles, you name it...
octinomos

--

"A visiting rabbinical student from Australia by the name of Yankel Rosenbaum, 29, was killed during the rioting by a mob shouting 'Kill the Jew.' Sharpton has been seen by some commentators as inflaming tensions with remarks such as 'If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house' and referring to Jews as 'diamond merchants.'"

dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:50:48 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:45:51 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:01:25 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:33:39 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Present the exact quotes you're referring to.
>>>> this one:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>>>>>>>> really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>>> my comment: you're clearly suggesting, getting to live even a
>>>> short brief amount of time is preferrable to remaining some 'lost
>>>> soul'
>>> Not to me. Why does it to you, do you have any idea?
>>>
>>>> in a state of pre-existence... or words to that effect.
>>> What makes you imagine that, do you know?
>> inference...
>
> You refer to something:
>
> "a state of pre-existence" - you
>
> "Nothing" does not infer something as it refers to nothing, so:
>
> 1. What makes you imagine that it ever does?
> 2. Do you think it does in all cases, or just in this particular
> one? If the latter, why in this case?
>
>>>> when
>>>> you don't exist, you're not better or worse off, you just don't
>>>> exist, period. if you can't get that much, you have no hope.
>>> I understand that part better than you do.
>> so how is getting to live 2 years 'better' than not existing...
>
> If it's a life of positive value it can be thought of as
> having positive value.

No. You can't legitimately make the comparison.

"Getting to exist", no matter what the quality of life,
is not "better than" never existing. The comparison
cannot be made. Only a fool attempts it.

dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:56:42 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:15:25 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:01:25 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>
>>>> it's not like the entity is worse off in the state of nothingness
>>>> (that is what you suggest).
>>> Obviously I'm not one of the billions of people who believe
>>> in multiple lives or I would have explained why years ago.
>> thanks for ackowledging that your contentions are faith-based...
>
> Why does pointing out that I'm not one of billions of people
> who believe something, make you think I do have faith in
> anything?
>
>> we might actually get somewhere if we all know where we stand.
>
> Maybe, but Rudy could never even acknowledge
> the fact that I don't have any belief either way about the
> possibility of multiple lives,

That's a lie:

The soul is created separate from the body it will
reside in--if that is the case, then it is almost
certain that if people stop raising animals for
food, the souls that would have resided in the food
animals, will be born to other bodies instead. My
argument with that is: maybe the animals that are
being raised and eaten by humans, are providing the
life experiences for souls that would have
otherwise been born in wild habitats that humans
have destroyed.
Goo/****wit - 12 Jan 2000 http://tinyurl.com/2psrpw


You believe in "multiple lives". You're ****witted,
stupid and weird.

dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:50:48 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>>
>
>> it's not better or worse... you can't compare the two...
>
> I can make a judgement as to whether I believe a
> particular life would be worth living or not.

You can't say it's "better" to live than not to live.
The comparison is absurd and cannot be made.

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:10:37 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:56:42 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:15:25 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:01:25 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> it's not like the entity is worse off in the state of nothingness
>>>>> (that is what you suggest).
>>>> Obviously I'm not one of the billions of people who believe
>>>> in multiple lives or I would have explained why years ago.
>>> thanks for ackowledging that your contentions are faith-based...
>>
>> Why does pointing out that I'm not one of billions of people
>> who believe something, make you think I do have faith in
>> anything?
>>
>>> we might actually get somewhere if we all know where we stand.
>>
>> Maybe, but Rudy could never even acknowledge
>> the fact that I don't have any belief either way about the
>> possibility of multiple lives,
>
>That's a lie:
>
> The soul is created separate from the body it will
> reside in--if that is the case, then it is almost
> certain that if people stop raising animals for
> food, the souls that would have resided in the food
> animals, will be born to other bodies instead. My
> argument with that is: maybe the animals that are
> being raised and eaten by humans, are providing the
> life experiences for souls that would have
> otherwise been born in wild habitats that humans
> have destroyed.
> Goo/****wit - 12 Jan 2000 http://tinyurl.com/2psrpw
>
>
>You believe in "multiple lives". You're ****witted,
>stupid and weird.


great quote... i wonder if he'll say it was a mistake...
octinomos

--

"A visiting rabbinical student from Australia by the name of Yankel Rosenbaum, 29, was killed during the rioting by a mob shouting 'Kill the Jew.' Sharpton has been seen by some commentators as inflaming tensions with remarks such as 'If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house' and referring to Jews as 'diamond merchants.'"