Animals' "getting to experience life"
 

On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
>> animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
>> livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
>> animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
>> better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
>> the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.
>
> The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic animals, and

No, that isn't the question.

Animals' "getting to experience life"
 

On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 07:13:30 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

> On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>> There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
>>> animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
>>> livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
>>> animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
>>> better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
>>> the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.
>>
>> The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic animals, and
>
> No, that isn't the question.

Still think there's no harm in pullin' wings offa flies, eh?
You'd 'a' made a fine sonterkommando.

Dhu


--
Ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco.

Animals' "getting to experience life"
 

On 9/5/2013 5:21 PM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 07:13:30 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
>>>> animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
>>>> livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
>>>> animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
>>>> better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
>>>> the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.
>>>
>>> The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic animals, and
>>
>> No, that isn't the question.
>
> Still think there's no harm in pullin' wings offa flies, eh?

That isn't the topic, either.

Animals' "getting to experience life"
 

On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 07:13:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
..
>On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>> There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
>>> animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
>>> livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
>>> animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
>>> better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
>>> the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.
>>
>> The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic animals, and
>
>No, that isn't the question.

That is ALL you care about Goober. You claim to eat meat:
__________________________________________________ _______
"I eat meat." - Goo

"I consume meat. I consume it daily - I can't even remember a day in my life
when I didn't." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
while you maniacally oppose giving any consideration to the lives of the animals
you dishonestly imo claim you consume:
__________________________________________________ _______
"Life "justifying" death is the
stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo

The statements below are all true.
Message-ID: t>

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

"Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo

""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
You may or may not eat meat but I believe you're lying and that you're some sort
of veg*n eliminationist Goob. Whether you really do eat a tiny bit of meat from
time to time or whether you don't though Goober, we KNOW you don't give the
animals' lives any consideration and you are maniacally opposed to anyone else
considering the life of any animal raised for food:

"no matter its quality of live" - Goo

All you claim to care about is the products with no consideration for the
animals' lives or the quality of their lives because and only because
considering that aspect works against elimination, Goo.

Animals' "getting to experience life"
 

On 9/6/2013 2:18 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 9/5/2013 7:13 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
>>>> animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
>>>> livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
>>>> animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
>>>> better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
>>>> the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.
>>>
>>> The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic
>>> animals, and
>>
>> No, that isn't the question.
>
> That is ALL you

No, *Gloo*. The question is if there is anything to "consider" about
livestock animals "getting to experience life" versus never existing,
and we have seen that the answer to the question is "no."

You're just wasting time, *Gloo*. You lost. Go do something else.

Animals' "getting to experience life"
 

On 9/6/2013 2:18 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 9/5/2013 7:13 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
>>>> animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
>>>> livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
>>>> animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
>>>> better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
>>>> the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.
>>>
>>> The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic
>>> animals, and
>>
>> No, that isn't the question.
>
> That is ALL you

No, *Gloo*. The question is if there is anything to "consider" about
livestock animals "getting to experience life" versus never existing,
and we have seen that the answer to the question is "no."

You're just wasting time, *Gloo*. You lost. Go do something else.

Animals' "getting to experience life"
 

On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 14:44:50 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 17:18:31 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 07:13:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>.
>>>On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
>>>>> animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
>>>>> livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
>>>>> animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
>>>>> better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
>>>>> the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.
>>>>
>>>> The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic animals, and
>>>
>>>No, that isn't the question.
>>
>> That is ALL you care about Goober. You claim to eat meat:
>>________________________________________________ _________
>>"I eat meat." - Goo
>>
>>"I consume meat. I consume it daily - I can't even remember a day in my life
>>when I didn't." - Goo
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>while you maniacally oppose giving any consideration to the lives of the animals
>>you dishonestly imo claim you consume:
>>________________________________________________ _________
>>"Life "justifying" death is the
>>stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo
>>
>>The statements below are all true.
>>Message-ID: t>
>>
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>>"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>to experience life" - Goo
>>
>>"Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo
>>
>>""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
>>
>>"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>>of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>>consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>killing them." - Goo
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>You may or may not eat meat but I believe you're lying and that you're some sort
>>of veg*n eliminationist Goob. Whether you really do eat a tiny bit of meat from
>>time to time or whether you don't though Goober, we KNOW you don't give the
>>animals' lives any consideration and you are maniacally opposed to anyone else
>>considering the life of any animal raised for food:
>>
>>"no matter its quality of live" - Goo
>>
>>All you claim to care about is the products with no consideration for the
>>animals' lives or the quality of their lives because and only because
>>considering that aspect works against elimination, Goo.
>
>No, *Gloo*. The question is if there is anything to "consider" about
>livestock animals "getting to experience life" versus never existing,
>and we have seen that the answer to the question is "no."

You don't have any idea how you could even pretend to have found that out
Goob. In contrast to that many animals certainly appear to benefit from lives of
positive value REGARDLESS of anything at all to do with "never existing". So
unless you can say what you want people to think prevents us from benefitting
from our lives, it will continue to appear clear that we do, Goo.

Animals' "getting to experience life"
 

On 9/9/2013 2:50 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 9/6/2013 2:44 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 9/6/2013 2:18 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 9/5/2013 7:13 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
>>>>>> animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
>>>>>> livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
>>>>>> animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
>>>>>> better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
>>>>>> the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic
>>>>> animals, and
>>>>
>>>> No, that isn't the question.
>>>
>>> That is ALL you
>>
>> No, *Gloo*. The question is if there is anything to "consider" about
>> livestock animals "getting to experience life" versus never existing,
>> and we have seen that the answer to the question is "no."
>>
>> You're just wasting time, *Gloo*. You lost. Go do something else.
>
> You don't have any idea how you could even pretend to have found that out

Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - cannot be a
benefit because it doesn't improve the entity's welfare.

You're just wasting time, *Gloo*. You lost. Go do something else.

Animals' "getting to experience life"
 

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

> On 9/9/2013 2:50 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>
>> On 9/6/2013 2:44 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 9/6/2013 2:18 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>
>>>> On 9/5/2013 7:13 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
>>>>>>> animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
>>>>>>> livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
>>>>>>> animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
>>>>>>> better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
>>>>>>> the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic
>>>>>> animals, and
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that isn't the question.
>>>>
>>>> That is ALL you
>>>
>>> No, *Gloo*. The question is if there is anything to "consider" about
>>> livestock animals "getting to experience life" versus never existing,
>>> and we have seen that the answer to the question is "no."
>>>
>>> You're just wasting time, *Gloo*. You lost. Go do something else.
>>
>> You don't have any idea how you could even pretend to have found that out
>
> Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - cannot be a
> benefit because it doesn't improve the entity's welfare.
>
> You're just wasting time, *Gloo*. You lost. Go do something else.

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

Dhu



--
Ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco.

Animals' "getting to experience life"
 

On 9/9/2013 4:46 PM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 16:01:16 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On 9/9/2013 2:50 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 9/6/2013 2:44 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 9/6/2013 2:18 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/5/2013 7:13 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
>>>>>>>> animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
>>>>>>>> livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
>>>>>>>> animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
>>>>>>>> better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
>>>>>>>> the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic
>>>>>>> animals, and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that isn't the question.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is ALL you
>>>>
>>>> No, *Gloo*. The question is if there is anything to "consider" about
>>>> livestock animals "getting to experience life" versus never existing,
>>>> and we have seen that the answer to the question is "no."
>>>>
>>>> You're just wasting time, *Gloo*. You lost. Go do something else.
>>>
>>> You don't have any idea how you could even pretend to have found that out
>>
>> Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - cannot be a
>> benefit because it doesn't improve the entity's welfare.
>>
>> You're just wasting time, *Gloo*. You lost. Go do something else.
>
> That is only 'cause you don't consider
> your existence to be a benefit to
> anyone, including yourself.

No entity's existence is a benefit to itself. It can't be - it didn't
improve the entity's welfare, and that's the definition of a benefit.

Now **** off, and stay ****ed off.