About Us

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:12:17 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> We are talking, and have ALWAYS been
>talking, about an existential requirement for any
>benefit to exist in anyone's mind.

The only requirement for a benefit to exist is a benefactor.
A beneficiary doesn't need to exist before a benefit does.

>No matter what the benefit or what the entity, the entity
>must ALREADY exist

False. Benefits exits prior to existing beneficiaries. All
that's required for a benefit to exist is a benefactor.
You need to think this one through again, Jon.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:12:17 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> We are talking, and have ALWAYS been
>talking, about an existential requirement for any
>benefit to exist in anyone's mind.

The only requirement for a benefit to exist is a benefactor.
A beneficiary doesn't need to exist before a benefit does.

>No matter what the benefit or what the entity, the entity
>must ALREADY exist

False. Benefits exits prior to existing beneficiaries. All
that's required for a benefit to exist is a benefactor.
You need to think this one through again, Jon.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:31:27 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:19:00 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article t>,
>>>the Gonad wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I believe that existence is a benefit.
>>>>
>>>>No, it isn't. A benefit is something that makes an
>>>>entity better off; that is, something that improves the
>>>>welfare of an entity.
>>>
>>>What is a "benefit" is also subjective.
>>
>>
>> Rudy has not been--and apparently never will
>> be--able to provide an example of a definition backing
>> up his claim.
>
>I am PROVIDING the defintion.
>
>Definition: a "benefit" is something that improves the
>welfare of an exiting entity.

LOL! Oops, I mean:

Life is the benefit which improves the welfare of an
existing (though not necessarily an exiting) entity, by
allowing a zygote to grow into an animal.

Main Entry: 1ben·e·fit
2 b : useful aid

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...enefit&x=0&y=0

Life is the benefit, or useful aid, which allows zygotes to
grow into animals. Life is the benefit, or useful aid, which
makes all others possible.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:31:27 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:19:00 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article t>,
>>>the Gonad wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I believe that existence is a benefit.
>>>>
>>>>No, it isn't. A benefit is something that makes an
>>>>entity better off; that is, something that improves the
>>>>welfare of an entity.
>>>
>>>What is a "benefit" is also subjective.
>>
>>
>> Rudy has not been--and apparently never will
>> be--able to provide an example of a definition backing
>> up his claim.
>
>I am PROVIDING the defintion.
>
>Definition: a "benefit" is something that improves the
>welfare of an exiting entity.

LOL! Oops, I mean:

Life is the benefit which improves the welfare of an
existing (though not necessarily an exiting) entity, by
allowing a zygote to grow into an animal.

Main Entry: 1ben·e·fit
2 b : useful aid

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...enefit&x=0&y=0

Life is the benefit, or useful aid, which allows zygotes to
grow into animals. Life is the benefit, or useful aid, which
makes all others possible.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:41:57 GMT, "misanthrope" > wrote:

> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:53:58 GMT, "misanthrope"
> wrote:
>>
>> >animal rights is an issue in which i have no interest, and i therefore
>feel
>> >i'm unqualified to pronounce upon it.
>>
>> That doesn't mean human influence on animals should not be
>> discussed in a philosophy group. It may well be that none of you
>> care about it, but that doesn't mean it's not appropriate. And it is
>> certainly more appropriate than whining and crying because other
>> people are discussing it like your buddy Jones.
>
>that would be valid point in the case of valid topics, but it's not valid
>for posts that contain nothing more than back-biting garbage.

· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one meal of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals
derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised animal products
contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:30:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:05:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote:
>>>
>>>>I believe that existence is a benefit.
>>>
>>>No, it isn't. A benefit is something that makes an
>>>entity better off; that is, something that improves the
>>>welfare of an entity.
>>>
>>>Prior to existing, the entity DIDN'T HAVE a welfare
>>>that could be improved. Thus, initial existence did
>>>not improve the entity's welfare, and initial existence
>>>therefore CANNOT be a benefit.
>>
>>
>> Life is the benefit which
>
>Life per se is not a benefit at all. Coming into
>existence does not improve the welfare of the entity
>that comes into existence.

[Parfit is concerned with the difficulty we face in finding
a suitable theoretical framework to justify some widely
shared intuitions about what we owe posterity. One of
these intuitions, which we might call the Principle of
Chronological Impartiality, is that the interests of individuals
should not be disregarded, or discounted, on the grounds
of temporal remoteness, any more than they should be on
the grounds of spatial remoteness. To do so would be a
form of chronochauvinism.]
http://www.uq.edu.au/~pdwgrey/pubs/posspersons.html

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:28:26 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:53:58 GMT, "misanthrope" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>animal rights is an issue in which i have no interest, and i therefore feel
>>>i'm unqualified to pronounce upon it.
>>
>>
>> That doesn't mean human influence on animals should not be
>> discussed in a philosophy group.
>
>There are appropriate forums for it, and you already
>participate there. alt.philosophy (and alt.food.vegan)
>are not among the appropriate forums.

Yes they are. On the other hand, no forums are appropriate for
your dishonest "FAQ" garbage.

fat crippled cuckold wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:12:17 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>We are talking, and have ALWAYS been
>>talking, about an existential requirement for any
>>benefit to exist in anyone's mind.
>
>
> The only requirement for a benefit to exist is a benefactor.
> A beneficiary doesn't need to exist before a benefit does.

Yes. The beneficiary MUST exist, else no benefit is
realized.

wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:31:27 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:19:00 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article t>,
>>>>the Gonad wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I believe that existence is a benefit.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it isn't. A benefit is something that makes an
>>>>>entity better off; that is, something that improves the
>>>>>welfare of an entity.
>>>>
>>>>What is a "benefit" is also subjective.
>>>
>>>
>>> Rudy has not been--and apparently never will
>>>be--able to provide an example of a definition backing
>>>up his claim.
>>
>>I am PROVIDING the defintion.
>>
>>Definition: a "benefit" is something that improves the
>>welfare of an existing entity.
>
>
> LOL! Oops, I mean:
>
> Life is the benefit which improves the welfare of an
> existing entity

There is no existing entity prior to the entity existing.

A zygote doesn't have a welfare.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:20:49 +0000, Derek > wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:12:17 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>> We are talking, and have ALWAYS been
>>talking, about an existential requirement for any
>>benefit to exist in anyone's mind.
>
>The only requirement for a benefit to exist is a benefactor.
>A beneficiary doesn't need to exist before a benefit does.
>
>>No matter what the benefit or what the entity, the entity
>>must ALREADY exist
>
>False. Benefits exits prior to existing beneficiaries. All
>that's required for a benefit to exist is a benefactor.
>You need to think this one through again, Jon.

He can't. Time after time he proves that he can't.
The Gonad can't conceive of himself being wrong,
much less learn what he's wrong about and correct
it. No, when people like him are wrong, they stay
that way.

wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:28:26 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:53:58 GMT, "misanthrope" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>animal rights is an issue in which i have no interest, and i therefore feel
>>>>i'm unqualified to pronounce upon it.
>>>
>>>
>>> That doesn't mean human influence on animals should not be
>>>discussed in a philosophy group.
>>
>>There are appropriate forums for it, and you already
>>participate there. alt.philosophy (and alt.food.vegan)
>>are not among the appropriate forums.
>
>
> Yes they are.

No, they aren't.

> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:39:45 -0000, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> >"Tim" > wrote in message news > >..
> >> On a farm Cows are afforded protection from predators and easy access to a
> >> well balanced diet. Compare to a wild herd in say Africa - Lions and all
> >> sorts of predators to get you - competition for food - poor supply of water.
> >> Sounds like a farm animal benefits to me.
> >
> >Livestock Suffer, Too
> >http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter5.html
>
> Some do and some don't.

The vast majority do, one way or another.
Then slaughter, with no chance of escape.

> One thing that's always true though, is that
> people can't contribute to decent lives for livestock with their lifestyle if
> they are vegan. Only conscientious consumers can do that.

Vegans rather see wildlife thrive in natural habitats.
Your livestock raising has destroyed much of that.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:30:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:12:17 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>
>>>We are talking, and have ALWAYS been
>>>talking, about an existential requirement for any
>>>benefit to exist in anyone's mind.
>>
>> The only requirement for a benefit to exist is a benefactor.
>> A beneficiary doesn't need to exist before a benefit does.
>
>Yes. The beneficiary MUST exist, else no benefit is
>realized.

False. Future heirs to my country's throne don't yet
exist, but their benefits certainly do and are realised
by me despite that.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:32:15 GMT, wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:20:49 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:12:17 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>
>>> We are talking, and have ALWAYS been
>>>talking, about an existential requirement for any
>>>benefit to exist in anyone's mind.
>>
>>The only requirement for a benefit to exist is a benefactor.
>>A beneficiary doesn't need to exist before a benefit does.
>>
>>>No matter what the benefit or what the entity, the entity
>>>must ALREADY exist
>>
>>False. Benefits exits prior to existing beneficiaries. All
>>that's required for a benefit to exist is a benefactor.
>>You need to think this one through again, Jon.
>
> He can't. Time after time he proves that he can't.

[One way in which an impersonally formulated Principle
of Beneficence might lead to the Repugnant Conclusion
is if we thought that becoming actual was a benefit which
is conferred by parents on merely possible individuals.
Richard Hare seems to accept such a model in a notorious
paper 'Abortion and the Golden Rule'. Hare suggests that
a plausible extension of the "Golden Rule"—that we should
do to others as we wish them to do to us—is that "we should
do to others what we are glad was done to us" (Hare 1975: 208).
If we allow this extension, Hare suggests, there is a prima facie
obligation to produce more people. Indeed, alarmingly, "from my
gladness [at being born], in conjunction with the extended Golden
Rule, I derive not only a duty not to abort, but a duty not to abstain
from procreation." (Hare 1975: 212)]
http://www.uq.edu.au/~pdwgrey/pubs/posspersons.html

>The Gonad can't conceive of himself being wrong,
>much less learn what he's wrong about and correct
>it. No, when people like him are wrong, they stay
>that way.

"People like him", yes.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:39:52 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>pearl wrote:
[..]
>> Vegans rather see wildlife thrive in natural habitats.
>
>You mean they'd rather see deer starving to death during droughts or
>being killed slowly by canine predators.

Livestock don't owe you their lives and hides simply
because you breed them in safe environments. I
think what Jon wrote to David applies to you;

"Get this, ****WIT:

If a predator kills a prey animal, there is no moral
meaning to it.

If you prevent a predator from killing prey, you have
not done a good deed.

Comparing our treatment of livestock to predators'
"treatment" of prey is misguided at best, and stupid
when you keep doing it after having had explained to
you why it's misguided.

One more to jam down your throat with my boot,
****WIT: non-human predators are never cruel.
They can't be."
Jonathan Ball to a ****wit 2004-05-11

Claire's Uncle Dreck wrote:
> [..]
>
>>>Vegans rather see wildlife thrive in natural habitats.
>>
>>You mean they'd rather see deer starving to death during droughts or
>>being killed slowly by canine predators.
>
> Livestock

The issue was wildlife. Thanks for not noticing.

> don't owe you their lives and hides simply
> because you breed them in safe environments. I
> think what Jon wrote to David applies to you;

No, it doesn't.

**** OFF FROM ALTPHILOSOPHY YOU DUMP POSTER

****

**** off you ******