****

****

****

****

Derek wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:22:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:46:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Derek 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.
>>>>
>>>>No, true.
>>>
>>>No, false.
>>
>>No, true.
>
>
> I can set up a legal arrangement for future beneficiaries
> to benefit long after my death and long before they come
> into being. That benefit would exist

No, not until they exist and realize it. It's just
stuff until they exist.

>
>>>>>Future heirs to my country's throne don't yet
>>>>>exist, but their benefits certainly do
>>>>
>>>>Nope - not until they realize them.
>>>
>>>They do exist
>>
>>No, they don't.
>
>
> Are you trying to assert that all the royal trappings
> enjoyed by current royal family members don't exist
> for future royals?

Right, because the "future royals" don't exist, so
NOTHING exists for "them": there's no "them". There
might NEVER be "them": Great Britain might abolish the
monarchy.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:49:42 +0000, Derek > wrote:

>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.

It has yet to be explained. Why is it 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

wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:49:42 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> It has yet to be explained.

It has been explained repeatedly, ****wit. Stop lying.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:55:00 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>"formerly known as 'cat arranger'" > wrote
>>
>> "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.
>>
>> You snipped my reasons
>
>Here ya go, ya baby.
>
>--------------------------------------------------
>I believe that existence is a benefit.
>It seems that species are incorrectly
>divided up into individuals when they
>they really are more of a continuum.
>So the benefit of existence is to the
>parents and the species. To the parents
>in that their genes and their need to
>continue is fulfilled and to the species
>in that it is continued.
>
>But it is a sort of false benefit in that the
>species can be continued quite well without
>farming and most meat eaters could not
>care less about a species except for the
>benefit of their bloody meat.
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>That is all very nice, but immaterial. In the context of this discussion
>"life is a benefit" means specifically a benefit to the individual who has
>the life. In that context Mr Santos is absolutely correct, life cannot
>logically be a benefit.

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

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:30:21 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.

By now I'm convinced that no one in alt.philosophy has enough
brain to even consider human influence on animals, much less
provide any interesting ideas about it. The moron John Jones
represents the group very well by his display of incredibly childish
behavior. Now we all know that the philosophy group is not fit
to discuss human influence on animals...you have shown that
without question. So now I'm curious what you are capable of
discussing, out of curiosity. At first you cried and whined because
of the backbiting. So when the topic itself was shoved in your
face, you ran away from that too. What are you capable of
discussing, if anyting?

wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:55:00 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>"formerly known as 'cat arranger'" > wrote
>>
>>>"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.
>>>
>>>You snipped my reasons
>>
>>Here ya go, ya baby.
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------
>>I believe that existence is a benefit.
>>It seems that species are incorrectly
>>divided up into individuals when they
>>they really are more of a continuum.
>>So the benefit of existence is to the
>>parents and the species. To the parents
>>in that their genes and their need to
>>continue is fulfilled and to the species
>>in that it is continued.
>>
>>But it is a sort of false benefit in that the
>>species can be continued quite well without
>>farming and most meat eaters could not
>>care less about a species except for the
>>benefit of their bloody meat.
>>------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>That is all very nice, but immaterial. In the context of this discussion
>>"life is a benefit" means specifically a benefit to the individual who has
>>the life. In that context Mr Santos is absolutely correct, life cannot
>>logically be a benefit.
>
>
> Life is the benefit

Life is not a benefit. No animal "benefits" by the
mere fact of coming into existence.

wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:30:21 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.
>
>
> By now I'm convinced that no one in alt.philosophy has enough
> brain

****wit: you are a high school drop out, and you make
your living cleaning up a shitty beer dive. You have
no education. You are not smart or intelligent in the
least, a fact you demonstrate several times a day in
these forums.

You are in no position to be telling anyone else he
isn't smart. You are the walking definition of stupid.

Maybe alt.phil is the wrong group for you then.


> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:30:21 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.
>
> By now I'm convinced that no one in alt.philosophy has enough
> brain to even consider human influence on animals, much less
> provide any interesting ideas about it. The moron John Jones
> represents the group very well by his display of incredibly childish
> behavior. Now we all know that the philosophy group is not fit
> to discuss human influence on animals...you have shown that
> without question. So now I'm curious what you are capable of
> discussing, out of curiosity. At first you cried and whined because
> of the backbiting. So when the topic itself was shoved in your
> face, you ran away from that too. What are you capable of
> discussing, if anyting?

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya

yayayaya