Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #80 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 05:41 PM
misanthrope
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.




  #81 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 06:20 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #82 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 06:20 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #83 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 06:21 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #84 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 06:21 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #85 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 06:24 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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. ·


  #86 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 06:24 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #87 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 06:25 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #88 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 06:30 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #90 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 06:32 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Candy Assed Canadian John Kinal Still Spamming US Politics Over Canadian Government - God does tell that Satanic enemies of Life do exist, And Other Lies By John Kinal, Sociopathic Canadian Newsgroup Terrorist First-Post General Cooking 0 04-09-2016 12:10 AM
Leaky pie filling jars [email protected] Preserving 3 06-08-2007 08:18 PM
Vintage port - leaky bottle : ( [email protected] Wine 4 03-10-2006 02:35 AM
How To Fillet A Homo Sheldon General Cooking 6 30-04-2006 10:50 PM
Canadian foodie expression as per the Canadian Oxford alsandor General Cooking 0 09-12-2005 03:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2020 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017