On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 the Goober wrote:

>dh pointed out:

>> I'm pointing out that to YOU it's all the same, ie it's ALL of NO value
>>*irrespective* of their treatment (method of husbandry).
>
>NO

LOL! You hilariously disagree with yourself Goob:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Goo
Message-ID: . net>

dh pointed out:

> You obviously don't want people to consider contributing
> to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective
[...]
3. Because...no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the
deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Goo
Message-ID: et>

"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Goo
Message-ID: t>

When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Goo
Message-ID: . com>

EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might provide:
they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence" state was for
the animals
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Goo
Message-ID: . com>

Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even to humans
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
>
> Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even to humans
>

Which one of these definitions bests fits definition of BENEFIT?

1 financial assistance in time of need

2 something that aids or promotes well-being; "for the common good"

3 profit: derive a benefit from; "She profited from his vast experience"

4 a performance to raise money for a charitable cause

5 the third album by Jethro Tull. It was released in April 1970.


6 be beneficial for; "This will do you good"

Or are you saying that mammals could not evolve neural structures that
attend to 2 above? If not then what evidence can you provide that mammals
cannot benefit in some way or at least have some precursors to activities
that are beneficial?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BRuINCHI3...nibal%20corpse
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ey6vm3Slxa8&search=dismember
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_EXOnm2a7_E&search=dismember
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6lu8teTYX9A&search=dismember
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gLJ36-J-2Tc&search=dismember

Immortalist wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>
>>Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even to humans
>>
>
>
> Which one of these definitions bests fits definition of BENEFIT?

None of these fit the context being used.


>
> 1 financial assistance in time of need
>
> 2 something that aids or promotes well-being; "for the common good"
>
> 3 profit: derive a benefit from; "She profited from his vast experience"
>
> 4 a performance to raise money for a charitable cause
>
> 5 the third album by Jethro Tull. It was released in April 1970.
>
>
> 6 be beneficial for; "This will do you good"
>
> Or are you saying that mammals could not evolve neural structures that
> attend to 2 above? If not then what evidence can you provide that mammals
> cannot benefit in some way or at least have some precursors to activities
> that are beneficial?

An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
the entity.

"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Immortalist wrote:
>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even to humans
>>>
>>
>>
>> Which one of these definitions bests fits definition of BENEFIT?
>
> None of these fit the context being used.
>

What definition of benefit of all known definitions of benefit will fit the
context then?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cjtvpJClMd0

>
>>
>> 1 financial assistance in time of need
>>
>> 2 something that aids or promotes well-being; "for the common good"
>>
>> 3 profit: derive a benefit from; "She profited from his vast experience"
>>
>> 4 a performance to raise money for a charitable cause
>>
>> 5 the third album by Jethro Tull. It was released in April 1970.
>>
>>
>> 6 be beneficial for; "This will do you good"
>>
>> Or are you saying that mammals could not evolve neural structures that
>> attend to 2 above? If not then what evidence can you provide that mammals
>> cannot benefit in some way or at least have some precursors to activities
>> that are beneficial?
>
> An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to the entity.

That will not be allowed until you can define "benefit." Stand down.

Immortalist wrote:

> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even to humans
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Which one of these definitions bests fits definition of BENEFIT?
>>
>>None of these fit the context being used.
>>
>
>
> What definition of benefit of all known definitions of benefit will fit the
> context then?

Something that improves the welfare of the recipient
(compared with the recipient's welfare prior to receipt
of the thing called a "benefit".)


>>>1 financial assistance in time of need
>>>
>>>2 something that aids or promotes well-being; "for the common good"
>>>
>>>3 profit: derive a benefit from; "She profited from his vast experience"
>>>
>>>4 a performance to raise money for a charitable cause
>>>
>>>5 the third album by Jethro Tull. It was released in April 1970.
>>>
>>>
>>>6 be beneficial for; "This will do you good"
>>>
>>>Or are you saying that mammals could not evolve neural structures that
>>>attend to 2 above? If not then what evidence can you provide that mammals
>>>cannot benefit in some way or at least have some precursors to activities
>>>that are beneficial?
>>
>>An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to the entity.
>
>
> That will not be allowed until you can define "benefit."

Done; now and many times previously.

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 Goo wrote:

>Immortalist wrote:

>> What definition of benefit of all known definitions of benefit will fit the
>> context then?
>
>Something that improves the welfare of the recipient
>(compared with the recipient's welfare prior to receipt
>of the thing called a "benefit".)

Meaning that life is the benefit which allows zygotes to grow into animals.

*Incredibly!* you are still somehow too stupid to understand that there
are different meanings for the word "life", Goober:
__________________________________________________ _______
1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the
distinctive quality of animate beings

2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make
up the existence of an individual

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
You were too stupid to understand it when I explained to you in
the past:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Goo
Message-ID: .net>

dh wrote:

> I've pointed out that your beloved life per se, and
> the individual lives of animals are completely different things.

You are wrong
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
and you are obviously STILL too stupid to grasp the difference in meanings
for the word, OR you're dishonestly pretending to be that stupid.

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 Goo wrote:

>dh laughed:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 Goo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh pointed out:
>>
>>
>>>> I'm pointing out that to YOU it's all the same, ie it's ALL of NO value
>>>>*irrespective* of their treatment (method of husbandry).
>>>
>>>NO
>>
>>
>> LOL!
>
>You ****ed up, ****wit. You admitted that the quality
>of life of farm animals is unimportant.

I pointed out that it means nothing to YOU, Goober...

>You think
>their "getting to experience life" is a benefit.
>You're wrong.

....which you just proved to be true AGAIN! You believe that *regardless*
of quality, life is NEVER a benefit to anything:

"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even to humans" - Goo

And you are obviously especially disturbed by the "wrongess" you insist is
inflicted upon livestock:

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

"Because...no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the
deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker, lied:

> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>Immortalist wrote:
>
>
>>>What definition of benefit of all known definitions of benefit will fit the
>>>context then?
>>
>>Something that improves the welfare of the recipient
>>(compared with the recipient's welfare prior to receipt
>>of the thing called a "benefit".)
>
>
> Meaning that life is the benefit

Life per se is NOT a benefit, ****wit. Never. Coming
into existence does not improve the entity's welfare.

On 17 Mar 2006 the Goober wrote:

>IF you exist - that is, quality of life - may be a benefit.

Are you beginning to understand how life can have
positive value, Goo? No, most likely you still can not,
much MUCH less are you capable of explaining how
it could.

dh jokingly asked our inept Goober:

>> Are you beginning to understand how life can have
>> positive value, Goo, you poor stupid fool? No, most
>> likely you still can not, much MUCH less are you capable
>> of explaining how it could.
>
>Coming into existence NEVER is a "benefit"

LOL!!! I knew you didn't have a clue, Goo.