Vegetarian Discussion: Broiler Chickens

Broiler Chickens
Posts: 15

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

James G. Keegan Jr.
2014-08-05 00:15:48 EST
"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit - not for broiler
chickens, nor for any other animal.

M*@.not.
2014-08-19 18:58:07 EST
On Mon, 04 Aug 2014 21:15:48 -0700, Goo wrote:

>"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit - not for broiler
>chickens, nor for any other animal.

In contrast to that lie it's one of the benefits that makes all others
possible, Goo.

James G. Keegan Jr.
2014-08-19 21:57:44 EST
On 8/19/2014 3:58 PM, mur@.not. wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2014 21:15:48 -0700, james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit - not for broiler
>> chickens, nor for any other animal.
>
> In contrast to that lie

No. "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit - it cannot be.


M*@.not.
2014-08-22 15:34:26 EST
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:57:44 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:58:07 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 04 Aug 2014 21:15:48 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit - not for broiler
>>>chickens, nor for any other animal.
>>
>> In contrast to that lie it's one of the benefits that makes all others
>>possible, Goo.
>
>No.

Then explain what we can benefit from and how after we lose the benefit of
life, Goo.

James G. Keegan Jr.
2014-08-22 17:06:42 EST
On 8/22/2014 12:34 PM, james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:57:44 -0700, Goo wrote:
>> On 8/19/2014 3:58 PM, mur@.not. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2014 21:15:48 -0700, james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit - not for broiler
>>>> chickens, nor for any other animal.
>>>
>>> In contrast to that lie
>>
>> No. "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit - it cannot be.
>
> Then explain what we can benefit from

An entity must already exist in order to benefit from anything.


James G. Keegan Jr.
2014-08-26 22:46:57 EST
On 8/22/2014 12:34 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison lied:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:57:44 -0700, james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>> On 8/19/2014 3:58 PM, mur@.not. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2014 21:15:48 -0700, james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit - not for broiler
>>>> chickens, nor for any other animal.
>>>
>>> In contrast to that lie
>>
>> No. "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit - it cannot be.
>
> Then explain what we can benefit from

An entity must already exist in order to benefit from anything.


James G. Keegan Jr.
2014-08-27 13:51:23 EST
If broiler chickens exist, it is better for them - a benefit - if they
have pleasant rather than unpleasant living conditions.

However, regardless of their living conditions, it is not better for
them - not a benefit - to exist rather than never existing.

All notions of benefit for an entity are predicated on the entity
already being in existence. A benefit is something that improves the
welfare of an existing entity, compared with the welfare of the existing
entity before receiving the thing.

M*@.not.
2014-09-10 15:10:48 EST
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 14:06:42 -0700, Goo wussed horribly wrote:
.
>On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 15:34:26 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:57:44 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:58:07 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 04 Aug 2014 21:15:48 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit - not for broiler
>>>>>chickens, nor for any other animal.
>>>>
>>>> In contrast to that lie it's one of the benefits that makes all others
>>>>possible, Goo.
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>> Then explain what we can benefit from and how after we lose the benefit of
>>life, Goo.
>
>An entity must already exist in order to benefit from anything.

Existence and life are both benefits which are necessary in order to benefit
from anything else Goob. After losing the benefit of life the entity no longer
exists and after losing both of those benefits the entity can no longer benefit
from anything Goober. The question remains: WHY do you desperately want people
to think the benefits of life and existence are somehow not benefits, and WHAT
do you want people to think prevents them from being benefits, Goo?

M*@.not.
2014-09-10 15:10:56 EST
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:51:23 -0700, Goo wrote:
.
>On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 15:34:26 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:57:44 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:58:07 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 04 Aug 2014 21:15:48 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit - not for broiler
>>>>>chickens, nor for any other animal.
>>>>
>>>> In contrast to that lie it's one of the benefits that makes all others
>>>>possible, Goo.
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>> Then explain what we can benefit from and how after we lose the benefit of
>>life, Goo.
>
>If broiler chickens exist, it is better for them - a benefit - if they
>have pleasant rather than unpleasant living conditions.

Only if they have the benefit of life Goob.

>However, regardless of their living conditions, it is not better for
>them - not a benefit - to exist rather than never existing.

"the comparison between existence and non-existence, from the
perspective of the entity, cannot be made" - Goo

"the comparison is nonsense and cannot be made." - Goo

"I *never* make such a comparison" - Goo

"I show, conclusively, that the comparison cannot be made." - Goo





J*@gmaƮl.com?
2014-09-10 15:48:42 EST
On 9/10/2014 12:10 PM, mur@.not. wrote:
> On 8/27/2014 10:51 AM, james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>> If broiler chickens exist, it is better for them - a benefit - if they
>> have pleasant rather than unpleasant living conditions.
>>
>> However, regardless of their living conditions, it is not better for
>> them - not a benefit - to exist rather than never existing.
>>
>> All notions of benefit for an entity are predicated on the entity
>> already being in existence. A benefit is something that improves the
>> welfare of an existing entity, compared with the welfare of the existing
>> entity before receiving the thing.
>
> Only if they have the benefit of life

Life isn't a benefit. It cannot be.


>> However, regardless of their living conditions, it is not better for
>> them - not a benefit - to exist rather than never existing.
>
> "the comparison between existence and non-existence,

You mean the comparison you keep stupidly trying to make.

IT is not a "benefit" to come into existence - proved.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron