Vegetarian Discussion: Goo Concludes Decent Lives Inferior To "pre-existence"

Goo Concludes Decent Lives Inferior To "pre-existence"
Posts: 21

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

D*@.
2006-03-15 14:36:45 EST
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: <dA_0e.8632$S46.7220@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.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: <Q4RKd.2867$Ix.1159@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>

"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
Message-ID: <KcUVd.906$CW2.317@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>

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: <1108682389.025225.50940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.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: <1138386479.699793.51830@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

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

Leif Erikson
2006-03-15 15:06:21 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison - THE goober, and ignorant
pig-fucking cracker - lied:

> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison - THE goober, and ignorant pig-fucking cracker - lied:
>
>
>>> 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 fucked up, Fuckwit. You admitted that the quality
of life of farm animals is unimportant. You think
their "getting to experience life" is a benefit.
You're wrong.

Immortalist
2006-03-16 01:55:13 EST

<*h@.> wrote in message news:t5rg12ldriek9grbcvgnishma3a21lc2te@4ax.com...
>
> 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=BRuINCHI3j4&search=cannibal%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



Leif Erikson
2006-03-16 09:44:14 EST
Immortalist wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in message news:t5rg12ldriek9grbcvgnishma3a21lc2te@4ax.com...
>
>>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.

Immortalist
2006-03-17 01:34:45 EST

"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:2ReSf.13169$S25.9384@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Immortalist wrote:
>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>> news:t5rg12ldriek9grbcvgnishma3a21lc2te@4ax.com...
>>
>>>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.



Leif Erikson
2006-03-17 02:58:07 EST
Immortalist wrote:

> "Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
> news:2ReSf.13169$S25.9384@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>news:t5rg12ldriek9grbcvgnishma3a21lc2te@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.

D*@.
2006-03-17 13:17:41 EST
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: <2%lvc.19053$Tn6.2461@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.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.

D*@.
2006-03-17 13:17:55 EST
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 fucked up, Fuckwit. 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

Leif Erikson
2006-03-17 14:37:31 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison, dumb cracker, lied:

> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >Fuckwit David Harrison, dumb cracker, lied:
> >
> >> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Fuckwit David Harrison, dumb cracker, lied:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> 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 fucked up, Fuckwit. You admitted that the quality
> >of life of farm animals is unimportant.
>
> I pointed out

You pointed out that the quality of animals' lives means nothing to
you, Fuckwit - all you care about is that they exist, because you
stupidly think that by causing them to exist, you are doing them some
"benefit".


> >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"

RIGHT, Fuckwit. Coming into existence is NEVER a "benefit" to any
living thing, Fuckwit. Maybe you're beginning to catch on, eh?

IF you exist, then a high quality of life is a benefit. COMING INTO
EXISTENCE is never a benefit; the things you get out of life IF you
exist - that is, quality of life - may be a benefit.

I hope that helps, Fuckwit.


Leif Erikson
2006-03-17 23:37:38 EST
Fuckwit 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, Fuckwit. Never. Coming
into existence does not improve the entity's welfare.
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


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