On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Goo wrote:
>dh wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:10:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
<rupertmccallum@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> He's playing with me again!
>>
>> Good luck getting him to try to explain anything.
>
>I have fully explained why your view of animals,
You have never even indicated that you can comprehend
my view of animals Goo, much less have you ever shown any
evidence that you could explain it to anyone. In contrast to that,
you have repeatedly and absolutely consistently indicated that
you're unable to do so by insisting that my views are different
than they actually are.
>which depends on "pre-existent entities",
No, YOURS does Goober. Do you really want people to
believe you're too stupid to grasp even that much, Goo?
Let's compare views. Here's mine:
Many of the billions of domestic animals on this planet have
decent lives of positive value.
Is that in any way dependant on "pre-existent entities" Goob?
You're stumped dead on that one of course, so I'll just tell you
the answer is no Goo. So where does the idea come from if
not from my view, Goober? Stumped again, so here's a clue:
"Life is not a gain because there *was* no person to
experience the gain" - Goo
Right there, Goobernicus, is where the concept of any dependance
on pre-existence begins...it begins with YOUR views like:
"Before being alive, an animal has no well-being to promote.
THEREFORE, ****wit, existence is not benefit to farm animals."
- Goo
"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was before." - Goo
"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
existing entities" - Goo
"Whether or not some entity enjoys life once it does exist
is *NOT* the topic." - Goo
"We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo
"The topic is not and never has been whether or not
existing animals enjoy living." - Goo
"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know" - Goo
"I never said they "move from 'pre-existence'"" - Goo
"we don't know if that move improves
its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged.
Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare
improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
life we can detect, we cannot conclude that life is a
benefit to it." - Goo
"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was" - Goo
"you still cannot demonstrate, ever, why it is "beneficial"
for souls to incarnate" - Goo
""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
a benefit at all" - Goo
"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo
Notice that my view is in no way dependant on pre-existence,
while the Goobal view--ie YOURS--is entirely dependant on it.
>is bull****.
Billions of animals are raised by humans Goober so you
certainly can't show that fact to be bull****. Many of them
do have decent lives of positive value so you can't show
that fact to be bull**** either, Goo. You can't do it. You're
also stumped by your own claims Goob, because you can't
explain HOW you think anything to do with pre-existence
manages to prevent existing entities from benefitting from
decent lives of positive value. Your stumped dead, and
stranded on the bottom, Goo.
|
