On 1/07/2010 2:43 AM, Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
On 6/30/2010 11:00 AM, bundling snowfalls wrote:
On 1/07/2010 1:56 AM, oxtail wrote:
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity. Prior to
its existence, there is no entity and thus no welfare, so coming into
existence cannot improve an entity's welfare.

We do not "give the gift of life" to livestock animals by breeding them
into existence; we do not do them any "favor". We facilitate their
existence, but that existence is not a gift or benefit to them. No
matter how pleasant their lives might be once they do exist, existence
itself is not a benefit to them.

No harm would be inflicted on any animals if, suddenly and for whatever
reason, we were to stop breeding livestock animals into existence. The
fact that "billions of farm animals" would thereby never exist would
have no moral meaning to any animals. There would not be any lack of
consideration shown.


If you are not smart enough
to be concerned about the welfare
of sentient beings to be born in the future,
you have no business to worry
about what other people do or think.


of course the welfare matters you idiot.
it's about the existence of them in future.
in particular, existence being bred for meat.

It's hard to believe this ****flaps 'oxtail' either doesn't get it, or
thinks he can obscure the issue as part of his ****witted playing of the
"zen game".

if he can't get that he
doesn't deserve to be taken
seriously by other people.

On 6/30/2010 12:27 PM, bundling snowfalls wrote:
On 1/07/2010 2:43 AM, Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
On 6/30/2010 11:00 AM, bundling snowfalls wrote:
On 1/07/2010 1:56 AM, oxtail wrote:
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity.
Prior to
its existence, there is no entity and thus no welfare, so coming into
existence cannot improve an entity's welfare.

We do not "give the gift of life" to livestock animals by breeding
them
into existence; we do not do them any "favor". We facilitate their
existence, but that existence is not a gift or benefit to them. No
matter how pleasant their lives might be once they do exist, existence
itself is not a benefit to them.

No harm would be inflicted on any animals if, suddenly and for
whatever
reason, we were to stop breeding livestock animals into existence. The
fact that "billions of farm animals" would thereby never exist would
have no moral meaning to any animals. There would not be any lack of
consideration shown.


If you are not smart enough
to be concerned about the welfare
of sentient beings to be born in the future,
you have no business to worry
about what other people do or think.


of course the welfare matters you idiot.
it's about the existence of them in future.
in particular, existence being bred for meat.

It's hard to believe this ****flaps 'oxtail' either doesn't get it, or
thinks he can obscure the issue as part of his ****witted playing of the
"zen game".

if he can't get that he
doesn't deserve to be taken
seriously by other people.

No one takes him seriously. He's an amusement, and not much of one at
that; kind of a guilt-inducing indulgence to cuff him around.

On 6/30/2010 10:56 AM, oxtail wrote:
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity. Prior to
its existence, there is no entity and thus no welfare, so coming into
existence cannot improve an entity's welfare.

We do not "give the gift of life" to livestock animals by breeding them
into existence; we do not do them any "favor". We facilitate their
existence, but that existence is not a gift or benefit to them. No
matter how pleasant their lives might be once they do exist, existence
itself is not a benefit to them.

No harm would be inflicted on any animals if, suddenly and for whatever
reason, we were to stop breeding livestock animals into existence. The
fact that "billions of farm animals" would thereby never exist would
have no moral meaning to any animals. There would not be any lack of
consideration shown.


If you are not smart enough
to be concerned about the welfare
of sentient beings to be born in the future,

I am more than smart enough for that, but that isn't the issue. The
issue is whether or not those beings "benefit" from coming into
existence, and they do not.

Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

On 6/30/2010 10:56 AM, oxtail wrote:
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity. Prior
to its existence, there is no entity and thus no welfare, so coming
into existence cannot improve an entity's welfare.

We do not "give the gift of life" to livestock animals by breeding
them into existence; we do not do them any "favor". We facilitate
their existence, but that existence is not a gift or benefit to them.
No matter how pleasant their lives might be once they do exist,
existence itself is not a benefit to them.

No harm would be inflicted on any animals if, suddenly and for
whatever reason, we were to stop breeding livestock animals into
existence. The fact that "billions of farm animals" would thereby
never exist would have no moral meaning to any animals. There would
not be any lack of consideration shown.


If you are not smart enough
to be concerned about the welfare
of sentient beings to be born in the future,

I am more than smart enough for that, but that isn't the issue. The
issue is whether or not those beings "benefit" from coming into
existence, and they do not.


Did you "benefit from coming into existence"?

--
Oxtail is not doing what he thinks he is doing here.

On 6/30/2010 1:18 PM, oxtail wrote:
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

On 6/30/2010 10:56 AM, oxtail wrote:
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity. Prior
to its existence, there is no entity and thus no welfare, so coming
into existence cannot improve an entity's welfare.

We do not "give the gift of life" to livestock animals by breeding
them into existence; we do not do them any "favor". We facilitate
their existence, but that existence is not a gift or benefit to them.
No matter how pleasant their lives might be once they do exist,
existence itself is not a benefit to them.

No harm would be inflicted on any animals if, suddenly and for
whatever reason, we were to stop breeding livestock animals into
existence. The fact that "billions of farm animals" would thereby
never exist would have no moral meaning to any animals. There would
not be any lack of consideration shown.


If you are not smart enough
to be concerned about the welfare
of sentient beings to be born in the future,

I am more than smart enough for that, but that isn't the issue. The
issue is whether or not those beings "benefit" from coming into
existence, and they do not.


Did you "benefit from coming into existence"?

Of course not - no living entity does. I benefit from things that
happen within my existence, because those things improve my welfare; but
coming into existence /per se/ did not improve my welfare, so by
definition it was not a benefit.

I know you get this. We all know you do. We all know you're just
****ing around wasting time playing a ****witted, ****-4-braincell "zen
game". This is not in rational dispute.

oxtail wrote:

Fred C. Dobbs wrote:


A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity. Prior to
its existence, there is no entity and thus no welfare, so coming into
existence cannot improve an entity's welfare.

We do not "give the gift of life" to livestock animals by breeding them
into existence; we do not do them any "favor". We facilitate their
existence, but that existence is not a gift or benefit to them. No
matter how pleasant their lives might be once they do exist, existence
itself is not a benefit to them.

No harm would be inflicted on any animals if, suddenly and for whatever
reason, we were to stop breeding livestock animals into existence. The
fact that "billions of farm animals" would thereby never exist would
have no moral meaning to any animals. There would not be any lack of
consideration shown.



If you are not smart enough
to be concerned about the welfare
of sentient beings to be born in the future,
you have no business to worry
about what other people do or think.


You are confusing categories again. One can be concerned about future
animals' welfare because one anticipates that they *will* exist. One
can prepare for their welfare in advance to be ready for when they *do*
exist. This does not mean that coming into existence itself is part of
their welfare. Once a calf, for instance, is in gestation, it already
exists as an embryo or fetus. One can then be concerned with its
welfare, even before it is born, because it is an actual entity of some
kind. Prior to that preparation requires imagination because there is
no entity yet to deal with in any way.

Robert

= = = = = = = =