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.

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".

On 6/30/2010 11:04 AM, oxtail wrote:
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.

grow up you guys, that's about enough.


You are not getting it.

We are. You either are not, or are pretending you don't as part of
another tedious attempt at playing the "zen game". It's not about the
welfare of animals; it's about their existence in the first place.

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.

bundling snowfalls wrote:

On 1/07/2010 2:36 AM, oxtail wrote:
bundling snowfalls wrote:

On 1/07/2010 2:29 AM, oxtail wrote:
bundling snowfalls wrote:

On 1/07/2010 2:04 AM, oxtail wrote:
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.

grow up you guys, that's about enough.


You are not getting it.
This is about how to think well
and whether life is sacred.


just a period of pain on earth.


But necessary to be enlightened.


the unborn don't give a flying ****.


But her parents should.
Her society also.


i think life is sacred in the sense
that i wouldn't bring someone here if myself or the world weren't up to
it.


Do you ever just do what you do?

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

On 1/07/2010 3:30 AM, Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
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.

i'm just talking to his game
mind. if he wants to be taken
in a better way this is really
the wrong way to be doing it.
as you said it's hard to believe
he doesn't get it, and i don't
think he entirely doesn't, like
you also said it's a "zen game".
mixed with lots of idiocy and
that muddy vagueness that gives.
but he doesn't fall for dh as
much as dh would like him too..
i just think he should snap out
of it entirely, because it will
only work against him, and is.

On 1/07/2010 3:35 AM, oxtail wrote:
bundling snowfalls wrote:

On 1/07/2010 2:36 AM, oxtail wrote:
bundling snowfalls wrote:

On 1/07/2010 2:29 AM, oxtail wrote:
bundling snowfalls wrote:

On 1/07/2010 2:04 AM, oxtail wrote:
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.

grow up you guys, that's about enough.


You are not getting it.
This is about how to think well
and whether life is sacred.


just a period of pain on earth.


But necessary to be enlightened.


the unborn don't give a flying ****.


But her parents should.
Her society also.


i think life is sacred in the sense
that i wouldn't bring someone here if myself or the world weren't up to
it.


Do you ever just do what you do?


if there's a sink and soap free soap
and a box of paper towels near by.

"oxtail" wrote in message
...
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.

grow up you guys, that's about enough.


You are not getting it.

No, YOU aren't getting it.

This is about how to think well

Thinking that the lives of unconceived livestock are morally considerable is
not good thinking.

and whether life is sacred.

Life isn't sacred until it manifests.

*Planning* to provide proper care for animals that you intend to breed is a
different matter entirely.

On 6/30/2010 12:35 PM, bundling snowfalls wrote:
On 1/07/2010 3:30 AM, Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
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.

i'm just talking to his game
mind. if he wants to be taken
in a better way this is really
the wrong way to be doing it.
as you said it's hard to believe
he doesn't get it, and i don't
think he entirely doesn't, like
you also said it's a "zen game".
mixed with lots of idiocy and
that muddy vagueness that gives.

That deliberate mud hemorrhage is a fundamental element of the game.


but he doesn't fall for dh as
much as dh would like him too..

'ox ass' is simply a sophist who wants to show off his sophistry, to
himself more than anyone else. He reminds me in a way of the Jehovah's
Witnesses. The JWs aren't the least bit concerned with persuading you
to join them. It's the "witnessing", the bothering people at their
door, that makes them feel virtuous. Similarly, 'ox anus' isn't trying
to shed any light or clarify anything. He just likes to see his
sophistry on the page; makes him feel good.


i just think he should snap out
of it entirely, because it will
only work against him, and is.