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.

Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

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.


"We just don't know" is perfectly acceptable
in many multivalued logic systems.

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

On 6/30/2010 1:26 PM, oxtail wrote:
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

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.


"We just don't know" is perfectly acceptable

In this topic, we do know.

On Jun 30, 2:34*pm, 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 ****.


for the birds?

^~

On 1/07/2010 5:39 AM, zenworm wrote:
On Jun 30, 2:34 pm, bundling 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 ****.


for the birds?

^~

i'm a good aim with a rifle and
i shot a bird on my best friends
farm one day, glad i did it. i
see how superficial the joy i
was having was compared to the
life i took, or just winged it?
there was no joy anymore for me.

On Jun 30, 5:51*pm, bundling snowfalls wrote:
On 1/07/2010 5:39 AM, zenworm wrote:





On Jun 30, 2:34 pm, bundling *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 ****.

for the birds?

^~

i'm a good aim with a rifle and
i shot a bird on my best friends
farm one day, glad i did it. i
see how superficial the joy i
was having was compared to the
life i took, or just winged it?
there was no joy anymore for me.


Perhaps all 'sin' can be summed up in one word:

"waste".

^~

On 1/07/2010 5:56 AM, zenworm wrote:
On Jun 30, 5:51 pm, bundling wrote:
On 1/07/2010 5:39 AM, zenworm wrote:





On Jun 30, 2:34 pm, bundling 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 ****.

for the birds?

^~

i'm a good aim with a rifle and
i shot a bird on my best friends
farm one day, glad i did it. i
see how superficial the joy i
was having was compared to the
life i took, or just winged it?
there was no joy anymore for me.


Perhaps all 'sin' can be summed up in one word:

"waste".

^~

yes. there are better things to do
than being shot or eaten i'm sure.

On 1/07/2010 6:00 AM, bundling snowfalls wrote:
On 1/07/2010 5:56 AM, zenworm wrote:
On Jun 30, 5:51 pm, bundling wrote:
On 1/07/2010 5:39 AM, zenworm wrote:





On Jun 30, 2:34 pm, bundling 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 ****.

for the birds?

^~

i'm a good aim with a rifle and
i shot a bird on my best friends
farm one day, glad i did it. i
see how superficial the joy i
was having was compared to the
life i took, or just winged it?
there was no joy anymore for me.


Perhaps all 'sin' can be summed up in one word:

"waste".

^~

yes. there are better things to do
than being shot or eaten i'm sure.

if you were a bird.

"bundling snowfalls" wrote in message
...
On 1/07/2010 5:39 AM, zenworm wrote:
On Jun 30, 2:34 pm, bundling 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 ****.


for the birds?

^~

i'm a good aim with a rifle and
i shot a bird on my best friends
farm one day, glad i did it. i
see how superficial the joy i
was having was compared to the
life i took, or just winged it?
there was no joy anymore for me.

Some guys live for that feeling, different strokes I guess.