Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.zen,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
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. -- Oxtail is not doing what he thinks he is doing here. |
#2
posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.zen,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
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. |
#3
posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.zen,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
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. -- Oxtail is not doing what he thinks he is doing here. |
#4
posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.zen,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
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. |
#5
posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.zen,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
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. -- Oxtail is not doing what he thinks he is doing here. |
#6
posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.zen,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
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 ****. |
#7
posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.zen,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
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. -- Oxtail is not doing what he thinks he is doing here. |
#8
posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.zen,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
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? ^~ |
#9
posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.zen,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
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 ****. well.....if you're busy in cyclical rebirth, they may indeed. all depends on your belief system. hey oxtail - do cows experience rebirth? Robert = = = = = = = = |
#10
posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.zen,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|