No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

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.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

On 6/30/2010 10:50 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
On Jun 30, 11:34 am, "Fred C.
squittered:

nothing of importance snipped

Right - you snipped the important stuff.

You lose, Runny - *again*. Oh, one more thing...there was no
12-year-old. You bull****ted about that, and you got slapped down hard
for it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ****.

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.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

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.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

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.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

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".

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.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

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 living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

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.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

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.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

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.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

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.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

"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.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

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.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

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.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

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.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

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.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

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.

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?

^~

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

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.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

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".

^~

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

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.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

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.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

"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.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

On 1/07/2010 6:46 AM, Dutch wrote:

"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.


well put it this way, it's better
than killing other human folks.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

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

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

On 1/07/2010 11:33 AM, halfawake 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 ****.

well.....if you're busy in cyclical rebirth, they may indeed.
all depends on your belief system.

hey oxtail - do cows experience rebirth?

Robert

= = = = = = = =

yes i brought this up to further
complicate things already, but i
think it's better to take what is
said very logically. if they say
pre existence they mean pre any
kind of existence including the
existence prior to physicality.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

"bundling snowfalls" wrote in message
...
On 1/07/2010 6:46 AM, Dutch wrote:

"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.


well put it this way, it's better
than killing other human folks.

Depends on the human folks. I can think of a few that could stand a killin'.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

On 1/07/2010 3:50 PM, Dutch wrote:

"bundling snowfalls" wrote in message
...
On 1/07/2010 6:46 AM, Dutch wrote:

"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.


well put it this way, it's better
than killing other human folks.

Depends on the human folks. I can think of a few that could stand a
killin'.


i've had to make the choice and
luckily, fate intervened before
i had to, but it was very hard.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

On 1/07/2010 3:53 PM, bundling snowfalls wrote:
On 1/07/2010 3:50 PM, Dutch wrote:

"bundling snowfalls" wrote in message
...
On 1/07/2010 6:46 AM, Dutch wrote:

"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.


well put it this way, it's better
than killing other human folks.

Depends on the human folks. I can think of a few that could stand a
killin'.


i've had to make the choice and
luckily, fate intervened before
i had to, but it was very hard.

cuz he was a close friend.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

On 1/07/2010 3:55 PM, bundling snowfalls wrote:
On 1/07/2010 3:53 PM, bundling snowfalls wrote:
On 1/07/2010 3:50 PM, Dutch wrote:

"bundling snowfalls" wrote in message
...
On 1/07/2010 6:46 AM, Dutch wrote:

"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.


well put it this way, it's better
than killing other human folks.

Depends on the human folks. I can think of a few that could stand a
killin'.


i've had to make the choice and
luckily, fate intervened before
i had to, but it was very hard.

cuz he was a close friend.

i should explain. i'm not a psychopath.
they were involved in underground deals
i talked them out of it, but then they
were getting more serious and starting
to be a threat to others.. themselves.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

"bundling snowfalls" wrote in message
...
On 1/07/2010 3:55 PM, bundling snowfalls wrote:
On 1/07/2010 3:53 PM, bundling snowfalls wrote:
On 1/07/2010 3:50 PM, Dutch wrote:

"bundling snowfalls" wrote in message
...
On 1/07/2010 6:46 AM, Dutch wrote:

"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.


well put it this way, it's better
than killing other human folks.

Depends on the human folks. I can think of a few that could stand a
killin'.


i've had to make the choice and
luckily, fate intervened before
i had to, but it was very hard.

cuz he was a close friend.

i should explain. i'm not a psychopath.
they were involved in underground deals
i talked them out of it, but then they
were getting more serious and starting
to be a threat to others.. themselves.

That's OK, I figured there was a back story but I don't really need to know
about it.

No living entity "benefits" by coming into existence
 

On 1/07/2010 4:43 PM, Dutch wrote:

"bundling snowfalls" wrote in message
...
On 1/07/2010 3:55 PM, bundling snowfalls wrote:
On 1/07/2010 3:53 PM, bundling snowfalls wrote:
On 1/07/2010 3:50 PM, Dutch wrote:

"bundling snowfalls" wrote in message
...
On 1/07/2010 6:46 AM, Dutch wrote:

"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.


well put it this way, it's better
than killing other human folks.

Depends on the human folks. I can think of a few that could stand a
killin'.


i've had to make the choice and
luckily, fate intervened before
i had to, but it was very hard.

cuz he was a close friend.

i should explain. i'm not a psychopath.
they were involved in underground deals
i talked them out of it, but then they
were getting more serious and starting
to be a threat to others.. themselves.

That's OK, I figured there was a back story but I don't really need to
know about it.


hang on.... one more bandaid..
...here.. and here.. oh faaahk.
there's gallons of the stuff. ;)