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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"oxtail" wrote in message
...
bundling snowfalls wrote:

On 1/07/2010 1:56 AM, oxtail wrote:
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

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

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

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


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


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

grow up you guys, that's about enough.


You are not getting it.

No, YOU aren't getting it.

This is about how to think well

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

and whether life is sacred.

Life isn't sacred until it manifests.

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

On 6/30/2010 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".