Animal emotions - II

"Leif Erikson" <pipes.TakeThisOut@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:LJQeg.6850$921.3180@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> William Robb wrote:
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Leif Erikson"
>> Subject: Re: Animal emotions - II
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> You have made that proclamation, but never backed it up.
>>>
>>>He has, Fuckwit. Stop lying.
>>
>>
>>
>> Lets see,
>
> Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a "benefit"
> for any animals. It cannot be, by the very definition of "benefit".
>
> I hope that helps.

From an online dictionary:

"Benefit": Something that promotes or enhances well-being

Since not being born would be defined as "not being", then one would have to
be born to experience "well-being".
So, being born is defintely a benefit.

I think your arguement is somewhat circular; death is a bad thing, and if
one is born, then one must at some point die: ergo being born is a bad
thing.

Not that it matters, but I disagree with you. I believe I have benefitted
greatly by being born and having lived my life. I feel that I have
benefitted from getting to experience life, since the only other option
would be to not have experienced anything at all.

--

William Robb
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

"Derek"
wrote in message
> My news reader shows that the two statements are written
> on separate lines and therefore by different authors. It's not
> Leif who's managed to lose track in that exchange.

Ummm, my newsreader put them one line immediately following the other in the
same email.
I just take em as they come to me.
Frankly, the entire thread has been pretty infantile.

--

William Robb
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On Tue, 30 May 2006 10:13:29 -0600, "William Robb" <w_just_two_underscores_robb.DeleteThis@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>"Leif Erikson" <pipes.DeleteThis@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
[..]
>> Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a "benefit"
>> for any animals. It cannot be, by the very definition of "benefit".
>>
>> I hope that helps.
>
>From an online dictionary:
>
>"Benefit": Something that promotes or enhances well-being

Enhances the well-being of what - nothing?

>Since not being born

Keep the goalposts where they are at "coming into existence - getting
to experience life." Being born can happen quite a while after coming
into existence, and no one doubts that being born is a benefit to an
existing foetus. If "coming into existence" is a benefit, who or what is
granted or receives that benefit: the living animal itself or a non-existent
entity? If it's the living animal itself that benefits, how can it, since it has
already come into being quite a while ago and can't benefit again by
coming into existence twice. If it's a non-existent entity you're thinking
of, how do you know that it will benefit from its unknowable state by
coming into a living state when we no nothing of the abyss prior to
coming into existence? You cannot compare existence with non-existence
while the latter remains unknown, let alone draw the conclusion that one
state is better than the other and would benefit by becoming it.

>would be defined as "not being", then one would have to
>be born to experience "well-being".

That's right. Non-entities can't experience well-being or benefits. One
has to exist to receive them.

>So, being born is defintely a benefit.

No, that conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.

>I think your arguement is somewhat circular; death is a bad thing, and if
>one is born, then one must at some point die: ergo being born is a bad
>thing.

No, a circular argument is where one assumes as a premise
the conclusion which one wants to reach, and that mess
you've written doesn't even do that. You'll notice that none
of your premises in that mess is repeated as the conclusion.

[..]

>I feel that I have benefitted from getting to experience life,

That's just plain nonsense. The "I" in that statement is you after
"getting to experience life", so how can you benefit from getting
to experience if you're already living?

>since the only other option
>would be to not have experienced anything at all.

A non-entity doesn't suffer a loss by not coming into being.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

"Leif Erikson"
wrote in message


>> Frankly, the entire thread has been pretty infantile.
>
> ...thanks to you.
>

Gee, all I did was ask you to reference some proof for the ideas you were
putting forward, other than one persons talking pigs.
In return, you resorted to name calling.

So who is the infantile one?

--

William Robb
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

"Leif Erikson"
wrote in message
>
> So who is the one who got totally stuffed on existence being a
> "benefit"?
>

You've been the one making the bulk of the posts about it, generally with
profanity and name calling attached.

--

William Robb
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On Tue, 16 May 2006 16:08:28 -0600, "William Robb" <w_just_two_underscores_robb.TakeThisOut@accesscomm.ca>
wrote:

>
>"Glorfindel" <
>> wrote in message
>
>>
>> Even if it were so, that would not prove that animals do not
>> anticipate, which was your original claim. You are now
>> moving the goal posts.
>
>At the moment, my dogs are anticipating the arrival home of my wife, and the
>nice things that happen when she gets home, such as supper.
>I can tell this by the noises emanating from near the back door.

Amusingly, Goobernicus who considers himself an authority on
things he knows nothing about, could never understand that situation.
The following quote applies to Goo in regards to his stupid interpretations
of what people say, *and* the things that happen around him as well:

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate,
because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can
understand." -- Bertrand Russell

>Anyone who claims dogs don't anticipate things has never owned a live dog.

Goo has no real experience around animals, and feels that experience
with them doesn't teach people anything anyway. He has proven truly
to be Clueless Goo. This Goober is a perfect example of someone who
is so entirely clueless, that he has no idea how clueless he is. Either that
or he's being deliberately dishonest and pretending to be even more stupid
than he actually is...by now I'm convinced that it's a combination of both.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

"Leif Erikson"
wrote in message

> Dogs do not anticipate,

This statement is just plain wrong.
Have you ever actually met a dog?

--

William Robb
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On Sun, 21 May 2006 16:49:24 -0700, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:t23v62930cvl9rhfi4m713n1fcrr4o4dtn@4ax.com...
>> On 19 May 2006, the Goober claimed:
>>
>>>Salt is not "speak[ing] for pig"
>> _________________________________________________________
>> From: "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com>
>> Message-ID: <108m9omges99fff RemoveThis @news.supernews.com>
>>
>> Henry S. Salt speaks for the pig here, you ought to listen.
>
>I was extending the allegory, but since you don't understand what that means
>it was wasted on you.

So far you haven't explained why you're so desperate that this
fantasy of Salt's, not be considered a fantasy. For some absurd
reason you want people to think that Salt's fantasy somehow
prevents any actual farm animals from having lives of positive
value. Why don't you just explain WHY you want people to
think it somehow does that? And while you're failing to do that
as always, you can also fail to explain *exactly!* which part of
the speech by an imaginary talking "ar" pig you think somehow
prevents....anything. You can't. You fail. Salt fails. Goo fails. And
as you fail to overcome the truth with lies and fantasy, many
animals back at reality continue to benefit from farming. Many
don't, but you/"aras" are completely and necessarily incapable
of even considering--much less distinguishing between--when
they do, and when they don't.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

<dh@.> wrote in message news:nbcr72p728jq6o0ht35svb042siuo420bm@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 May 2006 16:49:24 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:t23v62930cvl9rhfi4m713n1fcrr4o4dtn@4ax.com...
>>> On 19 May 2006, the Goober claimed:
>>>
>>>>Salt is not "speak[ing] for pig"
>>> _________________________________________________________
>>> From: "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com>
>>> Message-ID: <108m9omges99fff.RemoveThis@news.supernews.com>
>>>
>>> Henry S. Salt speaks for the pig here, you ought to listen.
>>
>>I was extending the allegory, but since you don't understand what that
>>means
>>it was wasted on you.
>
> So far you haven't explained why you're so desperate that this
> fantasy of Salt's, not be considered a fantasy.

Because that term dosn't describe it adequately.

> For some absurd
> reason you want people to think that Salt's fantasy somehow
> prevents any actual farm animals from having lives of positive
> value. Why don't you just explain WHY you want people to
> think it somehow does that?

I never said or implied anything of the sort. Whether or not farm animals'
lives are decent is immaterial to your position. If we are doing them some
kind of service by creating the conditions under which they are born, then
we should just do it as much as possible, good treatment would be considered
superfluous, just icing on the cake.

>And while you're failing to do that
> as always, you can also fail to explain *exactly!* which part of
> the speech by an imaginary talking "ar" pig you think somehow
> prevents....anything.

"prevents" huh?? You're babbling as usual.

>You can't. You fail. Salt fails. Goo fails. And
> as you fail to overcome the truth with lies and fantasy, many
> animals back at reality continue to benefit from farming. Many
> don't, but you/"aras" are completely and necessarily incapable
> of even considering--much less distinguishing between--when
> they do, and when they don't.

No animal benefits by being born, they benefit from good treatment.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

"Leif Erikson"
wrote in message
>
> And you've been getting stuffed on it.
>

Not at all. I've been amused and surprised at the absurdity of the theories
put forward.
I've not been at all surprised by the refusal to back up these theories.
I've run into this sort of lunacy before on the net.
Generally, this sort of stupidity is generated by people who wouldn't dare
say to a persons face what they are saying from the safety of the anonymity
that email allows.

--

William Robb
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

"William Robb" <w_just_two_underscores_robb.RemoveThis@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:447de443$1@news.accesscomm.ca...
>
> "Leif Erikson"
> wrote in message
>>
>> And you've been getting stuffed on it.
>>
>
> Not at all. I've been amused and surprised at the absurdity of the
> theories put forward.

Which theories William? specifically


> I've not been at all surprised by the refusal to back up these theories.
> I've run into this sort of lunacy before on the net.
> Generally, this sort of stupidity is generated by people who wouldn't dare
> say to a persons face what they are saying from the safety of the
> anonymity that email allows.
>
> --
>
> William Robb
>
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

William Robb wrote:
> "Leif Erikson"
> wrote in message
>
>
>>Dogs do not anticipate,
>
>
> This statement is just plain wrong.

No, it isn't.

But you're getting ahead of yourself, billie. Go back
to the "existence is not a benefit" part of the thread,
okay? You still have some work to do there.

> Have you ever actually met a dog?

Had a few myself, and have friends with dogs today.
Dogs do not anticipate.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

"Leif Erikson"
wrote in message
> Dogs do not anticipate.

Sure.
Whatever.
Carry on then.

--

William Robb
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II