Helping ducklings to experience life...

On 27 Jan 2006, Goob wrote:

>Fuckwit David Harrison lied:

>> You're too selfish to understand how a person could get any good
>> feeling from helping an animal survive
>
>It isn't a matter of selfishness, Fuckwit. It's a matter of sound
>logic and common sense. If life -per se- is not a benefit - and it is
>*not* a benefit -

Your stupid insistence that life is not a benefit is completely
dependant on the fact that ines can't benefit Goo, but that useless
fact has nothing to do with whether or not animals do.

>then ensuring that the duck eggs hatch and the
>ducklings "get to experience life" is *NOT* doing them any good deed,

Your stupid argument against life being a benefit only works for
ines you moron, not for the zygotes in the duck eggs. You poor poor
stupid drooling fool.

Fuckwit David Harrison lied:

> On 27 Jan 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison lied:
>
>
>>> You're too selfish to understand how a person could get any good
>>>feeling from helping an animal survive
>>
>>It isn't a matter of selfishness, Fuckwit. It's a matter of sound
>>logic and common sense. If life -per se- is not a benefit - and it is
>>*not* a benefit -
>
>
> Your stupid insistence that life is not a benefit is completely
> dependant on the fact that ines can't benefit Goo, but that useless
> fact has nothing to do with whether or not animals do.

No, Fuckwit. My correct and logical and irrefutable
observation is that life is not a benefit because the
definition of "benefit" precludes it.



>>then ensuring that the duck eggs hatch and the
>>ducklings "get to experience life" is *NOT* doing them any good deed,
>
>
> Your stupid argument against life being a benefit

It's a correct argument that life IS NOT a benefit,
Fuckwit. It isn't.

You were not doing the duck eggs a "good deed" by
ensuring that they hatched, Fuckwit; causing the
ducklings to be born was in NO WAY doing them a good deed.