No animals "benefit" from farming.

"JonathanBallCitizenBenfezWilsonWoodsRadicalModerateBingoEdwardGeorgeBillFredMyst"
<gonadconcepts.RemoveThis@gogogonad.com> wrote in message
news:hf9gu0t2lmnng7qdroj7j90b4vgk8tgcb0@4ax.com...

> No animals "benefit" from farming.

To begin, can you describe the "conditions" for having had "benefited" from
farming and create a difference by distinction between animals and all other
objects in the world that can and cannot bebefit in such ways.

Aren't farm animals like welfare maggots in that they get what they would
have to normally struggle for in the wilds, but instead fo free?

> What you mean when
> you say they do is that coming into existence is
> "better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
>

How do you establish a criterion for making such a standard? Do you mean
that you have analogies of situations dealing in "better & worse" and you
can convince us that living or dying is nuetral as concerns these standards
your comparing them to.

> They don't. They are not better off for having
> existed, versus never having existed.

How so?
 >> Stay informed about: No animals "benefit" from farming. 

Immortalist wrote:
> Fuckwit David Harrison, beer-dive cleanup boy pretending to be
someone else,
> wrote in message news:hf9gu0t2lmnng7qdroj7j90b4vgk8tgcb0@4ax.com...
>
> > No animals "benefit" from farming.
>
> To begin, can you describe the "conditions" for having had
"benefited" from
> farming and create a difference by distinction between animals and
all other
> objects in the world that can and cannot bebefit in such ways.
>
> Aren't farm animals like welfare maggots in that they get what they
would
> have to normally struggle for in the wilds, but instead fo free?

No, to begin, you're going to have to ask this of the person who REALLY
posted the message. It's David "Fuckwit" Harrison, dh_ld.DeleteThis@nomail.com.
He took what someone else wrote, and reposted it under a made up (and
extremely childishly strung together) collection of "nyms". In fact,
he has correctly quoted someone, but that "someone" was replying to,
and refuting, Fuckwit's silly belief that farm animals "benefit" by
coming into existence.

The correct place to begin your inquiry is with Fuckwit. What you need
to get him to explain is why he believes that an entity "benefits" by
coming into existence. I can tell you right now that he won't explain
it, but you seem to be someone with a very low time value, so perhaps
you won't mind wasting quite a lot of time with Fuckwit. Anyway,
that's how I suggest you proceed if you're interested: ask David
Fuckwit Harrison, who uses the fictitious e-mail address
"dh_ld@nomail.com", why he believes that being conceived and born is
"better" than never existing. Good luck.
 >> Stay informed about: No animals "benefit" from farming. 

Zap wrote:
> "Jay Santos" <notgenx32.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1105735390.214000.99940@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Zap wrote:
> > > Fuckwit David Harrison, pretending to be someone else, wrote in
> > message
> > > news:hf9gu0t2lmnng7qdroj7j90b4vgk8tgcb0@4ax.com...
> > > > No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
> > > > you say they do is that coming into existence is
> > > > "better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
> > > >
> > > > They don't. They are not better off for having
> > > > existed, versus never having existed.
> > >
> > > Some life forms come into existence as plankton - are you saying
they
> > should
> > > not exist even though they keep the fishes alive?
> >
> > No. That's not what anyone is saying.
> >
> > >
> > > Anything is better off for having existed
> >
> > False. It is not "better" to exist than not to exist. "Better
off"
> > MEANS an improvement in welfare. Since there was no welfare of the
> > entity prior to the entity's existence, it is clearly a logical
> > absurdity to believe that coming into existence made the entity
"better
> > off".
> >
> > Basic existence - being conceived and born - does not make any
entity
> > "better off" than before.
> >
>
> How do you know that a cow (however stupid you may think a cow is)
did not
> hear a bird sing and wish she was a bird before she died?
That question is a non sequitur.
 >> Stay informed about: No animals "benefit" from farming. 

d... DeleteThis @nomail.com wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:48:05 GMT, "Zap"
<ray.gun DeleteThis @removethisntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jay Santos" <notgenx32 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1105735390.214000.99940@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> Zap wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Anything is better off for having existed
> >>
> >> False. It is not "better" to exist than not to exist. "Better
off"
> >> MEANS an improvement in welfare. Since there was no welfare of
the
> >> entity prior to the entity's existence, it is clearly a logical
> >> absurdity to believe that coming into existence made the entity
"better
> >> off".
> >>
> >> Basic existence - being conceived and born - does not make any
entity
> >> "better off" than before.
> >>
> >
> >How do you know that a cow (however stupid you may think a cow is)
did not
> >hear a bird sing and wish she was a bird before she died?
> >A little thing like that can effect the life form and continuing
existence
> >of a dumb creature.
>
> You're way over his head now.

No.

> Remember that you're disgussing this
> with a guy who feels that life has never been a benefit to anything.

Life per se is NOT a benefit to anything. Nothing is "better off" for
having lived, compared with not having lived. No entity's welfare was
improved, ever, merely by coming into existence. This is a fact that
you simply cannot address.
 >> Stay informed about: No animals "benefit" from farming. 

d....TakeThisOut@nomail.com wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2005 12:56:13 -0800,
> Jay Santos wrote:
>
> >Immortalist wrote:
> >> Mr Harrison wrote in message
news:hf9gu0t2lmnng7qdroj7j90b4vgk8tgcb0@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> > No animals "benefit" from farming.
> >>
> >> To begin, can you describe the "conditions" for having had
> >"benefited" from
> >> farming and create a difference by distinction between animals and
> >all other
> >> objects in the world that can and cannot bebefit in such ways.
> >>
> >> Aren't farm animals like welfare maggots in that they get what
they
> >would
> >> have to normally struggle for in the wilds, but instead fo free?
> >
> >No, to begin, you're going to have to ask this of the person who
REALLY
> >posted the message. It's David "Fuckwit" Harrison,
dh_ld.TakeThisOut@nomail.com.
> >He took what someone else wrote,
>
> LOL! You wrote it

YOU reposted it, under a fabricated name.

>
> >and reposted it under a made up (and
> >extremely childishly strung together) collection of "nyms".
>
> Which you post using.

No, I do not.

>
> >In fact,
> >he has correctly quoted someone, but that "someone" was replying to,
> >and refuting,
>
> You didn't refute anything.

I refuted everything you said.

> You simply insisted that life is not a benefit

It isn't.

> without backing it up.

I backed it up. I demonstrated that it CANNOT be a benefit. A benefit
is something that improves the welfare of an entity. Coming into
existence does not improve the welfare of the entity that comes into
existence.

>
> >Fuckwit's silly belief that farm animals "benefit" by
> >coming into existence.
> >
> >The correct place to begin your inquiry is with Fuckwit.
>
> No.

Yes. Your belief that coming into existence improves the welfare of
the entity that comes into existence is an absurdity.

The correct place for this poster to being his inquiry is with YOU, for
holding an absurd belief.

> >What you need
> >to get him to explain is why he believes that an entity "benefits"
by
> >coming into existence.
>
> Life is the benefit

Life is not a benefit. Coming into existence is not a benefit to the
entity that comes into existence. This is established beyond
refutation. The very definition of "benefit" means that my claim MUST
be true.

>
> >I can tell you right now that he won't explain
> >it, but you seem to be someone with a very low time value, so
perhaps
> >you won't mind wasting quite a lot of time with Fuckwit. Anyway,
> >that's how I suggest you proceed if you're interested: ask David
> >Fuckwit Harrison, who uses the fictitious e-mail address
> >"dh_ld@nomail.com", why he believes that being conceived and born is
> >"better" than never existing. Good luck.
>
> No

Yes. You cannot explain why being born is a benefit, except to try to
change the definitions mid-stream.

Life per se - that is, coming into existence - is not a benefit. It
cannot be one.
 >> Stay informed about: No animals "benefit" from farming. 

Zap wrote:
> > "Jay Santos" <notgenx32 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1105741287.006384.92180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> I'm sorry, ignore that last remark.
> I'm just making fun of you.

No, you're not. You're making fun of yourself. You ought to get
professional counseling.
 >> Stay informed about: No animals "benefit" from farming. 

JonathanBallCitizenBenfezWilsonWoodsRadicalModerateBingoEdwardGeorgeBillFredMyst
wrote:
> No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
> you say they do is that coming into existence is
> "better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
>
> They don't. They are not better off for having
> existed, versus never having existed.


Life has pain and pleasure, good and bad. Let us call the good +values
and the bad -values. Now align the experiences of Life onto the number
line.
We get things like -800,+45,0,77,+700...

What value(s) do you think Death or Non-existence has? And how do you
know that?
 >> Stay informed about: No animals "benefit" from farming. 

"JonathanBallCitizenBenfezWilsonWoodsRadicalModerateBingoEdwardGeorgeBillFre
dMyst" <gonadconcepts RemoveThis @gogogonad.com> wrote in message
news:hf9gu0t2lmnng7qdroj7j90b4vgk8tgcb0@4ax.com...
> No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
> you say they do is that coming into existence is
> "better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
>
> They don't. They are not better off for having
> existed, versus never having existed.

Some life forms come into existence as plankton - are you saying they should
not exist even though they keep the fishes alive?

Anything is better off for having existed, for having had a chance - should
flowers and trees and birds not exist?
In fact - should NOTHING exist?
 >> Stay informed about: No animals "benefit" from farming. 

"Jay Santos" <notgenx32 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105735390.214000.99940@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Zap wrote:
> > Fuckwit David Harrison, pretending to be someone else, wrote in
> message
> > news:hf9gu0t2lmnng7qdroj7j90b4vgk8tgcb0@4ax.com...
> > > No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
> > > you say they do is that coming into existence is
> > > "better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
> > >
> > > They don't. They are not better off for having
> > > existed, versus never having existed.
> >
> > Some life forms come into existence as plankton - are you saying they
> should
> > not exist even though they keep the fishes alive?
>
> No. That's not what anyone is saying.
>
> >
> > Anything is better off for having existed
>
> False. It is not "better" to exist than not to exist. "Better off"
> MEANS an improvement in welfare. Since there was no welfare of the
> entity prior to the entity's existence, it is clearly a logical
> absurdity to believe that coming into existence made the entity "better
> off".
>
> Basic existence - being conceived and born - does not make any entity
> "better off" than before.
>

How do you know that a cow (however stupid you may think a cow is) did not
hear a bird sing and wish she was a bird before she died?
A little thing like that can effect the life form and continuing existence
of a dumb creature.
 >> Stay informed about: No animals "benefit" from farming. 

"Jay Santos" <notgenx32.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105736227.514016.160040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> That question is a non sequitur.
>

Oh I do beg your pardon sir, but if you are going to speak Latin or whatever
pompous language that is then at least spell it correctly.
 >> Stay informed about: No animals "benefit" from farming. 

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:48:05 GMT, "Zap" <ray.gun DeleteThis @removethisntlworld.com> wrote:

>
>"Jay Santos" <notgenx32 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1105735390.214000.99940@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Zap wrote:
>> > Fuckwit David Harrison, pretending to be someone else, wrote in
>> message
>> > news:hf9gu0t2lmnng7qdroj7j90b4vgk8tgcb0@4ax.com...
>> > > No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
>> > > you say they do is that coming into existence is
>> > > "better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
>> > >
>> > > They don't. They are not better off for having
>> > > existed, versus never having existed.
>> >
>> > Some life forms come into existence as plankton - are you saying they
>> should
>> > not exist even though they keep the fishes alive?
>>
>> No. That's not what anyone is saying.
>>
>> >
>> > Anything is better off for having existed
>>
>> False. It is not "better" to exist than not to exist. "Better off"
>> MEANS an improvement in welfare. Since there was no welfare of the
>> entity prior to the entity's existence, it is clearly a logical
>> absurdity to believe that coming into existence made the entity "better
>> off".
>>
>> Basic existence - being conceived and born - does not make any entity
>> "better off" than before.
>>
>
>How do you know that a cow (however stupid you may think a cow is) did not
>hear a bird sing and wish she was a bird before she died?
>A little thing like that can effect the life form and continuing existence
>of a dumb creature.

You're way over his head now. Remember that you're disgussing this
with a guy who feels that life has never been a benefit to anything.
 >> Stay informed about: No animals "benefit" from farming. 

> "Jay Santos" <notgenx32.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1105741287.006384.92180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...


I'm sorry, ignore that last remark.
I'm just making fun of you.
Apologies but I enjoy the ridiculous.
And you sir
Are ridiculous.
 >> Stay informed about: No animals "benefit" from farming. 

On 14 Jan 2005 12:56:13 -0800,
Jonathan Ball/Citizen/Benfez/Wilson Woods/Radical Moderate/
Bingo/Edward/George/Bill/Fred/Mystery Poster/Merlin the dog/
Bob the dog/silvia@onairos.com/elvira/Dieter/Abner Hale/
Roger Whitaker/Fucktard/Apoo/Ted Bell/notgenx32@yahoo.com/
Jay Santos/mortons.steakhouse@chicago.not/Rudy Canoza...
aka the Gonad wrote:

>Immortalist wrote:
>> Mr Harrison wrote in message news:hf9gu0t2lmnng7qdroj7j90b4vgk8tgcb0@4ax.com...
>>
>> > No animals "benefit" from farming.
>>
>> To begin, can you describe the "conditions" for having had
>"benefited" from
>> farming and create a difference by distinction between animals and
>all other
>> objects in the world that can and cannot bebefit in such ways.
>>
>> Aren't farm animals like welfare maggots in that they get what they
>would
>> have to normally struggle for in the wilds, but instead fo free?
>
>No, to begin, you're going to have to ask this of the person who REALLY
>posted the message. It's David "Fuckwit" Harrison, dh_ld.DeleteThis@nomail.com.
>He took what someone else wrote,

LOL! You wrote it Gonad. You really are hilarious.

>and reposted it under a made up (and
>extremely childishly strung together) collection of "nyms".

Which you post using.

>In fact,
>he has correctly quoted someone,

That's you.

>but that "someone" was

You.

>replying to,
>and refuting,

You didn't refute anything. You simply insisted that life is
not a benefit without backing it up.

>Fuckwit's silly belief that farm animals "benefit" by
>coming into existence.
>
>The correct place to begin your inquiry is with Fuckwit.

No. The correct place to begin is with the person who wrote
it, which is you Gonad. Notice that as you try to slink and slime
your way out of something stupid that you said, you're cowardly
trying to get people to attack he who presented it (that's me)
instead of you who said it. Yes, you noticed, and I noticed, and
hopefully anyone reading will notice too.

>What you need
>to get him to explain is why he believes that an entity "benefits" by
>coming into existence.

Life is the benefit which makes all others possible. Otherwise
you're just a zygote dead in the water, and that's all you'll ever be.

>I can tell you right now that he won't explain
>it, but you seem to be someone with a very low time value, so perhaps
>you won't mind wasting quite a lot of time with Fuckwit. Anyway,
>that's how I suggest you proceed if you're interested: ask David
>Fuckwit Harrison, who uses the fictitious e-mail address
>"dh_ld@nomail.com", why he believes that being conceived and born is
>"better" than never existing. Good luck.

No Gonad. You need to explain why it is "better" to never exist,
because you're saying it is NOT better to exist.
 >> Stay informed about: No animals "benefit" from farming.