No animals "benefit" from farming.

"Jay Santos" <notgenx32.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105742078.422662.32460@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> d....TakeThisOut@nomail.com wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 2005 12:56:13 -0800,
>> Jay Santos wrote: Shite

<snip>
>
> Life per se - that is, coming into existence - is not a benefit. It
> cannot be one.

In your case ~~Jonnie~~, you are correct:-)
Now FOAD.
>
 >> Stay informed about: No animals "benefit" from farming. 

"Zap" <ray.gun.TakeThisOut@removethisntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:FpWFd.316$6w4.27@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
> "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.
>
>
non se-qui-tur
 >> Stay informed about: No animals "benefit" from farming. 

On 14 Jan 2005 14:34:38 -0800, the Gonad wrote:

>d...@nomail.com wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 2005 12:56:13 -0800,
>> 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@nomail.com.
>> >He took what someone else wrote,
>>
>> LOL! You wrote it
>
>YOU reposted it,

You wrote 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.

We know you post as, and think of yourself as being:

Jonathan Ball
Citizen
Benfez
Wilson Woods
Radical Moderate
Bingo
Edward
George
Bill
Fred
Mystery Poster
Merlin the dog
Bob the dog
silvia.TakeThisOut@onairos.com
elvira
Dieter
"Dieter d.Schmidt.TakeThisOut@deutsche_telekom.de"
<prickerbush2004.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com>
Abner Hale
Roger Whitaker
Fucktard
Apoo
Ted Bell
notgenx32.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com
Jay Santos
mortons.steakhouse.TakeThisOut@chicago.not
Rudy Canoza

>> >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.

No. You didn't refute anything, as a matter of fact.

>> 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.

It is a benefit.

>A benefit
>is something that improves the welfare of an entity.

Life allows zygotes to grow into beings who can and
do benefit from many things, meaning that life is the benefit
which makes all others possible.
If life were not the benefit which makes all others possible
you could explain how something that's not alive can benefit,
but it could not and we know it.

>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.

As yet you have not, and in the future you will not, provide a definition
that backs up what you claim.

>> >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,

Sure I can. It allows the fetus to become a being independant
from its mother or egg. It allows the new being to see, hear, smell,
taste and feel things which it could not before being born. It allows
the new being to consume different types of nourishment. It allows
the new being to have much greater freedom of movement. It allows
the new being to have much greater understanding of the world
around it. It allows the new being to interact with its mother. It allows
the new being to interact with others of its kind. It allows the new
being to grow far larger than it could within its mother. If it was never
born then it would end up soon dying and so would its mother.

>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. 

"JonathanBallCitizenBenfezWilsonWoodsRadicalModerateBingoEdwardGeorgeBillFredMyst"
<gonadconcepts DeleteThis @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.

I'm an animal and I certainly benefit from farming. I don't know a thing
about growing, harvesting, and storing food. Without those farmers and their
knowledge most people on this rock would have died years ago. Ergo your
universal negation stands negated. Have a nice day.
 >> Stay informed about: No animals "benefit" from farming. 

Jonathan 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.

I couldn't tell - indeed nobody can tell, except maybe the animal itself.
 >> Stay informed about: No animals "benefit" from farming. 

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:09:05 +0100, AE <hidden.TakeThisOut@nospam.com> wrote:

>Jonathan 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.
>
>I couldn't tell - indeed nobody can tell, except maybe the animal itself.

I doubt that the animals are capable of considering it directly.
That doesn't prevent them from benefiting from a decent life
though. Some do and some do not, and to think otherwise is
absurd.
The Gonad lied and said I mean that coming into existence is
"better" than not coming into existence. He also said that is
wrong, meaning somehow he knows coming into existence is
*not* better than never having existed. How could he possibly
know that? He could not.
 >> Stay informed about: No animals "benefit" from farming. 

In article <sg0ou0d7eijmpd5kkrkdpab1latvqhjeaj RemoveThis @4ax.com>, dh_ld RemoveThis @nomail.com wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:09:05 +0100, AE <hidden RemoveThis @nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Jonathan 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.
>>
>>I couldn't tell - indeed nobody can tell, except maybe the animal itself.
>
> I doubt that the animals are capable of considering it directly.
>That doesn't prevent them from benefiting from a decent life
>though. Some do and some do not, and to think otherwise is
>absurd.
> The Gonad lied and said I mean that coming into existence is
>"better" than not coming into existence. He also said that is
>wrong, meaning somehow he knows coming into existence is
>*not* better than never having existed. How could he possibly
>know that? He could not.

Likewise, neither can you know one way or the other. It is an unknown.
If you believe you have proof, please present it for review.



Bruce


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
 >> Stay informed about: No animals "benefit" from farming. 

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:10:07 GMT, bruce.sinclair DeleteThis @NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:

>In article <sg0ou0d7eijmpd5kkrkdpab1latvqhjeaj DeleteThis @4ax.com>, dh_ld DeleteThis @nomail.com wrote:
>>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:09:05 +0100, AE <hidden DeleteThis @nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Jonathan 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.
>>>
>>>I couldn't tell - indeed nobody can tell, except maybe the animal itself.
>>
>> I doubt that the animals are capable of considering it directly.
>>That doesn't prevent them from benefiting from a decent life
>>though. Some do and some do not, and to think otherwise is
>>absurd.
>> The Gonad lied and said I mean that coming into existence is
>>"better" than not coming into existence. He also said that is
>>wrong, meaning somehow he knows coming into existence is
>>*not* better than never having existed. How could he possibly
>>know that? He could not.
>
>Likewise, neither can you know one way or the other. It is an unknown.

Agreed. But I can still believe that a decent life is a good thing
none the less, even if you can't.

>If you believe you have proof, please present it for review.
>
>
>
>Bruce
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
>think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
>If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
>I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
>of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
>the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.
>
>Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
>(if there were any)
 >> Stay informed about: No animals "benefit" from farming. 

dh_ld DeleteThis @nomail.com schrieb:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:09:05 +0100, AE <hidden DeleteThis @nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Jonathan 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.
>>
>>I couldn't tell - indeed nobody can tell, except maybe the animal itself.
>
>
> I doubt that the animals are capable of considering it directly.
> That doesn't prevent them from benefiting from a decent life
> though. Some do and some do not, and to think otherwise is
> absurd.
> The Gonad lied and said I mean that coming into existence is
> "better" than not coming into existence. He also said that is
> wrong, meaning somehow he knows coming into existence is
> *not* better than never having existed. How could he possibly
> know that? He could not.

Indeed nobody really could tell.
On the other hand I can get to a subjective decision: I'd definitely
decide to exist, because I enjoy living.
 >> Stay informed about: No animals "benefit" from farming. 

dh_ld.RemoveThis@nomail.com wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:09:05 +0100, AE <hidden.RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Rudy Canoza 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.
>>
>>I couldn't tell - indeed nobody can tell, except maybe the animal itself.
>
>
> I doubt that the animals are capable of considering it directly.
> That doesn't prevent them from benefiting from a decent life
> though. Some do and some do not, and to think otherwise is
> absurd.
> Rudy lied and said I mean that coming into existence is
> "better" than not coming into existence.

That is NOT a lie. It is PRECISELY what you believe.
 >> Stay informed about: No animals "benefit" from farming.