If life is a benefit...

<nospam.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote in message
news:ag1ksvgi5rkbf1gj06h12prkbsu3cer8m5@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:58 GMT, ipse dixit <nospam.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>
> If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
> no life [ie never existing at all] is a loss.

Why is deference to dualism logical? And what does "life is a benefit" mean
to you in the first place?

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: If life is a benefit... 

nospam.DeleteThis@email.com wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:58 GMT, ipse dixit <nospam.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>
> If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
> no life [ie never existing at all] is a loss.

Right. That's what Fuckwit, née David Harrison,
believes. It's what he MUST believe; he has no choice,
if he is to be logically consistent. It explains this
quote from Fuckwit:

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
 >> Stay informed about: If life is a benefit... 

Tim wrote:

> <nospam.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote in message
> news:ag1ksvgi5rkbf1gj06h12prkbsu3cer8m5@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:58 GMT, ipse dixit <nospam.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
>>no life [ie never existing at all] is a loss.
>
>
> Life is not a benefit.

Exactly right.

> Life is not an argument. Logical certainty and loss
> are meaningless, unthinkable, and impossible without the existence of some
> being capable of harboring them. To the best of our knowledge humans are
> the only beings capable of logical certainty. Other (some) critters are, I
> believe, capable of a sense of loss. Both cases require life; specifically
> animal life. If life never existed it could not possibly be a loss. We can
> contemplate the extinction of all life and make value judgments as to
> whether or not it is a loss (noting that the extinction is, in one sense, a
> definite loss. Extinction = all life - all life. - as subtraction is a
> lessing or loss), but never existing at all prohibits the possibility of
> loss - one needs something to loose.
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: If life is a benefit... 

Miller wrote:

> <nospam RemoveThis @email.com> wrote in message
> news:ag1ksvgi5rkbf1gj06h12prkbsu3cer8m5@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:58 GMT, ipse dixit <nospam RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
>>
>>If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
>>no life [ie never existing at all] is a loss.
>
>
> Why is deference to dualism logical? And what does "life is a benefit" mean
> to you in the first place?

You have to go back to the moron who has introduced
this loathsome construction in the first place, a
high-school dropout in Atlanta named David Harrison,
better known as Fuckwit. He believes that the mere
fact of "getting to experience life" (his phrasing,
hence the quotes) is a "benefit" to farm animals. As a
logically necessary consequence, and borne out in his
further incoherent scribblings on the topic, he
believes that "vegans" are trying to impose a loss on
unconceived "future farm animals" by trying to get
everyone to become vegetarian, thereby ensuring the
extinction of farm animals raised for human consumption.

It's a dirty, juvenile, stupid clumsy trick he's been
trying to play on "vegans" for about four and a half
years now.
 >> Stay informed about: If life is a benefit... 

"Jonathan Ball" <jonball.RemoveThis@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:jIqyb.20414$n56.18392@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Miller wrote:
>
> > <nospam.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:ag1ksvgi5rkbf1gj06h12prkbsu3cer8m5@4ax.com...
> >
> >>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:58 GMT, ipse dixit <nospam.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
> >>no life [ie never existing at all] is a loss.
> >
> >
> > Why is deference to dualism logical? And what does "life is a benefit"
mean
> > to you in the first place?
>
> You have to go back to the moron who has introduced
> this loathsome construction in the first place, a
> high-school dropout in Atlanta named David Harrison,
> better known as Fuckwit. He believes that the mere
> fact of "getting to experience life" (his phrasing,
> hence the quotes) is a "benefit" to farm animals. As a
> logically necessary consequence, and borne out in his
> further incoherent scribblings on the topic, he
> believes that "vegans" are trying to impose a loss on
> unconceived "future farm animals" by trying to get
> everyone to become vegetarian, thereby ensuring the
> extinction of farm animals raised for human consumption.
>
> It's a dirty, juvenile, stupid clumsy trick he's been
> trying to play on "vegans" for about four and a half
> years now.

Well, its somewhat interesting, I guess. Seems to engender a bit of fierce
opposition.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: If life is a benefit... 

<nospam.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote in message
news:ag1ksvgi5rkbf1gj06h12prkbsu3cer8m5@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:58 GMT, ipse dixit <nospam.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>
> If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
> no life [ie never existing at all] is a loss.

How can something never existing be a loss?
Loss denotes a subtraction of something.

I do not have a Jaguar (the car not the animal).
I do not feel loss of not having one, a desire to have one perhaps.
Perhaps even frustration as I cannot (or may never) afford one.

If I had a Jaguar and it was stolen, I would feel a loss ( if my insurance
does not cover.)
 >> Stay informed about: If life is a benefit... 

Russt wrote:

> <nospam.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote in message
> news:ag1ksvgi5rkbf1gj06h12prkbsu3cer8m5@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:58 GMT, ipse dixit <nospam.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
>>no life [ie never existing at all] is a loss.
>
>
> How can something never existing be a loss?
> Loss denotes a subtraction of something.

That's what I've been telling Fuckwit (nee David
Harrison) for several years. Nonetheless, here's what
Fuckwit believes:

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000

>
> I do not have a Jaguar (the car not the animal).
> I do not feel loss of not having one, a desire to have one perhaps.
> Perhaps even frustration as I cannot (or may never) afford one.
>
> If I had a Jaguar and it was stolen, I would feel a loss ( if my insurance
> does not cover.)
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: If life is a benefit... 

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:18:15 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball.RemoveThis@whitehouse.not> wrote:

>nospam@email.com wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:58 GMT, ipse dixit <nospam.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
>> no life [ie never existing at all] is a loss.
>
>Right. That's what Fuckwit, née David Harrison,
>believes. It's what he MUST believe;

We know it's not what I believe. It's what you "ARAs"
want people to believe concerning the fact that many
farm animals benefit from farming, because you're
desperate to prevent the fact from becoming more
accepted. That of course is because it could have a
negative influence on your hopes of ethically doing
away with domestic animals.

>he has no choice,
>if he is to be logically consistent. It explains this
>quote from Fuckwit:
>
> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
> that would experience the loss if their lives
> are prevented.
> Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
 >> Stay informed about: If life is a benefit... 

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:14:26 -0500, "Tim" <abc.DeleteThis@aci.on.ca> wrote:

>
><nospam.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote in message
>news:ag1ksvgi5rkbf1gj06h12prkbsu3cer8m5@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:58 GMT, ipse dixit <nospam.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
>> no life [ie never existing at all] is a loss.
>
>Life is not a benefit. Life is not an argument. Logical certainty and loss
>are meaningless, unthinkable, and impossible without the existence of some
>being capable of harboring them. To the best of our knowledge humans are
>the only beings capable of logical certainty. Other (some) critters are, I
>believe, capable of a sense of loss. Both cases require life; specifically
>animal life.

Life is the benefit which makes all others possible. If it were not, then
things which are not alive would be able to benefit. That doesn't mean
that the individual lives of all creatures are a benefit--some are and some
are not. But there is a big difference between life itself, and the individual
life an animal experiences. It's rather hard to believe, but it appears that
some people can't understand the difference between the two, probably
because the same word is being used to denote two different ideas.

>If life never existed it could not possibly be a loss. We can
>contemplate the extinction of all life and make value judgments as to
>whether or not it is a loss (noting that the extinction is, in one sense, a
>definite loss. Extinction = all life - all life. - as subtraction is a
>lessing or loss), but never existing at all prohibits the possibility of
>loss - one needs something to loose.
>
 >> Stay informed about: If life is a benefit... 

<dh_ld DeleteThis @nomail.com> wrote in message
news:uvalsvstbjs3fq31smegi0utma2oefpeiu@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:14:26 -0500, "Tim" <abc DeleteThis @aci.on.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> ><nospam DeleteThis @email.com> wrote in message
> >news:ag1ksvgi5rkbf1gj06h12prkbsu3cer8m5@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:58 GMT, ipse dixit <nospam DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
> >> no life [ie never existing at all] is a loss.
> >
> >Life is not a benefit. Life is not an argument. Logical certainty and
loss
> >are meaningless, unthinkable, and impossible without the existence of
some
> >being capable of harboring them. To the best of our knowledge humans are
> >the only beings capable of logical certainty. Other (some) critters are,
I
> >believe, capable of a sense of loss. Both cases require life;
specifically
> >animal life.
>
> Life is the benefit which makes all others possible. If it were not,
then
> things which are not alive would be able to benefit.

Benefits and deficits are value judgements. One needs to be alive to make
them. Yes it is a benefit to be alive if one wants to make value judgements.
But wait - one needs to be alive to want!. Life is not a benefit. Please:
how exacty do none living things benefit?

That doesn't mean
> that the individual lives of all creatures are a benefit--some are and
some
> are not. But there is a big difference between life itself, and the
individual
> life an animal experiences. It's rather hard to believe, but it appears
that
> some people can't understand the difference between the two, probably
> because the same word is being used to denote two different ideas.

I fail to see were that double meaning pertains in the original post. Yes
there is Life; yes there are individual lives. So what?

>
> >If life never existed it could not possibly be a loss. We can
> >contemplate the extinction of all life and make value judgments as to
> >whether or not it is a loss (noting that the extinction is, in one sense,
a
> >definite loss. Extinction = all life - all life. - as subtraction is a
> >lessing or loss), but never existing at all prohibits the possibility of
> >loss - one needs something to loose.
> >
>
 >> Stay informed about: If life is a benefit... 

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:07:46 -0500, "Miller" <chumley702NOSSSSPAM.RemoveThis@chartermi.net> wrote:

>
>"Jonathan Ball" <jonball.RemoveThis@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>news:jIqyb.20414$n56.18392@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Miller wrote:
>>
>> > <nospam.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote in message
>> > news:ag1ksvgi5rkbf1gj06h12prkbsu3cer8m5@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:58 GMT, ipse dixit <nospam.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
>> >>no life [ie never existing at all] is a loss.
>> >
>> >
>> > Why is deference to dualism logical? And what does "life is a benefit"
>mean
>> > to you in the first place?
>>
>> You have to go back to the moron who has introduced
>> this loathsome construction in the first place, a
>> high-school dropout in Atlanta named David Harrison,
>> better known as Fuckwit. He believes that the mere
>> fact of "getting to experience life" (his phrasing,
>> hence the quotes) is a "benefit" to farm animals. As a
>> logically necessary consequence, and borne out in his
>> further incoherent scribblings on the topic, he
>> believes that "vegans" are trying to impose a loss on
>> unconceived "future farm animals" by trying to get
>> everyone to become vegetarian, thereby ensuring the
>> extinction of farm animals raised for human consumption.
>>
>> It's a dirty, juvenile, stupid clumsy trick he's been
>> trying to play on "vegans" for about four and a half
>> years now.
>
>Well, its somewhat interesting, I guess. Seems to engender a bit of fierce
>opposition.
>
>Scott

Which is expected. "ARAs" want people to believe that the
most ethical approach we could take would be to all become
veg*n, so no more animals are "killed" for food. They seem to
have promoted that idea fairly successfully, and the last thing
they would want is to see people decide it would be better to
provide farm animals with decent lives, than it would be to
prevent them from having any. They are also very opposed to
seeing it pointed out that some types of meat involve fewer
animal deaths than some types of veggies. We can get over
500 servings of beef from the life and death of a grass raised
steer. Due to plowing, planting, use of *icides, harvesting, and
protection of stored grains, a few servings of tofu are likely to
involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings of grass
raised beef. If veg*ns really cared about animals, they would
want such things pointed out. But since they don't, they are
opposed to seeing them pointed out, and as you can see they
are opposed to seeing it pointed out that some farm animals
benefit from farming....things like that don't contribute to the
impression of ethical superiority they want to promote for
themselves.
 >> Stay informed about: If life is a benefit... 

dh_ld.TakeThisOut@nomail.com wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:18:15 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball.TakeThisOut@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>
>
>>nospam@email.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:58 GMT, ipse dixit <nospam.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
>>>no life [ie never existing at all] is a loss.
>>
>>Right. That's what Fuckwit, née David Harrison,
>>believes. It's what he MUST believe;
>
>
> We know it's not what I believe.

We know it IS what you believe; what you MUST believe,
given the rest of the bullshit you write.

>
>>he has no choice,
>>if he is to be logically consistent. It explains this
>>quote from Fuckwit:
>>
>> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
>> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
>> that would experience the loss if their lives
>> are prevented.
>> Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
 >> Stay informed about: If life is a benefit... 

dh_ld.DeleteThis@nomail.com wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:14:26 -0500, "Tim" <abc.DeleteThis@aci.on.ca> wrote:
>
>
>><nospam.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote in message
>>news:ag1ksvgi5rkbf1gj06h12prkbsu3cer8m5@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:58 GMT, ipse dixit <nospam.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
>>>no life [ie never existing at all] is a loss.
>>
>>Life is not a benefit. Life is not an argument. Logical certainty and loss
>>are meaningless, unthinkable, and impossible without the existence of some
>>being capable of harboring them. To the best of our knowledge humans are
>>the only beings capable of logical certainty. Other (some) critters are, I
>>believe, capable of a sense of loss. Both cases require life; specifically
>>animal life.
>
>
> Life is the benefit which makes all others possible.

Life is not a benefit at all.
 >> Stay informed about: If life is a benefit...