XPost: alt.food.vegan.science, talk.politics.animals, alt.animal   
   .ethics.vegetarian   
      
   On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:59:44 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   > wrote   
   >> You claim that our own   
   >> pre-existence prevents us from benefitting from our current   
   >> existence   
   >   
   >That's not even remotely close to a reasonable interpretation of his claim.   
      
       Do you really want people to believe you hadn't noticed   
   that your own argument is completely dependant on considering   
   the possibility that something to do with pre-existence is preventing   
   us from benefitting from our existence now? I seriously doubt you'll   
   find someone who believes you really are that stupid, considering   
   the fact that pre-existence is ALWAYS the MOST significant   
   part of your supposed argument.   
      
   >The claim is this.. We can assume that either there is a "pre-existent   
   >state" or that there is not,   
      
       Regardless of which all evidence suggests that many beings   
   benefit from lives of positive mavlue   
      
   >most probably the latter.   
      
       It makes no difference either way since all evidence suggest   
   many beings benefit from lives of positive value. That fact is   
   very very significant, yet appears to be something else that's   
   beyond your ability to comprehend.   
      
   >If there is no such thing, then coming into existence, while it might be "a   
   >good thing", which I believe is actually your claim, it cannot be a   
   >"benefit" because the meaning of the word benefit implies an improvement to   
   >an existing state.   
      
       A benefit is a benefit, which a life of positive value certainly   
   appears to be REGARDLESS of whether or not there is a state   
   of pre-existence and REGARDLESS of anything else to do with   
   pre-existence.   
      
   >If there is such a thing as a "pre-existent state", it is of unknown   
   >quality, therefore existence as we know it cannot be concluded to be an   
   >improvement over it and thus a benefit.   
      
       All evidence suggests that many beings benefit from lives of   
   positive value REGARDLESS of whether or not there is a state   
   of pre-existence and REGARDLESS of anything else to do with   
   pre-existence.   
      
   >Referring to what you said above, in order for something to be called a   
   >benefit you must know the quality of both before and after states.   
      
       All evidence suggests that many beings benefit from lives of   
   positive value REGARDLESS of whether or not there is a state   
   of pre-existence and REGARDLESS of anything else to do with   
   pre-existence.   
      
   >If I said   
   >a man became a millionaire, is that a benefit? Not if he was a billionaire   
   >before and lost most of his fortune.   
      
       He would still benefit from the millions in the ways he benefitted   
   from the millions regardless of how much or little he benefitted from   
   other things. You can't say you don't benefit from a rice cake simply   
   because you benefitted more from a big bowl of tofu and a steaming   
   pile of beets, or whatever you kooks eat. You also can't say how   
   anything to do with pre-existence--or anything AT ALL for that matter--   
   is preventing billions of beings from benefitting from lives of positive   
   value. We know you wish very very badly that you could, and we   
   know WHY you wish you could, LOL, but you can't...you can't even   
   pretend to try in fact. I challenge you to try. Go:   
      
   (Correct prediction: He can't even make an attempt.)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)