XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   XPost: alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: epsteinrob@yahoo.com   
      
   Fred C. Dobbs wrote:   
      
   > On 5/28/2010 10:30 AM, Lee Frank wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >> "Fred C. Dobbs"  wrote in message   
   >> news:tKCdnfRy1ZZLZGLWnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...   
   >>   
   >>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is   
   >>> necessarily to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only   
   >>> one state of welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject   
   >>> nonsense to suggest a person might rationally think he is "better off"   
   >>> for existing rather than never existing, because the flip side is that   
   >>> the person would be "worse off" for never existing - but there   
   >>> wouldn't be a person to experience the "worse off" condition if the   
   >>> person never existed.   
   >>>   
   >>> This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare   
   >>> thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the   
   >>> person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence,   
   >>> because again, there would be no entity to experience the better   
   >>> welfare. It still can make sense for the person with a miserable   
   >>> welfare to want to die, if his existence is intolerable to him.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> "i kick the habit   
   >> [kick the habit   
   >> kick the habit]   
   >> shed my skin.   
   >>   
   >> this is the new stuff   
   >> [is the new stuff   
   >> is the new stuff]   
   >> i go dancing in."   
   >>   
   >>> peter gabriel   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > Rock music is never profound.  It's "music" by and for emotionally   
   > underdeveloped people.   
   >   
      
      
   thank you, idiot.  that was really profound.   
      
   Robert   
      
   = = = = = =   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)