XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   XPost: alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: daletx@gnusguy.com   
      
   On 5/28/2010 5:46 PM, halfawake wrote:   
   > DT wrote:   
   >   
   >> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> OK, how about this: everybody...and I mean *EVERYBODY*... admit, right   
   >> here, right now, that Fred is right.   
   >>   
   >> Then maybe he'll shut up...   
   >>   
   >> DT   
   >   
   >   
   > ha ha   
   >   
   >   
   > I wish I could stop...   
   >   
   > Robert   
      
   Just say no, man.  Just say no.   
      
   DT   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)