0a0e794c   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 00:11:17 -0700 (PDT), Rupert    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton  wrote:   
   >> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, dh@. wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> dh@. wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >>> "Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born..."   
   >>   
   >> >> There's no such thing as "unborn animals" you moron.   
   >>   
   >> >      LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly blatant of lies,   
   >>   
   >> Oh, so unborn animals somehow exist, then?  That's what we've been   
   >> saying you believe all along.  Why do you deny believing it when it is   
   >> so obvious that you *do* believe it?   
   >   
   >Of course unborn animals exist. The issue has been whether animals   
   >exist before they are conceived.   
      
       I've never lied about the fact that I don't have a belief...they/we could   
   or   
   they/we could not, and I consider both possibilities. There's no reason for me   
   to lie about it. The only thing in question is what the Goober thinks he could   
   gain by persuading people to believe I have a belief that I don't have. From my   
   pov Goo is outstupiding himself for even trying.   
      
       We have reason to believe that Goo has beliefe in a pre-existent state   
   though. For one thing the Goober believes and wants everything to believe that   
   something about our pre-existence prevents us from benefitting from our   
   existence now, but he has never been able to say exactly WHAT or HOW something   
   about our pre-existence could possibly do so. Let's challenge him now to be   
   sure:   
      
   Goo, try to explain what you think prevents existence from being a benefit   
   either without referring to pre-existence, or if you do refer to it explain   
   exactly how you think anything about it prevents us from benefitting NOW.   
      
   (prediction: the Goober will fail the challenge so completely that he can't   
   even   
   make an attempt)   
      
       Moving on, here's more evidence regarding Goob's beliefs about his supposed   
   pre-existent state:   
      
   "Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Goo   
      
   "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"   
   can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes   
   a pre-existent state". - Goo   
      
   "When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the   
   existence we know, we don't know if that move" - Goo   
      
   "EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one   
   might provide:  they STILL might not be as good as the   
   "pre-existence" state was for the animals" - Goo   
      
   "Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare   
   improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the   
   life we can detect" - Goo   
      
   "I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals that are   
   "in the pipeline", so to speak, a lot of consideration" - Goo   
      
   "you still cannot demonstrate, ever, why it is "beneficial"   
   for souls to incarnate and experience this meaning." - Goo   
      
   ""Pre-existence":  this is Goo's problem, and only Goo's   
   problem." - Goo   
      
   "coming into existence didn't make me better off than   
   I was before." - Goo   
      
   "We are not and never were talking about benefits for   
   existing entities" - Goo   
      
   "Existing animals don't figure into it in any way." - Goo   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)