XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 19:22:37 -0700, Goo wrote:   
      
   >On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:10:32 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:52:17 -0700, Goo wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>*you*, Goo, think of them as existing   
   >>>"in some sense"   
   >>   
   >>"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"   
   >>can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes   
   >>a pre-existent state" - Goo   
   >>   
   >>""Pre-existence":  this is Goo's problem, and only Goo's   
   >>problem." - Goo   
   >>   
   >>"Whether or not some entity enjoys life once it does exist   
   >>is *NOT* the topic." - Goo   
   >>   
   >>"you still cannot demonstrate, ever, why it is "beneficial"   
   >>for souls to incarnate and experience this meaning." - Goo   
   >>   
   >>"We are not and never were talking about benefits for   
   >>existing entities" - Goo   
   >>   
   >>"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the   
   >>existence we know, we don't know if that move improves   
   >>its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged." - 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" - Goo   
   >>   
   >>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them:  it does   
   >>not make them better off than before they existed." - 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   
   >   
   >You, Goo, think the animals "pre-exist" - not in dispute.   
      
       "they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence"   
   state was" - Goo   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)