XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:39:34 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
      
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:19:07 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> dh@. wrote:   
   >>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:27:50 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>> Simple, read Salt again, this time for comprehension.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>       "If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am" -   
   Salt   
   >>>   
   >>> Not that part, but that was helpful.   
   >>>   
   >>>> The pig lived only to be eaten.   
   >>>   
   >>> He isn't complaining about that.   
   >>>   
   >>>> If didn't specifically say it wished it had   
   >>>> never been born   
   >>>   
   >>> He accepts being born, to be meat.   
   >>>   
   >>>> even though your imaginary pig DID know it was going to be   
   >>>> killed and even that it was going to be eaten.   
   >>>   
   >>> Salt never implies that actual pigs know they will be pork chops. You're   
   >>> an idiot.   
   >>   
   >>      LOL!!! You're trying to pretend that I'm the idiot for pointing out   
   Salt's   
   >> idiocy. LOL...   
   >   
   >You're an idiot, that's no pretense.   
   >   
   >> . . .   
   >>> You totally ignored the part of the essay that proves beyond a doubt why   
   >>> coming into existence does not and cannot benefit an entity.   
   >>   
   >>      It's not in the fantasy, but if you want us to pretend that it is then   
   you   
   >> need to present what you want us to think proves it. Try. Go:   
   >   
   >It's there, that's no pretense either.   
   >   
   >"The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to compare   
   >existence with non-existence. A person who is already in existence may   
   >feel that he would rather have lived than not, but he must first have   
   >the terra firma of existence to argue from; the moment he begins to   
   >argue as if from the abyss of the non-existent, he talks nonsense, by   
   >predicating good or evil, happiness or unhappiness, of that of which we   
   >can predicate nothing."   
      
       I point out that many livestock animals clearly appear to benefit from   
   lives   
   of positive value. NOTHING in the text above is able to prevent them from doing   
   so. You only WISH that it did, but nothing does. LOL.... This does make it   
   clear   
   why you and the Goober are so obsessed with non-existence even though you don't   
   have any clue why you are though...LOL... You never did have any clue, but   
   you're just parroting some bullshit written down by one of your heros a century   
   ago or whatever.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)