XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:52:08 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
      
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >They do not,   
      
       Yes they do.   
      
   >they benefit from good treatment. They may *have* good   
   >lives, some of them, although not many these days,   
      
       You have no idea.   
      
   >but they don't   
   >"benefit from" good lives,   
      
       They certainly appear to, and you can't say what you want us to think   
   prevents them, so it seems clear that you're just repeating the same lie over   
   and over without being able to back it up.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)