XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:05:24 +0000 (UTC), BruceS  wrote:   
      
   >On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 16:24:32 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:19:39 -0400, the following appeared in   
   >> sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:   
   >   
   >>>    It's what disturbs you most apparently, but if you're going to try   
   >>>    helping   
   >>>the goos then you need to explain what you think prevents you from   
   >>>benefitting from your life NOW.   
   >>   
   >> Since you're apparently just too stupid to understand what anyone else   
   >> says, which fact makes it clear that your assertions and demands are not   
   >> only irrelevant but "not even wrong", I'm through with you. Enjoy your   
   >> ignorance in isolation.   
   >   
   >I don't know whether to celebrate or mourn.  I've been amazed at how long   
   >you (and others) have tried to get a very simple point across.  Not that   
   >I'm claiming any superior approach.  I've been missing my favorite loon   
   >enough that I've started reading some of dh and BroilJAB.   
      
       There are a few people claiming life is not a benefit, but so far none of   
   them have been able to explain what they want us to think prevents it from   
   being   
   one or even pretend that they can. Do you think you can explain what you think   
   prevents life from being a benefit to you? There are other similar questions   
   too. Here's another one:   
      
   What might you want people to think makes it ethically superior to refuse to   
   consider the lives of animals raised for food, over giving their lives as much   
   or more consideration than their deaths?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)