XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:04:09 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
      
   >On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:21:43 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>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.   
   . . .   
   >Man, you must take us for real chumps to think we'll buy this garbage.   
      
       Your inability to back up your claim that life is not a benefit to you   
   makes   
   it seem clear that you're just repeating the same lie over and over again.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)