XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 16:12:28 -0800, Goo wrote:   
      
   >if we make the assumption   
   >that the good in your life outweighs the bad, then we might say that   
   >*your* life - your set of experiences - is a benefit to *you*.   
      
       Why can't you appreciate any distinction between lives of positive and   
   negative value Goob? In fact if you think you understand that much of it why   
   can   
   you not only not appreciate such a distinction, but why can't you explain it to   
   your brother Dr. Rupert who claims to be so stupid he doesn't think that   
   distinction "means anything"?   
      
   >But that does not allow us to say that coming into existence, or   
   >"getting to experience life", is a benefit in any way.   
      
       Unless you finally figure out a way of pretending you can benefit after you   
   lose your life Goob, it will remain clear that life is one of the benefits that   
   makes all others possible.   
   . . .   
   >Fuckwit does say that "vegans" are doing   
   >something harmful to those non-existent, merely potential animals.   
      
       That's a blatant lie Goo and in fact I say I believe they're not and don't   
   even know what particular "non-existent, merely potential animals" your stupid   
   little mind is imagining I have any thoughts about. You're not only lying   
   blatantly, but outstupiding yourself again every time you tell that lie Goober,   
   even if you're ever able to find someone who's stupid enough ...LOL... to be   
   fooled into believing it. Keep trying though Goo, because if you do find   
   someone   
   that stupid maybe they can help you try to figure out which particular   
   "non-existent, merely potential animals" you want people to think you think   
   you're trying to talk about.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)