ANIMAL FORUM

>John Beardmore wrote:
>> In message ,
>> Goo writes
>> >John Beardmore wrote:
>> >> In message ,
>> >> Goo writes
>>
>> >> >Were discussing whether or not coming into existence is a benefit to
>> >> >the entity,
>> >>
>> >> Seems so.
>> >
>> >Seems so, what? Seems that its the topic of discussion? Of course.
>> >
>> >Or - seems that an entitys coming into existence is a benefit to the
>> >entity itself? No, coming into existence is not a benefit for the
>> >entity that comes into existence.
>>
>> Seems so to me. You have failed to convince me otherwise.
>
>You give no evidence of having paid attention to my explanation. Ive
>elaborated it at great length, and you havent commented on it once.
>Ill try one more time. If youre not going to take issue with it, but
>merely wish to say Im not convinced, then you can take your smug
>attitude and stick it up your ass.
>
>A benefit is defined as something that improves the welfare of the
>entity that receives the benefit.

>Before an entity exists, there is no welfare associated with it, and
>therefore it cannot be improved.

>Existence is a necessary precondition
>for being able to benefit from something. Existence itself is not a
>benefit;

>existence establishes the entity and its welfare such that it
>then can benefit from something.

> On 27 Jun 2006 a scrupulously honest Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>John Beardmore wrote:
>>
>>>In message ,
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>>John Beardmore wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message ,
>>>>>Leif Erikson helpfully wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Were discussing whether or not coming into existence is a benefit to
>>>>>>the entity,
>>>>>
>>>>>Seems so.
>>>>
>>>>Seems so, what? Seems that its the topic of discussion? Of course.
>>>>
>>>>Or - seems that an entitys coming into existence is a benefit to the
>>>>entity itself? No, coming into existence is not a benefit for the
>>>>entity that comes into existence.
>>>
>>>Seems so to me. You have failed to convince me otherwise.
>>
>>You give no evidence of having paid attention to my explanation. Ive
>>elaborated it at great length, and you havent commented on it once.
>>Ill try one more time. If youre not going to take issue with it, but
>>merely wish to say Im not convinced, then you can take your smug
>>attitude and stick it up your ass.
>>
>>A benefit is defined as something that improves the welfare of the
>>entity that receives the benefit.
>
>
> benefit
> . . .

> Zygotes benefit from life

>
>>Before an entity exists, there is no welfare associated with it, and
>>therefore it cannot be improved.
>
>
> LOL! We know what youre saying, and why youre saying it
> Leif.

> Youre saying that simply because your stupid ines

>>Existence is a necessary precondition
>>for being able to benefit from something. Existence itself is not a
>>benefit;
>
>
> Yes as a matter of fact Leif we see that existence is the
> benefit which makes all others possible.

>dh asked:

>>What if great portions of the land really was just left as natural refuges?
>>WHY would that be better Goo?
>
>When did I say it would

> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:
>
>
>>>What if great portions of the land really was just left as natural refuges?
>>>WHY would that be better Leif?
>>
>>When did I say it would, Fuckwit? Hint: I didnt. You stupid shit-eating
fuckwitted cracker.
>>
>>Fuckwit, whats your phone number? Or, are you still using Willie Densons

>
>
> Then we agree that it would not,

>No. Zygotes have no experiential reality; no welfare. Rocks and
>motorcycles are entities, Fuckwit, but they also dont have
>experiential realities.
>
>I hope that helps, Fuckwit.

> In message , Leif
> Erikson writes
>
>> No. Zygotes have no experiential reality; no welfare. Rocks and
>> motorcycles are entities, Fuckwit, but they also dont have
>> experiential realities.
>>
>> I hope that helps, Fuckwit.
>
>
> It would if you identified the point at which you regard organisms as
> starting to exists and be able to receive benefits.

>John Beardmore wrote:
>
>> In message , Leif
>>Erikson writes
>>
>>> No. Zygotes have no experiential reality; no welfare. Rocks and
>>>motorcycles are entities, Fuckwit, but they also dont have
>>>experiential realities.
>>>
>>> I hope that helps, Fuckwit.
>> It would if you identified the point at which you regard organisms
>>as starting to exists and be able to receive benefits.
>
>The point at which they exist is irrelevant. We know there is such a
>point.

> In message , Leif
> Erikson writes
> >John Beardmore wrote:
> >
> >> In message , Leif
> >>Erikson writes
> >>
> >>> No. Zygotes have no experiential reality; no welfare. Rocks and
> >>>motorcycles are entities, Fuckwit, but they also dont have
> >>>experiential realities.
> >>>
> >>> I hope that helps, Fuckwit.
> >> It would if you identified the point at which you regard organisms
> >>as starting to exists and be able to receive benefits.
> >
> >The point at which they exist is irrelevant. We know there is such a
> >point.
>
> Well, if you dont know when it is, practical consequences will be thin
> on the ground...