ANIMAL FORUM

>John Beardmore wrote:
>
>> In message , Leif
>> Erikson writes
>>
>>> John Beardmore wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message , Leif
>>>> Erikson writes
>>>> >John Beardmore wrote:
>>>> >> In message ,
>>>> Leif
>>>> >> Erikson 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.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps you go beyond assertion and repetition then.
>
>You give no evidence of reading comprehension.

>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Ooo Errr... I quake in fear before my master !
>>
>>
>>> A benefit is defined as something that improves the welfare of the
>>> entity that receives the benefit. Do you dispute the definition?
>>
>>
>> I dont see the point of picking that narrow an interpretation, or even
>> selecting the word benefit to express the concept.
>
>So you dont really have any grounds for arguing,

> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 05:54:37 GMT, Leif Erikson
wrote:
>
>
>>John Beardmore wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In message , Leif
>>>Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>John Beardmore wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In message , Leif
>>>>>Erikson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>John Beardmore wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In message ,
>>>>>
>>>>>Leif
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Erikson 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps you go beyond assertion and repetition then.
>>
>>You give no evidence of reading comprehension.
>
>
> You are insisting that simply because your stupid ines

>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ooo Errr... I quake in fear before my master !
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>A benefit is defined as something that improves the welfare of the
>>>>entity that receives the benefit. Do you dispute the definition?
>>>
>>>
>>>I dont see the point of picking that narrow an interpretation, or even
>>>selecting the word benefit to express the concept.
>>
>>So you dont really have any grounds for arguing,
>
>
> Hes referring to your obvious desperation Leif.

>Hes admitting he doesnt have any grounds for arguing, Fuckwit.

>I hope that helps. Fuckwit.

>In message
>writes
>>John Beardmore wrote in message
>>news:TWxLPXLBidoEFw4w@wookie.demon.co.uk...
>
>>>>A benefit is defined as something that improves the welfare of the
>>>>entity that receives the benefit. Do you dispute the definition?
>>>
>>> I dont see the point of picking that narrow an interpretation, or even
>>> selecting the word benefit to express the concept.
>>
>>To express which concept? We must be speaking about different topics.
>
>Well maybe. Perhaps you should define what is under discussion more
>closely. It seems to me that that the benefit / good / asset that is
>perceived to have arisen by an entity coming into existence is
>recognisable if slightly nebulous concept.
>
>
>>> It seems that by choosing one definition of one particular word you are
>>> putting your self in a position to play a data typing game which is huge
>>> fun but has no rigorous foundation and thus contributes little but a
>>> spurious veneer of linguistic gravitas to the discussion.
>>
>>The argument that gave rise to this discussion hinges on an equivocation on
>>the idea of benefit thats why its essential to define the word
>>rigorously. If you think its just a game of semantics then you are missing
>>the point.
>
>If the OP could have used another word just as well to represent what
>they mean, focussing on one meaning of the particular word they happen
>to have used is precisely the playing of a semantic game.

>>>> Do
>>>>you have one you think works better?
>>>
>>> See comments in my other posts.
>>
>>You dont.
>
>Well - so you say, though it still seems to me that you are getting
>very hung up on the notion that a benefit must always be relative to
>some prior state.
>
>That may suite some point you are trying to make, or some argument that
>you are trying to have,

>but it seems to shed little real light on the
>big picture what do we have for lunch issues.

> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 01:46:52 +0100, John Beardmore
> wrote:
>
>>In message
>>writes
>>>John Beardmore wrote in message
>>>news:TWxLPXLBidoEFw4w@wookie.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>>>>A benefit is defined as something that improves the welfare of the
>>>>>entity that receives the benefit. Do you dispute the definition?
>>>>
>>>> I dont see the point of picking that narrow an interpretation, or even
>>>> selecting the word benefit to express the concept.
>>>
>>>To express which concept? We must be speaking about different topics.
>>
>>Well maybe. Perhaps you should define what is under discussion more
>>closely. It seems to me that that the benefit / good / asset that is
>>perceived to have arisen by an entity coming into existence is
>>recognisable if slightly nebulous concept.
>>
>>
>>>> It seems that by choosing one definition of one particular word you are
>>>> putting your self in a position to play a data typing game which is
>>>> huge
>>>> fun but has no rigorous foundation and thus contributes little but a
>>>> spurious veneer of linguistic gravitas to the discussion.
>>>
>>>The argument that gave rise to this discussion hinges on an equivocation
>>>on
>>>the idea of benefit thats why its essential to define the word
>>>rigorously. If you think its just a game of semantics then you are
>>>missing
>>>the point.
>>
>>If the OP could have used another word just as well to represent what
>>they mean, focussing on one meaning of the particular word they happen
>>to have used is precisely the playing of a semantic game.
>
> I dont believe changing that one word would do anything

> except make
> them attack the new word. They arent arguing about terminology.

>They
> are trying to attack a fact, which is the reason for such desperation.

> They
> want to refute the fact that some farm animals have lives of positive
> value,

>Youre wrong, changing words does a lot. If someone said that animals
>getting to experience life is good, that would be a logical opinion. I
>might not agree with it, but at least its rational. Saying that life is a
>benefit is simply wrong.

>You are selling a particularly vile little form of a snake-oil sophistry
>called The Logic of the Larder, and its not selling.

> In message
> writes
>
>>Youre wrong, changing words does a lot. If someone said that animals
>>getting to experience life is good, that would be a logical opinion. I
>>might not agree with it, but at least its rational. Saying that life is a
>>benefit is simply wrong.
>
> Only if we accept the narrow definition you require of us.

>>You are selling a particularly vile little form of a snake-oil sophistry
>>called The Logic of the Larder, and its not selling.
>
> Actually, like it or not, meat still sells quite well around here !

>John Beardmore wrote in message
>news:Slh7DTtGCXpEFwTZ@wookie.demon.co.uk...
>> In message
>> writes

>>>Youre wrong, changing words does a lot. If someone said that animals
>>>getting to experience life is good, that would be a logical opinion. I
>>>might not agree with it, but at least its rational. Saying that life is a
>>>benefit is simply wrong.
>>
>> Only if we accept the narrow definition you require of us.
>
>Right, the one in all the dictionaries.

>>>You are selling a particularly vile little form of a snake-oil sophistry
>>>called The Logic of the Larder, and its not selling.
>>
>> Actually, like it or not, meat still sells quite well around here !
>
>I love meat, what I despise is the arrogant and self-serving notion that we
>are doing livestock a favour by allowing them to exist. Its vile sophistry.