 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
Dietary ethics
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:22:18 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On 9/10/2012 9:49 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:16:38 -0400, the following appeared >> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.: >> >>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:20:20 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:51:14 -0400, dh@. wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:58:55 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:05:32 -0400, the following appeared >>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:42:51 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:47:33 -0700, the following appeared >>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dutch >: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of >>>>>>>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Goo claims: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence" >>>>>>>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes >>>>>>>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> and I don't believe him. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Because you're an idiot. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober >>>>>>>>>> about that. Go: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the >>>>>>>>> lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit >>>>>>>>> requires an entity to receive it. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now let's all listen to the WHOOOSH! as that passes over his >>>>>>>> head (or maybe through it; the medium would be identical)... >>>>>> >>>>>>> LOL!!!! Maybe you think you can help team goober with this, and try to >>>>>>> explain what you think is preventing you from benefiting from your existence. >>>>>> >>>>>> Prediction confirmed >>>>> >>>>> You confirmed that you can't explain it just as the goos can't. You may not >>>>> even believe their claim yourself. If you do, explain how you think you can >>>>> continue to benefit after you lose the benefit of life. That's another one the >>>>> goos have never been able to attempt explaining. >>>> >>>> Nonexistent entities cannot receive "benefits"; it's as >>>> simple as that. >>> >>> You need to explain what you want people to think prevents you from >>> benefitting from your life now. >> >> No I don't. Since I exist nothing prevents me from deriving >> benefits from that existence. The issue is about nonexistent >> entities, which can derive no benefits; see, it says so >> right above your latest erroneous post. *Do* try to keep up, >> or at least to understand the original question. > >Technically, you benefit from events that occur *within* your existence: > getting adequate nutrition, enjoying the company of others, reading, >getting exercise, etc. No one benefits from existence itself. > >As you correctly note, one must exist prior to anything being a benefit. > A benefit, by definition, is something that improves the welfare of an >entity. The entity must already exist (and, obviously, have a welfare) >before anything can be of benefit to it. Goober what do you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life now? If you think it has something to do with before you existed, then you need to say WHAT specifically, and HOW. >As I've explained before, ****wit Harrison is trying to "defeat" >"vegans" (so-called "ethical vegetarians") and other adherents (more or >less) of "animal rights" who wish to see the cessation of livestock >husbandry as the only way not to violate the "rights" of livestock >animals. ****wit wants to pretend that by not wanting any more >livestock animals to live, "vegans" and "aras" are somehow advocating >the withholding of a "benefit" from "them" - that is, from animals that >don't exist. That's a lie Goober as I've pointed out countless times, and you only tell that particular lie because you know that appreciating lives of positive value for livestock works AGAINST elimination. You people want everyone to feel that elimination is ethically superior to providing decent AW Goo, and one of the ways you try to encourage the idea is by obsessing about "animals that don't exist" while refusing to consider those that have, do, and will. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
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. NOTHING in the text above is able to prevent them from doing so. You only WISH that it did, but nothing does. LOL.... This does make it clear why you and the Goober are so obsessed with non-existence even though you don't have any clue why you are though...LOL... You never did have any clue, but you're just parroting some bullshit written down by one of your heros a century ago or whatever. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:22:18 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >: >On 9/10/2012 9:49 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:16:38 -0400, the following appeared >> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.: >> >>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:20:20 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:51:14 -0400, dh@. wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:58:55 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:05:32 -0400, the following appeared >>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:42:51 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:47:33 -0700, the following appeared >>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dutch >: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of >>>>>>>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Goo claims: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence" >>>>>>>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes >>>>>>>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> and I don't believe him. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Because you're an idiot. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober >>>>>>>>>> about that. Go: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the >>>>>>>>> lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit >>>>>>>>> requires an entity to receive it. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now let's all listen to the WHOOOSH! as that passes over his >>>>>>>> head (or maybe through it; the medium would be identical)... >>>>>> >>>>>>> LOL!!!! Maybe you think you can help team goober with this, and try to >>>>>>> explain what you think is preventing you from benefiting from your existence. >>>>>> >>>>>> Prediction confirmed >>>>> >>>>> You confirmed that you can't explain it just as the goos can't. You may not >>>>> even believe their claim yourself. If you do, explain how you think you can >>>>> continue to benefit after you lose the benefit of life. That's another one the >>>>> goos have never been able to attempt explaining. >>>> >>>> Nonexistent entities cannot receive "benefits"; it's as >>>> simple as that. >>> >>> You need to explain what you want people to think prevents you from >>> benefitting from your life now. >> >> No I don't. Since I exist nothing prevents me from deriving >> benefits from that existence. The issue is about nonexistent >> entities, which can derive no benefits; see, it says so >> right above your latest erroneous post. *Do* try to keep up, >> or at least to understand the original question. > >Technically, you benefit from events that occur *within* your existence: > getting adequate nutrition, enjoying the company of others, reading, >getting exercise, etc. No one benefits from existence itself. Correct; existence only provides the conditions under which benefits can be realized. >As you correctly note, one must exist prior to anything being a benefit. > A benefit, by definition, is something that improves the welfare of an >entity. The entity must already exist (and, obviously, have a welfare) >before anything can be of benefit to it. > >As I've explained before, ****wit Harrison is trying to "defeat" >"vegans" (so-called "ethical vegetarians") and other adherents (more or >less) of "animal rights" who wish to see the cessation of livestock >husbandry as the only way not to violate the "rights" of livestock >animals. ****wit wants to pretend that by not wanting any more >livestock animals to live, "vegans" and "aras" are somehow advocating >the withholding of a "benefit" from "them" - that is, from animals that >don't exist. Quite obviously, that is illogical nonsense. Yeah, but don't expect him to understand that. And the animal rights groups are only a bit less irrational ("A pig is a rat is a dog is a boy"). -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:11:04 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.: >On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:49:42 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: > >>On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:16:38 -0400, dh@. wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:20:20 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:51:14 -0400, dh@. wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:58:55 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:05:32 -0400, the following appeared >>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:42:51 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:47:33 -0700, the following appeared >>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Dutch >: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>dh@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of >>>>>>>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Goo claims: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence" >>>>>>>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes >>>>>>>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> and I don't believe him. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Because you're an idiot. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober >>>>>>>>>> about that. Go: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the >>>>>>>>>lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit >>>>>>>>>requires an entity to receive it. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>Now let's all listen to the WHOOOSH! as that passes over his >>>>>>>>head (or maybe through it; the medium would be identical)... >>>>>> >>>>>>> LOL!!!! Maybe you think you can help team goober with this, and try to >>>>>>>explain what you think is preventing you from benefiting from your existence. >>>>>> >>>>>>Prediction confirmed >>>>> >>>>> You confirmed that you can't explain it just as the goos can't. You may not >>>>>even believe their claim yourself. If you do, explain how you think you can >>>>>continue to benefit after you lose the benefit of life. That's another one the >>>>>goos have never been able to attempt explaining. >>>> >>>>Nonexistent entities cannot receive "benefits"; it's as >>>>simple as that. >>> >>> You need to explain what you want people to think prevents you from >>>benefitting from your life now. If you want them to think it has something to do >>>with your pre-existent state as you suggested then you need to explain WHAT >>>about your pre-existent state is preventing you now and HOW it's doing so. But >>>you can't do it as you've already shown, and the goos can't do it as they have >>>show, so at this point it STILL appears that you're benefitting from your life. >>>Since you can't say what's preventing you from benefitting now, your only other >>>way of possibly showing life is not a benefit would be if you could explain how >>>you think you can continue benefitting from anything after you're no longer >>>alive. You can't do that either though. You can't do anything except make a >>>claim you can't back up. Goo lied to you and you believe him, >> >>No I don't. Since I exist nothing prevents me from deriving >>benefits from that existence. The issue is about nonexistent >>entities, which can derive no benefits; > > LOL!!! To YOU and to GOO it's about some pre-existent state but as I keep >pointing out you can't say what it is about your pre-existence that prevents >you, OR BILLIONS OF LIVESTOCK ANIMALS, from benefitting from life. You persist in conflating existing life with nonexistent life, but your inability to think is no one's problem but yours. Living things (such as Dutch and myself) can derive benefits because of that state, while nonliving things cannot, no benefits being available to that which doesn't exist. >>see, it says so >>right above your latest erroneous post. *Do* try to keep up, >>or at least to understand the original question. > > WE are discussing animals that exist and will exist. You and the Goober are >also very worried about.....whatever pre-existence issues you both have. It's that "will exist" that's the issue, and the fact that you're unable to understand the difference is the root of your problem. And I'm not worried about anything beyond the fact that you may be authorized to vote and to drive a car, both of which require critical thinking of which you're incapable, and both of which have the potential to affect others in negative ways. <snip (additional) idiocies> -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of >>>>>>>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Goo claims: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence" >>>>>>>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes >>>>>>>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> and I don't believe him. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Because you're an idiot. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober >>>>>>>>>> about that. Go: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the >>>>>>>>> lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit >>>>>>>>> requires an entity to receive it. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now let's all listen to the WHOOOSH! as that passes over his >>>>>>>> head (or maybe through it; the medium would be identical)... >>>>>> >>>>>>> LOL!!!! Maybe you think you can help team goober with this, and try to >>>>>>> explain what you think is preventing you from benefiting from your existence. >>>>>> >>>>>> Prediction confirmed >>>>> >>>>> You confirmed that you can't explain it just as the goos can't. You may not >>>>> even believe their claim yourself. If you do, explain how you think you can >>>>> continue to benefit after you lose the benefit of life. That's another one the >>>>> goos have never been able to attempt explaining. >>>> >>>> Nonexistent entities cannot receive "benefits"; it's as >>>> simple as that. >>> >>> You need to explain what you want people to think prevents you from >>> benefitting from your life now. >> >> No I don't. Since I exist nothing prevents me from deriving >> benefits from that existence. The issue is about nonexistent >> entities, which can derive no benefits; > > LOL!!! To YOU and to GOO it's about some pre-existent state but No, to *you*, ****wit, it's about non-existent entities somehow being able to benefit from something - which is impossible. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Goo claims: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence" >>>>>>>>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes >>>>>>>>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and I don't believe him. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Because you're an idiot. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober >>>>>>>>>>> about that. Go: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the >>>>>>>>>> lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit >>>>>>>>>> requires an entity to receive it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now let's all listen to the WHOOOSH! as that passes over his >>>>>>>>> head (or maybe through it; the medium would be identical)... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> LOL!!!! Maybe you think you can help team goober with this, and try to >>>>>>>> explain what you think is preventing you from benefiting from your existence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Prediction confirmed >>>>>> >>>>>> You confirmed that you can't explain it just as the goos can't. You may not >>>>>> even believe their claim yourself. If you do, explain how you think you can >>>>>> continue to benefit after you lose the benefit of life. That's another one the >>>>>> goos have never been able to attempt explaining. >>>>> >>>>> Nonexistent entities cannot receive "benefits"; it's as >>>>> simple as that. >>>> >>>> You need to explain what you want people to think prevents you from >>>> benefitting from your life now. >>> >>> No I don't. Since I exist nothing prevents me from deriving >>> benefits from that existence. The issue is about nonexistent >>> entities, which can derive no benefits; see, it says so >>> right above your latest erroneous post. *Do* try to keep up, >>> or at least to understand the original question. >> >> Technically, you benefit from events that occur *within* your existence: >> getting adequate nutrition, enjoying the company of others, reading, >> getting exercise, etc. No one benefits from existence itself. >> >> As you correctly note, one must exist prior to anything being a benefit. >> A benefit, by definition, is something that improves the welfare of an >> entity. The entity must already exist (and, obviously, have a welfare) >> before anything can be of benefit to it. > > what do you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life > now? Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit. It cannot be: it does not improve an entity's welfare, and such a welfare improvement is the definition of benefit. >> As I've explained before, ****wit Harrison is trying to "defeat" >> "vegans" (so-called "ethical vegetarians") and other adherents (more or >> less) of "animal rights" who wish to see the cessation of livestock >> husbandry as the only way not to violate the "rights" of livestock >> animals. ****wit wants to pretend that by not wanting any more >> livestock animals to live, "vegans" and "aras" are somehow advocating >> the withholding of a "benefit" from "them" - that is, from animals that >> don't exist. > > That's a lie No, it is not. > as I've pointed out countless times, and It isn't a lie. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 9/11/2012 8:26 AM, 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. No, you don't. They don't benefit from their lives - they benefit (or don't) from things that happen to them. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 9/11/2012 9:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:22:18 -0700, the following appeared > in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >: > >> On 9/10/2012 9:49 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:16:38 -0400, the following appeared >>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.: >>> >>>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:20:20 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:51:14 -0400, dh@. wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:58:55 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:05:32 -0400, the following appeared >>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:42:51 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:47:33 -0700, the following appeared >>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dutch >: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Goo claims: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence" >>>>>>>>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes >>>>>>>>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and I don't believe him. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Because you're an idiot. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober >>>>>>>>>>> about that. Go: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the >>>>>>>>>> lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit >>>>>>>>>> requires an entity to receive it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now let's all listen to the WHOOOSH! as that passes over his >>>>>>>>> head (or maybe through it; the medium would be identical)... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> LOL!!!! Maybe you think you can help team goober with this, and try to >>>>>>>> explain what you think is preventing you from benefiting from your existence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Prediction confirmed >>>>>> >>>>>> You confirmed that you can't explain it just as the goos can't. You may not >>>>>> even believe their claim yourself. If you do, explain how you think you can >>>>>> continue to benefit after you lose the benefit of life. That's another one the >>>>>> goos have never been able to attempt explaining. >>>>> >>>>> Nonexistent entities cannot receive "benefits"; it's as >>>>> simple as that. >>>> >>>> You need to explain what you want people to think prevents you from >>>> benefitting from your life now. >>> >>> No I don't. Since I exist nothing prevents me from deriving >>> benefits from that existence. The issue is about nonexistent >>> entities, which can derive no benefits; see, it says so >>> right above your latest erroneous post. *Do* try to keep up, >>> or at least to understand the original question. >> >> Technically, you benefit from events that occur *within* your existence: >> getting adequate nutrition, enjoying the company of others, reading, >> getting exercise, etc. No one benefits from existence itself. > > Correct; existence only provides the conditions under which > benefits can be realized. Exactly right. It is a prerequisite for benefits, not a benefit itself. > >> As you correctly note, one must exist prior to anything being a benefit. >> A benefit, by definition, is something that improves the welfare of an >> entity. The entity must already exist (and, obviously, have a welfare) >> before anything can be of benefit to it. >> >> As I've explained before, ****wit Harrison is trying to "defeat" >> "vegans" (so-called "ethical vegetarians") and other adherents (more or >> less) of "animal rights" who wish to see the cessation of livestock >> husbandry as the only way not to violate the "rights" of livestock >> animals. ****wit wants to pretend that by not wanting any more >> livestock animals to live, "vegans" and "aras" are somehow advocating >> the withholding of a "benefit" from "them" - that is, from animals that >> don't exist. Quite obviously, that is illogical nonsense. > > Yeah, but don't expect him to understand that. I think he does understand it, actually. Unfortunately, he really is a person of wretchedly low character, and trolling Usenet with long-discredited arguments is simply a form of amusement to him. > And the > animal rights groups are only a bit less irrational ("A pig > is a rat is a dog is a boy"). My first experience with Usenet was right here in a.a.e.v. (and what was then a virtual mirror newsgroup, talk.politics.animals) fighting the irrational "animal rights" nuts. ****wit David Harrison deludes himself into thinking he came up with an irrefutable argument against them, but it was just this same irrational "getting to experience life" crap. He's been at it for 13 years, and that's how long I've been slapping him. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
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, they benefit from good treatment. They may *have* good lives, some of them, although not many these days, but they don't "benefit from" good lives, that's incorrect, and nonsense. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:21:39 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:11:04 -0400, the following appeared >in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.: > >>On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:49:42 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:16:38 -0400, dh@. wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:20:20 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:51:14 -0400, dh@. wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:58:55 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:05:32 -0400, the following appeared >>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:42:51 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:47:33 -0700, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Dutch >: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>dh@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Goo claims: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence" >>>>>>>>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes >>>>>>>>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and I don't believe him. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Because you're an idiot. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober >>>>>>>>>>> about that. Go: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the >>>>>>>>>>lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit >>>>>>>>>>requires an entity to receive it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Now let's all listen to the WHOOOSH! as that passes over his >>>>>>>>>head (or maybe through it; the medium would be identical)... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> LOL!!!! Maybe you think you can help team goober with this, and try to >>>>>>>>explain what you think is preventing you from benefiting from your existence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Prediction confirmed >>>>>> >>>>>> You confirmed that you can't explain it just as the goos can't. You may not >>>>>>even believe their claim yourself. If you do, explain how you think you can >>>>>>continue to benefit after you lose the benefit of life. That's another one the >>>>>>goos have never been able to attempt explaining. >>>>> >>>>>Nonexistent entities cannot receive "benefits"; it's as >>>>>simple as that. >>>> >>>> You need to explain what you want people to think prevents you from >>>>benefitting from your life now. If you want them to think it has something to do >>>>with your pre-existent state as you suggested then you need to explain WHAT >>>>about your pre-existent state is preventing you now and HOW it's doing so. But >>>>you can't do it as you've already shown, and the goos can't do it as they have >>>>show, so at this point it STILL appears that you're benefitting from your life. >>>>Since you can't say what's preventing you from benefitting now, your only other >>>>way of possibly showing life is not a benefit would be if you could explain how >>>>you think you can continue benefitting from anything after you're no longer >>>>alive. You can't do that either though. You can't do anything except make a >>>>claim you can't back up. Goo lied to you and you believe him, >>> >>>No I don't. Since I exist nothing prevents me from deriving >>>benefits from that existence. The issue is about nonexistent >>>entities, which can derive no benefits; >> >> LOL!!! To YOU and to GOO it's about some pre-existent state but as I keep >>pointing out you can't say what it is about your pre-existence that prevents >>you, OR BILLIONS OF LIVESTOCK ANIMALS, from benefitting from life. > >You persist in conflating existing life with nonexistent >life, Many animals appear to benefit from lives of positive value REGARDLESS of anything to do with pre-existence. >but your inability to think is no one's problem but >yours. Living things (such as Dutch and myself) can derive >benefits because of that state, while nonliving things >cannot, no benefits being available to that which doesn't >exist. > >>>see, it says so >>>right above your latest erroneous post. *Do* try to keep up, >>>or at least to understand the original question. >> >> WE are discussing animals that exist and will exist. You and the Goober are >>also very worried about.....whatever pre-existence issues you both have. > >It's that "will exist" that's the issue 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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:23:17 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:19:05 -0400, dh@. wrote: > >>On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:22:18 -0700, Goo wrote: >> >>>On 9/10/2012 9:49 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:16:38 -0400, the following appeared >>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:20:20 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:51:14 -0400, dh@. wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:58:55 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:05:32 -0400, the following appeared >>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:42:51 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:47:33 -0700, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dutch >: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Goo claims: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I don't believe him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you're an idiot. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober >>>>>>>>>>>> about that. Go: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the >>>>>>>>>>> lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit >>>>>>>>>>> requires an entity to receive it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now let's all listen to the WHOOOSH! as that passes over his >>>>>>>>>> head (or maybe through it; the medium would be identical)... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> LOL!!!! Maybe you think you can help team goober with this, and try to >>>>>>>>> explain what you think is preventing you from benefiting from your existence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Prediction confirmed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You confirmed that you can't explain it just as the goos can't. You may not >>>>>>> even believe their claim yourself. If you do, explain how you think you can >>>>>>> continue to benefit after you lose the benefit of life. That's another one the >>>>>>> goos have never been able to attempt explaining. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nonexistent entities cannot receive "benefits"; it's as >>>>>> simple as that. >>>>> >>>>> You need to explain what you want people to think prevents you from >>>>> benefitting from your life now. >>>> >>>> No I don't. Since I exist nothing prevents me from deriving >>>> benefits from that existence. The issue is about nonexistent >>>> entities, which can derive no benefits; see, it says so >>>> right above your latest erroneous post. *Do* try to keep up, >>>> or at least to understand the original question. >>> >>>Technically, you benefit from events that occur *within* your existence: >>> getting adequate nutrition, enjoying the company of others, reading, >>>getting exercise, etc. No one benefits from existence itself. >>> >>>As you correctly note, one must exist prior to anything being a benefit. >>> A benefit, by definition, is something that improves the welfare of an >>>entity. The entity must already exist (and, obviously, have a welfare) >>>before anything can be of benefit to it. >> >> Goober what do you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life >>now? If you think it has something to do with before you existed, then you need >>to say WHAT specifically, and HOW. > >Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit. > It cannot be: it does not improve an entity's welfare, and such a >welfare improvement is the definition of benefit. How do you think that prevents you from benefitting now Goob? >>>As I've explained before, ****wit Harrison is trying to "defeat" >>>"vegans" (so-called "ethical vegetarians") and other adherents (more or >>>less) of "animal rights" who wish to see the cessation of livestock >>>husbandry as the only way not to violate the "rights" of livestock >>>animals. ****wit wants to pretend that by not wanting any more >>>livestock animals to live, "vegans" and "aras" are somehow advocating >>>the withholding of a "benefit" from "them" - that is, from animals that >>>don't exist. >> >> That's a lie Goober as I've pointed out countless times, and you only tell >>that particular lie because you know that appreciating lives of positive value >>for livestock works AGAINST elimination. You people want everyone to feel that >>elimination is ethically superior to providing decent AW Goo, and one of the >>ways you try to encourage the idea is by obsessing about "animals that don't >>exist" while refusing to consider those that have, do, and will. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On Sep 11, 11:24*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 9/11/2012 8:26 AM, 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. > > No, you don't. *They don't benefit from their lives - they benefit (or > don't) from things that happen to them. like when they're born into existence? That's something that "happens to them" isn't it, Goo? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 9/12/2012 12:19 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:21:39 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: > >> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:11:04 -0400, the following appeared >> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.: >> >>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:49:42 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:16:38 -0400, dh@. wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:20:20 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:51:14 -0400, dh@. wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:58:55 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:05:32 -0400, the following appeared >>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:42:51 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:47:33 -0700, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dutch >: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Goo claims: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I don't believe him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you're an idiot. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober >>>>>>>>>>>> about that. Go: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the >>>>>>>>>>> lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit >>>>>>>>>>> requires an entity to receive it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now let's all listen to the WHOOOSH! as that passes over his >>>>>>>>>> head (or maybe through it; the medium would be identical)... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> LOL!!!! Maybe you think you can help team goober with this, and try to >>>>>>>>> explain what you think is preventing you from benefiting from your existence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Prediction confirmed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You confirmed that you can't explain it just as the goos can't. You may not >>>>>>> even believe their claim yourself. If you do, explain how you think you can >>>>>>> continue to benefit after you lose the benefit of life. That's another one the >>>>>>> goos have never been able to attempt explaining. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nonexistent entities cannot receive "benefits"; it's as >>>>>> simple as that. >>>>> >>>>> You need to explain what you want people to think prevents you from >>>>> benefitting from your life now. If you want them to think it has something to do >>>>> with your pre-existent state as you suggested then you need to explain WHAT >>>>> about your pre-existent state is preventing you now and HOW it's doing so. But >>>>> you can't do it as you've already shown, and the goos can't do it as they have >>>>> show, so at this point it STILL appears that you're benefitting from your life. >>>>> Since you can't say what's preventing you from benefitting now, your only other >>>>> way of possibly showing life is not a benefit would be if you could explain how >>>>> you think you can continue benefitting from anything after you're no longer >>>>> alive. You can't do that either though. You can't do anything except make a >>>>> claim you can't back up. Goo lied to you and you believe him, >>>> >>>> No I don't. Since I exist nothing prevents me from deriving >>>> benefits from that existence. The issue is about nonexistent >>>> entities, which can derive no benefits; >>> >>> LOL!!! To YOU and to GOO it's about some pre-existent state but as I keep >>> pointing out you can't say what it is about your pre-existence that prevents >>> you, OR BILLIONS OF LIVESTOCK ANIMALS, from benefitting from life. >> >> You persist in conflating existing life with nonexistent >> life, > > Many animals appear to benefit from lives of No. They don't benefit from existing, and they don't appear to benefit from existing. > >> but your inability to think is no one's problem but >> yours. Living things (such as Dutch and myself) can derive >> benefits because of that state, while nonliving things >> cannot, no benefits being available to that which doesn't >> exist. >> >>>> see, it says so >>>> right above your latest erroneous post. *Do* try to keep up, >>>> or at least to understand the original question. >>> >>> WE are discussing animals that exist and will exist. You and the Goober are >>> also very worried about.....whatever pre-existence issues you both have. >> >> It's that "will exist" that's the issue, and the fact that >> you're unable to understand the difference is the root of >> your problem. And I'm not worried about anything beyond the >> fact that you may be authorized to vote and to drive a car, >> both of which require critical thinking of which you're >> incapable, and both of which have the potential to affect >> others in negative ways. > > then you need to explain what you think prevents you from benefitting > from your life He has explained to you that life cannot be a benefit, Goo. Therefore, Goo - Goober ****wit Harrison - what "prevents" him, and any other entity, from benefiting from existence is the definition of the word "benefit". It absolutely precludes the possibility of existence being a benefit, ****wit. Done. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied again:
>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 don't, ****wit. They can't. It's impossible, by the very definition of benefit. >> they benefit from good treatment. They may *have* good >> lives, some of them, although not many these days, > > You have no idea. He does, ****wit, because he cares enough to be informed about animal welfare. You don't care - you've told us many times. >> but they don't >> "benefit from" good lives, > > They certainly appear to, No, they absolutely do not appear to, ****wit. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied again:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Goo claims: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I don't believe him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you're an idiot. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober >>>>>>>>>>>>> about that. Go: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the >>>>>>>>>>>> lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit >>>>>>>>>>>> requires an entity to receive it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now let's all listen to the WHOOOSH! as that passes over his >>>>>>>>>>> head (or maybe through it; the medium would be identical)... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> LOL!!!! Maybe you think you can help team goober with this, and try to >>>>>>>>>> explain what you think is preventing you from benefiting from your existence. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Prediction confirmed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You confirmed that you can't explain it just as the goos can't. You may not >>>>>>>> even believe their claim yourself. If you do, explain how you think you can >>>>>>>> continue to benefit after you lose the benefit of life. That's another one the >>>>>>>> goos have never been able to attempt explaining. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nonexistent entities cannot receive "benefits"; it's as >>>>>>> simple as that. >>>>>> >>>>>> You need to explain what you want people to think prevents you from >>>>>> benefitting from your life now. >>>>> >>>>> No I don't. Since I exist nothing prevents me from deriving >>>>> benefits from that existence. The issue is about nonexistent >>>>> entities, which can derive no benefits; see, it says so >>>>> right above your latest erroneous post. *Do* try to keep up, >>>>> or at least to understand the original question. >>>> >>>> Technically, you benefit from events that occur *within* your existence: >>>> getting adequate nutrition, enjoying the company of others, reading, >>>> getting exercise, etc. No one benefits from existence itself. >>>> >>>> As you correctly note, one must exist prior to anything being a benefit. >>>> A benefit, by definition, is something that improves the welfare of an >>>> entity. The entity must already exist (and, obviously, have a welfare) >>>> before anything can be of benefit to it. >>> >>> Goober what do you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life >>> now? If you think it has something to do with before you existed, then you need >>> to say WHAT specifically, and HOW. >> >> Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit. >> It cannot be: it does not improve an entity's welfare, and such a >> welfare improvement is the definition of benefit. > > How do you think that prevents By definition, ****wit - by definition. It's the same way that the definition of "grandmother" prevented your grandmother from being your grandfather. This is elementary, ****wit. Everyone gets it. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
dh@. wrote:
>> but they don't >> "benefit from" good lives, > They certainly appear to, No they don't, that's bullshit rhetoric, another one of your transparent equivocations, like "having consideration" for the lives of animals. Man, you must take us for real chumps to think we'll buy this garbage. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:19:39 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.: >On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:21:39 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: > >>On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:11:04 -0400, the following appeared >>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.: >> >>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:49:42 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:16:38 -0400, dh@. wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:20:20 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:51:14 -0400, dh@. wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:58:55 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:05:32 -0400, the following appeared >>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:42:51 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:47:33 -0700, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Dutch >: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>dh@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Goo claims: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I don't believe him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you're an idiot. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober >>>>>>>>>>>> about that. Go: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the >>>>>>>>>>>lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit >>>>>>>>>>>requires an entity to receive it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Now let's all listen to the WHOOOSH! as that passes over his >>>>>>>>>>head (or maybe through it; the medium would be identical)... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> LOL!!!! Maybe you think you can help team goober with this, and try to >>>>>>>>>explain what you think is preventing you from benefiting from your existence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Prediction confirmed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You confirmed that you can't explain it just as the goos can't. You may not >>>>>>>even believe their claim yourself. If you do, explain how you think you can >>>>>>>continue to benefit after you lose the benefit of life. That's another one the >>>>>>>goos have never been able to attempt explaining. >>>>>> >>>>>>Nonexistent entities cannot receive "benefits"; it's as >>>>>>simple as that. >>>>> >>>>> You need to explain what you want people to think prevents you from >>>>>benefitting from your life now. If you want them to think it has something to do >>>>>with your pre-existent state as you suggested then you need to explain WHAT >>>>>about your pre-existent state is preventing you now and HOW it's doing so. But >>>>>you can't do it as you've already shown, and the goos can't do it as they have >>>>>show, so at this point it STILL appears that you're benefitting from your life. >>>>>Since you can't say what's preventing you from benefitting now, your only other >>>>>way of possibly showing life is not a benefit would be if you could explain how >>>>>you think you can continue benefitting from anything after you're no longer >>>>>alive. You can't do that either though. You can't do anything except make a >>>>>claim you can't back up. Goo lied to you and you believe him, >>>> >>>>No I don't. Since I exist nothing prevents me from deriving >>>>benefits from that existence. The issue is about nonexistent >>>>entities, which can derive no benefits; >>> >>> LOL!!! To YOU and to GOO it's about some pre-existent state but as I keep >>>pointing out you can't say what it is about your pre-existence that prevents >>>you, OR BILLIONS OF LIVESTOCK ANIMALS, from benefitting from life. >> >>You persist in conflating existing life with nonexistent >>life, > > Many animals appear to benefit from lives of positive value REGARDLESS of >anything to do with pre-existence. > >>but your inability to think is no one's problem but >>yours. Living things (such as Dutch and myself) can derive >>benefits because of that state, while nonliving things >>cannot, no benefits being available to that which doesn't >>exist. Still can't get this, can you? >>>>see, it says so >>>>right above your latest erroneous post. *Do* try to keep up, >>>>or at least to understand the original question. >>> WE are discussing animals that exist and will exist. You and the Goober are >>>also very worried about.....whatever pre-existence issues you both have. >>It's that "will exist" that's the issue, and the fact that >>you're unable to understand the difference is the root of >>your problem. And I'm not worried about anything beyond the >>fact that you may be authorized to vote and to drive a car, >>both of which require critical thinking of which you're >>incapable, and both of which have the potential to affect >>others in negative ways. > 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. -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
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@.: <snip lots of stuff with dh not getting basic definitions> >> 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. Brian of Norway! Where have you gone! We could all use your voice in this sea of insanity. Until Graham gets back, that is. At this point, even the Insane Lying Nazi (aka Zook the Kook) would be entertaining. For a little while. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
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@.: <snip lots of stuff with dh not getting basic definitions> >> 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. Brian of Norway! Where have you gone! We could all use your voice in this sea of insanity. Until Graham gets back, that is. At this point, even the Insane Lying Nazi (aka Zook the Kook) would be entertaining. For a little while. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
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@.: <snip lots of stuff with dh not getting basic definitions> >> 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. Brian of Norway! Where have you gone! We could all use your voice in this sea of insanity. Until Graham gets back, that is. At this point, even the Insane Lying Nazi (aka Zook the Kook) would be entertaining. For a little while. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
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@.: <snip lots of stuff with dh not getting basic definitions> >> 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. Brian of Norway! Where have you gone! We could all use your voice in this sea of insanity. Until Graham gets back, that is. At this point, even the Insane Lying Nazi (aka Zook the Kook) would be entertaining. For a little while. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:07:07 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BruceS >: >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@.: ><snip lots of stuff with dh not getting basic definitions> >>> 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. DH is apparently an actual idiot; BroilJAB is just a troll and a moron, if that's not redundant. It's worth trying to educate the former, but BJ rates nothing but snarky one-liners, if anything. And BTW, your newsreader is stuttering... ;-) >Brian of Norway! Where have you gone! We could all use your voice in >this sea of insanity. Until Graham gets back, that is. At this point, >even the Insane Lying Nazi (aka Zook the Kook) would be entertaining. >For a little while. -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 09:09:41 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
<snip> > And BTW, your newsreader is stuttering... ;-) Stuttering? What do you mean? I haven't seen anything odd with it. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
BruceS wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 09:09:41 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote: > <snip> >> And BTW, your newsreader is stuttering... ;-) > > Stuttering? What do you mean? I haven't seen anything odd with it. > The same message appeared three times. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 9/15/2012 10:56 AM, BruceS wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 09:09:41 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote: > <snip> >> And BTW, your newsreader is stuttering... ;-) > > Stuttering? What do you mean? I haven't seen anything odd with it. You mean other than posting the same thing four times? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:10:51 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 9/15/2012 10:56 AM, BruceS wrote: >> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 09:09:41 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote: >> <snip> >>> And BTW, your newsreader is stuttering... ;-) >> >> Stuttering? What do you mean? I haven't seen anything odd with it. > > You mean other than posting the same thing four times? Wow, thanks, Bob, George, and Dutch. I didn't notice it doing that. Now I'll have to go through other posts, and see if it's doing the same thing. I'm using Pan on Fedora. That's supposed to be a fairly solid newsreader. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
BruceS wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:10:51 -0700, George Plimpton wrote: > >> On 9/15/2012 10:56 AM, BruceS wrote: >>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 09:09:41 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote: >>> <snip> >>>> And BTW, your newsreader is stuttering... ;-) >>> >>> Stuttering? What do you mean? I haven't seen anything odd with it. >> >> You mean other than posting the same thing four times? > > Wow, thanks, Bob, George, and Dutch. I didn't notice it doing that. Now > I'll have to go through other posts, and see if it's doing the same > thing. I'm using Pan on Fedora. That's supposed to be a fairly solid > newsreader. > It might not be anything you did. I've seen a few instances of it in the past few days. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 17:56:17 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BruceS >: >On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 09:09:41 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote: ><snip> >> And BTW, your newsreader is stuttering... ;-) > >Stuttering? What do you mean? I haven't seen anything odd with it. 4 copies of the same post. -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 15:09:29 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Dutch >: >BruceS wrote: >> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:10:51 -0700, George Plimpton wrote: >> >>> On 9/15/2012 10:56 AM, BruceS wrote: >>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 09:09:41 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>>> And BTW, your newsreader is stuttering... ;-) >>>> >>>> Stuttering? What do you mean? I haven't seen anything odd with it. >>> >>> You mean other than posting the same thing four times? >> >> Wow, thanks, Bob, George, and Dutch. I didn't notice it doing that. Now >> I'll have to go through other posts, and see if it's doing the same >> thing. I'm using Pan on Fedora. That's supposed to be a fairly solid >> newsreader. >> > >It might not be anything you did. I've seen a few instances of it in the >past few days. I see it (occasionally) fairly regularly. I suspect it's actually caused by the server. -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:42:24 -0700, Goo desperately puled:
>On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:24:08 -0400, dh@. wrote > >>On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:23:17 -0700, Goo wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:19:05 -0400, dh@. wrote: >>> >>>> Goober what do you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life >>>>now? If you think it has something to do with before you existed, then you need >>>>to say WHAT specifically, and HOW. >>> >>>Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit. >>> It cannot be: it does not improve an entity's welfare, and such a >>>welfare improvement is the definition of benefit. >> >> How do you think that prevents you from benefitting now Goob? > >By definition How do you think the definition of benefit prevents you from benefitting now Goob? Try to explain it without mentioning pre-existence, Goo. You can't. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 16:24:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:19:39 -0400, the following appeared >in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.: > >>On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:21:39 -0700, Goo wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:11:04 -0400, the following appeared >>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.: >>> >>>> WE are discussing animals that exist and will exist. You and the Goober are >>>>also very worried about.....whatever pre-existence issues you both have. > >>>It's that "will exist" that's the issue, and the fact that >>>you're unable to understand the difference is the root of >>>your problem. And I'm not worried about anything beyond the >>>fact that you may be authorized to vote and to drive a car, >>>both of which require critical thinking of which you're >>>incapable, and both of which have the potential to affect >>>others in negative ways. > >> 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 You've proven that you not only have no clue, but also that you can't even pretend you do. My guess at this point is that you've once again revealed yourself pretending to be a different person, Goo. Even pretending to be someone else again you STILL can't pretend to explain what you want people to think prevents you from benefitting from your existence now. LOL...what a Goober. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
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@.: ><snip lots of stuff with dh not getting basic definitions> >>> 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? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
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. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon and defeated, lied:
>>>> >>>>> what do you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life >>>> >>>> Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit. >>>> It cannot be: it does not improve an entity's welfare, and such a >>>> welfare improvement is the definition of benefit. >>> >>> How do you think that prevents you from benefitting now >> >> By definition, ****wit - by definition. It's the same way that the definition >> of "grandmother" prevented your grandmother from being your grandfather. >> >> This is elementary, ****wit. Everyone gets it. > > How do you think the definition of benefit prevents you from benefitting I've explained that, ****wit. Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - does not improve an entity's welfare, ****wit. Therefore, ****wit, it isn't a benefit: QED |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon and defeated, lied:
>>>> >>>>> WE are discussing animals that exist and will exist. You and the Goober are >>>>> also very worried about.....whatever pre-existence issues you both have. >> >>>> It's that "will exist" that's the issue, and the fact that >>>> you're unable to understand the difference is the root of >>>> your problem. And I'm not worried about anything beyond the >>>> fact that you may be authorized to vote and to drive a car, >>>> both of which require critical thinking of which you're >>>> incapable, and both of which have the potential to affect >>>> others in negative ways. >> >>> 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. > > You've proven that He beat you, Goo. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
****wit David Harrison - Goo - a convicted felon and thoroughly beaten,
lied: > 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@.: >> <snip lots of stuff with dh not getting basic definitions> >>>> 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 No, we have *proved* that it isn't, Goo. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On 9/16/2012 3:31 PM, dh@. wrote:
> 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 It has been proved beyond dispute. Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit. It *cannot* be one. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
dh@. wrote:
> 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. My life *is* me. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dietary ethics
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 16:07:29 -0700, Goo desperately, feebly puled:
>On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 18:30:22 -0400, dh@. wrote: > >>On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:42:24 -0700, Goo desperately puled: >> >>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:24:08 -0400, dh@. wrote >>> >>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:23:17 -0700, Goo wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:19:05 -0400, dh@. wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Goober what do you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life >>>>>>now? If you think it has something to do with before you existed, then you need >>>>>>to say WHAT specifically, and HOW. >>>>> >>>>>Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit. >>>>> It cannot be: it does not improve an entity's welfare, and such a >>>>>welfare improvement is the definition of benefit. >>>> >>>> How do you think that prevents you from benefitting now Goob? >>> >>>By definition >> >> How do you think the definition of benefit prevents you from benefitting now >>Goob? Try to explain it without mentioning pre-existence, Goo. You can't. > >Coming into existence - "getting to >experience life" - does not improve an entity's welfare How do you think that's preventing you from benefitting now Goob? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Dietary ethics | Vegan | |||
| Dietary Question | General Cooking | |||
| Attitudes toward dietary adversity | General Cooking | |||
| Cocoa (dietary) and UV photoprotection | Chocolate | |||
| Dietary Guidelines for Diabetics | Diabetic | |||
Linear Mode
