www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 02:07:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:40:14 GMT, ipse dixit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:21:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:24:02 GMT, ipse dixit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:09:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:58 GMT, ipse dixit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:32:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:14:54 GMT, ipse dixit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 17:14:43 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 04:40:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>> > All you have to do is show how something can benefit if it's not
>>>>>>>>>> >alive. If life isn't a benefit, providing an example of how something
>>>>>>>>>> >that doesn't have life can benefit shouldn't be an impossible task.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> 1) if life is a benefit, we experienced a loss prior to being born
>>>>>>>>>> 2) we cannot experience a loss prior to being born
>>>>>>>>>> therefore
>>>>>>>>>> 3) life is not a benefit
>>>>>>>>>> or in contradiction to (3)
>>>>>>>>>> 4) life is a benefit
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If (1) and (4) are true, we experienced a loss prior to
>>>>>>>>>> being born because life is a benefit, but (2) says we
>>>>>>>>>> cannot experience a loss prior to being born, so (1), (2),
>>>>>>>>>> and (4) amount to a contradiction because they cannot
>>>>>>>>>> all be true. But, if (1) and (2) are true, (4) would be false,
>>>>>>>>>> meaning life is not a benefit. This proves that the original
>>>>>>>>>> conclusion (3) follows from (1) and (2), and is a valid
>>>>>>>>>> conclusion from those premises. If you disagree with (3)
>>>>>>>>>> you must also find a fault in one of the premises.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You call that convoluted mess logic?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's miles beyond your capabilities to understand
>>>>>>>>and a whole light year beyond your capabilities to
>>>>>>>>produce anything similar in refutation to Harrison's
>>>>>>>>argument, which is why you've had to rely on Jon's
>>>>>>>>lead all this time,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gonad relys on insisting that nothing has ever
>>>>>>>benefitted from anything, unless it's capable of
>>>>>>>understanding the concept of benefit. It's as bad
>>>>>>>as the false equation that you invented.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you suggesting Jonathan is relying on something
>>>>>>I invented?
>>>>>
>>>>> What would make you think I suggest that?
>>>>>
>>>>Because his argument as you described it
>>>>isn't his, so if it's as bad as the false equation
>>>>you claim I'm using, then the chances are you
>>>>probably think he's using something I invented.
>>>
>>> Don't jump to conclusions like that. But he does
>>>that same thing all the time. For all I know you're
>>>just another character the Gonad is playing.
>>>
>>Now THAT could be true if you look at it the
>>right way. I'm not Jon, and "firstoftwins" can
>>vouch for that, but I could never guarantee you
>>I'm not "just another character the Gonad
>>is *playing.*", like a chess piece for instance.
>>Don't you ever get that feeling you've been
>>manoeuvred during some of your discussions
>>with him?
>
> I know that he tries to get me to make mistakes
>and write things that I don't really believe. Of course
>the question still remains, as it has for years now:
>Why does he want people to think I believe things
>that I don't?
I don't think he gives much thought at all to
what other people believe about your belief
systems, to be honest. I think he's more
concerned about putting the record straight
after you accused him of lying about them,
if you want my opinion.
>Why is it important to him what people
>think that I believe?
It isn't, but he doesn't like being called a
liar, so every now and then he produces
a handful of your quotes to prove he didn't
lie. I've tried catching him out and accused
him of lying about your beliefs several times,
and the only thing I can find to challenge him
on is his opinion of who's point of view your
argument is being taken from: ours or the
animal's. As it turns out, you swap from one
to the other, so his opinion is at least right
50% of the time, so my time was wasted.
I found myself at a dead end on that one.
>Of course if he's really a dishonest "ARA"
>as I believe he is, then the reason is more
>clear.
>
His reasons are crystal clear when we read
those quotes you've written over the years.
They speak for themselves, and there's a
few more in this post I'm replying to which
are even worse for you if you read on a bit.
>>>>Anyway, you know fine well that that isn't
>>>>Ball's argument.
>>>
>>> Well now that you mention it, yes it is...and maybe
>>>you can even help out with this one:
>>>_________________________________________________________
>>>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>From: Jonathan Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
>>>Subject: Re: The still-unanswered question posed to David Harrison
>>>NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:26:35 PDT
>>>
>>>David wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:34:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >David wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>> >> I consider it to be a gain for animals to experience life,
>>>> >
>>>> >Aha! So, if they *don't* get to experience life, it necessarily must be
>>>> >a loss!
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Please explain.
>>>
>>>Are you for real? You really don't understand what I wrote? I don't
>>>know how many other people read what I wrote, but I would guess all of
>>>them, except for ~~Marginal~~ and Banmilk, understood it.
>>>
>>>Would anyone else care to explain to ~~David~~ what he or she thinks I
>>>meant in the comment that ~~David~~ asks me to explain?
>>>
>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>>And where in all of that does Jon argue that
>>a beneficiary is a beneficiary iff she is aware
>>of being a beneficiary?
>
> That example doesn't
Then what the Hell are you playing at? You
gave it as an example showing ,"Gonad relys
on insisting that nothing has ever benefitted
from anything, unless it's capable of
understanding the concept of benefit."
>...it shows that he agrees with your (1).
>
YOUR premise (1), don't forget.
>>That's basically what
>>you initially claimed he's arguing when writing,
>>"Gonad relys on insisting that nothing has ever
>>benefitted from anything, unless it's capable of
>>understanding the concept of benefit."
>
> This example shows that:
>_________________________________________________________
>From: Jonathan Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
>Subject: Re: Problems for Fuckwit, too
>Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 23:11:43 -0700
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>They don't because they can't conceive of the
>idea of "benefit"
>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Let's put that in context, shall we?
[start you]
> You don't think the animals benefit because they
> don't know the word.
[Jon]
No, Fuckwit, that's not why I *know* animals don't
"benefit" from "getting to experience life". They
don't because there is no alternative. They don't
because they don't care that they "get to experience
life". They don't because they can't conceive of the
idea of "benefit", and remember, Fuckwit, in your own
stupid redneck words, what is important "to the
animals" is what we should concern ourselves with.
If they can't conceive of "benefit", then it isn't
important "to the animals".
[end]
Jonathan Ball: 2002-06-24
Take a look at his first two sentences. He refutes
your claim straight away with a big fat "No" and
then goes on to explain why by stating;
1) "They don't because there is no alternative."
2) "They don't because they don't care that they
"get to experience life"."
His third statement,
3) "They don't because they can't conceive of the
idea of "benefit"
is a development from the first two and looks at
the prospect of a benefit to see whether it can be
held as *important* from an animal's point of view.
It obviously can't, and he concludes the same by
finishing up with, "If they can't conceive of
"benefit", then it isn't *important* "to the animals".
*my edit*
>and this one included with the last one show that
>he doesn't even know what he "thinks", much
>less what other people think:
>_________________________________________________________
>From: Jonathan Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
>Subject: Re: contemplative affections
>Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:50:08 GMT
>
>Snuffles wrote:
>
>> "firstoftwins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>What about Mercers lab rats? Do they benefit from his morbid
>>>usage too?
>>>
>>>
>> Lab rats tend to live longer in better conditions and suffer less than wild
>> rats!
>> Their Quality and Quantity of Life is greater.
>
>If that's true, and I suppose it is for some of them,
>then that sure sounds like a benefit to me.
>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
I can tell from that that he's being sarcastic,
for no one believes one of Mercer's lab rats
benefit from his morbid usage of them, or
from experiencing the life they live in his
cramped little wire-floored cages.
>>Jon argues that life cannot be a benefit, and
>>that no life cannot be a loss, and my personal
>>understanding of that is, if something can be
>>said to be in a position where the prospect of
>>a life is beneficial, then that same position would
>>mean the prospect of no life is a loss. Such a
>>position is impossible, so any logical framework
>>which concludes one must conclude the other.
>>Your quotes reveal you do follow such a logical
>>framework, and that's why premise (1) belongs
>>to you.
>
> No, it sure doesn't.
You claim that life is a benefit, and your quotes
here and everywhere prove that you hold that
belief. You also believe animals experience a
loss if their lives are prevented or denied them.
Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
And
The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
.
Put the two together and you have YOUR first
premise:
1) if life is a benefit, we experienced a loss prior to being born
( if x, then y)
>I do consider it to be a
>possibility--at least a possibility in some cases--
>but there's probably no point going into that.
You have to "go into that", because your whole
argument depends on it. You can't just ignore
the quotes you've made and go around calling
people liars when they produce them.
>If you want to though, we can begin to discuss
>it and see if it goes anywhere.
>
"It" doesn't even get out of the starting gate.
>>>>>>>>but nevertheless, it's a perfect
>>>>>>>>piece of deductive logic to prove that life itself is
>>>>>>>>not a benefit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not. It's bullshit, and totally dependant on your
>>>>>>>absurd insistance that in order for something to be
>>>>>>>a benefit, the beneficiary must have suffered a loss
>>>>>>>prior to obtaining it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
>>>>>>no life is a loss.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you think that: If getting a million dollars is a
>>>>>benefit, then it's logically certain that not getting a million
>>>>>dollars is a loss?
>>>>>
>>>>Obviously not, since one would have to be in
>>>>possession of the money before losing it, and
>>>>likewise, one needs to be in possession of a
>>>>life before losing it.
>>>
>>> So never living isn't a loss. We agree.
>>>
>>"I've given you ample opportunity in the past to
>>move away from that position,
>
> Which I have done many times.
>
There we are: proof from your own written
acknowledgement that you've returned to your
position many times after agreeing to move
away from it.
>>but time and time
>>again you've gone back to it.
>
> You only have a few examples of things I've
>admitted were mistakes.
>
They weren't mistakes because you keep on
returning to them. As I keep telling you, your
whole argument against the vegan depends
on YOUR fact that never living is a loss, and
that we are doing something terribly wrong in
denying future farm animals the chance to
experience life.
>>Your contention,
>>that vegans are wrong to prevent future farm
>>animals from coming into being suggests the
>>wrong is felt by the animals not yet born, that
>>THEY will experience a loss if vegans prevent
>>their lives from happening."
>>Derek 2003-04-28
>>
Well? Isn't that smart chap, Derek telling the
truth?
>>>>If something can be said to
>>>>be in a position where the prospect of a life is
>>>>beneficial, then that same position would mean
>>>>the prospect of no life is a loss. Such a position
>>>>is impossible, so any logical framework which
>>>>concludes one must conclude the other.
>>>>
>>Don't you agree?
>
> No.
>
Explain why. What logical framework which
concludes one doesn't conclude the other?
Logic insists that such a state of equilibrium
between the two must be able to experience
both.
>>>>>>I have your own quotes which
>>>>>>prove you believe it, too.
>>>>>> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
>>>>>> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
>>>>>> that would experience the loss if their lives
>>>>>> are prevented.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Try to offer a valid argument against
>>>>>>>>it if you can, or are you only capable of announcing
>>>>>>>>it's wrong without being able to say why?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you're referring to life being a benefit, none of you
>>>>>>>will be able to say why, because it is a benefit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's logically certain that life isn't a benefit, but
>>>>>>like Dutch who also believes the same as you
>>>>>>do, you can only assert that it is and answer
>>>>>>that it is "self-evident" when asked to explain
>>>>>>your reasoning.
>>>>>>
>>>>Hello?
>>>
>>> Dutch doesn't think it is a benefit afaik.
>>
>>Yes, he does, and these comments (below)
>>prove it. He believes an animal benefits
>>from getting to experience life and being
>>able to reproduce after their predators have
>>been removed by our moral consideration
>>toward them.
>>
>>[start ipse dixit]
>>>> As expected, and just like Harrison, you are now
>>>> equivocating between who benefits from allowing
>>>> animals to live ("getting to experience life") and
>>>> reproduce. It's clear from your initial statement that
>>>> you believe the animals themselves benefit ("The
>>>> deer benefit from the loss of predation")
>>[Dutch]
>>>Of course they do
>>[end]
>>
>>And
>>
>>[start ipse dixit]
>>>You wrote that, "The deer benefit
>>> from the loss of predators, *first* because they
>>> are able to reproduce prodigiously...", so the
>>> benefits you're referring to are;
>>> 1) from living
>>> 2) from producing
>>> after we have removed their predators, so explain
>>> how.
>>>
>>> You also wrote that the deer benefit *individually*;
>>> "The deer are not subjected to constant predatory
>>> pressure, that's a benefit to them *individually*, as
>>> herds and as a wild species." *my emphasis*
>>> Dutch Date: 2003-11-21
>>>
>>> Explain how.
>>[Dutch]
>>It's obvious.
>>[end]
>>
>>And
>>
>>[start ipse dixit]
>>> Then explain how they benefit;
>>> 1) from living
>>> 2) from producing
>>[Dutch]
>>It's self-evident
>>[end]
>>
>>He also claims, as you do, that it's a moral
>>consideration issue.
>>
>>"I have said this is a "moral consideration" issue."
>>Dutch 2003-11-28
>>
>>His argument for removing predators from
>>wild deer is the same as yours for removing
>>vegans out to eliminate livestock, and the
>>basis for his argument is the same as yours,
>>too; namely, that they should be allowed to
>>benefit from our moral consideration toward
>>them and their unborn offspring.
>
> Why do you think they should not be?
>
Have you read what I've just wrote? Aren't
you at all interested that Dutch is agreeing
with and arguing your points? Who fucking
cares what I think about this stupid fucking
issue right now? What's important here, to
you, is that after all this time and after all his
slagging off, Dutch actually agrees with you.
How stupid can you possibly be not to see
the sheer hypocrisy he's been showing, and
what sort of an idiot are you if you can't
see that his attacks on you have all been a
charade.
>>>>>>> You can deny it all you want, but it's the truth none the less.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I've supported my argument to logically prove
>>>>>>life isn't a benefit.
>>>>>
>>>>> No you haven't, and you never will.
>>>>>
>>>>I have supported it with deductive reasoning
>>>>using your own premises to prove that life
>>>>per se cannot be a benefit. If you want to
>>>>reject the conclusion (3) you must also reject
>>>>your own premise (1). You can have a stab
>>>>at (2) if you like, but I wouldn't waste my
>>>>time and effort on it, personally.
>>>>
>>Hello.
>
> (1) is your thing, not mine.
>
You claim that life is a benefit, and your quotes
here and everywhere prove that you hold that
belief. You also believe animals experience a
loss if their lives are prevented or denied them.
Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
And
The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
.
Put the two together and you have YOUR first
premise:
1) if life is a benefit, we experienced a loss prior to being born
( if x, then y)
>>>>>>What proof are you going to
>>>>>>offer that will prove it is a benefit?
>>>>>
>>>>> The only reason you can benefit is because you have
>>>>>life.
>>>>
>>>>Then that ruins your argument, because you
>>>>have given the beneficiary of life a relative
>>>>position: alive, so it cannot now be advantaged
>>>>any further by giving it life. A benefit is
>>>>something gained from a relative position,
>>>>so if life is a benefit, what was that relative
>>>>position of the beneficiary before life if not
>>>>dead or unborn?
>>>
>>> Matter composing something else...sometimes
>>>something living or sometimes not.
>>
>>You're joking! You've now given a non-existing
>>beneficiary substance of matter as well as a
>>relative position of being alive before birth.
>
> No position of being alive before birth, though
>I consider it a possibility.
It's not a possibility. Unborn animals do not
have substance of matter, and they cannot
be alive before coming into being.
>You people who keep
>insisting I believe it really create a feeling of
>contempt for you.
>
Your quotes and this new revelation where
unborn animals have substance of matter
and possibly a life before coming into being
are testament to your beliefs. No one is
insisting anything you haven't already insisted
yourself, so if you have a contempt for me
and for those who produce your quotes here
in refutation to your claim that they've lied
about your beliefs, then it is only from some
deep-rooted feeling of embarrassment on
your part.
>>These are impossible circumstances which logic
>>tells us cannot be.
>
> Oh really? Then are you saying that logic
>somehow tells us that the matter which composes
>living creatures poofs into existence only when the
>creature is conceived?
There is no "matter" which composes living
creatures before coming into being, so yes,
logic tells us you are referring to impossible
circumstances.
>I don't believe it. I believe
>the matter has been around for billions of years,
>and has composed many things during that time.
>
And this "matter" which has been around for
billions of years is what vegans are denying
the chance to experience life, according to
you, yet below this paragraph you've written,
"But matter can't benefit, ...", so what are you
referring to which needs the vegan's committed
consideration if it can't benefit from it anyway?
>>> But matter can't benefit, so what is it that
>>> actually can benefit?
>>>
>>Only something already existing can benefit
>>from something, and that existence has to be
>>in a lower relative position from which it will
>>be advanced to once that benefit has been
>>received. Unborn beings don't exist and so
>>have no relative position from which they can
>>be advanced, apart from being more unborn
>>than they already are, so they cannot benefit
>>from life because their unborn position isn't
>>relative to life to begin with.
>
> Yeah, I understand what you are saying. It
>still suprises me that anyone can believe life
>is not a benefit, when they are capable of
>understanding that nothing can benefit if it's
>not alive.
>
How can that be? If, "nothing can benefit if
it's not alive" why does it surprise you when
people believe you can't benefit it by giving it
a life? If it wasn't alive at the time of receiving
this benefit, then it cannot benefit from it.
>>>>>If that fact doesn't let you know life is a benefit, then
>>>>>nothing can let you know.
>>>>
>>>>In other words, like Dutch, you're claiming
>>>>"It's self -evident." "That fact", your fact,
>>>>relies upon the beneficiary already being
>>>>alive, so giving it a life doesn't give it any
>>>>further advantage from that position.
>>>
>>> If you can create a human body, but can't
>>>give if life, then it can't benefit. If you can
>>>give it life, it can benefit.
>>>
>>You've moved the goal posts there.
>
> No. I've simply given an example where the
>matter has been formed into a human body.
>
What does this "matter" consist of, and how
can it benefit from something if "nothing can
benefit if it's not alive"?
>>Of course,
>>a being can start receiving benefits once alive,
>>but being prompted into life is not one of these
>>benefits because its unborn or dead state hasn't
>>advanced from any position that was relevant to
>>life. It was dead, not relatively alive. LOL.
>>
"If there were any unkindness, or any lack of
kindness, in not breeding animals, the enormity of
our sins of omission would be more than the
human conscience could endure, for the number
of the unborn is limitless, and to wade through
slaughter to a throne, and shut the gates of mercy
on mankind, would be a trifle in comparison with
this cold-blooded shutting of the gates of life on
the poor, neglected non-existent!
It is interesting to note that this fallacy, the
assumption that it is a kindness to bring a being
into the world is as old as the time of Lucretius,
who deals with it, in another connection, in a
passage of his great philosophical poem,
De Rerum Natura (v. 176v180), which may be
rendered thus:
What loss were ours, if we had known not birth?
Let living men to longer life aspire,
While fond affection binds their hearts to earth:
But who so never hath tasted life's desire, Unborn,
impersonal, can feel no dearth.
We see, then, that a vulgar sophism of to-day was
clearly exposed nearly two thousand years ago.
It is quite possible that fools may be repeating it
two thousand years hence."
Logic of the larder by Henry S Salt.
http://www.radioafrica.co.uk/henrysalt_docs/Henry_Salt_Logic_of_the_Larder.pdf
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
