On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:36:31 +0100, tidbit wrote:

On 30/06/2011 22:56, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:57:18 +0100, wrote:

On 29/06/2011 23:33, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:52:51 +0100, wrote:

On 28/06/2011 21:21, Goo wrote:

I did not benefit by being born. Once I *was* born, I was in a position
to receive benefits, but being born itself was not a benefit.

Thank you for giving me your time to explain so clearly my mistake. We
can only set the peg back to the instant where we were conceived.
Obviously, before that moment, we did not exist and could not receive
anything.

Yet you clearly appear to be benefitting from your existence whether the
conception of your zygote was a benefit to you or not.

I do benefit from my existence

That's only true if you would benefit just as well if you did not exist.

What on earth *are* you getting at?

If your existence was not one of the benefits that makes all others possible
then you could continue to benefit after you cease to exist.

Why do you talk such nonsense

I point out facts that some people don't want to believe. You for example
don't want to believe it's possible for any beings to benefit from their
existence, and when it's pointed out that many do that works against what you
WANT to believe creating cognitive dissonance in your brain. It doesn't change
the reality, but it changes the way you interpret the reality. In your case,
because it works against what you WANT to believe, your poor little brain tries
to deny the reality. So it's not me pointing out facts that are nonsense. It's
your defensive brain trying to convince you that the facts are untrue because
they disagree with what YOU WANT to believe.

when
you *must* surely understand by now after 12 years how only living
experiential things can receive a benefit?

I already told you that even IF conception was not a benefit to your zygote,
though btw everything indicates that is WAS, you STILL appear to be benfitting
from your own existence. So you need to explain what you want people to think is
preventing you from doing what you clearly appear to be doing. Try explaining it
now. Go:

from the advantages I was given while
growing up.

You benefitted from your existence then too, even if it makes you
uncomfortable for some odd reason, and even if your zygote didn't litterally
benefit from the act of conception. LOL...would you feel comfortable explaining
to people that you don't believe you benefit from your existence because you
don't believe your zygote benefitted from the act of its own conception?

A zygote can't benefit by starting to exist either. It has to exist
before it can receive a benefit.

You need to explain what you want us to believe prevented conception from
being a benefit to your zygote.

I didn't benefit from starting to exist because I had no
welfare before

Even though you only seem able to appreciate that you benefitted while you
were growing up IF you can appreciate that much, you still appear to be
benefitting.

Yes, by the advantages I gained yesterday - nourishment, wisdom and
love. Things that don't exist can't gain those advantages.

That's because existence is one of the benefits that makes all others
possible.

/They/, if we
can call /them/ that, or even /them/, can't benefit from anything until
/they/ exist.

Whether you actually are still benefitting or not, you need to
explain what it is about BEFORE that prevents you from benefitting now. Explain:

I have but you didn't listen apparently. There was no *BEFORE* for me
before I started to exist.

LOL! You want me to believe you don't benefit now, because there was no
before for you before you started to exist. LOL!!! The part you're missing is
the part where you explain how that prevents you NOW. Try explaining that part
NOW:

then to gain anything.

What you need to do,
because Goo never could, is explain WHAT about your pre-existence you believe is
preventing you from benefitting from the existence you clearly appear to be
benefitting from now, and HOW you think it's preventing you.

There is nothing about my pre-existence to prevent me benefiting from my
existence now

So you are benefitting from your existence as you clearly appear to be, and
nothing about your pre-existence is preventing you from doing so as Goo fooled
you into believing it is.

because I didn't have a pre-existence to benefit from in
the first place. Do you believe in pre-existence?

I don't have a belief as to whether or not we experience multiple lives, but
I consider the possibility that we do. Goo lies to people and tells them I have
a belief, but of course I'd explain why if I did. Regardless of whether we do or
not though billions of beings appear to benefit from lives of positive value.

Well yes I'm sure some do, but of course they have to be alive first to
have a life of value.

If you can never do
that, as Goo and his boy have not been able to do, then we'll be left with you
appearing to benefit and no reason to believe you're not benefitting.

You still appear to be benefitting and so do billions of others.

Yes but the benefits I received were available only after I started to
exist.

You still appear to be benefitting and so do billions of others.

They had nothing to do with my pre-existence because I didn't
have one. Nothing did.

Don't let
it bother you though. It's really a good thing :-) It's good that people like
Goo can't make it impossible for any creature to benefit from a life of positive
value, simply by claiming something about pre-existence prevents it.

Who is Goo anyway?

Right now he's pretending to be George Plimpton. He has pretended to be
dozens of other people.

No don't answer that. I'm not interested in your
childish name-calling. Whoever this person is I get the feeling you're
not being entirely honest about what he claims.

Here are some of the stupid things Goo claims about animals:

"Animals do not have a sense of insult." - Goo

"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or
any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo

"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo

"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo

"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
to feel either." - Goo

"Darwin, a sentimental person, was projecting. He
saw something that wasn't there. He was, in a way,
hallucinating." - Goo

"The dog didn't do what Darwin said. His statement of
the "changes in behavior" is not reliable." - Goo

"Anticipation requires language." - Goo

"No animals anticipate." - Goo

"Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than
the great apes have no sense of self." - Goo

"They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo

"They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo

"Ranchers . . . have no idea if a steer they raise is
going to be used entirely for human consumption,
entirely for animal consumption, or for some
combination; nor do they care." - Goo

"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be
pet food. " - Goo
.. . .
"I eat meat." - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an
animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing
at all" - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

Nonsense.

Goo believes it...or at least claims to believe it.

I would like to see a Google reference to each of those quotes please.

Go see them then. While you're at it you could Google goobernicus gonad too,
and that will give you more info about Goo. You might also ask Goo if he can
explain how he wants you to think he disagrees with himself about any of them.
But he agrees with himself about all of it. If you think he disagrees with
himself about some of it then what do you think it is and why?