JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
legitimate questions.

Jethro wrote,

"is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
raise it at all?"

"i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

"i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
"better"/"more moral" for whom or what?

Why does JethroUK the coward keep EVADING the question?


JethroUK the coward also has been asked, repeatedly and
civilly, why he thinks it is important to draw
attention to the unimportant "fact" that animals "get
to live" only because they are bred to be eaten. He
keeps whiffing off and EVADING that question, as well.

Answer the questions, JethroUK the coward:

1. Why do you think your little "fact" merits any
attention
at all?

2. For whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
in your earlier questions,

"is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
raise it at all?"

"i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

"i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"


Answer the questions. Don't evade them, don't snip
them out, just answer them.

On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:

>JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
>legitimate questions.
>
>Jethro wrote,
>
> "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
> raise it at all?"
>
> "i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
> at all?"
>
> "i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
> at all?"
>
>He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
>"better"/"more moral" for whom or what?

I've asked you "ARAs" more than once for whom or what it would
be better not to raise animals to eat. So far all we know is that it would
be better for people who are disturbed because humans eat meat, and
that's probably about the end of it. One thing we know for sure is that
it wouldn't be better for animals...we do know that Gonad.

>Why does JethroUK the coward keep EVADING the question?
>JethroUK the coward also has been asked, repeatedly and
>civilly, why he thinks it is important to draw
>attention to the unimportant "fact" that animals "get
>to live" only because they are bred to be eaten.

Probably because billions of them get to live only because they are
bred to be eaten. Why do you "think" it's important for that very significant
fact to be disregarded? We know why, because it suggests that the elimination
of animals raised for food might not be the most ethical course to take.

>He
>keeps whiffing off and EVADING that question, as well.
>
>Answer the questions, JethroUK the coward:
>
>1. Why do you think your little "fact" merits any
>attention
> at all?

Because you "ARAs" want people to consider their deaths, but you are terrified
if they also consider their lives. You are terrified that people might consider an
ethically equivalent or superior alternative to your elimination objective.

Why do you think your little fact that the elimination of farm animals would
not harm farm animals merits a LOT! of attention, but the fact that billions of
them live because we raise them merits none?

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson Woods >
wrote:
>
> >JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
> >legitimate questions.
> >
> >Jethro wrote,
> >
> > "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
> > raise it at all?"
> >
> > "i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
> > animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
> > at all?"
> >
> > "i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
> > animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
> > at all?"
> >
> >He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
> >"better"/"more moral" for whom or what?
>
> I've asked you "ARAs" more than once for whom or what it would
> be better not to raise animals to eat. So far all we know is that it would
> be better for people who are disturbed because humans eat meat, and
> that's probably about the end of it. One thing we know for sure is that
> it wouldn't be better for animals...we do know that Gonad.
>
> >Why does JethroUK the coward keep EVADING the question?
> >JethroUK the coward also has been asked, repeatedly and
> >civilly, why he thinks it is important to draw
> >attention to the unimportant "fact" that animals "get
> >to live" only because they are bred to be eaten.
>
> Probably because billions of them get to live only because they are
> bred to be eaten. Why do you "think" it's important for that very
significant
> fact to be disregarded? We know why, because it suggests that the
elimination
> of animals raised for food might not be the most ethical course to take.
>
> >He
> >keeps whiffing off and EVADING that question, as well.
> >
> >Answer the questions, JethroUK the coward:
> >
> >1. Why do you think your little "fact" merits any
> >attention
> > at all?
>
> Because you "ARAs" want people to consider their deaths, but you are
terrified
> if they also consider their lives. You are terrified that people might
consider an
> ethically equivalent or superior alternative to your elimination
objective.
>
> Why do you think your little fact that the elimination of farm animals
would
> not harm farm animals merits a LOT! of attention, but the fact that
billions of
> them live because we raise them merits none?

Animals are put on earth to flavor barbecue sauce and pasta.

On Sat, 15 May 2004 11:05:15 -0700, "Pale in Wales" > wrote:

>Animals are put on earth to flavor barbecue sauce and pasta.

Well, if they really are "put on earth" you may have a good point:

Leviticus 1

5 He is to slaughter the young bull before the LORD, and then Aaron's
sons the priests shall bring the blood and sprinkle it against the
altar on all sides at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
6 He is to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces.
7 The sons of Aaron the priest are to put fire on the altar and arrange
wood on the fire.
8 Then Aaron's sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, including the
head and the fat, on the burning wood that is on the altar.
9 He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the priest
is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering
made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.

> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 11:05:15 -0700, "Pale in Wales" >
wrote:
>
> >Animals are put on earth to flavor barbecue sauce and pasta.
>
> Well, if they really are "put on earth" you may have a good point:

Animals were created by the gods, Hormel and Jimmy Dean.


>
> Leviticus 1
>
> 5 He is to slaughter the young bull before the LORD, and then Aaron's
> sons the priests shall bring the blood and sprinkle it against the
> altar on all sides at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
> 6 He is to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces.
> 7 The sons of Aaron the priest are to put fire on the altar and arrange
> wood on the fire.
> 8 Then Aaron's sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, including the
> head and the fat, on the burning wood that is on the altar.
> 9 He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the priest
> is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an
offering
> made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.

wrote:

> On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:
>
>
>>JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
>>legitimate questions.
>>
>>Jethro wrote,
>>
>> "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
>> raise it at all?"
>>
>> "i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
>> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
>> at all?"
>>
>> "i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
>> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
>> at all?"
>>
>>He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
>>"better"/"more moral" for whom or what?
>
>
> I've asked you "ARAs"

No.

> more than once for whom or what it would
> be better not to raise animals to eat.

They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
your answer.

Of course, most of the time, you are addressing
yourself to people who are NOT "aras". Most of the
time, you are addressing yourself to opponents of "ar"
who disagree with your foolish "getting to experience
life" nonsense.

Anyway, you were asked for whom or what would it be a
loss if "future farm animals" were "prevented" from
living, and you gave your answer:

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.

>
>>Why does JethroUK the coward keep EVADING the question?
>>JethroUK the coward also has been asked, repeatedly and
>>civilly, why he thinks it is important to draw
>>attention to the unimportant "fact" that animals "get
>>to live" only because they are bred to be eaten.
>
>
> Probably because billions of them get to live only because they are
> bred to be eaten.

No, that's the factlette. That's not why the factlette
is important. I want to know why he thinks the
factlette deserves any attention at all. Feel free to
explain it yourself; you never have done.

>
>>He
>>keeps whiffing off and EVADING that question, as well.
>>
>>Answer the questions, JethroUK the coward:
>>
>>1. Why do you think your little "fact" merits any attention
>> at all?
>
>
> Because you "ARAs" blah blah blah

No. I want to know why he thinks the factlette
deserves any attention. His thinking it deserves any
attention cannot be dependent on what "those 'aras'" do
or say.

>
> Why do you think your little fact that the elimination of farm animals would
> not harm farm animals merits a LOT! of attention

Because you think it WOULD harm farm animals, and I
show that it would not.

On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:44:22 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:

wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
>>>legitimate questions.
>>>
>>>Jethro wrote,
>>>
>>> "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
>>> raise it at all?"
>>>
>>> "i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
>>> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
>>> at all?"
>>>
>>> "i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
>>> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
>>> at all?"
>>>
>>>He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
>>>"better"/"more moral" for whom or what?
>>
>>
>> I've asked you "ARAs"
>
>No.
>
>> more than once for whom or what it would
>> be better not to raise animals to eat.
>
>They answer,

You agree with "them". You are one of them.

>"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
>- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals

And exactly why is that?

>they
>don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>your answer.

You didn't answer the question. You simply changed
the subject. LOL! You are hilarious Gonad. In a post where
you are criticising someone for being afraid to answer
questions, you obviously are horribly afraid to answer the
very same question. Here you go, slink away from it again:

For whom or what it would be better not to raise animals
to eat?

>Of course, most of the time, you are addressing
>yourself to people who are NOT "aras".

Most of the time I'm addressing you and Dutch Gonad,
and you are both "ARAs". Swamp is about the only other
person claiming to be an "AR" opponent who appears to
care at all, and all of his arguments are "AR" arguments.

>Most of the
>time, you are addressing yourself to opponents of "ar"
>who disagree with your foolish "getting to experience
>life" nonsense.
>
>Anyway, you were asked for whom or what would it be a
>loss if "future farm animals" were "prevented" from
>living,

And I asked who would benefit if they are. Who would
Gonad? What would Gonad?

wrote:
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:44:22 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
>>>>legitimate questions.
>>>>
>>>>Jethro wrote,
>>>>
>>>> "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
>>>> raise it at all?"
>>>>
>>>> "i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
>>>> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
>>>> at all?"
>>>>
>>>> "i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
>>>> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
>>>> at all?"
>>>>
>>>>He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
>>>>"better"/"more moral" for whom or what?
>>>
>>>
>>> I've asked you "ARAs"
>>
>>No.
>>
>>
>>>more than once for whom or what it would
>>>be better not to raise animals to eat.
>>
>>They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
>>- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals
>
>
> And exactly why is that?

Ask an "ara", ****wit. They're the ones who think it's
wrong, not I.

Actually, ****wit, ask yourself: YOU think it's
somehow wrong, so much so that you have offered the
"getting to experience life" bullshit as mitigation.
Why, ****wit? In what sense do you think it's wrong,
so much so that you need to mitigate your wrong deed?
Don't tell us you don't think it's wrong, ****wit; it
is perfectly clear you DO think it's wrong. Tell us how.

>
>
>>they don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>>your answer.
>
>
> You didn't answer the question.

It was a stupid question that was merely EVASION on
your part, ****wit. You are only asking it because you
are AFRAID to answer the much BETTER question that has
been asked of JethroFW and you:

for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
if animals come into existence?

Answer it, ****wit. Answer it now, and honestly.
Then, maybe, someone will address your question.

>
>
>>Of course, most of the time, you are addressing
>>yourself to people who are NOT "aras".
>
>
> Most of the time I'm addressing

People who are not "aras", and who you KNOW are not
"aras", ****wit.

>
>>Most of the
>>time, you are addressing yourself to opponents of "ar"
>>who disagree with your foolish "getting to experience
>>life" nonsense.
>>
>>Anyway, you were asked for whom or what would it be a
>>loss if "future farm animals" were "prevented" from
>>living,
>
>
> And I asked who would benefit if they are.

Your question is not permitted, because you haven't
answered my question. You will not evade my question
by asking a deliberately evasive one, ****wit. Answer
my question:

for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
if animals come into existence?


ANSWER it, ****wit. NOW. If your answer is that it is
"better" for the currently non-existent animals
themselves, then you are dead in the water, because I
have already conclusively shown that it CANNOT be
"better" for "them": "they" don't exist, and something
can only be "better" for something that *already* exists.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:14:21 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:

wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:44:22 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:
>>
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
>>>>>legitimate questions.
>>>>>
>>>>>Jethro wrote,
>>>>>
>>>>> "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
>>>>> raise it at all?"
>>>>>
>>>>> "i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
>>>>> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
>>>>> at all?"
>>>>>
>>>>> "i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
>>>>> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
>>>>> at all?"
>>>>>
>>>>>He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
>>>>>"better"/"more moral" for whom or what?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've asked you "ARAs"
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>>
>>>>more than once for whom or what it would
>>>>be better not to raise animals to eat.
>>>
>>>They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
>>>- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals
>>
>>
>> And exactly why is that?
>
>Ask an "ara", ****wit. They're the ones who think it's
>wrong, not I.

There is nothing wrong with it Gonad. We have established
that.

>Actually, ****wit, ask yourself: YOU think it's
>somehow wrong,

How Gonad?

>so much so that you have offered the
>"getting to experience life" bullshit as mitigation.
>Why, ****wit? In what sense do you think it's wrong,
>so much so that you need to mitigate your wrong deed?
>Don't tell us you don't think it's wrong, ****wit; it
>is perfectly clear you DO think it's wrong. Tell us how.

Let's see...how could I think it's wrong? Because it
provides them with life? No, that's not it. Because it
means less life for them? No, it means more life for them.
Hmmm....how is it wrong? I don't see how it could be
wrong Gonad. You are the one making the claim, so
it's up to you to prove how I think it's wrong.

>>>they don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>>>your answer.
>>
>>
>> You didn't answer the question.
>
>It was a stupid question that was merely EVASION on
>your part, ****wit. You are only asking it because you
>are AFRAID to answer the much BETTER question that has
>been asked of JethroFW and you:
>
> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
> if animals come into existence?
>
>Answer it, ****wit. Answer it now, and honestly.
>Then, maybe, someone will address your question.
>
>>
>>
>>>Of course, most of the time, you are addressing
>>>yourself to people who are NOT "aras".
>>
>>
>> Most of the time I'm addressing
>
>People who are not "aras", and who you KNOW are not
>"aras", ****wit.

You are an "ARA" Gonad.

>>>Most of the
>>>time, you are addressing yourself to opponents of "ar"
>>>who disagree with your foolish "getting to experience
>>>life" nonsense.
>>>
>>>Anyway, you were asked for whom or what would it be a
>>>loss if "future farm animals" were "prevented" from
>>>living,
>>
>>
>> And I asked who would benefit if they are.
>
>Your question is not permitted, because you haven't
>answered my question. You will not evade my question
>by asking a deliberately evasive one, ****wit. Answer
>my question:
>
> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
> if animals come into existence?

It can be good for them without being "better" for
them Gonad. A decent life is good for those who have
one imo, and you "ARAs" can say nothing to change
that pov.

>ANSWER it, ****wit. NOW. If your answer is that it is
>"better" for the currently non-existent animals
>themselves, then you are dead in the water, because I
>have already conclusively shown that it CANNOT be
>"better" for "them": "they" don't exist, and something
>can only be "better" for something that *already* exists.

Then it's not better for anything to live than not to live
Gonad, so it's not "better" for livestock to live than not
to. We should think of human life and wilflife in the same
way.
Okay Gonad. It's your turn AGAIN, to slink away from
the question. And there is a "better" in your case, because
you "ARAs" think it would be better to stop raising them.

For whom or what would it be better to stop raising them?

(prediction: the Gonad will not answer the question, because
the answer is that it would be better for people who are
disturbed by humans eating meat.)

****wit David Harrison wrote:

> On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:14:21 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:44:22 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
>>>>>>legitimate questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jethro wrote,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
>>>>>> raise it at all?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
>>>>>> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
>>>>>> at all?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
>>>>>> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
>>>>>> at all?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
>>>>>>"better"/"more moral" for whom or what?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've asked you "ARAs"
>>>>
>>>>No.

ACKNOWLEDGE it, ****wit: you weren't asking "aras",
you were asking OPPONENTS of "ar" who disagree with
your stupid, discredited, ****witted "animals getting
to experience life" bullshit. NOW, ****wit. We're
tired of waiting.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>more than once for whom or what it would
>>>>>be better not to raise animals to eat.
>>>>
>>>>They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
>>>>- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals
>>>
>>>
>>> And exactly why is that?
>>
>>Ask an "ara", ****wit. They're the ones who think it's
>>wrong, not I.
>
>
> There is nothing wrong with it

YOU believe there is something wrong with it, ****wit.
That's why you feel you need the mitigation. What do
you feel is wrong with it, ****wit? Don't lie and say
"nothing", ****wit: we all *know* you feel there is
something so wrong with it that you must offer
mitigation for doing it.

>
>
>>Actually, ****wit, ask yourself: YOU think it's
>>somehow wrong,
>
>
> How?

You're the one who thinks there's something wrong with
it, ****wit, so you tell us. What I believe is that
you feel exactly the affinity for animals that JethroFW
discusses, and this affinity makes you intuitively
believe that there's something morally bad about
killing them. Thus, you need mitigation for what
you're doing that you believe to be bad, and the
"getting to experience life" bullshit is what you could
develop.

>
>
>>so much so that you have offered the
>>"getting to experience life" bullshit as mitigation.
>>Why, ****wit? In what sense do you think it's wrong,
>>so much so that you need to mitigate your wrong deed?
>>Don't tell us you don't think it's wrong, ****wit; it
>>is perfectly clear you DO think it's wrong. Tell us how.
>
>
> I don't see how it could be wrong

That's a lie. SOMEHOW, ****wit, you think it's at
least a little bit wrong. Think about it a bit more,
then get back to us.

>
>
>>>>they don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>>>>your answer.
>>>
>>>
>>> You didn't answer the question.
>>
>>It was a stupid question that was merely EVASION on
>>your part, ****wit. You are only asking it because you
>>are AFRAID to answer the much BETTER question that has
>>been asked of JethroFW and you:
>>
>> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
>> if animals come into existence?
>>
>>Answer it, ****wit. Answer it now, and honestly.
>>Then, maybe, someone will address your question.

Answer the question, ****wit:

for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
if animals come into existence?

ANSWER it NOW, ****wit. Stop evading.


>>>
>>>>Of course, most of the time, you are addressing
>>>>yourself to people who are NOT "aras".
>>>
>>>
>>> Most of the time I'm addressing
>>
>>People who are not "aras", and who you KNOW are not
>>"aras", ****wit.
>
>
> You are an "ARA"

I am not an "ara", ****wit, and you have known I'm not
for the entire time that I've been highlighting your
stupidity: almost FIVE years.


>>>>Most of the
>>>>time, you are addressing yourself to opponents of "ar"
>>>>who disagree with your foolish "getting to experience
>>>>life" nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>Anyway, you were asked for whom or what would it be a
>>>>loss if "future farm animals" were "prevented" from
>>>>living,
>>>
>>>
>>> And I asked who would benefit if they are.
>>
>>Your question is not permitted, because you haven't
>>answered my question. You will not evade my question
>>by asking a deliberately evasive one, ****wit. Answer
>>my question:
>>
>> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
>> if animals come into existence?
>
>
> It can be good for them without being "better" for
> them

Coming into existence is not "good" or "better" for any
living entity, ****wit. You know this. I have
explained it, and you know it. "Life" is not a
benefit, ****wit.

>>ANSWER it, ****wit. NOW. If your answer is that it is
>>"better" for the currently non-existent animals
>>themselves, then you are dead in the water, because I
>>have already conclusively shown that it CANNOT be
>>"better" for "them": "they" don't exist, and something
>>can only be "better" for something that *already* exists.
>
>
> Then it's not better for anything to live than not to live

THE END, ****wit. That's all. "[i]t's not better for
anything to live than not to live", ****wit, and you
have no basis for bashing "vegans". Say it, ****wit:
you have no basis for bashing "vegans". Say it NOW,
****wit.


Get out of these groups, ****wit. You have finally
conceded a LOSS on the ONLY point you ever wanted to
make. You failed to make it, and you lost. Get out.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:51:20 GMT, the Gonad wrote:

>Mr. David Harrison wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:14:21 GMT, Wilson (the Gonad) Woods wrote:

>You're the one who thinks there's something wrong with
>it, ****wit, so you tell us. What I believe is that
>you feel exactly the affinity for animals that JethroFW
>discusses, and this affinity makes you intuitively
>believe that there's something morally bad about
>killing them. Thus, you need mitigation for what
>you're doing

I'm not doing anything Gonad. And what other people
are doing, would be done even if I had never been
born. Nope, that's not it either.

>that you believe to be bad, and the
>"getting to experience life" bullshit is what you could
>develop.

They do experience life Gonad. Billions of them are
doing it right now.

>>>so much so that you have offered the
>>>"getting to experience life" bullshit as mitigation.
>>>Why, ****wit? In what sense do you think it's wrong,
>>>so much so that you need to mitigate your wrong deed?
>>>Don't tell us you don't think it's wrong, ****wit; it
>>>is perfectly clear you DO think it's wrong. Tell us how.
>>
>>
>> I don't see how it could be wrong
>
>That's a lie. SOMEHOW, ****wit, you think it's at
>least a little bit wrong. Think about it a bit more,
>then get back to us.

Nah, I haven't found it yet.

>>>>>they don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>>>>>your answer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You didn't answer the question.
>>>
>>>It was a stupid question that was merely EVASION on
>>>your part, ****wit. You are only asking it because you
>>>are AFRAID to answer the much BETTER question that has
>>>been asked of JethroFW and you:
>>>
>>> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
>>> if animals come into existence?
>>>
>>>Answer it, ****wit. Answer it now, and honestly.
>>>Then, maybe, someone will address your question.
>
>Answer the question, ****wit:
>
> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
> if animals come into existence?
>
>ANSWER it NOW, ****wit. Stop evading.
>
>
>>>>
>>>>>Of course, most of the time, you are addressing
>>>>>yourself to people who are NOT "aras".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Most of the time I'm addressing
>>>
>>>People who are not "aras", and who you KNOW are not
>>>"aras", ****wit.
>>
>>
>> You are an "ARA"
>
>I am not an "ara",

Yes you are Gonad.

>****wit, and you have known I'm not

How could I know that, when no one has ever been able
to provide an example of your opposition to it?

>for the entire time that I've been highlighting your
>stupidity: almost FIVE years.
>
>
>>>>>Most of the
>>>>>time, you are addressing yourself to opponents of "ar"
>>>>>who disagree with your foolish "getting to experience
>>>>>life" nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>>Anyway, you were asked for whom or what would it be a
>>>>>loss if "future farm animals" were "prevented" from
>>>>>living,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And I asked who would benefit if they are.
>>>
>>>Your question is not permitted, because you haven't
>>>answered my question. You will not evade my question
>>>by asking a deliberately evasive one, ****wit. Answer
>>>my question:
>>>
>>> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
>>> if animals come into existence?
>>
>>
>> It can be good for them without being "better" for
>> them
>
>Coming into existence is not "good"

So far it has been for me.

>or "better" for any
>living entity, ****wit. You know this. I have
>explained it, and you know it. "Life" is not a
>benefit, ****wit.
>
>>>ANSWER it, ****wit. NOW. If your answer is that it is
>>>"better" for the currently non-existent animals
>>>themselves, then you are dead in the water, because I
>>>have already conclusively shown that it CANNOT be
>>>"better" for "them": "they" don't exist, and something
>>>can only be "better" for something that *already* exists.
>>
>>
>> Then it's not better for anything to live than not to live
>
>THE END, ****wit. That's all. "[i]t's not better for
>anything to live than not to live",

It's still good for some things to live imo. Gonad. You moron!
It is not good for you to live. It is not good for your son to live.
It is good for some farm animals to live. It is not good for some
farm animals to live.

>****wit, and you
>have no basis for bashing "vegans". Say it, ****wit:
>you have no basis for bashing "vegans". Say it NOW,
>****wit.

Gonad. It's your turn AGAIN, to slink away from the
question. And there is a "better" in your case, because
you "ARAs" think it would be better to stop raising them.

For whom or what would it be better to stop raising them?

(prediction: the Gonad will not answer the question, because
the answer is that it would be better for people who are
disturbed by humans eating meat.

note: he has proven me right once at the time of this post)

On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:08:41 +0100, "JethroUK©" > wrote:

>
>> >> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
>> >> if animals come into existence?
>
>It would be better for:
>
>1/ That particular animal
>2/ Animal Kind
>3/ My sandwich
>4/ World as a whole

Well, that's four things. We still have yet to learn for whom or
what it might be "better"/"more moral" to prevent them from
coming into existence. The "ARAs" consistently have nothing
to offer, and the Gonad is the best example of them all.

JethroUK© wrote:

>>>> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
>>>> if animals come into existence?
>
>
> It would be better for:
>
> 1/ That particular animal

NO. "That particular animal" didn't exist prior to
existing, so coming into existence CANNOT "benefit" it.

> 2/ Animal Kind

No such thing.

> 3/ My sandwich

No one cares.

> 4/ World as a whole

No.

Bad answers, as I expected, and as you knew you would
provide.

wrote:

> On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:08:41 +0100, "JethroUK©" > wrote:
>
>
>>>>> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
>>>>> if animals come into existence?
>>
>>It would be better for:
>>
>>1/ That particular animal
>>2/ Animal Kind
>>3/ My sandwich
>>4/ World as a whole
>
>
> Well, that's four things.

Four unimportant and/or wrong pieces of crap.

On Mon, 17 May 2004 04:08:03 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:

wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:08:41 +0100, "JethroUK©" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
>>>>>> if animals come into existence?
>>>
>>>It would be better for:
>>>
>>>1/ That particular animal
>>>2/ Animal Kind
>>>3/ My sandwich
>>>4/ World as a whole
>>
>>
>> Well, that's four things.
>
>Four unimportant and/or wrong pieces of crap.

We still have yet to learn for whom or
what it might be "better"/"more moral" to prevent them from
coming into existence. The "ARAs" consistently have nothing
to offer, and the Gonad is the best example of them all.

wrote:

> On Mon, 17 May 2004 04:08:03 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:08:41 +0100, "JethroUK©" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
>>>>>>> if animals come into existence?
>>>>
>>>>It would be better for:
>>>>
>>>>1/ That particular animal
>>>>2/ Animal Kind
>>>>3/ My sandwich
>>>>4/ World as a whole
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, that's four things.
>>
>>Four unimportant and/or wrong pieces of crap.
>
>
> We still have yet to learn for whom or
> what it might be "better"/"more moral" to prevent them from
> coming into existence.

Ask an "ara".

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
news
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:08:41 +0100, "JethroUK©" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
> >>>>> if animals come into existence?
> >>
> >>It would be better for:
> >>
> >>1/ That particular animal
> >>2/ Animal Kind
> >>3/ My sandwich
> >>4/ World as a whole
> >
> >
> > Well, that's four things.
>
> Four unimportant and/or wrong pieces of crap.
>

i can imagine you thinking my sandwich is unimportant (but it is to me) -
but how can you describe:

An animals life
Animal Kind
World

as unimporatant?

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> JethroUK© wrote:
>
> >>>> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
> >>>> if animals come into existence?
> >
> >
> > It would be better for:
> >
> > 1/ That particular animal
>
> NO. "That particular animal" didn't exist prior to
> existing, so coming into existence CANNOT "benefit" it.

it's not 'comming into existance' (as per a twinkle in it's mothers eye - as
per the article you are trying to regurgite, but totally MIS-read) - it
already exists!

typically - you see what you want to see - dont read into an article what
isn't there, just because it suits you

>
> > 2/ Animal Kind
>
> No such thing.

you need to get out more - of course there is


>
> > 3/ My sandwich
>
> No one cares.

i do - i need a balanced diet - i am an omnivore (which means i need meat),
and i have the teeth to prove it

>
> > 4/ World as a whole
>
> No.

Ceratinly Yes!

>
> Bad answers, as I expected, and as you knew you would
> provide.
>

what answers would you like - or more correctly - what answers would you
feel comfortable attacking - i'll provide them

JethroUK© wrote:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> news >
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:08:41 +0100, "JethroUK©" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
>>>>>>> if animals come into existence?
>>>>
>>>>It would be better for:
>>>>
>>>>1/ That particular animal
>>>>2/ Animal Kind
>>>>3/ My sandwich
>>>>4/ World as a whole
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, that's four things.
>>
>>Four unimportant and/or wrong pieces of crap.
>>
>
>
> i can imagine you thinking my sandwich is unimportant (but it is to me) -
> but how can you describe:
>
> An animals life
> Animal Kind
> World
>
> as unimporatant?

It is not important to any animal, a priori, that it
"gets to exist".

"animal kind" does not have interests; only individual
entities have interests.

"the world" doesn't have interests.

Your answers are absurd: it can't be "better" for any
of those things that animals are born and "get to
experience life". One thing is for certain: life -
basic existence - is NOT a "benefit" to any animal.

JethroUK© wrote:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
>>>>>> if animals come into existence?
>>>
>>>
>>>It would be better for:
>>>
>>>1/ That particular animal
>>
>>NO. "That particular animal" didn't exist prior to
>>existing, so coming into existence CANNOT "benefit" it.
>
>
> it's not 'comming into existance' (as per a twinkle in it's mothers eye - as
> per the article you are trying to regurgite, but totally MIS-read) - it
> already exists!

No, DUMMY. The question is, for whom or what is it
better for an animal to come into existence? Can't you
read?

The answer CANNOT be for the animal itself. In order
for something to be "better" for some entity, the
entity must ALREADY exist. "Coming into existence",
THEREFORE, cannot be "better" for an animal.


>
>
>>>2/ Animal Kind
>>
>>No such thing.
>
>
> you need to get out more - of course there is

No, there isn't; not as some interest-holding entity.

>
>
>
>>>3/ My sandwich
>>
>>No one cares.
>
>
> i do

No one else does.

>
>
>>>4/ World as a whole
>>
>>No.
>
>
> Ceratinly Yes!

Certainly NO - "the world as a whole" also does not
have any interests.

>
>
>>Bad answers, as I expected, and as you knew you would
>>provide.
>>
>
>
> what answers would you like

Sensible, well-thought ones. I won't get them from
you, that's for sure.

> It is not important to any animal, a priori, that it
> "gets to exist".

yes it is - and repeatedly saying it isn't, doesn't make it so

> "animal kind" does not have interests; only individual
> entities have interests.

depends how you [choose] to use the word 'interest'

it is in the best interest of animal kind that it's populous is
retained/replaced/managed (includes the birth of an individual animal) -
another fact!

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> JethroUK© wrote:
>
> > "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>JethroUK© wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
> >>>>>> if animals come into existence?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It would be better for:
> >>>
> >>>1/ That particular animal
> >>
> >>NO. "That particular animal" didn't exist prior to
> >>existing, so coming into existence CANNOT "benefit" it.
> >
> >
> > it's not 'comming into existance' (as per a twinkle in it's mothers
eye - as
> > per the article you are trying to regurgite, but totally MIS-read) - it
> > already exists!
>
> No, DUMMY. The question is, for whom or what is it
> better for an animal to come into existence? Can't you
> read?
>
> The answer CANNOT be for the animal itself. In order
> for something to be "better" for some entity, the
> entity must ALREADY exist. "Coming into existence",
> THEREFORE, cannot be "better" for an animal.

yes it can! - 'better' is a relative term - thus only needs a perspective -
from the point of view of the [live] animal itsself (it's perspective) - it
is better to be alive than not - of course it would not have any persepctive
if it didn't exist - but once it does - it does - and [we] can consider
'it's' perspective - another fact!

JethroUK© wrote:

>>It is not important to any animal, a priori, that it
>>"gets to exist".
>
>
> yes it is

No, it isn't. I've explained in plain English why it
cannot be. I suppose English is not your native tongue.

JethroUK© wrote:

>>"animal kind" does not have interests; only individual
>>entities have interests.
>
>
> depends how you [choose] to use the word 'interest'

No, it doesn't, Mr Semantic-Game-Playing ****tard. The
word "interest" in ethics is very well defined and
understood, and not susceptible to your
definition-fiddling.


> it is in the best interest of animal kind

No. Only individuals have interests. You lose, right
off the line.

the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
>>>>>>>>if animals come into existence?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It would be better for:
>>>>>
>>>>>1/ That particular animal
>>>>
>>>>NO. "That particular animal" didn't exist prior to
>>>>existing, so coming into existence CANNOT "benefit" it.
>>>
>>>
>>>it's not 'comming into existance' (as per a twinkle in it's mothers
>
> eye - as
>
>>>per the article you are trying to regurgite, but totally MIS-read) - it
>>>already exists!
>>
>>No, DUMMY. The question is, for whom or what is it
>>better for an animal to come into existence? Can't you
>>read?
>>
>>The answer CANNOT be for the animal itself. In order
>>for something to be "better" for some entity, the
>>entity must ALREADY exist. "Coming into existence",
>>THEREFORE, cannot be "better" for an animal.
>
>
> yes it can!

No, it can't! I've just explained why it can't be!
You don't get it!

> - 'better' is a relative term - thus only needs a perspective -
> from the point of view of the [live] animal itsself (it's perspective) - it
> is better to be alive than not

No. That's impossible. You cannot compare existence
to non-existence: the entity didn't have a welfare or
well-being prior to existing, so existence cannot
improve anything.

> - of course it would not have any persepctive
> if it didn't exist

Thus, there is on basis for any comparison.

You lose.

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
.net...
> the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>
> > "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>JethroUK© wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> thlink.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>JethroUK© wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
> >>>>>>>>if animals come into existence?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It would be better for:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>1/ That particular animal
> >>>>
> >>>>NO. "That particular animal" didn't exist prior to
> >>>>existing, so coming into existence CANNOT "benefit" it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>it's not 'comming into existance' (as per a twinkle in it's mothers
> >
> > eye - as
> >
> >>>per the article you are trying to regurgite, but totally MIS-read) - it
> >>>already exists!
> >>
> >>No, DUMMY. The question is, for whom or what is it
> >>better for an animal to come into existence? Can't you
> >>read?
> >>
> >>The answer CANNOT be for the animal itself. In order
> >>for something to be "better" for some entity, the
> >>entity must ALREADY exist. "Coming into existence",
> >>THEREFORE, cannot be "better" for an animal.
> >
> >
> > yes it can!
>
> No, it can't! I've just explained why it can't be!
> You don't get it!
>
> > - 'better' is a relative term - thus only needs a perspective -
> > from the point of view of the [live] animal itsself (it's perspective) -
it
> > is better to be alive than not
>
> No. That's impossible. You cannot compare existence
> to non-existence:

yes you can, but only if you exist - the existance define the perspective -
if you can consider yourself better off dead than alive - you can equally
consider yourself better off alive than dead

your only argument is [me] putting words in [it's] mouth (sumising [it's]
perspective) - and that would be a valid argument since [it] cant talk

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
.net...
> JethroUK© wrote:
>
> >>It is not important to any animal, a priori, that it
> >>"gets to exist".
> >
> >
> > yes it is
>
> No, it isn't. I've explained in plain English why it
> cannot be. I suppose English is not your native tongue.
>

yes it is

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
news
> JethroUK© wrote:
>
> >>"animal kind" does not have interests; only individual
> >>entities have interests.
> >
> >
> > depends how you [choose] to use the word 'interest'
>
> No, it doesn't, Mr Semantic-Game-Playing ****tard. The
> word "interest" in ethics is very well defined and
> understood, and not susceptible to your
> definition-fiddling.
>
>
> > it is in the best interest of animal kind
>
> No. Only individuals have interests. You lose, right
> off the line.
>

it is in the best interest of animal kind and the world as a whole

JethroUK© wrote:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> .net...
>
>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>>
>>
>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
arthlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
>>>>>>>>>>if animals come into existence?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It would be better for:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1/ That particular animal
>>>>>>
>>>>>>NO. "That particular animal" didn't exist prior to
>>>>>>existing, so coming into existence CANNOT "benefit" it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>it's not 'comming into existance' (as per a twinkle in it's mothers
>>>
>>>eye - as
>>>
>>>
>>>>>per the article you are trying to regurgite, but totally MIS-read) - it
>>>>>already exists!
>>>>
>>>>No, DUMMY. The question is, for whom or what is it
>>>>better for an animal to come into existence? Can't you
>>>>read?
>>>>
>>>>The answer CANNOT be for the animal itself. In order
>>>>for something to be "better" for some entity, the
>>>>entity must ALREADY exist. "Coming into existence",
>>>>THEREFORE, cannot be "better" for an animal.
>>>
>>>
>>>yes it can!
>>
>>No, it can't! I've just explained why it can't be!
>>You don't get it!
>>
>>
>>>- 'better' is a relative term - thus only needs a perspective -
>>>from the point of view of the [live] animal itsself (it's perspective) -
>
> it
>
>>>is better to be alive than not
>>
>>No. That's impossible. You cannot compare existence
>>to non-existence:
>
>
> yes you can, but only if you exist - the existance define the perspective -
> if you can consider yourself better off dead than alive - you can equally
> consider yourself better off alive than dead

No. That's the whole issue. When you exist, you can
think that your existence is so awful, you don't want
to continue it. You won't *really* be "better off"
dead than alive, because you won't BE.

However, prior to existence you have no perspective at
all; there is no 'you'. Thus, it is plainly absurd to
say that 'you' are "better off" - have an improved
well-being - for coming into existence, as prior to
existing, 'you' didn't HAVE any well-being to improve.

No animal, human or non-human, is "better off" merely
for coming into existence. It's absurd and impossible.


I'm growing tired of trifling with you. You're
incompetent to discuss philosophy, and I don't like
wasting time with semi-literate cretins. Learn to
spell, learn to capitalize, learn proper punctuation,
and learn *something* about metaphysics. Right now,
you're just a buffoon.

the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> .net...
>
>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>It is not important to any animal, a priori, that it
>>>>"gets to exist".
>>>
>>>
>>>yes it is
>>
>>No, it isn't. I've explained in plain English why it
>>cannot be. I suppose English is not your native tongue.
>>
>
>
> yes it is

It doesn't appear to be. I don't think you could
express coherent thoughts in any language.

JethroUK© wrote:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> news >
>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>"animal kind" does not have interests; only individual
>>>>entities have interests.
>>>
>>>
>>>depends how you [choose] to use the word 'interest'
>>
>>No, it doesn't, Mr Semantic-Game-Playing ****tard. The
>>word "interest" in ethics is very well defined and
>>understood, and not susceptible to your
>>definition-fiddling.
>>
>>
>>
>>>it is in the best interest of animal kind
>>
>>No. Only individuals have interests. You lose, right
>>off the line.
>>
>
>
> it is in the best interest of animal kind and the world as a whole

No. Only individuals have interests. "animal kind",
whatever the **** that's supposed to be, and "the
world" do not have interests.

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
k.net...
> JethroUK© wrote:
>
> > "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> > .net...
> >
> >>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> thlink.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>JethroUK© wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> arthlink.net...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>JethroUK© wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
> >>>>>>>>>>if animals come into existence?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>It would be better for:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>1/ That particular animal
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>NO. "That particular animal" didn't exist prior to
> >>>>>>existing, so coming into existence CANNOT "benefit" it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>it's not 'comming into existance' (as per a twinkle in it's mothers
> >>>
> >>>eye - as
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>per the article you are trying to regurgite, but totally MIS-read) -
it
> >>>>>already exists!
> >>>>
> >>>>No, DUMMY. The question is, for whom or what is it
> >>>>better for an animal to come into existence? Can't you
> >>>>read?
> >>>>
> >>>>The answer CANNOT be for the animal itself. In order
> >>>>for something to be "better" for some entity, the
> >>>>entity must ALREADY exist. "Coming into existence",
> >>>>THEREFORE, cannot be "better" for an animal.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>yes it can!
> >>
> >>No, it can't! I've just explained why it can't be!
> >>You don't get it!
> >>
> >>
> >>>- 'better' is a relative term - thus only needs a perspective -
> >>>from the point of view of the [live] animal itsself (it's
perspective) -
> >
> > it
> >
> >>>is better to be alive than not
> >>
> >>No. That's impossible. You cannot compare existence
> >>to non-existence:
> >
> >
> > yes you can, but only if you exist - the existance define the
perspective -
> > if you can consider yourself better off dead than alive - you can
equally
> > consider yourself better off alive than dead
>
> No. That's the whole issue. When you exist, you can
> think that your existence is so awful, you don't want
> to continue it. You won't *really* be "better off"
> dead than alive, because you won't BE.
>

whilst alive, you can consider 'not being' (alive) & hence make the relative
judgment - if your life is a living hell, you can (will full perspective)
consider not doing it

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
.net...
> the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>
> > "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> > .net...
> >
> >>JethroUK© wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>It is not important to any animal, a priori, that it
> >>>>"gets to exist".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>yes it is
> >>
> >>No, it isn't. I've explained in plain English why it
> >>cannot be. I suppose English is not your native tongue.
> >>
> >
> >
> > yes it is
>
> It doesn't appear to be. I don't think you could
> express coherent thoughts in any language.
>

you mean you've 'read' somewhere that it isn't - well you're wrong (prolly
mis interpreted it) & i can prove it beyond doubt

the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>>
>>
>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>>No, DUMMY. The question is, for whom or what is it
>>>>>>better for an animal to come into existence? Can't you
>>>>>>read?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The answer CANNOT be for the animal itself. In order
>>>>>>for something to be "better" for some entity, the
>>>>>>entity must ALREADY exist. "Coming into existence",
>>>>>>THEREFORE, cannot be "better" for an animal.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>yes it can!
>>>>
>>>>No, it can't! I've just explained why it can't be!
>>>>You don't get it!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>- 'better' is a relative term - thus only needs a perspective -
>>>>
>>>>>from the point of view of the [live] animal itsself (it's perspective) -
>>>>>it is better to be alive than not
>>>>
>>>>No. That's impossible. You cannot compare existence
>>>>to non-existence:
>>>
>>>
>>>yes you can, but only if you exist - the existance define the perspective -
>>>if you can consider yourself better off dead than alive - you can equally
>>>consider yourself better off alive than dead
>>
>>No. That's the whole issue. When you exist, you can
>>think that your existence is so awful, you don't want
>>to continue it. You won't *really* be "better off"
>>dead than alive, because you won't BE.
>>
>
>
> whilst alive, you can consider 'not being' (alive) & hence make the relative
> judgment - if your life is a living hell, you can (will full perspective)
> consider not doing it

That's nice, semi-literate scrawler. It doesn't change
the FACT that prior to existing, one has no well-being
or welfare to improve, and thus coming into existence
CANNOT be "better" than never coming into existence. QED.

JethroUK© wrote:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> .net...
>
>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>>
>>
>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>It is not important to any animal, a priori, that it
>>>>>>"gets to exist".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>yes it is
>>>>
>>>>No, it isn't. I've explained in plain English why it
>>>>cannot be. I suppose English is not your native tongue.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>yes it is
>>
>>It doesn't appear to be. I don't think you could
>>express coherent thoughts in any language.
>>
>
>
> you mean you've 'read' somewhere that it isn't

No, I am merely going by your severely impaired
articulation in English. It would appear that English
is not your native tongue. It doesn't merely appear,
it is a FACT that you are an uneducated twit who has no
business whatever trying to discuss philosophy. Your
opinions are ignornant and uninformed. No matter what
your native tongue, you cannot express coherent thoughts.

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
.net...
> the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>
> > "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> >
> >>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
> >>>>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>>>No, DUMMY. The question is, for whom or what is it
> >>>>>>better for an animal to come into existence? Can't you
> >>>>>>read?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>The answer CANNOT be for the animal itself. In order
> >>>>>>for something to be "better" for some entity, the
> >>>>>>entity must ALREADY exist. "Coming into existence",
> >>>>>>THEREFORE, cannot be "better" for an animal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>yes it can!
> >>>>
> >>>>No, it can't! I've just explained why it can't be!
> >>>>You don't get it!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>- 'better' is a relative term - thus only needs a perspective -
> >>>>
> >>>>>from the point of view of the [live] animal itsself (it's
perspective) -
> >>>>>it is better to be alive than not
> >>>>
> >>>>No. That's impossible. You cannot compare existence
> >>>>to non-existence:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>yes you can, but only if you exist - the existance define the
perspective -
> >>>if you can consider yourself better off dead than alive - you can
equally
> >>>consider yourself better off alive than dead
> >>
> >>No. That's the whole issue. When you exist, you can
> >>think that your existence is so awful, you don't want
> >>to continue it. You won't *really* be "better off"
> >>dead than alive, because you won't BE.
> >>
> >
> >
> > whilst alive, you can consider 'not being' (alive) & hence make the
relative
> > judgment - if your life is a living hell, you can (will full
perspective)
> > consider not doing it
>
> That's nice, semi-literate scrawler. It doesn't change
> the FACT that prior to existing, one has no well-being
> or welfare to improve, and thus coming into existence
> CANNOT be "better" than never coming into existence. QED.
>

errrrrm i know - but once existing, you can consider not existing

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
k.net...
> JethroUK© wrote:
>
> > "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> > .net...
> >
> >>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>JethroUK© wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>It is not important to any animal, a priori, that it
> >>>>>>"gets to exist".
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>yes it is
> >>>>
> >>>>No, it isn't. I've explained in plain English why it
> >>>>cannot be. I suppose English is not your native tongue.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>yes it is
> >>
> >>It doesn't appear to be. I don't think you could
> >>express coherent thoughts in any language.
> >>
> >
> >
> > you mean you've 'read' somewhere that it isn't
>
> No, I am merely going by your severely impaired
> articulation in English. It would appear that English
> is not your native tongue. It doesn't merely appear,
> it is a FACT that you are an uneducated twit who has no
> business whatever trying to discuss philosophy. Your
> opinions are ignornant and uninformed. No matter what
> your native tongue, you cannot express coherent thoughts.
>

say you - your royal wrongness

the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> .net...
>
>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>>
>>
>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>>>>

>>>>No. That's the whole issue. When you exist, you can
>>>>think that your existence is so awful, you don't want
>>>>to continue it. You won't *really* be "better off"
>>>>dead than alive, because you won't BE.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>whilst alive, you can consider 'not being' (alive) & hence make the
>>>relative judgment - if your life is a living hell, you can (will
full
>>>perspective) consider not doing it
>>
>>That's nice, semi-literate scrawler. It doesn't change
>>the FACT that prior to existing, one has no well-being
>>or welfare to improve, and thus coming into existence
>>CANNOT be "better" than never coming into existence. QED.
>>
>
>
> errrrrm i know - but once existing, you can consider not existing

ERRRRRRRRRRRMMMMMMMM - *I* know, but PRIOR to existing,
there is no 'you' to consider that you might be 'better
off' coming into existence.

What the **** is the matter with you, ****tard?

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
k.net...
> the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>
> > "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> > .net...
> >
> >>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
> >>>>
>
> >>>>No. That's the whole issue. When you exist, you can
> >>>>think that your existence is so awful, you don't want
> >>>>to continue it. You won't *really* be "better off"
> >>>>dead than alive, because you won't BE.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>whilst alive, you can consider 'not being' (alive) & hence make the
> >>>relative judgment - if your life is a living hell, you can (will
> full
> >>>perspective) consider not doing it
> >>
> >>That's nice, semi-literate scrawler. It doesn't change
> >>the FACT that prior to existing, one has no well-being
> >>or welfare to improve, and thus coming into existence
> >>CANNOT be "better" than never coming into existence. QED.
> >>
> >
> >
> > errrrrm i know - but once existing, you can consider not existing
>
> ERRRRRRRRRRRMMMMMMMM - *I* know,

NO YOU DONT - you've denied this fact repeatedly

> but PRIOR to existing,
> there is no 'you' to consider that you might be 'better
> off' coming into existence.
>
> What the **** is the matter with you, ****tard?
>

ditto