Re: Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?
dh...@nomail.com
>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?
Pale in Wales
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:m5mca01nol7pikc53...@4ax.com...
Animals are put on earth to flavor barbecue sauce and pasta.
dh...@nomail.com
>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.
Pale in Wales
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:e1pca09s0igl9kll6...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 11:05:15 -0700, "Pale in Wales" <clo...@rain.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.
Wilson Woods
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson Woods <shaking...@aol.com> 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.
dh...@nomail.com
>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson Woods <shaking...@aol.com> 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?
Wilson Woods
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:44:22 GMT, Wilson Woods <shaking...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson Woods <shaking...@aol.com> 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.
>>
>
>
> And exactly why is that?
Ask an "ara", Fuckwit. They're the ones who think it's
wrong, not I.
Actually, Fuckwit, ask yourself: YOU think it's
somehow wrong, so much so that you have offered the
"getting to experience life" bullshit as mitigation.
Why, Fuckwit? 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, Fuckwit; 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, Fuckwit. 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, Fuckwit. 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", Fuckwit.
>
>>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, Fuckwit. Answer
my question:
for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
if animals come into existence?
ANSWER it, Fuckwit. 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.
dh...@nomail.com
There is nothing wrong with it Gonad. We have established
that.
>Actually, Fuckwit, 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, Fuckwit? 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, Fuckwit; 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, Fuckwit. 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, Fuckwit. 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", Fuckwit.
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, Fuckwit. 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, Fuckwit. 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.)
Jonathan Ball
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:14:21 GMT, Wilson Woods <shaking...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:44:22 GMT, Wilson Woods <shaking...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson Woods <shaking...@aol.com> 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, Fuckwit: you weren't asking "aras",
you were asking OPPONENTS of "ar" who disagree with
your stupid, discredited, fuckwitted "animals getting
to experience life" bullshit. NOW, Fuckwit. 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", Fuckwit. 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, Fuckwit.
That's why you feel you need the mitigation. What do
you feel is wrong with it, Fuckwit? Don't lie and say
"nothing", Fuckwit: we all *know* you feel there is
something so wrong with it that you must offer
mitigation for doing it.
>
>
>>Actually, Fuckwit, ask yourself: YOU think it's
>>somehow wrong,
>
>
> How?
You're the one who thinks there's something wrong with
it, Fuckwit, 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, Fuckwit? 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, Fuckwit; 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, Fuckwit, 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, Fuckwit. 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, Fuckwit. Answer it now, and honestly.
>>Then, maybe, someone will address your question.
Answer the question, Fuckwit:
for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
if animals come into existence?
ANSWER it NOW, Fuckwit. 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", Fuckwit.
>
>
> You are an "ARA"
I am not an "ara", Fuckwit, 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, Fuckwit. 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, Fuckwit. You know this. I have
explained it, and you know it. "Life" is not a
benefit, Fuckwit.
>>ANSWER it, Fuckwit. 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, Fuckwit. That's all. "[I]t's not better for
anything to live than not to live", Fuckwit, and you
have no basis for bashing "vegans". Say it, Fuckwit:
you have no basis for bashing "vegans". Say it NOW,
Fuckwit.
Get out of these groups, Fuckwit. 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.
dh...@nomail.com
dh...@nomail.com
>Mr. David Harrison dh...@nomail.com 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, Fuckwit, 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, Fuckwit? 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, Fuckwit; 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, Fuckwit, 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, Fuckwit. 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, Fuckwit. Answer it now, and honestly.
>>>Then, maybe, someone will address your question.
>
>Answer the question, Fuckwit:
>
> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
> if animals come into existence?
>
>ANSWER it NOW, Fuckwit. 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", Fuckwit.
>>
>>
>> You are an "ARA"
>
>I am not an "ara",
Yes you are Gonad.
>Fuckwit, 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, Fuckwit. 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, Fuckwit. You know this. I have
>explained it, and you know it. "Life" is not a
>benefit, Fuckwit.
>
>>>ANSWER it, Fuckwit. 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, Fuckwit. 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.
>Fuckwit, and you
>have no basis for bashing "vegans". Say it, Fuckwit:
>you have no basis for bashing "vegans". Say it NOW,
>Fuckwit.
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)
JethroUK©
> >> 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
dh...@nomail.com
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.
Wilson Woods
>>>> 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.
Wilson Woods
> On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:08:41 +0100, "JethroUK©" <re...@the.board> 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.
dh...@nomail.com
We still have yet to learn for whom or
Wilson Woods
> On Mon, 17 May 2004 04:08:03 GMT, Wilson Woods <shaking...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:08:41 +0100, "JethroUKŠ" <re...@the.board> 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".
JethroUK©
"Wilson Woods" <shaking...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:DUWpc.3933$SZ4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
i can imagine you thinking my sandwich is unimportant (but it is to me) -
but how can you describe:
An animals life
Animal Kind
World
as unimporatant?
JethroUK©
> JethroUKŠ wrote:
>
> >>>> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
> >>>> if animals come into existence?
> >
> >
> > It would be better for:
> >
> > 1/ That particular animal
>
> NO. "That particular animal" didn't exist prior to
> existing, so coming into existence CANNOT "benefit" it.
it's not 'comming into existance' (as per a twinkle in it's mothers eye - as
per the article you are trying to regurgite, but totally MIS-read) - it
already exists!
typically - you see what you want to see - dont read into an article what
isn't there, just because it suits you
>
> > 2/ Animal Kind
>
> No such thing.
you need to get out more - of course there is
>
> > 3/ My sandwich
>
> No one cares.
i do - i need a balanced diet - i am an omnivore (which means i need meat),
and i have the teeth to prove it
>
> > 4/ World as a whole
>
> No.
Ceratinly Yes!
>
> Bad answers, as I expected, and as you knew you would
> provide.
>
what answers would you like - or more correctly - what answers would you
feel comfortable attacking - i'll provide them
Wilson Woods
It is not important to any animal, a priori, that it
"gets to exist".
"animal kind" does not have interests; only individual
entities have interests.
"the world" doesn't have interests.
Your answers are absurd: it can't be "better" for any
of those things that animals are born and "get to
experience life". One thing is for certain: life -
basic existence - is NOT a "benefit" to any animal.
Wilson Woods
> "Wilson Woods" <shaking...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:xEWpc.3922$SZ4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>JethroUKŠ 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.
JethroUK©
> 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
JethroUK©
> "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
>>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.
Wilson Woods
>>"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 Fucktard. 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.
JethroUK©
> JethroUKŠ wrote:
>
> > "Wilson Woods" <shaking...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:xEWpc.3922$SZ4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>JethroUKŠ wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
> >>>>>> if animals come into existence?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It would be better for:
> >>>
> >>>1/ That particular animal
> >>
> >>NO. "That particular animal" didn't exist prior to
> >>existing, so coming into existence CANNOT "benefit" it.
> >
> >
> > it's not 'comming into existance' (as per a twinkle in it's mothers
eye - as
> > per the article you are trying to regurgite, but totally MIS-read) - it
> > already exists!
>
> No, DUMMY. The question is, for whom or what is it
> better for an animal to come into existence? Can't you
> read?
>
> The answer CANNOT be for the animal itself. In order
> for something to be "better" for some entity, the
> entity must ALREADY exist. "Coming into existence",
> THEREFORE, cannot be "better" for an animal.
yes it can! - 'better' is a relative term - thus only needs a perspective -
from the point of view of the [live] animal itsself (it's perspective) - it
is better to be alive than not - of course it would not have any persepctive
if it didn't exist - but once it does - it does - and [we] can consider
'it's' perspective - another fact!
Wilson Woods
> "Wilson Woods" <shaking...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:Xjfqc.5142$SZ4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Wilson Woods" <shaking...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:xEWpc.3922$SZ4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
>>>>>>>>if animals come into existence?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It would be better for:
>>>>>
>>>>>1/ That particular animal
>>>>
>>>>NO. "That particular animal" didn't exist prior to
>>>>existing, so coming into existence CANNOT "benefit" it.
>>>
>>>
>>>it's not 'comming into existance' (as per a twinkle in it's mothers
>
> eye - as
>
>>>per the article you are trying to regurgite, but totally MIS-read) - it
>>>already exists!
>>
>>No, DUMMY. The question is, for whom or what is it
>>better for an animal to come into existence? Can't you
>>read?
>>
>>The answer CANNOT be for the animal itself. In order
>>for something to be "better" for some entity, the
>>entity must ALREADY exist. "Coming into existence",
>>THEREFORE, cannot be "better" for an animal.
>
>
> yes it can!
No, it can't! I've just explained why it can't be!
You don't get it!
> - 'better' is a relative term - thus only needs a perspective -
> from the point of view of the [live] animal itsself (it's perspective) - it
> is better to be alive than not
No. That's impossible. You cannot compare existence
to non-existence: the entity didn't have a welfare or
well-being prior to existing, so existence cannot
improve anything.
> - of course it would not have any persepctive
> if it didn't exist
Thus, there is on basis for any comparison.
You lose.
JethroUK©
yes you can, but only if you exist - the existance define the perspective -
if you can consider yourself better off dead than alive - you can equally
consider yourself better off alive than dead
your only argument is [me] putting words in [it's] mouth (sumising [it's]
perspective) - and that would be a valid argument since [it] cant talk
JethroUK©
yes it is
JethroUK©
it is in the best interest of animal kind and the world as a whole
Wilson Woods
> "Wilson Woods" <shaking...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:Mcrqc.239$Tn6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>the semi-literate JethroUKŠ 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.
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.
Wilson Woods
> "Wilson Woods" <shaking...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:88rqc.232$Tn6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>JethroUKŠ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>It is not important to any animal, a priori, that it
>>>>"gets to exist".
>>>
>>>
>>>yes it is
>>
>>No, it isn't. I've explained in plain English why it
>>cannot be. I suppose English is not your native tongue.
>>
>
>
> yes it is
It doesn't appear to be. I don't think you could
express coherent thoughts in any language.
Wilson Woods
> "Wilson Woods" <shaking...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:D9rqc.235$Tn6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>JethroUKŠ 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 Fucktard. 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 fuck that's supposed to be, and "the
world" do not have interests.
JethroUK©
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
JethroUK©
you mean you've 'read' somewhere that it isn't - well you're wrong (prolly
mis interpreted it) & i can prove it beyond doubt
Wilson Woods
> "Wilson Woods" <shaking...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:YArqc.252$Tn6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>>
>>
>>>"Wilson Woods" <shaking...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Mcrqc.239$Tn6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>No, DUMMY. The question is, for whom or what is 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.
Wilson Woods
> "Wilson Woods" <shaking...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:9Drqc.256$Tn6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>the semi-literate JethroUKŠ scrawled:
>>
>>
>>>"Wilson Woods" <shaking...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:88rqc.232$Tn6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>JethroUKŠ 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.
JethroUK©
errrrrm i know - but once existing, you can consider not existing
Wilson Woods
> "Wilson Woods" <shaking...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:XTrqc.266$Tn6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>>
>>
>>>"Wilson Woods" <shaking...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:YArqc.252$Tn6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.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 fuck is the matter with you, fucktard?
JethroUK©
say you - your royal wrongness
JethroUK©
> the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>
> > "Wilson Woods" <shaking...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:XTrqc.266$Tn6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Wilson Woods" <shaking...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:YArqc.252$Tn6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.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 fuck is the matter with you, fucktard?
>
ditto
Wilson Woods
ERRRRRRMMMMMMM - yes, I do.
> - you've denied this fact repeatedly
No, I haven't. "This fact" - that one can contemplate
a *later* period in which one no longer exists - just
came up.
What YOU, fucktard, have repeatedly failed to
understand is that prior to existing, one has no
well-being or welfare that can be "improved" by coming
into existence. THEREFORE, fucktard, an entity cannot
be "better off" merely by coming into existence: one
must ALREADY exist to be made "better off" by some event.
>
>
>>but PRIOR to existing,
>>there is no 'you' to consider that you might be 'better
>>off' coming into existence.
>>
>>What the fuck is the matter with you, fucktard?
Well?! What the FUCK is the matter with you, stupid?
Wilson Woods
Correctly, and with much support.
JethroUK©
i eat - therfor i breed cows - everyones is 'better' off for it
Wilson Woods
Not the cattle. This has been explained to you a few
dozen times in plain English. I don't know what your
problem is. Perhaps you were dropped onto your head a
few times as an infant.
JethroUK©
> What YOU, fucktard, have repeatedly failed to
> understand is that prior to existing, one has no
> well-being or welfare that can be "improved" by coming
> into existence. THEREFORE, fucktard, an entity cannot
> be "better off" merely by coming into existence: one
> must ALREADY exist to be made "better off" by some event.
>
wrooooongg !!!!!!
an animal can better off (from it's own perspective) merely by virtue of
it's existence (but only whilst it exists) - unless the animal is not
sentient (doesn't have these thoughts), in which case, i can have them for
[it] - the thoughts i have for it can be denied (you could consider it worse
off) - but that's the only thing in question - so question it !
animalkind, mankind & i, can be 'better off' because of it's existance or
non-existance (it's potential existence)
Wilson Woods
>>What YOU, fucktard, have repeatedly failed to
>>understand is that prior to existing, one has no
>>well-being or welfare that can be "improved" by coming
>>into existence. THEREFORE, fucktard, an entity cannot
>>be "better off" merely by coming into existence: one
>>must ALREADY exist to be made "better off" by some event.
>>
>
>
> wrooooongg !!!!!!
>
> an animal can better off (from it's own perspective) merely by virtue of
> it's existence
No, it can't. It didn't exist previously, so it had no
well-being or welfare to improve. Look, fucktard:
being "better off" MEANS experiencing an improvement in
well-being/welfare. If there IS no well-being/welfare
to improve, then BY DEFINITION, one cannot be made
"better off". It's that simple.
> (but only whilst it exists) - unless the animal is not
> sentient (doesn't have these thoughts), in which case, i can have them for
> [it]
No, you can't. You have no basis for substituting your
benighted sentiments for the animal's.
>
> animalkind,
No.
> mankind
No.
> & i, can be 'better off' because of it's existance or
> non-existance (it's potential existence)
Well, well, well! SO, it is YOUR welfare/well-being
we've been discussing all this time! Of course, I knew
that all along.
JethroUK©
> JethroUK© wrote:
>
> >>What YOU, fucktard, have repeatedly failed to
> >>understand is that prior to existing, one has no
> >>well-being or welfare that can be "improved" by coming
> >>into existence. THEREFORE, fucktard, an entity cannot
> >>be "better off" merely by coming into existence: one
> >>must ALREADY exist to be made "better off" by some event.
> >>
> >
> >
> > wrooooongg !!!!!!
> >
> > an animal can better off (from it's own perspective) merely by virtue of
> > it's existence
>
> No, it can't. It didn't exist previously, so it had no
> well-being or welfare to improve. Look, fucktard:
> being "better off" MEANS experiencing an improvement in
> well-being/welfare.
there is no 'better improvement' than life over non-existence - a
relationship between the two that can easily be considered (by an animal
that's alive to consider it)
JethroUK©
> JethroUK© wrote:
>
> >>What YOU, fucktard, have repeatedly failed to
> >>understand is that prior to existing, one has no
> >>well-being or welfare that can be "improved" by coming
> >>into existence. THEREFORE, fucktard, an entity cannot
> >>be "better off" merely by coming into existence: one
> >>must ALREADY exist to be made "better off" by some event.
> >>
> >
> >
> > wrooooongg !!!!!!
> >
> > an animal can better off (from it's own perspective) merely by virtue of
> > it's existence
>
> No, it can't. It didn't exist previously, so it had no
> well-being or welfare to improve. Look, fucktard:
> being "better off" MEANS experiencing an improvement in
> well-being/welfare. If there IS no well-being/welfare
> to improve, then BY DEFINITION, one cannot be made
> "better off". It's that simple.
>
> > (but only whilst it exists) - unless the animal is not
> > sentient (doesn't have these thoughts), in which case, i can have them
for
> > [it]
>
> No, you can't. You have no basis for substituting your
> benighted sentiments for the animal's.
>
of course i have basis - i am alive and i know the difference between
life/death or non-existence - i can 'assume' the animal feels the same way
i would in the same situation (empathise with it) - you can argue that my
'assumptions' are wrong about [it's] feelings - but you cannot argue that it
doesn't have em (you can say it's 'worse off ' - that's all)
> >
> > animalkind,
>
> No.
yes
>
> > mankind
>
> No.
yes
>
> > & i, can be 'better off' because of it's existance or
> > non-existance (it's potential existence)
>
> Well, well, well! SO, it is YOUR welfare/well-being
> we've been discussing all this time! Of course, I knew
> that all along.
never denied it - look at my header - but this 'benefit' is not mutually
exclusive
everyone's a winner
Wilson Woods
> "Wilson Woods" <shaking...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:4Ntqc.422$Tn6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>JethroUKŠ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>What YOU, fucktard, have repeatedly failed to
>>>>understand is that prior to existing, one has no
>>>>well-being or welfare that can be "improved" by coming
>>>>into existence. THEREFORE, fucktard, an entity cannot
>>>>be "better off" merely by coming into existence: one
>>>>must ALREADY exist to be made "better off" by some event.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>wrooooongg !!!!!!
>>>
>>>an animal can better off (from it's own perspective) merely by virtue of
>>>it's existence
>>
>>No, it can't. It didn't exist previously, so it had no
>>well-being or welfare to improve. Look, fucktard:
>>being "better off" MEANS experiencing an improvement in
>>well-being/welfare.
>
>
> there is no 'better improvement' than life over non-existence
It isn't an "improvement" AT ALL.
Wilson Woods
> "Wilson Woods" <shaking...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:4Ntqc.422$Tn6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>JethroUKŠ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>What YOU, fucktard, have repeatedly failed to
>>>>understand is that prior to existing, one has no
>>>>well-being or welfare that can be "improved" by coming
>>>>into existence. THEREFORE, fucktard, an entity cannot
>>>>be "better off" merely by coming into existence: one
>>>>must ALREADY exist to be made "better off" by some event.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>wrooooongg !!!!!!
>>>
>>>an animal can better off (from it's own perspective) merely by virtue of
>>>it's existence
>>
>>No, it can't. It didn't exist previously, so it had no
>>well-being or welfare to improve. Look, fucktard:
>>being "better off" MEANS experiencing an improvement in
>>well-being/welfare. If there IS no well-being/welfare
>>to improve, then BY DEFINITION, one cannot be made
>>"better off". It's that simple.
>>
>>
>>>(but only whilst it exists) - unless the animal is not
>>>sentient (doesn't have these thoughts), in which case, i can have them
>
> for
>
>>>[it]
>>
>>No, you can't. You have no basis for substituting your
>>benighted sentiments for the animal's.
>>
>
>
> of course i have basis
No, you don't. You are not entitled to substitute your
rambling, incoherent speculation about the animal's
interest for the animal's actual interest.
>
>
>
>>>animalkind,
>>
>>No.
>
>
> yes
No. Only individual animals have interests.
>
>
>>>mankind
>>
>>No.
>
>
> yes
No. Only individual humans have interests.
>
>
>>>& i, can be 'better off' because of it's existance or
>>>non-existance (it's potential existence)
>>
>>Well, well, well! SO, it is YOUR welfare/well-being
>>we've been discussing all this time! Of course, I knew
>>that all along.
>
>
>
> never denied it
You concealed it.
You are not and never were talking about the animals'
interests; you were only talking about your own,
narrow, insignificant interests.
JethroUK©
Wilson Woods
It is not an "improvement" at all: there was nothing
to improve.
JethroUK©
> >>Well, well, well! SO, it is YOUR welfare/well-being
> >>we've been discussing all this time! Of course, I knew
> >>that all along.
> >
> >
> >
> > never denied it
>
> You concealed it.
Where abouts in my header "If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper
steak" did i conceal it???????
>
> You are not and never were talking about the animals'
> interests; you were only talking about your own,
> narrow, insignificant interests.
>
i have proved benefits for allllllllll - including moi!
JethroUK©
but once it [is] there - it's an improvement (it can also consider this it's
self)
my driveway maybe empty - if it had a roller in it tomorrow - that would be
an improvement
Wilson Woods
>>>>Well, well, well! SO, it is YOUR welfare/well-being
>>>>we've been discussing all this time! Of course, I knew
>>>>that all along.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>never denied it
>>
>>You concealed it.
>
>
> Where abouts in my header "If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper
> steak" did i conceal it???????
You concealed it every time you tried to flim-flam us
into thinking you were talking about animals' interests.
>
>>You are not and never were talking about the animals'
>>interests; you were only talking about your own,
>>narrow, insignificant interests.
>>
>
>
> i have proved benefits for allllllllll
No; only for you.
This brings us full circle. The illogic of the larder
is all about guilt-ridden people trying to create an
illusion of promoting the interests of animals, when
all they really were trying to do is promote their own
interests.
Wilson Woods
NO. We're not concerned with "once it [is] there" -
what the FUCK is it with you and the MISUSE of brackets
and hyphens?
Read again: "better off" as you are using it refers to
an improvement in welfare. As there IS NO welfare
before the animal exists, existence does not effect any
"improvement" for the animal (or a human, for that
matter.) It is logically absurd to conclude that it is
better to be born than not born.
JethroUK©
> better to be born than not born.
>
the statement "it is better to be born than not born."
is perfectly understandable/appreciable by those who exist, as a fact -
state it anywhere and see if it's questioned at all!
it is not until you try to carve it up the word 'better' your own way that
the meaning is changed
and then when i carve your 'interpretation' up - it resumes
understandable/appreciable once more
and i can do it until the cows come home :o)
'better' is a rellevant term - as such can be determined by the perspective
from which/who/what it is "better" - anything thats alive can appreciate it
(even of those that only have a 'potential' life - whether it would be
'better' or 'worse' for something to live)
JethroUK©
> > Where abouts in my header "If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper
> > steak" did i conceal it???????
>
> You concealed it every time you tried to flim-flam us
> into thinking you were talking about animals' interests.
>
are you suggesting i give a rats ass about the consequence of my diet
i'm here to state 'facts' remember - i am solely objective - and more
precisely to oppose your view (whatever it happens to be)
Wilson Woods
>> It is logically absurd to conclude that it is
>>better to be born than not born.
>>
>
>
> the statement "it is better to be born than not born."
>
> is perfectly understandable/appreciable by those who exist, as a fact -
> state it anywhere and see if it's questioned at all!
argumentum ad populum
>
> it is not until you try to carve it up the word 'better' your own way that
> the meaning is changed
I haven't "carved up" anything. What I have done,
because it's necessary and legitimate, is try to
clarify for whom or what "it" is "better", and the
correct perspective. THE CORRECT perspective is PRIOR
to existence.
It is NOT "better" to be born than not, because
"better" MEANS an improvement in the animal's welfare
BEFORE the improving event, and prior to being born,
there was NO animal and NO welfare. It is NOT "better"
to be born than not. Your position is wrong, illogical
and stupid.
> 'better' is a rellevant term
Cut the shit. You're bullshitting. Stop it.
Wilson Woods
>>>Where abouts in my header "If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper
>>>steak" did i conceal it???????
>>
>>You concealed it every time you tried to flim-flam us
>>into thinking you were talking about animals' interests.
>>
>
>
> are you suggesting i give a rats ass about the consequence of my diet
Yes, you do. You see it as necessary. That's why you
brought up the unimportant factlette.
>
> i'm here to state 'facts' remember
You're here to spout bullshit: self-justifying bullshit.
> and more
> precisely to oppose your view
In other words, you're a shit-stirring sophist and
liar. But we already knew that.
JethroUK©
> > precisely to oppose your view
>
> In other words, you're a shit-stirring sophist and
> liar. But we already knew that.
>
i dont need to lie (and haven't) to deliberately oppose your view - actually
i'm playing devil's advocate since you seem to be on some sort of mission to
stuff your own 'opinion' (not a fact in sight) down everyones throat - now i
know what that is - i will discredit it (as fact) - then maybe you will
realise, it [only] your opinion - and that's all it is
Wilson Woods
>>>and more
>>>precisely to oppose your view
>>
>>In other words, you're a shit-stirring sophist and
>>liar. But we already knew that.
>>
>
>
> i dont need to lie (and haven't) to deliberately oppose your view
Perhaps you didn't need to do, but you have done. You
are a liar and a shit-stirring sophist, and you don't
even believe your own bullshit. You're absurdly
enamored of what you stupidly believe to be your
fluency in philosophical matters. Take it from me,
fucktard: you are incompetent.
JethroUK©
"Wilson Woods" <liber...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:uhNqc.1527$Tn6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Haven't lied once - You 'believe' eating animals is wrong - there is an
argument that is insurmountable - 'if meat eater didn't animals, they
wouldn't be there anyhow' - which leaves you with a rather hollow -
'breeding animals for consumption is morally wrong' - it's [your] opinion -
dont try to make a fact about it - you cannot [prove] someone's opinion is
wrong
"opinions are like assholes - we alllll got one - dirty harry"
Wilson Woods
> "Wilson Woods" <liber...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:uhNqc.1527$Tn6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>JethroUKŠ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>and more
>>>>>precisely to oppose your view
>>>>
>>>>In other words, you're a shit-stirring sophist and
>>>>liar. But we already knew that.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>i dont need to lie (and haven't) to deliberately oppose your view
>>
>>Perhaps you didn't need to do, but you have done. You
>>are a liar and a shit-stirring sophist, and you don't
>>even believe your own bullshit. You're absurdly
>>enamored of what you stupidly believe to be your
>>fluency in philosophical matters. Take it from me,
>>fucktard: you are incompetent.
>>
>
>
> Haven't lied once
You've lied by omission a dozen or more times.
> - You 'believe' eating animals is wrong
That's your fundamental error, and if you can't get the
basics right, you have no hope with the big stuff. I
do NOT believe eating animals is wrong. I am a meat
eater; dairy, too. I wear leather and wool. I consume
animals.
> - there is an
> argument that is insurmountable
It isn't my argument, whatever your rubbish is.
dh...@nomail.com
>JethroUKŠ wrote:
>> "Wilson Woods" <liber...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:uhNqc.1527$Tn6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>JethroUKŠ wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>and more
>>>>>>precisely to oppose your view
>>>>>
>>>>>In other words, you're a shit-stirring sophist and
>>>>>liar. But we already knew that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>i dont need to lie (and haven't) to deliberately oppose your view
>>>
>>>Perhaps you didn't need to do, but you have done. You
>>>are a liar and a shit-stirring sophist, and you don't
>>>even believe your own bullshit. You're absurdly
>>>enamored of what you stupidly believe to be your
>>>fluency in philosophical matters. Take it from me,
>>>fucktard: you are incompetent.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Haven't lied once
>
>You've lied by omission a dozen or more times.
>
>> - You 'believe' eating animals is wrong
>
>That's your fundamental error, and if you can't get the
>basics right, you have no hope with the big stuff. I
>do NOT believe eating animals is wrong.
Yes you do Gonad. You believe that their
lives mean nothing, but their deaths are very
significant. You have no opposition to "AR",
and have tried to promote its accetance
many times:
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Re: "getting to experience life" = the (il)logic of the larder
Message-ID: <a6K%b.10491$yZ1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:19:18 GMT
the "getting to experience
life" deserves NO moral consideration, and is given
none; the deliberate killing of animals for use by
humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: jonb...@altavista.com (Jonathan Ball)
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
Subject: Re: How Jonathan Ball wants people to feel about the silly arse, Fuckwith
Date: 11 Apr 2002 18:53:15 -0700
People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
09 Sep 2000 by Jonathan Ball
there is no moral loss if domesticated species go extinct.
11 Sep 2000 by Jonathan Ball
So far, the "debate" (huh!) has been David reposting his
observation - that billions of animals will not get to
experience life - and me pointing out that this is of no
moral importance
19 Oct 2000 by Jonathan Ball
Since there is no moral loss to any animals, there is
nothing for any human to take into consideration
02 Dec 2000 by Jonathan Ball
if domestic animals were to go extinct, there would be
no moral loss
2001-09-17 From: Jonathan Ball
"Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm
animals. And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm
animals would live in bad conditions.
27 Jan 2002 by Jonathan Ball
his basic rationale for opposing "animal rights" and
"vegans" is nonsense (that it prevents animals from
"getting to experience life")
02 Oct 2001 by Jonathan Ball
If there is no moral loss, which he coyly has hinted at
before, then he has no grounds for bashing "vegans" for
wanting domestic farm animals to disappear
27 Jul 2001 by Jonathan Ball
If they never live in the first place, there is no moral
loss to humans, animals or the universe.
05 Sep 2001 by Jonathan Ball
If no farm animals are born...then so be it. There's no
moral loss.
04 Dec 2000 by Jonathan Ball
I said that their experiencing of life is of no moral
significance: if domestic animals were to go extinct,
there would be no moral loss
01 Aug 2001 by Jonathan Ball
You don't have any way of measuring the psychic value
to the cow of the welfare improvement. You only know
that *you* feel better about it
13 Nov 2000 by Jonathan Ball
"they follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its
natural and logical conclusion."
[That natural and logical conclusion being the elimination
of domestic animals.]
"You invent some arbitrary line and head off in some other
bizarre direction...all by yourself."
[That other bizarre direction being to improve the animals'
welfare instead of to eliminate them.]
28 Mar 2002 by Jonathan Ball
It doesn't matter if the animals know our intent, Fuckwit.
We know it.
30 Apr 2002 by Jonathan Ball
The fact they're going to be killed "anyway" is an enormous
factor in the quality of their lives
22 Jul 2001 by Jonathan Ball
dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> Meat eaters promote life for the animals they eat,
No, they don't.
From: Jonathan Ball <jon...@netscape.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 09:22:55 -0700
dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> ...they aren't simply "killed". Some of those animals
> have decent lives, and others don't. Those are facts which veg*ns/"ARAs",
> and at least some of their supposed opponents, want to disregard when making
> their ethical evaluation of our relationship with animals.
No, Fuckwit. It is a "fact" that has no moral
importance, and need be given no consideration in
making a moral judgment about humans' relationship with
and use of animals.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>I am a meat
>eater;
You are a liar--there is no question about
that--and I believe you are lying when you say
you eat meat.
JethroUK©
yes - they are better off, because they have a life which they didn't have
before (i decided to eat them)
no disecting of words will change that plain ol inference - you can argue
that is morally wrong - but you cant stop it being a fact
nemo
dh...@nomail.com
dh...@nomail.com
dh...@nomail.com
dh...@nomail.com
dh...@nomail.com
dh...@nomail.com
dh...@nomail.com
dh...@nomail.com
George Plimpton
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:14:21 GMT, Wilson Woods<shaking...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:44:22 GMT, Wilson Woods<shaking...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson Woods<shaking...@aol.com> 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?
Like Fuckwit, JethroFuckwit couldn't answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've asked you "ARAs"
>>>>
>>>> No.
*Still* 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", Fuckwit. They're the ones who think it's
>> wrong, not I.
>
> There is nothing wrong with it Prof. Woods. We have established
> that.
I don't believe there is, Fuckwit, but *you* certainly haven't
established any such thing.
>> Actually, Fuckwit, ask yourself: YOU think it's
>> somehow wrong, so much so that you have offered the
>> "getting to experience life" bullshit as mitigation.
*You* think it's wrong to kill livestock animals, Fuckwit, but you think
you mitigate that harm by the silly fiction that "at least the animals
'get to experience life'."
It's no mitigation at all, Fuckwit - their "getting to experience life"
is meaningless.
>> Why, Fuckwit? 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, Fuckwit; 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 Prof. Woods.
You *do* think it's wrong, Fuckwit, but you think the wrong is somehow
mitigated by the "gift of life." There is no "gift of life", Fuckwit.
"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit or gift to livestock, Fuckwit.
>>>> 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, Fuckwit. 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, Fuckwit. Answer it now, and honestly.
>> Then, maybe, someone will address your question.
As expected, Fuckwit didn't answer. That's because he can't, and he
knows he can't.
>>>
>>>> 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", Fuckwit.
>
> You are an "ARA" Prof. Woods.
No, Fuckwit. You know that none of the people you accused of being
"ara" moles ever were "aras". You know that, Fuckwit.
>
>>>> 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, Fuckwit. 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 Prof. Woods.
No, Fuckwit. "Getting to experience life" is not "good" for any
domestic livestock, Fuckwit. It has no meaning to them at all, Fuckwit.
> A decent life is good for those who have
> one imo,
Only in comparison to a bad life, Fuckwit. "Getting to experience life"
in the first place is meaningless, Fuckwit.
>> ANSWER it, Fuckwit. 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
> Prof. Woods, so it's not "better" for livestock to live than not
> to.
So why have you been pretending you never wrote this for the last eight
years, Fuckwit?