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.