View Single Post
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak


"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