"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