"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