the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>>
>>
>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
thlink.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

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, ****tard, 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, ****tard, 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 **** is the matter with you, ****tard?

Well?! What the **** is the matter with you, stupid?