JethroUK© wrote:

>>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.
>>
>
>
> wrooooongg !!!!!!
>
> an animal can better off (from it's own perspective) merely by virtue of
> it's existence

No, it can't. It didn't exist previously, so it had no
well-being or welfare to improve. Look, ****tard:
being "better off" MEANS experiencing an improvement in
well-being/welfare. If there IS no well-being/welfare
to improve, then BY DEFINITION, one cannot be made
"better off". It's that simple.

> (but only whilst it exists) - unless the animal is not
> sentient (doesn't have these thoughts), in which case, i can have them for
> [it]

No, you can't. You have no basis for substituting your
benighted sentiments for the animal's.

>
> animalkind,

No.

> mankind

No.

> & i, can be 'better off' because of it's existance or
> non-existance (it's potential existence)

Well, well, well! SO, it is YOUR welfare/well-being
we've been discussing all this time! Of course, I knew
that all along.