"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
k.net...
> 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.

there is no 'better improvement' than life over non-existence - a
relationship between the two that can easily be considered (by an animal
that's alive to consider it)