"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. 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.
>

of course i have basis - i am alive and i know the difference between
life/death or non-existence - i can 'assume' the animal feels the same way
i would in the same situation (empathise with it) - you can argue that my
'assumptions' are wrong about [it's] feelings - but you cannot argue that it
doesn't have em (you can say it's 'worse off ' - that's all)



> >
> > animalkind,
>
> No.

yes

>
> > mankind
>
> No.

yes

>
> > & 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.


never denied it - look at my header - but this 'benefit' is not mutually
exclusive

everyone's a winner