JethroUK© wrote:

> "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

No, you don't. You are not entitled to substitute your
rambling, incoherent speculation about the animal's
interest for the animal's actual interest.

>
>
>
>>>animalkind,
>>
>>No.
>
>
> yes

No. Only individual animals have interests.

>
>
>>>mankind
>>
>>No.
>
>
> yes

No. Only individual humans have interests.

>
>
>>>& 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

You concealed it.

You are not and never were talking about the animals'
interests; you were only talking about your own,
narrow, insignificant interests.