"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
k.net...
> JethroUK© wrote:
>
> > "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> >
> >>JethroUK© wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> link.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
> >>
> >>It isn't an "improvement" AT ALL.
> >>
> >
> > it's the ultimate improvement
>
> It is not an "improvement" at all: there was nothing
> to improve.
>

but once it [is] there - it's an improvement (it can also consider this it's
self)

my driveway maybe empty - if it had a roller in it tomorrow - that would be
an improvement