Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>>
>>
>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>>>>>>

>>
>>>>>>No. That's the whole issue. When you exist, you can
>>>>>>think that your existence is so awful, you don't want
>>>>>>to continue it. You won't *really* be "better off"
>>>>>>dead than alive, because you won't BE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>whilst alive, you can consider 'not being' (alive) & hence make the
>>>>>relative judgment - if your life is a living hell, you can (will

>>
>>full
>>
>>>>>perspective) consider not doing it
>>>>
>>>>That's nice, semi-literate scrawler. It doesn't change
>>>>the FACT that prior to existing, one has no well-being
>>>>or welfare to improve, and thus coming into existence
>>>>CANNOT be "better" than never coming into existence. QED.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>errrrrm i know - but once existing, you can consider not existing

>>
>>ERRRRRRRRRRRMMMMMMMM - *I* know,

>
>
> NO YOU DONT


ERRRRRRMMMMMMM - yes, I do.

> - you've denied this fact repeatedly


No, I haven't. "This fact" - that one can contemplate
a *later* period in which one no longer exists - just
came up.

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.

>
>
>>but PRIOR to existing,
>>there is no 'you' to consider that you might be 'better
>>off' coming into existence.
>>
>>What the **** is the matter with you, ****tard?


Well?! What the **** is the matter with you, stupid?

  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

JethroUK© wrote:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It is not important to any animal, a priori, that it
>>>>>>>>"gets to exist".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>yes it is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, it isn't. I've explained in plain English why it
>>>>>>cannot be. I suppose English is not your native tongue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>yes it is
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't appear to be. I don't think you could
>>>>express coherent thoughts in any language.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>you mean you've 'read' somewhere that it isn't

>>
>>No, I am merely going by your severely impaired
>>articulation in English. It would appear that English
>>is not your native tongue. It doesn't merely appear,
>>it is a FACT that you are an uneducated twit who has no
>>business whatever trying to discuss philosophy. Your
>>opinions are ignornant and uninformed. No matter what
>>your native tongue, you cannot express coherent thoughts.
>>

>
>
> say you


Correctly, and with much support.

  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak


"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
k.net...
> JethroUK© wrote:
>
> > "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> >
> >>JethroUK© wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>JethroUK© wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>It is not important to any animal, a priori, that it
> >>>>>>>>"gets to exist".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>yes it is
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No, it isn't. I've explained in plain English why it
> >>>>>>cannot be. I suppose English is not your native tongue.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>yes it is
> >>>>
> >>>>It doesn't appear to be. I don't think you could
> >>>>express coherent thoughts in any language.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>you mean you've 'read' somewhere that it isn't
> >>
> >>No, I am merely going by your severely impaired
> >>articulation in English. It would appear that English
> >>is not your native tongue. It doesn't merely appear,
> >>it is a FACT that you are an uneducated twit who has no
> >>business whatever trying to discuss philosophy. Your
> >>opinions are ignornant and uninformed. No matter what
> >>your native tongue, you cannot express coherent thoughts.
> >>

> >
> >
> > say you

>
> Correctly, and with much support.
>


i eat - therfor i breed cows - everyones is 'better' off for it


  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

JethroUK© wrote:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It is not important to any animal, a priori, that it
>>>>>>>>>>"gets to exist".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>yes it is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, it isn't. I've explained in plain English why it
>>>>>>>>cannot be. I suppose English is not your native tongue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>yes it is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It doesn't appear to be. I don't think you could
>>>>>>express coherent thoughts in any language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>you mean you've 'read' somewhere that it isn't
>>>>
>>>>No, I am merely going by your severely impaired
>>>>articulation in English. It would appear that English
>>>>is not your native tongue. It doesn't merely appear,
>>>>it is a FACT that you are an uneducated twit who has no
>>>>business whatever trying to discuss philosophy. Your
>>>>opinions are ignornant and uninformed. No matter what
>>>>your native tongue, you cannot express coherent thoughts.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>say you

>>
>>Correctly, and with much support.
>>

>
>
> i eat - therfor i breed cows - everyones is 'better' off for it


Not the cattle. This has been explained to you a few
dozen times in plain English. I don't know what your
problem is. Perhaps you were dropped onto your head a
few times as an infant.

  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak



> 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 (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] - the thoughts i have for it can be denied (you could consider it worse
off) - but that's the only thing in question - so question it !

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




  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

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.

  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak


"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)


  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak


"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


  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

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.

>
>
> there is no 'better improvement' than life over non-existence


It isn't an "improvement" AT ALL.

  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak


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

> >
> >
> > there is no 'better improvement' than life over non-existence

>
> It isn't an "improvement" AT ALL.
>

it's the ultimate improvement




  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

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.

  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak


> >>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.


Where abouts in my header "If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper
steak" did i conceal it???????
>
> You are not and never were talking about the animals'
> interests; you were only talking about your own,
> narrow, insignificant interests.
>


i have proved benefits for allllllllll - including moi!


  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

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.

  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak


"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


  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

JethroUK© wrote:

>>>>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.

>
>
> Where abouts in my header "If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper
> steak" did i conceal it???????


You concealed it every time you tried to flim-flam us
into thinking you were talking about animals' interests.

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

>
>
> i have proved benefits for allllllllll


No; only for you.

This brings us full circle. The illogic of the larder
is all about guilt-ridden people trying to create an
illusion of promoting the interests of animals, when
all they really were trying to do is promote their own
interests.



  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

JethroUK© wrote:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
thlink.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


NO. We're not concerned with "once it [is] there" -
what the **** is it with you and the MISUSE of brackets
and hyphens?

Read again: "better off" as you are using it refers to
an improvement in welfare. As there IS NO welfare
before the animal exists, existence does not effect any
"improvement" for the animal (or a human, for that
matter.) It is logically absurd to conclude that it is
better to be born than not born.

  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

> It is logically absurd to conclude that it is
> better to be born than not born.
>


the statement "it is better to be born than not born."

is perfectly understandable/appreciable by those who exist, as a fact -
state it anywhere and see if it's questioned at all!

it is not until you try to carve it up the word 'better' your own way that
the meaning is changed

and then when i carve your 'interpretation' up - it resumes
understandable/appreciable once more

and i can do it until the cows come home )

'better' is a rellevant term - as such can be determined by the perspective
from which/who/what it is "better" - anything thats alive can appreciate it
(even of those that only have a 'potential' life - whether it would be
'better' or 'worse' for something to live)


  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak


> > Where abouts in my header "If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper
> > steak" did i conceal it???????

>
> You concealed it every time you tried to flim-flam us
> into thinking you were talking about animals' interests.
>


are you suggesting i give a rats ass about the consequence of my diet

i'm here to state 'facts' remember - i am solely objective - and more
precisely to oppose your view (whatever it happens to be)


  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

JethroUK© wrote:
>> It is logically absurd to conclude that it is
>>better to be born than not born.
>>

>
>
> the statement "it is better to be born than not born."
>
> is perfectly understandable/appreciable by those who exist, as a fact -
> state it anywhere and see if it's questioned at all!


argumentum ad populum

>
> it is not until you try to carve it up the word 'better' your own way that
> the meaning is changed


I haven't "carved up" anything. What I have done,
because it's necessary and legitimate, is try to
clarify for whom or what "it" is "better", and the
correct perspective. THE CORRECT perspective is PRIOR
to existence.

It is NOT "better" to be born than not, because
"better" MEANS an improvement in the animal's welfare
BEFORE the improving event, and prior to being born,
there was NO animal and NO welfare. It is NOT "better"
to be born than not. Your position is wrong, illogical
and stupid.


> 'better' is a rellevant term


Cut the shit. You're bullshitting. Stop it.

  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

JethroUK© wrote:

>>>Where abouts in my header "If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper
>>>steak" did i conceal it???????

>>
>>You concealed it every time you tried to flim-flam us
>>into thinking you were talking about animals' interests.
>>

>
>
> are you suggesting i give a rats ass about the consequence of my diet


Yes, you do. You see it as necessary. That's why you
brought up the unimportant factlette.

>
> i'm here to state 'facts' remember


You're here to spout bullshit: self-justifying bullshit.

> and more
> precisely to oppose your view


In other words, you're a shit-stirring sophist and
liar. But we already knew that.



  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

> > and more
> > precisely to oppose your view

>
> In other words, you're a shit-stirring sophist and
> liar. But we already knew that.
>


i dont need to lie (and haven't) to deliberately oppose your view - actually
i'm playing devil's advocate since you seem to be on some sort of mission to
stuff your own 'opinion' (not a fact in sight) down everyones throat - now i
know what that is - i will discredit it (as fact) - then maybe you will
realise, it [only] your opinion - and that's all it is


  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

JethroUK© wrote:

>>>and more
>>>precisely to oppose your view

>>
>>In other words, you're a shit-stirring sophist and
>>liar. But we already knew that.
>>

>
>
> i dont need to lie (and haven't) to deliberately oppose your view


Perhaps you didn't need to do, but you have done. You
are a liar and a shit-stirring sophist, and you don't
even believe your own bullshit. You're absurdly
enamored of what you stupidly believe to be your
fluency in philosophical matters. Take it from me,
****tard: you are incompetent.

  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak


"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> JethroUK© wrote:
>
> >>>and more
> >>>precisely to oppose your view
> >>
> >>In other words, you're a shit-stirring sophist and
> >>liar. But we already knew that.
> >>

> >
> >
> > i dont need to lie (and haven't) to deliberately oppose your view

>
> Perhaps you didn't need to do, but you have done. You
> are a liar and a shit-stirring sophist, and you don't
> even believe your own bullshit. You're absurdly
> enamored of what you stupidly believe to be your
> fluency in philosophical matters. Take it from me,
> ****tard: you are incompetent.
>


Haven't lied once - You 'believe' eating animals is wrong - there is an
argument that is insurmountable - 'if meat eater didn't animals, they
wouldn't be there anyhow' - which leaves you with a rather hollow -
'breeding animals for consumption is morally wrong' - it's [your] opinion -
dont try to make a fact about it - you cannot [prove] someone's opinion is
wrong

"opinions are like assholes - we alllll got one - dirty harry"


  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

JethroUK© wrote:
> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>and more
>>>>>precisely to oppose your view
>>>>
>>>>In other words, you're a shit-stirring sophist and
>>>>liar. But we already knew that.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>i dont need to lie (and haven't) to deliberately oppose your view

>>
>>Perhaps you didn't need to do, but you have done. You
>>are a liar and a shit-stirring sophist, and you don't
>>even believe your own bullshit. You're absurdly
>>enamored of what you stupidly believe to be your
>>fluency in philosophical matters. Take it from me,
>>****tard: you are incompetent.
>>

>
>
> Haven't lied once


You've lied by omission a dozen or more times.

> - You 'believe' eating animals is wrong


That's your fundamental error, and if you can't get the
basics right, you have no hope with the big stuff. I
do NOT believe eating animals is wrong. I am a meat
eater; dairy, too. I wear leather and wool. I consume
animals.

> - there is an
> argument that is insurmountable


It isn't my argument, whatever your rubbish is.

  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

On Thu, 20 May 2004 05:55:09 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:

>JethroUK© wrote:
>> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>
>>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>and more
>>>>>>precisely to oppose your view
>>>>>
>>>>>In other words, you're a shit-stirring sophist and
>>>>>liar. But we already knew that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>i dont need to lie (and haven't) to deliberately oppose your view
>>>
>>>Perhaps you didn't need to do, but you have done. You
>>>are a liar and a shit-stirring sophist, and you don't
>>>even believe your own bullshit. You're absurdly
>>>enamored of what you stupidly believe to be your
>>>fluency in philosophical matters. Take it from me,
>>>****tard: you are incompetent.
>>>

>>
>>
>> Haven't lied once

>
>You've lied by omission a dozen or more times.
>
>> - You 'believe' eating animals is wrong

>
>That's your fundamental error, and if you can't get the
>basics right, you have no hope with the big stuff. I
>do NOT believe eating animals is wrong.


Yes you do Gonad. You believe that their
lives mean nothing, but their deaths are very
significant. You have no opposition to "AR",
and have tried to promote its accetance
many times:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
Subject: "getting to experience life" = the (il)logic of the larder
Message-ID: .net>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:19:18 GMT

the "getting to experience
life" deserves NO moral consideration, and is given
none; the deliberate killing of animals for use by
humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: (Jonathan Ball)
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,alt.food.vegan
Subject: How Jonathan Ball wants people to feel about the silly arse, ****with
Date: 11 Apr 2002 18:53:15 -0700

People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
09 Sep 2000 by Jonathan Ball
there is no moral loss if domesticated species go extinct.

11 Sep 2000 by Jonathan Ball
So far, the "debate" (huh!) has been David reposting his
observation - that billions of animals will not get to
experience life - and me pointing out that this is of no
moral importance

19 Oct 2000 by Jonathan Ball
Since there is no moral loss to any animals, there is
nothing for any human to take into consideration

02 Dec 2000 by Jonathan Ball
if domestic animals were to go extinct, there would be
no moral loss

2001-09-17 From: Jonathan Ball
"Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm
animals. And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm
animals would live in bad conditions.

27 Jan 2002 by Jonathan Ball
his basic rationale for opposing "animal rights" and
"vegans" is nonsense (that it prevents animals from
"getting to experience life")

02 Oct 2001 by Jonathan Ball
If there is no moral loss, which he coyly has hinted at
before, then he has no grounds for bashing "vegans" for
wanting domestic farm animals to disappear

27 Jul 2001 by Jonathan Ball
If they never live in the first place, there is no moral
loss to humans, animals or the universe.

05 Sep 2001 by Jonathan Ball
If no farm animals are born...then so be it. There's no
moral loss.

04 Dec 2000 by Jonathan Ball
I said that their experiencing of life is of no moral
significance: if domestic animals were to go extinct,
there would be no moral loss

01 Aug 2001 by Jonathan Ball
You don't have any way of measuring the psychic value
to the cow of the welfare improvement. You only know
that *you* feel better about it

13 Nov 2000 by Jonathan Ball
"they follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its
natural and logical conclusion."
[That natural and logical conclusion being the elimination
of domestic animals.]
"You invent some arbitrary line and head off in some other
bizarre direction...all by yourself."
[That other bizarre direction being to improve the animals'
welfare instead of to eliminate them.]

28 Mar 2002 by Jonathan Ball
It doesn't matter if the animals know our intent, ****wit.
We know it.

30 Apr 2002 by Jonathan Ball
The fact they're going to be killed "anyway" is an enormous
factor in the quality of their lives

22 Jul 2001 by Jonathan Ball
wrote:

> Meat eaters promote life for the animals they eat,


No, they don't.

From: Jonathan Ball >
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 09:22:55 -0700
wrote:

> ...they aren't simply "killed". Some of those animals
> have decent lives, and others don't. Those are facts which veg*ns/"ARAs",
> and at least some of their supposed opponents, want to disregard when making
> their ethical evaluation of our relationship with animals.


No, ****wit. It is a "fact" that has no moral
importance, and need be given no consideration in
making a moral judgment about humans' relationship with
and use of animals.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>I am a meat
>eater;


You are a liar--there is no question about
that--and I believe you are lying when you say
you eat meat.


  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak


"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:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> rthlink.net...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>JethroUK© wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>It is not important to any animal, a priori, that it
> >>>>>>>>>>"gets to exist".
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>yes it is
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>No, it isn't. I've explained in plain English why it
> >>>>>>>>cannot be. I suppose English is not your native tongue.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>yes it is
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It doesn't appear to be. I don't think you could
> >>>>>>express coherent thoughts in any language.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>you mean you've 'read' somewhere that it isn't
> >>>>
> >>>>No, I am merely going by your severely impaired
> >>>>articulation in English. It would appear that English
> >>>>is not your native tongue. It doesn't merely appear,
> >>>>it is a FACT that you are an uneducated twit who has no
> >>>>business whatever trying to discuss philosophy. Your
> >>>>opinions are ignornant and uninformed. No matter what
> >>>>your native tongue, you cannot express coherent thoughts.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>say you
> >>
> >>Correctly, and with much support.
> >>

> >
> >
> > i eat - therfor i breed cows - everyones is 'better' off for it

>
> Not the cattle. This has been explained to you a few
> dozen times in plain English. I don't know what your
> problem is. Perhaps you were dropped onto your head a
> few times as an infant.
>


yes - they are better off, because they have a life which they didn't have
before (i decided to eat them)

no disecting of words will change that plain ol inference - you can argue
that is morally wrong - but you cant stop it being a fact


  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2004 05:55:09 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:
>
>
>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>
>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>and more
>>>>>>>precisely to oppose your view
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In other words, you're a shit-stirring sophist and
>>>>>>liar. But we already knew that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>i dont need to lie (and haven't) to deliberately oppose your view
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps you didn't need to do, but you have done. You
>>>>are a liar and a shit-stirring sophist, and you don't
>>>>even believe your own bullshit. You're absurdly
>>>>enamored of what you stupidly believe to be your
>>>>fluency in philosophical matters. Take it from me,
>>>>****tard: you are incompetent.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Haven't lied once

>>
>>You've lied by omission a dozen or more times.
>>
>>
>>>- You 'believe' eating animals is wrong

>>
>>That's your fundamental error, and if you can't get the
>>basics right, you have no hope with the big stuff. I
>>do NOT believe eating animals is wrong.

>
>
> Yes you do.


No, I don't, ****wit. You're just wrong.

> You believe that their
> lives mean nothing,


Irrelevant. Their lives DON'T mean anything, at least
not in the ****witted, WRONG way you believe they do.
That is EXACTLY one of the reasons I don't believe
eating them is wrong. How *could* it be wrong, if
their lives don't mean anything.

> but their deaths are very significant.


No. I do not consider their deaths of any particular
significance. "aras" do, but I'm not an "ara", as you
have always known.

> You have no opposition to "AR",


False. I am strenuously and unalterably opposed to
"ar", as you have ALWAYS known.

> and have tried to promote its accetance
> many times:


Never. What I have done, ****wit, and very
successfully, is to show that your position is
illogical and absurd, and WRONG. That doesn't make me
an "ara", ****wit; it makes me an anti-****wit.

>>I am a meat
>>eater;

>
>
> You are a liar


No, I am a truth-telling meat eater.

  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

On Thu, 20 May 2004 16:10:15 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:

wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 May 2004 05:55:09 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>and more
>>>>>>>>precisely to oppose your view
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In other words, you're a shit-stirring sophist and
>>>>>>>liar. But we already knew that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>i dont need to lie (and haven't) to deliberately oppose your view
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps you didn't need to do, but you have done. You
>>>>>are a liar and a shit-stirring sophist, and you don't
>>>>>even believe your own bullshit. You're absurdly
>>>>>enamored of what you stupidly believe to be your
>>>>>fluency in philosophical matters. Take it from me,
>>>>>****tard: you are incompetent.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Haven't lied once
>>>
>>>You've lied by omission a dozen or more times.
>>>
>>>
>>>>- You 'believe' eating animals is wrong
>>>
>>>That's your fundamental error, and if you can't get the
>>>basics right, you have no hope with the big stuff. I
>>>do NOT believe eating animals is wrong.

>>
>>
>> Yes you do.

>
>No, I don't, ****wit. You're just wrong.
>
>> You believe that their
>> lives mean nothing,

>
>Irrelevant. Their lives DON'T mean anything,


Not to you "ARAs". Only their deaths mean anything
you.

>at least
>not in the ****witted, WRONG way you believe they do.
>That is EXACTLY one of the reasons I don't believe
>eating them is wrong. How *could* it be wrong, if
>their lives don't mean anything.
>
>> but their deaths are very significant.

>
>No. I do not consider their deaths of any particular
>significance.


"the deliberate killing of animals for use by
humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it."

>"aras" do, but I'm not an "ara", as you
>have always known.
>
>> You have no opposition to "AR",

>
>False. I am strenuously and unalterably opposed to
>"ar",


But you can't present any of your opposition.


  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
nemo
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

If we breed more morons - we can get cheaper politicians - and meat-eaters!


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.philosophy,sci.agriculture,alt.food.vegan,alt.sci.sociology
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Why is the Gonad so horribly afraid to answer simple and goodquestions?

On 5/16/2004 1:41 PM, wrote:
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:14:21 GMT, Wilson > wrote:
>
>>
wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:44:22 GMT, Wilson > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
>>>>>> legitimate questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jethro wrote,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
>>>>>> raise it at all?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
>>>>>> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
>>>>>> at all?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
>>>>>> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
>>>>>> at all?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
>>>>>> "better"/"more moral" for whom or what?


Like ****wit, Jethro****wit couldn't answer.


>>>>>
>>>>> I've asked you "ARAs"
>>>>
>>>> No.


*Still* no.


>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> more than once for whom or what it would
>>>>> be better not to raise animals to eat.
>>>>
>>>> They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
>>>> - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals
>>>
>>>
>>> And exactly why is that?

>>
>> Ask an "ara", ****wit. They're the ones who think it's
>> wrong, not I.

>
> There is nothing wrong with it Prof. Woods. We have established
> that.


I don't believe there is, ****wit, but *you* certainly haven't
established any such thing.


>> Actually, ****wit, ask yourself: YOU think it's
>> somehow wrong, so much so that you have offered the
>> "getting to experience life" bullshit as mitigation.


*You* think it's wrong to kill livestock animals, ****wit, but you think
you mitigate that harm by the silly fiction that "at least the animals
'get to experience life'."

It's no mitigation at all, ****wit - their "getting to experience life"
is meaningless.


>> Why, ****wit? In what sense do you think it's wrong,
>> so much so that you need to mitigate your wrong deed?
>> Don't tell us you don't think it's wrong, ****wit; it
>> is perfectly clear you DO think it's wrong. Tell us how.

>
> Let's see...how could I think it's wrong? Because it
> provides them with life? No, that's not it. Because it
> means less life for them? No, it means more life for them.
> Hmmm....how is it wrong? I don't see how it could be
> wrong Prof. Woods.


You *do* think it's wrong, ****wit, but you think the wrong is somehow
mitigated by the "gift of life." There is no "gift of life", ****wit.
"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit or gift to livestock, ****wit.


>>>> they don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>>>> your answer.
>>>
>>>
>>> You didn't answer the question.

>>
>> It was a stupid question that was merely EVASION on
>> your part, ****wit. You are only asking it because you
>> are AFRAID to answer the much BETTER question that has
>> been asked of JethroFW and you:
>>
>> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
>> if animals come into existence?
>>
>> Answer it, ****wit. Answer it now, and honestly.
>> Then, maybe, someone will address your question.


As expected, ****wit didn't answer. That's because he can't, and he
knows he can't.


>>>
>>>> Of course, most of the time, you are addressing
>>>> yourself to people who are NOT "aras".
>>>
>>>
>>> Most of the time I'm addressing

>>
>> People who are not "aras", and who you KNOW are not
>> "aras", ****wit.

>
> You are an "ARA" Prof. Woods.


No, ****wit. You know that none of the people you accused of being
"ara" moles ever were "aras". You know that, ****wit.


>
>>>> Most of the
>>>> time, you are addressing yourself to opponents of "ar"
>>>> who disagree with your foolish "getting to experience
>>>> life" nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, you were asked for whom or what would it be a
>>>> loss if "future farm animals" were "prevented" from
>>>> living,
>>>
>>>
>>> And I asked who would benefit if they are.

>>
>> Your question is not permitted, because you haven't
>> answered my question. You will not evade my question
>> by asking a deliberately evasive one, ****wit. Answer
>> my question:
>>
>> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
>> if animals come into existence?

>
> It can be good for them without being "better" for
> them Prof. Woods.


No, ****wit. "Getting to experience life" is not "good" for any
domestic livestock, ****wit. It has no meaning to them at all, ****wit.


> A decent life is good for those who have
> one imo,


Only in comparison to a bad life, ****wit. "Getting to experience life"
in the first place is meaningless, ****wit.



>> ANSWER it, ****wit. NOW. If your answer is that it is
>> "better" for the currently non-existent animals
>> themselves, then you are dead in the water, because I
>> have already conclusively shown that it CANNOT be
>> "better" for "them": "they" don't exist, and something
>> can only be "better" for something that *already* exists.

>
> Then it's not better for anything to live than not to live
> Prof. Woods, so it's not "better" for livestock to live than not
> to.


So why have you been pretending you never wrote this for the last eight
years, ****wit?
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mundane Questions that a Fairly Sophisticated Cook is Afraid to Ask Lynn from Fargo General Cooking 20 01-11-2008 06:29 AM
Mundane Questions that a Fairly Sophisticated Cook is Afraid to Ask Lynn from Fargo General Cooking 3 26-10-2008 04:41 AM
Mundane Questions that a Fairly Sophisticated Cook is Afraid to Ask Lynn from Fargo General Cooking 0 26-10-2008 12:22 AM
simple question, bet the answer isnt..... snpm Winemaking 4 12-04-2007 06:04 PM
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions? Wilson Woods Vegan 28 22-05-2004 02:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"