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
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 06:22 PM
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
.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.


  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 06:23 PM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

JethroUK© wrote:

"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
news
JethroUK© wrote:


"animal kind" does not have interests; only individual
entities have interests.


depends how you [choose] to use the word 'interest'


No, it doesn't, Mr Semantic-Game-Playing ****tard. The
word "interest" in ethics is very well defined and
understood, and not susceptible to your
definition-fiddling.



it is in the best interest of animal kind


No. Only individuals have interests. You lose, right
off the line.



it is in the best interest of animal kind and the world as a whole


No. Only individuals have interests. "animal kind",
whatever the **** that's supposed to be, and "the
world" do not have interests.

  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 06:32 PM
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
.net...

the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:


"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
thlink.net...


JethroUK© wrote:



"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
arthlink.net...



JethroUK© wrote:




for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
if animals come into existence?


It would be better for:

1/ That particular animal

NO. "That particular animal" didn't exist prior to
existing, so coming into existence CANNOT "benefit" it.


it's not 'comming into existance' (as per a twinkle in it's mothers

eye - as


per the article you are trying to regurgite, but totally MIS-read) -

it
already exists!

No, DUMMY. The question is, for whom or what is it
better for an animal to come into existence? Can't you
read?

The answer CANNOT be for the animal itself. In order
for something to be "better" for some entity, the
entity must ALREADY exist. "Coming into existence",
THEREFORE, cannot be "better" for an animal.


yes it can!

No, it can't! I've just explained why it can't be!
You don't get it!


- 'better' is a relative term - thus only needs a perspective -
from the point of view of the [live] animal itsself (it's

perspective) -

it

is better to be alive than not

No. That's impossible. You cannot compare existence
to non-existence:



yes you can, but only if you exist - the existance define the

perspective -
if you can consider yourself better off dead than alive - you can

equally
consider yourself better off alive than dead


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


  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 06:35 PM
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak


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

"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
.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 - well you're wrong (prolly
mis interpreted it) & i can prove it beyond doubt


  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 06:40 PM
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:



No, DUMMY. The question is, for whom or what is it
better for an animal to come into existence? Can't you
read?

The answer CANNOT be for the animal itself. In order
for something to be "better" for some entity, the
entity must ALREADY exist. "Coming into existence",
THEREFORE, cannot be "better" for an animal.


yes it can!

No, it can't! I've just explained why it can't be!
You don't get it!



- 'better' is a relative term - thus only needs a perspective -

from the point of view of the [live] animal itsself (it's perspective) -
it is better to be alive than not

No. That's impossible. You cannot compare existence
to non-existence:


yes you can, but only if you exist - the existance define the perspective -
if you can consider yourself better off dead than alive - you can equally
consider yourself better off alive than dead


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.



  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 06:42 PM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

JethroUK© wrote:

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

the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:


"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
ink.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.

  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 06:43 PM
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak


"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
.net...
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:



No, DUMMY. The question is, for whom or what is it
better for an animal to come into existence? Can't you
read?

The answer CANNOT be for the animal itself. In order
for something to be "better" for some entity, the
entity must ALREADY exist. "Coming into existence",
THEREFORE, cannot be "better" for an animal.


yes it can!

No, it can't! I've just explained why it can't be!
You don't get it!



- 'better' is a relative term - thus only needs a perspective -

from the point of view of the [live] animal itsself (it's

perspective) -
it is better to be alive than not

No. That's impossible. You cannot compare existence
to non-existence:


yes you can, but only if you exist - the existance define the

perspective -
if you can consider yourself better off dead than alive - you can

equally
consider yourself better off alive than dead

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


  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 06:46 PM
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
.net...

the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:


"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
ink.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 - your royal wrongness


  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 06:48 PM
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
.net...

the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:


"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
link.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, 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?

  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 06:49 PM
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak


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

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

the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:


"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
link.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 - you've denied this fact repeatedly

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?


ditto




  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 07:19 PM
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  
Old 18-05-2004, 07:21 PM
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  
Old 18-05-2004, 07:50 PM
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  
Old 18-05-2004, 07:54 PM
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  
Old 18-05-2004, 08:42 PM
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)




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 05:29 AM
Mundane Questions that a Fairly Sophisticated Cook is Afraid to Ask Lynn from Fargo General Cooking 3 26-10-2008 03:41 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 05:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017