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
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 08:49 PM
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  
Old 18-05-2004, 08:56 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:

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  
Old 18-05-2004, 09:03 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:

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  
Old 18-05-2004, 09:09 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:


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  
Old 18-05-2004, 09:09 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:


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  
Old 18-05-2004, 09:11 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:


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  
Old 18-05-2004, 09:11 PM
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  
Old 18-05-2004, 09:12 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:



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  
Old 18-05-2004, 09:16 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
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  
Old 18-05-2004, 09:21 PM
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  
Old 18-05-2004, 09:23 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
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  
Old 18-05-2004, 10:27 PM
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  
Old 18-05-2004, 10:33 PM
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  
Old 19-05-2004, 04:55 AM
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  
Old 19-05-2004, 04:57 AM
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.



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 03:10 AM.

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