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? |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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) |
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. |
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) |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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! |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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 :o) '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) |
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) |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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" |
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. |
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 |
If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak
|
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. |
If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak
If we breed more morons - we can get cheaper politicians - and meat-eaters!
|
If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak
|
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? |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter