Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?
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? Why does JethroUK the coward keep EVADING the question? JethroUK the coward also has been asked, repeatedly and civilly, why he thinks it is important to draw attention to the unimportant "fact" that animals "get to live" only because they are bred to be eaten. He keeps whiffing off and EVADING that question, as well. Answer the questions, JethroUK the coward: 1. Why do you think your little "fact" merits any attention at all? 2. For whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral" in your earlier questions, "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?" Answer the questions. Don't evade them, don't snip them out, just answer them. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?
"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message k.net... > 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? > > Why does JethroUK the coward keep EVADING the question? > > > JethroUK the coward also has been asked, repeatedly and > civilly, why he thinks it is important to draw > attention to the unimportant "fact" that animals "get > to live" only because they are bred to be eaten. He > keeps whiffing off and EVADING that question, as well. > > Answer the questions, JethroUK the coward: > > 1. Why do you think your little "fact" merits any > attention > at all? > > 2. For whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral" > in your earlier questions, > > "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?" > > > Answer the questions. Don't evade them, don't snip > them out, just answer them. > Maybe Jethro comes from Wales, where they love their animals. Really....Love them. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and goodquestions?
Pale in Wales wrote:
>>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? >> >>Why does JethroUK the coward keep EVADING the question? >> >> >>JethroUK the coward also has been asked, repeatedly and >>civilly, why he thinks it is important to draw >>attention to the unimportant "fact" that animals "get >>to live" only because they are bred to be eaten. He >>keeps whiffing off and EVADING that question, as well. >> >>Answer the questions, JethroUK the coward: >> >>1. Why do you think your little "fact" merits any >>attention >> at all? >> >>2. For whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral" >> in your earlier questions, >> >> "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?" >> >> >>Answer the questions. Don't evade them, don't snip >>them out, just answer them. >> > > > Maybe Jethro comes from Wales, where they love their animals. > Really....Love them. That's baa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aad. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > Pale in Wales wrote: > >>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? > >> > >>Why does JethroUK the coward keep EVADING the question? > >> > >> > >>JethroUK the coward also has been asked, repeatedly and > >>civilly, why he thinks it is important to draw > >>attention to the unimportant "fact" that animals "get > >>to live" only because they are bred to be eaten. He > >>keeps whiffing off and EVADING that question, as well. > >> > >>Answer the questions, JethroUK the coward: > >> > >>1. Why do you think your little "fact" merits any > >>attention > >> at all? > >> > >>2. For whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral" > >> in your earlier questions, > >> > >> "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?" > >> > >> > >>Answer the questions. Don't evade them, don't snip > >>them out, just answer them. > >> > > > > > > Maybe Jethro comes from Wales, where they love their animals. > > Really....Love them. > > That's baa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aad. > http://images.google.com/images?q=jethro+hillbillies |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so much cleverer than me
I wont answer a question to a question (that's the domain of aresoles)
If you want the answer, then answer |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and goodquestions?
JethroUK© wrote:
> I wont answer a question to a question Because you're a coward; because you know that answering it puts you into an untenable position. Okay, pal, have it your way - don't answer. I'll provide your answers for you. Q. Why does JethroFW think it's important to point out that livestock only live because they are bred to be used? A. Because JethroFW thinks that he is doing some kind of "good deed" to animals by causing them to exist. JethroFW offers his "good deed" as an attempt to mitigate the moral harm he feels he causes by killing the animals. Q. When JethroFW asks, "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to raise it at all?" for whom or what might it be "better"? A. JethroFW means better for the animal in question; in other words, JethroFW means that it is "better" for the animal, which previously didn't exist, to "get to experience life". JethroFW employs the discredited, illogical "logic of the larder". Q. Why won't JethroFW answer these proper questions? A. Because JethroFW knows that to answer them is to reveal just how untenable his position is. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so good?
Well if you wont ask me a question - here's an easy one for you:
what is your (personal) moral stance on eating meat? i'll try pretend i give a shit - just for the benefit of the argument & i will warn you, you've already lost |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so good?
"JethroUK©" > wrote in message news:x%upc.165$E9.120@newsfe1-win... > Well if you wont ask me a question - here's an easy one for you: > > what is your (personal) moral stance on eating meat? > > i'll try pretend i give a shit - just for the benefit of the argument & i > will warn you, you've already lost > Who needs a moral stance? We're carnivores. Ugh! Meat Good! |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroFW so evasive and cowardly?
JethroUK© wrote:
> Well if you wont ask me a question I have asked you questions, JethroFW, several of them, and you keep evading them and refusing to answer them. They're good questions, too, and not particularly difficult to answer...or, I wouldn't have thought they were, prior to seeing the abject terror they seem to produce in you. Here they are again, JethroFW: JethroFW 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?" Here's my question, JethroFW: "better"/"more moral" for whom or what? Please answer it without any more evasion, JethroFW. Here's another good and simple one, JethroFW: why do you think it is important to draw attention to the little factlette that livestock animals "only get to live" because they are bred for us to use? I have already acknowledged the factual basis of the factlette, JethroFW; now I am asking you a good, simple and legitimate question: why do you think the factlette has any importance at all? Answer it, JethroFW; the time for spinelessness is over. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?
> That's baa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aad.
but is it racist, or sheepist? |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?
"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message k.net... : 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?" It is better not to raise an animal at all rather than to raise it to slaughter and eat. First it damages the human spirit to eat other animals, IMO. Second meat is rather unhealthy, isn't it. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and goodquestions?
not a philosopher wrote:
> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message > k.net... > : 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?" > > It is better not to raise an animal at all rather than to > raise it to slaughter and eat. First it damages the human > spirit to eat other animals, IMO. I fully disagree with your opinion, but it is at least an honest opinion, and one that many millions of people have shared. It is obvious that JethroFW holds a diametrically opposite opinion to yours: JethroFW believes it is better that the livestock animals are born and "get to experience life". In my opinion, it simply isn't an issue. I don't view human consumption of animals as in any way wrong or corrosive to the human spirit, but I also don't believe that animals "benefit" in any way from coming into existence: existence _per se_ cannot be a "benefit". > Second meat is rather unhealthy, isn't it. You mean *unhealthful*, not "unhealthy": if one eats too many unhealthful things, one will BE unhealthy. The answer is No, it is not intrinsically unhealthful. Too much meat probably is, though. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and goodquestions?
not a philosopher wrote:
Hit send before finishing... sorry. <...> > Second meat is rather unhealthy, isn't it. It can be when eaten in excess, or when the wrong cuts are chosen. Lean meats are suitable for a healthful diet. Some meats also have healthful benefits, such as providing nutrients like CLA (lean beef and pork, game), omega-3 fatty acids (fish, grass-fed beef, game), etc. See the links for more information. http://www.mercola.com/beef/cla.htm http://www.bikescor.com/BENEFITS%20O...FED%20BEEF.htm http://www.drweil.com/app/cda/drw_cd...glossaryId=162 Don't make an error of generalization. Lean cuts are healthful and nutritious, especially from wild game and grass-fed beef or bison. Fatty seafood like salmon is also healthful, raising HDL (good cholesterol). On the flip side of your argument, one can have an unhealthful vegetarian diet and be far worse off than one who eats a healthful diet that includes even a lot of meat. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?
"not a philosopher" > wrote in message news:FvPpc.164748$f_5.142824@lakeread01... > > "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message > k.net... > : 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?" > > It is better not to raise an animal at all rather than to > raise it to slaughter and eat. but if you are going to eat it anyway - it's better (for animalkind) to raise it (than just wipe out the populous) First it damages the human > spirit to eat other animals, IMO. depends on the idividual - you cant speak for everyone > Second meat is rather > unhealthy, isn't it. > a healthy diet requires moderation in all foods |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?
"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message nk.net... > JethroUK© wrote: > > > "not a philosopher" > wrote in message > > news:FvPpc.164748$f_5.142824@lakeread01... > > > >>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message > ink.net... > >>: JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and > >>: legitimate questions. > >>: > >>: Jethro wrote, > >>: > >>: "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to > >>: raise it at all?" > >>: > >>: "i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an > >>: animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it > >>: at all?" > >>: > >>: "i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an > >>: animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it > >>: at all?" > >> > >>It is better not to raise an animal at all rather than to > >>raise it to slaughter and eat. > > > > > > but if you are going to eat it anyway - it's better (for animalkind) > > No such thing. Ok - it's better the animal world as a whole - is that easier for you to grasp? > > > > > > >> First it damages the human spirit to eat other animals, IMO. > > > > > > depends on the idividual - you cant speak for everyone > > You seem to think you can speak for all of > "animalkind", you idiot. > facts dear boy, are evident! - the gene pool alone benefits from a larger populous - how much evidence would you like? |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and goodquestions?
JethroUK© wrote:
> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message > nk.net... > >>JethroUK© wrote: >> >> >>>"not a philosopher" > wrote in message >>>news:FvPpc.164748$f_5.142824@lakeread01... >>> >>> >>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message hlink.net... >>>>: 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?" >>>> >>>>It is better not to raise an animal at all rather than to >>>>raise it to slaughter and eat. >>> >>> >>>but if you are going to eat it anyway - it's better (for animalkind) >> >>No such thing. > > > Ok - it's better the animal world as a whole - is that easier for you to > grasp? It's still WRONG, dummy. There is no such interest-holding entity. > > >>> >>>>First it damages the human spirit to eat other animals, IMO. >>> >>> >>>depends on the idividual - you cant speak for everyone >> >>You seem to think you can speak for all of >>"animalkind", you idiot. >> > > > facts dear boy, are evident! - the gene pool alone benefits from a larger > populous - how much evidence would you like? You should have said "better for the gene pool", but we know that's sophistry. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?
> Q. When JethroFW asks, > > "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to > raise it at all?" > > for whom or what might it be "better"? > better for anyone/anything connected to the consequence of it's birth better for the animal itself - once it is born (worse for 'it', when it gets eaten) |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and goodquestions?
JethroUK© wrote:
>>Q. When JethroFW asks, >> >> "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to >> raise it at all?" >> >> for whom or what might it be "better"? >> > > > better for anyone/anything connected to the consequence of it's birth NOT better for the animal itself. To believe it is is stupid. > > better for the animal itself NOT "better" for the animal itself. That's illogical and absurd, and to believe it is stupidity. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?
> >
> > better for the animal itself > > NOT "better" for the animal itself. That's illogical > and absurd, and to believe it is stupidity. > i'll just repair my statement "......better for the animal itself - once it is born (worse for 'it', when it gets eaten)......." get outta that |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and goodquestions?
JethroUK© wrote:
>>>better for the animal itself >> >>NOT "better" for the animal itself. That's illogical >>and absurd, and to believe it is stupidity. >> > > > i'll just repair my statement > > "......better for the animal itself - once it is born (worse for 'it', when > it gets eaten)......." You didn't "repair" it, ****tard, you said something entirely different. It's STILL wrong, you moron: it is plainly an absurdity to say "coming into existence" is some kind of "benefit" for an animal "...once it is born". The animal must EXIST prior to an event in order for the event to "benefit" it. This is based on the DEFINITION of "benefit" as *you* are using the word, regardless of whether or not you have written a definition. THE definition of "benefit", as you are using the word, is: a) as a noun, some thing that improves the well-being (welfare) of an entity: "The removal of meat from his diet was a benefit to Jethro****tard." b) as a transitive verb, to perform the improvement "A vegetarian diet benefits Jethro****tard." c) as an intransitive verb, to be the beneficiary of the improvement "Jethro****tard benefits from not eating meat." In order for any usage of "benefit" to make sense, the beneficiary MUST exist prior to the benefit (noun) being conferred, prior to the action (verb) occurring. This is a fact, ****tard - an important fact, and one you cannot evade or avoid. It is time for you to concede the point. You are in gross error, and I am correct. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?
"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message nk.net... > JethroUK© wrote: > >>>better for the animal itself > >> > >>NOT "better" for the animal itself. That's illogical > >>and absurd, and to believe it is stupidity. > >> > > > > > > i'll just repair my statement > > > > "......better for the animal itself - once it is born (worse for 'it', when > > it gets eaten)......." > > You didn't "repair" it, ****tard, you said something > entirely different. YOU better read the sentence you snipped again (only 2 posts up) - it read: "......better for the animal itself - once it is born (worse for 'it', when it gets eaten)......." |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and goodquestions?
JethroUK© wrote:
> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message > nk.net... > >>JethroUK© wrote: >> >>>>>better for the animal itself >>>> >>>>NOT "better" for the animal itself. That's illogical >>>>and absurd, and to believe it is stupidity. >>>> >>> >>> >>>i'll just repair my statement >>> >>>"......better for the animal itself - once it is born (worse for 'it', > > when > >>>it gets eaten)......." >> >>You didn't "repair" it, ****tard, you said something >>entirely different. > > > YOU better read the sentence you snipped again (only 2 posts up) - it read: > > "......better for the animal itself - once it is born (worse for 'it', when > it gets eaten)......." I read it correctly the first time, ****tard. It was wrong both times, and in all the other derivations. It's just wrong. It is NOT "better" for the animal to be born rather than not. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and goodquestions?
|
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?
On Thu, 20 May 2004 05:57:05 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:
wrote: > >> On Wed, 19 May 2004 17:59:14 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote: >> >> >>>JethroUK© wrote: >>> >>>>>>better for the animal itself >>>>> >>>>>NOT "better" for the animal itself. That's illogical >>>>>and absurd, and to believe it is stupidity. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>i'll just repair my statement >>>> >>>>"......better for the animal itself - once it is born (worse for 'it', when >>>>it gets eaten)......." >>> >>>You didn't "repair" it, ****tard, you said something >>>entirely different. It's STILL wrong, you moron: it >>>is plainly an absurdity to say "coming into existence" >>>is some kind of "benefit" for an animal "...once it is >>>born". The animal must EXIST prior to an event in >>>order for the event to "benefit" it. This is based on >>>the DEFINITION of "benefit" >> >> >> Then prove it by presenting a definition which >> insists that the animal must exist prior to the benefit, >> in order for it to benefit. > >That's what I've always said, ****wit. Oh yeah Gonad, here's a little more of your retarded limitations regarding what can and can not benefit from anything: They don't because they can't conceive of the idea of "benefit" which would mean that NO animal could ever have benfitted from anything EVER. And no human infant. And no human child or adult who could not conceive of the idea of "benefit". What a moron you are Gonad. And all of that stupid garbage you spew, only in an attempt to support acceptance of the elimination of domestic animals, which you have already shown would NOT help any animals in any way. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?
"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message k.net... > JethroUK© wrote: > > > "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message > > nk.net... > > > >>JethroUK© wrote: > >> > >>>>>better for the animal itself > >>>> > >>>>NOT "better" for the animal itself. That's illogical > >>>>and absurd, and to believe it is stupidity. > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>i'll just repair my statement > >>> > >>>"......better for the animal itself - once it is born (worse for 'it', > > > > when > > > >>>it gets eaten)......." > >> > >>You didn't "repair" it, ****tard, you said something > >>entirely different. > > > > > > YOU better read the sentence you snipped again (only 2 posts up) - it read: > > > > "......better for the animal itself - once it is born (worse for 'it', when > > it gets eaten)......." > > I read it correctly the first time, ****tard. It was > wrong both times, and in all the other derivations. > It's just wrong. It is NOT "better" for the animal to > be born rather than not. > yes it is - but 'it' can only conclude that, after it's born - where as i (or anyone else) can conclude it, based on it's potential life (whether it's born or not) - i can say "it's better that it is born than not born" - i can also say that "it would be better for 'it', that it is born" (on the simple contrast between life and no life as [i] know it)- you can say it's worse, but you can't say it's not a valid statement |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and goodquestions?
|
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and goodquestions?
JethroUK© wrote:
> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message > k.net... > >>JethroUK© wrote: >> >> >>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message hlink.net... >>> >>> >>>>JethroUK© wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>better for the animal itself >>>>>> >>>>>>NOT "better" for the animal itself. That's illogical >>>>>>and absurd, and to believe it is stupidity. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>i'll just repair my statement >>>>> >>>>>"......better for the animal itself - once it is born (worse for 'it', >>> >>>when >>> >>> >>>>>it gets eaten)......." >>>> >>>>You didn't "repair" it, ****tard, you said something >>>>entirely different. >>> >>> >>>YOU better read the sentence you snipped again (only 2 posts up) - it > > read: > >>>"......better for the animal itself - once it is born (worse for 'it', > > when > >>>it gets eaten)......." >> >>I read it correctly the first time, ****tard. It was >>wrong both times, and in all the other derivations. >>It's just wrong. It is NOT "better" for the animal to >>be born rather than not. >> > > > yes it is No, it is not. > - but 'it' can only conclude that, after it's born That's the WRONG perspective. "Better off" means it already existed, and its welfare has improved. It did NOT already exist, so there can BE no "better off". This is elementary. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?
On Thu, 20 May 2004 16:11:42 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:
wrote: > >> On Thu, 20 May 2004 05:57:05 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote: >> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Wed, 19 May 2004 17:59:14 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>JethroUK© wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>better for the animal itself >>>>>>> >>>>>>>NOT "better" for the animal itself. That's illogical >>>>>>>and absurd, and to believe it is stupidity. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>i'll just repair my statement >>>>>> >>>>>>"......better for the animal itself - once it is born (worse for 'it', when >>>>>>it gets eaten)......." >>>>> >>>>>You didn't "repair" it, ****tard, you said something >>>>>entirely different. It's STILL wrong, you moron: it >>>>>is plainly an absurdity to say "coming into existence" >>>>>is some kind of "benefit" for an animal "...once it is >>>>>born". The animal must EXIST prior to an event in >>>>>order for the event to "benefit" it. This is based on >>>>>the DEFINITION of "benefit" >>>> >>>> >>>> Then prove it by presenting a definition which >>>>insists that the animal must exist prior to the benefit, >>>>in order for it to benefit. >>> >>>That's what I've always said, >> >> >> No one cares what YOU have always said > >Lots of people do care, ****wit. You're wrong. > >The definition of "benefit" necessarily implies there >is a pre-existing beneficiary, ****wit. Present a definition from someone who is not a moron like you are |
|
|||
|
|||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and goodquestions?
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions? | Vegan | |||
Mundane Questions that a Fairly Sophisticated Cook is Afraid to Ask | General Cooking | |||
Mundane Questions that a Fairly Sophisticated Cook is Afraid to Ask | General Cooking | |||
Mundane Questions that a Fairly Sophisticated Cook is Afraid to Ask | General Cooking | |||
simple question, bet the answer isnt..... | Winemaking |