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.

"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.

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.

"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

I wont answer a question to a question (that's the domain of aresoles)

If you want the answer, then answer

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.

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

"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!

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.

> That's baa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aad.

but is it racist, or sheepist?

"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.

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.

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.

"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

"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?

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.

> 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)

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.

> >
> > 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

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.

"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)......."

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.

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. "Benefit"
implies there is a beneficiary, and the beneficiary
MUST already exist.

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.

"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

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. You're just
wrong, again.

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.

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

wrote:

> 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

My definition is one.