JethroFW in full melt-down

dh_ld DeleteThis @nomail.com wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:05:58 GMT, Dieter <d.Schmidt DeleteThis @deutsche_telekom.de> wrote:
>
>
>>No matter how much chaff you throw around, JethroFW, it
>>always comes down to this: you believe that by eating
>>meat, you are doing a "favor" or "benefit" to livestock
>>animals by causing them to exist.
>
>
> Some farm animals benefit and some don't

NO farm animals "benefit" from coming into existence,
Fuckwit. The idea is absurd.

>
>
>>You simply are
>>wrong, for the most elementary reasons of definition
>>and logic.
>>
>>A "benefit", as YOU are defining the term, is something
>>that *improves* an entity's welfare.
>
>
> Post a quote where he defines it in that way

It is implied in ALLLLLLLL of his and your uses of
"benefit". It's what you mean; don't bother denying
it, you'll only look even more foolish (if that's
possible).

By "benefit", Fuckwit, YOU MEAN something that makes a
welfare improvement for an entity.

>
>
>>Prior to an
>>entity's existence, there is by definition no entity,
>>and thus no welfare of that entity. THEREFORE,
>>JethroFW, existence CANNOT improve an entity's welfare,
>>and thus NECESSARILY existence CANNOT be a benefit.
>>
>>Concede.
 >> Stay informed about: JethroFW in full melt-down 

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:55:06 GMT, Dieter <d.Schmidt.DeleteThis@deutsche_telekom.de> wrote:

>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:05:58 GMT, Dieter <d.Schmidt.DeleteThis@deutsche_telekom.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No matter how much chaff you throw around, JethroFW, it
>>>always comes down to this: you believe that by eating
>>>meat, you are doing a "favor" or "benefit" to livestock
>>>animals by causing them to exist.
>>
>>
>> Some farm animals benefit and some don't
>
>NO farm animals "benefit" from coming into existence,
>Fuckwit. The idea is absurd.
>
>>
>>
>>>You simply are
>>>wrong, for the most elementary reasons of definition
>>>and logic.
>>>
>>>A "benefit", as YOU are defining the term, is something
>>>that *improves* an entity's welfare.
>>
>>
>> Post a quote where he defines it in that way
>
>It is implied in ALLLLLLLL of his and your uses of
>"benefit".

By implied, you are saying that is the definition which arises
in the crumb of turd you use for a brain Gonad. So far you have
not--and by now we know you never will--provided a definition
of benefit from a respectable source, which insists that life can
not be a benefit.

>It's what you mean; don't bother denying
>it, you'll only look even more foolish (if that's
>possible).
>
>By "benefit", Fuckwit, YOU MEAN something that makes a
>welfare improvement for an entity.

Obviously not, you stupid moron.

>>>Prior to an
>>>entity's existence, there is by definition no entity,
>>>and thus no welfare of that entity. THEREFORE,
>>>JethroFW, existence CANNOT improve an entity's welfare,
>>>and thus NECESSARILY existence CANNOT be a benefit.
>>>
>>>Concede.
 >> Stay informed about: JethroFW in full melt-down 

dh_ld.DeleteThis@nomail.com wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:55:06 GMT, Dieter <d.Schmidt.DeleteThis@deutsche_telekom.de> wrote:
>
>
>>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:05:58 GMT, Dieter <d.Schmidt.DeleteThis@deutsche_telekom.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>No matter how much chaff you throw around, JethroFW, it
>>>>always comes down to this: you believe that by eating
>>>>meat, you are doing a "favor" or "benefit" to livestock
>>>>animals by causing them to exist.
>>>
>>>
>>> Some farm animals benefit and some don't
>>
>>NO farm animals "benefit" from coming into existence,
>>Fuckwit. The idea is absurd.

Acknowledge it, Fuckwit: No animals "benefit" from
coming into existence, which is what you MEAN when you
say animals "benefit" from farming. Acknowledge it
now, Fuckwit.


>>>>You simply are
>>>>wrong, for the most elementary reasons of definition
>>>>and logic.
>>>>
>>>>A "benefit", as YOU are defining the term, is something
>>>>that *improves* an entity's welfare.
>>>
>>>
>>> Post a quote where he defines it in that way
>>
>>It is implied in ALLLLLLLL of his and your uses of
>>"benefit".
>
>
> By implied, blah blah blah

Show just ONE instance where you used it in a way that
*didn't* mean "to improve the welfare of an entity".
JUST ONE, Fuckwit.

Yeah, that's what I thought. You alllllllways used
"benefit" to mean "to improve the welfare of an entity".

>
>
>>It's what you mean; don't bother denying
>>it, you'll only look even more foolish (if that's
>>possible).
>>
>>By "benefit", Fuckwit, YOU MEAN something that makes a
>>welfare improvement for an entity.
>
>
> Obviously not

Obviously so, Fuckwit. That's allllllll you ever
meant, and what you still mean.

>
>>>>Prior to an
>>>>entity's existence, there is by definition no entity,
>>>>and thus no welfare of that entity. THEREFORE,
>>>>JethroFW, existence CANNOT improve an entity's welfare,
>>>>and thus NECESSARILY existence CANNOT be a benefit.
>>>>
>>>>Concede.
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: JethroFW in full melt-down 

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 00:02:19 GMT, The stupid Gonad wrote:

>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:55:06 GMT, Dieter <d.Schmidt.DeleteThis@deutsche_telekom.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:05:58 GMT, Dieter <d.Schmidt.DeleteThis@deutsche_telekom.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>No matter how much chaff you throw around, JethroFW, it
>>>>>always comes down to this: you believe that by eating
>>>>>meat, you are doing a "favor" or "benefit" to livestock
>>>>>animals by causing them to exist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some farm animals benefit and some don't
>>>
>>>NO farm animals "benefit" from coming into existence,
>>>Fuckwit. The idea is absurd.
>
>Acknowledge it, Fuckwit: No animals "benefit" from
>coming into existence, which is what you MEAN when you
>say animals "benefit" from farming. Acknowledge it
>now, Fuckwit.

· When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: NO animals
"benefit" from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider
it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to
become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative. ·

>>>>>You simply are
>>>>>wrong, for the most elementary reasons of definition
>>>>>and logic.
>>>>>
>>>>>A "benefit", as YOU are defining the term, is something
>>>>>that *improves* an entity's welfare.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Post a quote where he defines it in that way
>>>
>>>It is implied in ALLLLLLLL of his and your uses of
>>>"benefit".
>>
>>
>> By implied, blah blah blah
>
>Show just ONE instance where you used it in a way that
>*didn't* mean "to improve the welfare of an entity".
>JUST ONE, Fuckwit.

Life is the benefit which makes all others possible.

>Yeah, that's what I thought. You alllllllways used
>"benefit" to mean "to improve the welfare of an entity".

Which entity?
 >> Stay informed about: JethroFW in full melt-down 

<dh_ld RemoveThis @nomail.com> wrote

> Life is the benefit which makes all others possible.

Life makes all benefits possible, without life there can be no benefit,
therefore life_itself cannot be one.

> >Yeah, that's what I thought. You alllllllways used
> >"benefit" to mean "to improve the welfare of an entity".
>
> Which entity?

Exactly, before life exists there is no entity on which to bestow a benefit.
 >> Stay informed about: JethroFW in full melt-down 

Fuckwit David Harrison choked:

> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 00:02:19 GMT, Dieter <d.Schmidt.TakeThisOut@deutsche_telekom.de> wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison choked:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:55:06 GMT, Dieter <d.Schmidt.TakeThisOut@deutsche_telekom.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison choked:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:05:58 GMT, Dieter <d.Schmidt.TakeThisOut@deutsche_telekom.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>No matter how much chaff you throw around, JethroFW, it
>>>>>>always comes down to this: you believe that by eating
>>>>>>meat, you are doing a "favor" or "benefit" to livestock
>>>>>>animals by causing them to exist.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some farm animals benefit and some don't
>>>>
>>>>NO farm animals "benefit" from coming into existence,
>>>>Fuckwit. The idea is absurd.
>>
>>Acknowledge it, Fuckwit: No animals "benefit" from
>>coming into existence, which is what you MEAN when you
>>say animals "benefit" from farming. Acknowledge it
>>now, Fuckwit.
>
>
> · When "ARAs"

ACKNOWLEDGE it, Fuckwit: no animals "benefit" from
farming, which is what you MEAN when you say animals
"benefit" from farming.


>>>>>>You simply are
>>>>>>wrong, for the most elementary reasons of definition
>>>>>>and logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A "benefit", as YOU are defining the term, is something
>>>>>>that *improves* an entity's welfare.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Post a quote where he defines it in that way
>>>>
>>>>It is implied in ALLLLLLLL of his and your uses of
>>>>"benefit".
>>>
>>>
>>> By implied, blah blah blah
>>
>>Show just ONE instance where you used it in a way that
>>*didn't* mean "to improve the welfare of an entity".
>>JUST ONE, Fuckwit.
>
>
> Life is the benefit which makes all others possible.

Circular nonsense. Invalid attempt. BULLSHIT.

>
>
>>Yeah, that's what I thought. You alllllllways used
>>"benefit" to mean "to improve the welfare of an entity".
>
>
> Which entity?

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999


Those entities, you stupid CUNT. Those "animals that
will be raised for us to eat" are the "entities" whose
"welfare" you think you can "improve" by causing them
to "get to experience life". You stupid CUNT.

I just called you a cunt, Fuckwit. You stupid CUNT.
You stupid, IMPOTENT little CUNT.
 >> Stay informed about: JethroFW in full melt-down 

"Dieter" <d.Schmidt RemoveThis @deutsche_telekom.de> wrote in message
news:WGLwc.23930$Tn6.14474@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> No matter how much chaff you throw around, JethroFW, it
> always comes down to this: you believe that by eating
> meat, you are doing a "favor" or "benefit" to livestock
> animals by causing them to exist.

i am! - everyone who eats meat is - the meat in this burger was born *only*
to be in it - as a result, billions of animals 'get to live' - everyone
knows that those animals get a good deal by "getting to live" - whether is a
good/bad life is academic when compared to not having a life at all - all
human beings can/do relate to this by simply considering their own
mortality - you got a helluva a job convincing anyone otherwise, so just
keep 'bleeting' - or better still dont





You simply are
> wrong, for the most elementary reasons of definition
> and logic.
>
> A "benefit", as YOU are defining the term, is something
> that *improves* an entity's welfare. Prior to an
> entity's existence, there is by definition no entity,
> and thus no welfare of that entity. THEREFORE,
> JethroFW, existence CANNOT improve an entity's welfare,
> and thus NECESSARILY existence CANNOT be a benefit.
>
> Concede.
>
 >> Stay informed about: JethroFW in full melt-down 

JethroUK© wrote:

> "Dieter" <d.Schmidt RemoveThis @deutsche_telekom.de> wrote in message
> news:WGLwc.23930$Tn6.14474@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>No matter how much chaff you throw around, JethroFW, it
>>always comes down to this: you believe that by eating
>>meat, you are doing a "favor" or "benefit" to livestock
>>animals by causing them to exist.
>
>
> i am!

You are not. There is no entity prior to existence on
whom to bestow your "favor". Existence per se is not a
"benefit", not a "favor".

> - everyone who eats meat is

NO ONE is, JethroFW.


>> You simply are wrong, for the most elementary reasons of definition
>>and logic.
>>
>>A "benefit", as YOU are defining the term, is something
>>that *improves* an entity's welfare. Prior to an
>>entity's existence, there is by definition no entity,
>>and thus no welfare of that entity. THEREFORE,
>>JethroFW, existence CANNOT improve an entity's welfare,
>>and thus NECESSARILY existence CANNOT be a benefit.
>>
>>Concede.

Concede your defeat, JethroFW.
 >> Stay informed about: JethroFW in full melt-down 

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 18:27:32 GMT, The insane Gonad wrote:

>Fuckwit David Harrison choked:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 00:02:19 GMT, The insane Gonad wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Fuckwit David Harrison choked:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:55:06 GMT, The insane Gonad wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison choked:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:05:58 GMT, The insane Gonad wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No matter how much chaff you throw around, JethroFW, it
>>>>>>>always comes down to this: you believe that by eating
>>>>>>>meat, you are doing a "favor" or "benefit" to livestock
>>>>>>>animals by causing them to exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some farm animals benefit and some don't
>>>>>
>>>>>NO farm animals "benefit" from coming into existence,
>>>>>Fuckwit. The idea is absurd.
>>>
>>>Acknowledge it, Fuckwit: No animals "benefit" from
>>>coming into existence, which is what you MEAN when you
>>>say animals "benefit" from farming. Acknowledge it
>>>now, Fuckwit.
>>
>>
>> · When "ARAs"
>
>ACKNOWLEDGE it, Fuckwit: no animals "benefit" from
>farming, which is what you MEAN when you say animals
>"benefit" from farming.

· When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: NO animals
"benefit" from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider
it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to
become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative. ·

>>>>>>>You simply are
>>>>>>>wrong, for the most elementary reasons of definition
>>>>>>>and logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A "benefit", as YOU are defining the term, is something
>>>>>>>that *improves* an entity's welfare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Post a quote where he defines it in that way
>>>>>
>>>>>It is implied in ALLLLLLLL of his and your uses of
>>>>>"benefit".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By implied, blah blah blah
>>>
>>>Show just ONE instance where you used it in a way that
>>>*didn't* mean "to improve the welfare of an entity".
>>>JUST ONE, Fuckwit.
>>
>>
>> Life is the benefit which makes all others possible.
>
>Circular nonsense. Invalid attempt. BULLSHIT.

· When "ARAs" insist that life is not a benefit, what they
*mean* is that they want people to restrict themselves from
considering anything that is or could be good for domestic
animals, restrict themselves to considering only the bad things
that humans do to animals without considering any of the good,
and they want all people to become veg*ns without considering
*any!* type of alternative. ·

>>
>>>Yeah, that's what I thought. You alllllllways used
>>>"benefit" to mean "to improve the welfare of an entity".
>>
>>
>> Which entity?
>
> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> are more than just "nothing", because they
> *will* be born unless something stops their
> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
> if something stops their lives from happening,
> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
> Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
>
>
>Those entities, you stupid CUNT. Those "animals that
>will be raised for us to eat" are the "entities"

· When "ARAs" refer to imaginary non-existent "entities",
what they *mean* is that they feel farm animals should never
exist, should remain imaginary non-existent "entities" since
they feel no animals should ever be farm animals, and they want
all people to become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of
alternative. ·
 >> Stay informed about: JethroFW in full melt-down 

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 18:57:39 +0100, "JethroUK©" <reply RemoveThis @the.board> wrote:

>
>The insane Gonad wrote in message
>news:WGLwc.23930$Tn6.14474@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> No matter how much chaff you throw around, JethroFW, it
>> always comes down to this: you believe that by eating
>> meat, you are doing a "favor" or "benefit" to livestock
>> animals by causing them to exist.
>
>i am! - everyone who eats meat is - the meat in this burger was born *only*
>to be in it - as a result, billions of animals 'get to live' - everyone
>knows that those animals get a good deal by "getting to live" - whether is a
>good/bad life is academic when compared to not having a life at all - all
>human beings can/do relate to this

"ARAs" can't. They feel that no farm animals should live, because they
will be killed. If they were capable of thinking through their own beliefs, they
should feel that nothing should live because everything will be killed. The
Gonad stupidly tries to refute that fact by insisting that many things aren't
killed by anything...they just die. It's one of the stupidest things I've ever
heard of, but the Gonad is a good source of stupidity like that. According
to the Gonad, if you learn someone died and you ask what killed them, the
answer in most cases would be: nothing...they just died. The Gonad is an
idiot who has created his own Universe, which extends no farther than
between his ears.

>by simply considering their own
>mortality - you got a helluva a job convincing anyone otherwise, so just
>keep 'bleeting' - or better still dont
>
>
>
>
>
> You simply are
>> wrong, for the most elementary reasons of definition
>> and logic.
>>
>> A "benefit", as YOU are defining the term, is something
>> that *improves* an entity's welfare. Prior to an
>> entity's existence, there is by definition no entity,
>> and thus no welfare of that entity.

· When "ARAs" refer to imaginary non-existent "entities",
what they *mean* is that they feel domestic animals should never
exist, should remain imaginary non-existent "entities" since
they feel no animals should ever be domestic animals, and they
want all people to become veg*ns without considering *any!* type
of alternative. ·

>> THEREFORE,
>> JethroFW, existence CANNOT improve an entity's welfare,
>> and thus NECESSARILY existence CANNOT be a benefit.
>>
>> Concede.
>>
>
 >> Stay informed about: JethroFW in full melt-down 

The insane Gonad wrote:

>>>ACKNOWLEDGE it, Fuckwit: no animals "benefit" from
>>>farming, which is what you MEAN when you say animals
>>>"benefit" from farming.

· When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: NO animals
"benefit" from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider
it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to
become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative. ·

>>>>>>>You simply are
>>>>>>>wrong, for the most elementary reasons of definition
>>>>>>>and logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A "benefit", as YOU are defining the term, is something
>>>>>>>that *improves* an entity's welfare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Post a quote where he defines it in that way
>>>>>
>>>>>It is implied in ALLLLLLLL of his and your uses of
>>>>>"benefit".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By implied, blah blah blah
>>>
>>>Show just ONE instance where you used it in a way that
>>>*didn't* mean "to improve the welfare of an entity".
>>>JUST ONE, Fuckwit.
>>
>>
>> Life is the benefit which makes all others possible.
>
>Circular nonsense. Invalid attempt. BULLSHIT.

· When "ARAs" insist that life is not a benefit, what they
*mean* is that they want people to restrict themselves from
considering anything that is or could be good for domestic
animals, restrict themselves to considering only the bad things
that humans do to animals without considering any of the good,
and they want all people to become veg*ns without considering
*any!* type of alternative. ·

>>>Yeah, that's what I thought. You alllllllways used
>>>"benefit" to mean "to improve the welfare of an entity".
>>
>>
>> Which entity?
>
> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> are more than just "nothing", because they
> *will* be born unless something stops their
> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
> if something stops their lives from happening,
> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
> Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
>
>
>Those entities, you stupid CUNT. Those "animals that
>will be raised for us to eat" are the "entities"

· When "ARAs" refer to imaginary non-existent "entities",
what they *mean* is that they feel farm animals should never
exist, should remain imaginary non-existent "entities" since
they feel no animals should ever be farm animals, and they want
all people to become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of
alternative. ·
 >> Stay informed about: JethroFW in full melt-down 

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:38:53 GMT, the moron Gonad wrote:

>Fuckwit David Harrison choked:

>> You have convinced me that you're an "ARA".
>
>No, I haven't, Fuckwit.

Of course you have Gonad. You have devoted
hundreds, and possibly thousands of posts to trying
to persuade people NOT to consider any alternative
to veg*nism. And you are proud that you have done
it. Who but an "ARA" would be proud of that? No one
but an "ARA" would be proud of that Gonad. You
have exposed yourself by proving what you care
about. You not only don't care a bit about how farm
animals are raised, but you go beyond that. You have
proven without any doubt that you are extremely
opposed to the possibility that some people might
actually try to contribute to decent lives for farm
animals with their lifestyle... What you "ARAs" care
about is opposing anything that could interfere with
your hopes to eliminate farm animals.
 >> Stay informed about: JethroFW in full melt-down 

<dh_ld RemoveThis @nomail.com> wrote

> You have devoted
> hundreds, and possibly thousands of posts to trying
> to persuade people NOT to consider any alternative
> to veg*nism..

He wants NOBODY to consider veganism, he has written reams of convincing
arguments why veganism is a ridiculous, irrational way of thinking, so have
I.

More to the point, when did you begin to have this fantasy that it's wrong
to kill animals for food? Don't deny it, because your whole "considering how
they benefit" shtick clearly implies that you are convinced that's it's a
moral wrong that must be redressed. This is not an answer to veganism as you
believe, it's actually a step backwards into deeper irrationality.
 >> Stay informed about: JethroFW in full melt-down