kochmams
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 59 |   |
Karma: 0
|
re:Animals do not "benefit" from existence per se: F - 2007/01/06 11:09
More from Fuckwit:
We would need to see at least one example of how something that is not alive can benefit. By now my oppinion [sic] is that no such example can be given.
http://tinyurl.com/3aldc
Right as rain, Fuckwit! It is CORRECT that something that is not alive CANNOT benefit, from ANYTHING. That is EXACTLY why life per se cannot be a "benefit": prior to "getting" life, the entity is not alive, and
THEREFORE, according to what you have written, there cannot possibly be a "benefit". It's just as plain as the pimples on your dirty ass, Fuckwit.
Popular posts by kochmams
What do you have to say for yoursel...
how it is
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for...
|
post new topic