Re: If life is a benefit...

"swamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:11:46 -0800, "Immortalist"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jonathan Ball" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Immortalist wrote:
> >>
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >
> >> >>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:58 GMT, ipse dixit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
> >> >>no life [ie never existing at all] is a loss.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > What is a benifit?
> >>
> >> Something that makes an EXISTING entity better off than
> >> he was before receiving the something.
> >>
> >
> >Then a...
>
> [snip]
>
> There's no "Then a..." What's *your* definition of "benefit," Derek?
> We should be clear on this before you widen the fence you're sitting
> on.
>

Whoever, the proposition has been dodge by you.

> -- swamp