Re: Way to go, Dutch - you just made Fuckwit's argument for him.

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 17:14:43 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 04:40:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> [..]
>> >    All you have to do is show how something can benefit if it's not
>> >alive. If life isn't a benefit, providing an example of how something
>> >that doesn't have life can benefit shouldn't be an impossible task.
>> >
>> 1) if life is a benefit, we experienced a loss prior to being born
>> 2) we cannot experience a loss prior to being born
>> therefore
>> 3) life is not a benefit
>> or in contradiction to (3)
>> 4) life is a benefit
>>
>> If (1) and (4) are true, we experienced a loss prior to
>> being born because life is a benefit, but (2) says we
>> cannot experience a loss prior to being born, so (1), (2),
>> and (4) amount to a contradiction because they cannot
>> all be true. But, if (1) and (2) are true, (4) would be false,
>> meaning life is not a benefit. This proves that the original
>> conclusion (3) follows from (1) and (2), and is a valid
>> conclusion from those premises. If you disagree with (3)
>> you must also find a fault in one of the premises.
>
>You call that convoluted mess logic? 

It's miles beyond your capabilities to understand 
and a whole light year beyond your capabilities to 
produce anything similar in refutation to Harrison's
argument, which is why you've had to rely on Jon's
lead all this time, but nevertheless, it's a perfect
piece of deductive logic to prove that life itself is 
not a benefit. Try to offer a valid argument against 
it if you can, or are you only capable of announcing
it's wrong without being able to say why?