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

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:27:03 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 00:03:23 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> 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?
>> >
>> >You sound exactly like fuckwit. It's unecessarily
>> >convoluted, the refutation of his stupid thesis
>>
>> We'll see.
>>
>> >can
>> >be made in simple, plain english. Life itself cannot
>> >be a benefit
>>
>> Then you aren't refuting it. You are agreeing
>> with the conclusion that life is not a benefit.
>> Or at least you are in THIS thread.
>
>I did refute it, in plain language. You snipped it.

If you contend (in this thread) that life is
not a benefit, then you aren't refuting my
conclusion. You are agreeing with it.
(3) life is not a benefit.

However since you've been arguing that 
life is a benefit in another thread to this, it's
quite probable you're confused.
>>
>> >because a benefit implies a beneficiary, who
>> >necessarily must already be alive. If he is
>> >alive then he cannot receive the benefit of life,
>> >he already has it.
>> >
>> What you've just done is successfully defend
>> premises (1) and (2) to reach the conclusion
>> I reached and that Harrison rejects.
>
>Fuck off with the numbers, 

Pick up a book and learn something about deductive
logic and reasoning before showing your ignorance,
chump.

>my simple statement clearly refutes his idea <THE
>END>
>
It's not the end, Dutch. There's a long way to go 
yet. Buckle up...