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

"Rubystars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "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.
> > >
> > > >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, my simple statement clearly refutes his idea
> <THE
> > END>
>
> Let me get this straight. You both disagree with dh_ld. And you're arguing
> with each other about exactly how you disagree with him? Hilarious. :)

Derek makes a lot of silly arguments, he's an idiot.