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

"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.

I refuted fuckwit's argument you idiot!

> However since you've been arguing that
> life is a benefit in another thread to this, it's
> quite probable you're confused.

No I argued that having predators removed is a benefit to deer populations.
You never disputed that, you just made up strawmen.

> >> >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...

How typical that you convolute the simplest of arguments. You're a hopeless
mess.