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

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:39:48 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"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!
>
You have in this thread, as I've pointed out
already, so you are in fact agreeing with the
conclusion, (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.
>
>No

Yes.
>
>> >> >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.
>
Well, 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. 

Taking the flesh away from an argument and 
putting it into a workable syllogism is a method
for simplifying it rather than convoluting it.

He claims that life is a benefit, and his quotes
here prove that he holds that belief. He also 
believes animals experience a loss if their lives 
are prevented.

       Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
       born if nothing prevents that from happening,
       that would experience the loss if their lives
       are prevented.
.
Put the two together and you have his first
premise:
1) if life is a benefit, we experienced a loss prior to being born
    ( if x, then y)

The second premise is mine and beyond doubt,
although he is still perfectly entitled to challenge it;
2) we cannot experience a loss prior to being born.
    ( not y )

The logical conclusion from these premises is
(3) Life is not a benefit.
     ( not x)

This syllogism is in the form
Premise 1) if x then y
Premise 2) not y
therefore
Conclusion 3) not x

If Harrison wants to argue (3) is false, that life
is a benefit, then he must also challenge one of
the two premises as well since the conclusion 
logically follows from (1) and (2). He cannot 
challenge (2) since we need to be alive in order 
to experience something, so he must challenge 
his own premise (1) instead. That's the beauty 
of deductive logic: it forces your opponent to 
attack his own premise if he wants to prove 
your conclusion to his hogwash is wrong. 

>You're a hopeless mess.
>
You're thick.