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

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:14:54 GMT, ipse dixit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>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, 

    Gonad relys on insisting that nothing has ever
benefitted from anything, unless it's capable of
understanding the concept of benefit. It's as bad
as the false equation that you invented.

>but nevertheless, it's a perfect
>piece of deductive logic to prove that life itself is 
>not a benefit. 

    It is not. It's bullshit, and totally dependant on your
absurd insistance that in order for something to be 
a benefit, the beneficiary must have suffered a loss
prior to obtaining it.

>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?

    If you're referring to life being a benefit, none of you
will be able to say why, because it is a benefit. You
can deny it all you want, but it's the truth none the less.
If you broke down and accepted the fact, maybe you
could move on with it to something worthwhile. But
there isn't much hope of that in these news groups
now is there? No. But at least you veg*ns and your
opponents seem to be on common ground about it. It
appears as though you may not want to be though,
and why is that?