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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> 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:

> > > > 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, 
>
>
>     Ball relys on insisting that nothing has ever
> benefitted from anything,

That's a lie, Fuckwit.

I point out that life per se *cannot* be a benefit.

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

It is.  It is valid deductive logic that shows WHY life 
per se cannot be a benefit.

> 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.

No, that's completely false.  The argument doesn't 
contain a thing like that.

> > 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,

No.  You are wrong.  We *have* said why.

> because it is a benefit.

No.  Life is NOT a benefit, and it has been 
conclusively explained why it *cannot* be one.