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

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:32:55 GMT, [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:
>>>"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.
>
Are you suggesting Jonathan is relying on something
I 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.
>
If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
no life is a loss. I have your own quotes which
prove you believe it, too.
      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.

>>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. 

It's logically certain that life isn't a benefit, but
like Dutch who also believes the same as you
do, you can only assert that it is and answer
that it is "self-evident" when asked to explain
your reasoning.

> You can deny it all you want, but it's the truth none the less.

I've supported my argument to logically prove 
life isn't a benefit. What proof are you going to
offer that will prove it is a benefit?

>If you broke down and accepted the fact

"Broke down"? Is that what you did to reach 
your absurd conclusion?

> 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?

A?