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 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.

No
> >
> >> >> >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?

Fuck off.

> >>
> >> >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.

Your "syllogism" is a convoluted mess designed to make you look intelligent.
It has no other purpose.

> 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.

He'll just equivocate and obfuscate. Formal syllogisms are useless, plain
english is all that's necessary here.

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

Let's just see how your approach works.