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

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:32:33 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"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.
>>
I'm glad to see it's sunk in at last.

>> >> >> >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.
>
Try making me, chump, instead of just cutting
out and running for the door.
>> >>
>> >> >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.

My syllogism, according to Jonathan, "is valid 
deductive logic that shows WHY life per se 
cannot be a benefit." Is he wrong yet again?
That'd make three errors in a row this week.
Priceless!

>It has no other purpose.
>
Don't blame anyone but yourself for your
ignorance on deductive logic, Dutch. It's
an excellent tool.

>> 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. 

Good. So what? Let him run around a bit and
enjoy himself.

>Formal syllogisms are useless, plain
>english is all that's necessary here.
>
You haven't got very far with it.
>>
>> >You're a hopeless mess.
>> >
>> You're thick.
>
>Let's just see how your approach works.
>
It worked perfectly. The only valid way he 
can reject (3) is to reject his own premise (1).
That should keep him suitably confused for
a while.