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

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:58 GMT, ipse dixit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>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?

    What would make you think I suggest that?

>>>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. 

    Why do you think that: If getting a million dollars is a 
benefit, then it's logically certain that not getting a million
dollars 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. 

    No you haven't, and you never will.

>What proof are you going to
>offer that will prove it is a benefit?

    The only reason you can benefit is because you have
life. If that fact doesn't let you know life is a benefit, then 
nothing can let you know. If such a simple fact is too 
much for you, you should probably stick with even simpler
things to think about.

>>If you broke down and accepted the fact
>
>"Broke down"? Is that what you did to reach 
>your absurd conclusion?

    LOL!!! Hell no. I didn't have to. I was never unable 
to understand the fact, so I never had to break down 
in order to accept the fact. You would have to, but 
it's too late for you now, and you're not going to admit 
you've been wrong. But what if you did? The Gonad 
would be all over you...unless you're the Gonad posting
under a different name again. That freak posts using so 
many different names, maybe half the discussions in 
these ngs are just him talking to himself.

>> 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. 

    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?