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

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

[..]

> >> >> 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.

I've been telling fuckwit that for two years, where have you been?

> >> >> >> >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.

I have adequately dealt with everything of substance you have presented.

It's completely rational to tell you to fuck off when you choose to make
empty, provocative statements like,

 "Pick up a book and learn something about deductive logic and reasoning
before showing your ignorance, chump."

> >> >> >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!

You don't waste much time hiding behind Jonathan do you?

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

Using the form you used is a waste of time on fuckwit, plain english is all
that's required.

> >> 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.

Did fuckwit accept it?

 The only valid way he
> can reject (3) is to reject his own premise (1).
> That should keep him suitably confused for
> a while.

I'll tell you right now, he will reject out of hand  1) if life is a
benefit, we experienced a loss prior to being born. He'll simply re-assert
that life is a benefit, the benefit that makes all other benefits possible.
The fact is, what he really means is that life itself is a good thing, and
should be "promoted" in every way because it makes benefits possible. We've
gotten hung up on this word "benefit" when in fact it's not the basis of his
position. His argument is the most self-rationalizing form of sophistry
imaginable, that's the really disgusting part of it.