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

"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:12:19 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"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?
> >
> You've been dodging from one foot to the
> other on this issue since screwing up early
> last week by accepting Harrison's argument
> that life is a benefit.

You're wrong,. I never accepted Harrison's argument. See the post yesterday
where I thoroughly refute his argument.

> You've cut-n-run from about three different
> threads, each time claiming to have dealt
> with the issues in a thread you've already
> cut-n-run from.

I have adequately dealt with everything of substance you have presented. I'm
not going to indulge your broken record and badgering techniques.

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

To show that life itself is not a benefit.

> >> >Let's just see how your approach works.
> >> >
> >> It worked perfectly.
> >
> >Did fuckwit accept it?
> >
> Of course not.

Then it didn't work.

> >> 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
>
> So?

As I said, you're wasting your time.
>
> >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.
>
> Then he'll either have to prove it or continue to
> look pretty stupid.

And that advances the argument against him exactly zero.

> >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.
>
> Are you trying to make his position seem
> more rational?

Not his position, but his wording, we're all hung up on the word benefit,
when he means "net good".  I obtained that clarification from him yesterday.

> >His argument is the most self-rationalizing form of sophistry
> >imaginable, that's the really disgusting part of it.
> >
> Because you actually believe it, although you
> don't like the way he's delivering it. That's
> why.

No, I don't agree with the strict utilitarian view as expressed by Singer
wrt to The Polyface Farm, I don't hold that the lives of meat animals can
ever be considered a moral 'net good'. I most certainly do NOT agree with
Harrison's sick, watered-down version of it.