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

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:24:02 GMT, ipse dixit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:09:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>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?
>>
>Because his argument as you described it 
>isn't his, so if it's as bad as the false equation 
>you claim I'm using, then the chances are you
>probably think he's using something I invented.

    Don't jump to conclusions like that. But he does
that same thing all the time. For all I know you're 
just another character the Gonad is playing.

>Anyway, you know fine well that that isn't 
>Ball's argument. 

    Well now that you mention it, yes it is...and maybe
you can even help out with this one:
_________________________________________________________
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Jonathan Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Re: The still-unanswered question posed to David Harrison
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:26:35 PDT

David wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:34:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >David wrote:
> 
> [...]
> >>     I consider it to be a gain for animals to experience life,
> >
> >Aha!  So, if they *don't* get to experience life, it necessarily must be
> >a loss!
> [...]
> 
>     Please explain.

Are you for real?  You really don't understand what I wrote?  I don't
know how many other people read what I wrote, but I would guess all of
them, except for ~~Marginal~~ and Banmilk, understood it.

Would anyone else care to explain to ~~David~~ what he or she thinks I
meant in the comment that ~~David~~ asks me to explain?
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>He argues, as we all do, 
>that life per se is not a benefit. That's all. 
>
>>>>>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? 
>>
>Obviously not, since one would have to be in 
>possession of the money before losing it, and
>likewise, one needs to be in possession of a 
>life before losing it. 

    So never living isn't a loss. We agree.

>If something can be said to 
>be in a position where the prospect of a life is 
>beneficial, then that same position would mean
>the prospect of no life is a loss. Such a position
>is impossible, so any logical framework which
>concludes one must conclude the other.
>
>>>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.
>>>
>Hello?

    Dutch doesn't think it is a benefit afaik. I say it's the benefit
which makes all others possible.

>>>> 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.
>>
>I have supported it with deductive reasoning 
>using your own premises to prove that life 
>per se cannot be a benefit. If you want to
>reject the conclusion (3) you must also reject
>your own premise (1). You can have a stab
>at (2) if you like, but I wouldn't waste my
>time and effort on it, personally.
>
>>>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. 
>
>Then that ruins your argument, because you
>have given the beneficiary of life a relative 
>position: alive, so it cannot now be advantaged
>any further by giving it life. A benefit is 
>something gained from a relative position, 
>so if life is a benefit, what was that relative 
>position of the beneficiary before life if not
>dead or unborn? 

    Matter composing something else...sometimes
something living or sometimes not. But matter can't
benefit, so what is it that actually can benefit?

>>If that fact doesn't let you know life is a benefit, then 
>>nothing can let you know. 
>
>In other words, like Dutch, you're claiming
>"It's self -evident." "That fact", your fact,
>relies upon the beneficiary already being 
>alive, so giving it a life doesn't give it any 
>further advantage from that position. 

    If you can create a human body, but can't 
give if life, then it can't benefit. If you can 
give it life, it can benefit.

>That
>being so, life per se cannot be a benefit to
>it.
>
>>If such a simple fact is too much for you, 
>>you should probably stick with even simpler
>>things to think about.
>>
>"The fact", your fact, is absurd and doesn't
>bear thinking about.

    Then let's stop wasting each other's time.

>>>>If you broke down and accepted the fact
>>>
>>>"Broke down"? Is that what you did to reach 
>>>your absurd conclusion?
>>
>>    LOL!!! Hell no. 
>
>You asked for it ;-) Don't go telling someone
>like me you "broke down" first in order to reach
>your conclusion, Dave. 

    I didn't.

>Poor little Dutch has had
>a right bad time of things since telling me he found 
>deluding himself quite comforting. You don't want 
>that sort of thing hanging round your neck as well.
>
>>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...
>
>Pah! 
>
>>unless you're the Gonad posting
>>under a different name again. 
>
>You know who I am.

    That leads me to believe I might know you from another name
you posted with, but I don't really know anyone in these ngs.

>>That freak posts using so 
>>many different names, maybe half the discussions in 
>>these ngs are just him talking to himself.
>>
>Apart from "Pearl" and "RGB", I can't swear for
>sure he's using any other names. 

    There are more than that.

>>>> 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. 
>
>For my part, coming into being didn't advance
>me from any previous position, so I don't view
>my life as a benefit.

    Since nothing can benefit without having life, I view
life as the most basic of benefits. Awareness enters into
it also imo, but if you people can't even get as far as life,
then an issue like awareness must be even more hopeless.

>>It appears as though you may not want to 
>>be though, and why is that?
>>
>It seems to me we're all on common ground
>about it, apart from Dutch, and are quite
>satisfied with our conclusion, singularly and
>as a whole. 

    And how is it that Dutch differs?