Re: If life is a benefit...

Fuckwit wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:55:26 -0500, "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > Benefits and deficits are value judgements. One needs to be alive to make
> > them. Yes it is a benefit to be alive if one wants to make value judgements.
> > But wait - one needs to be alive to want!. Life is not a benefit. Please:
> > how exacty do none living things benefit?
>
>
>     That's the point. Life is the benefit which makes all others possible.

1.  Life per se is not a benefit.

2.  This claim is what proves you believe life is
    UNCONDITIONALLY a benefit.  See below.

> > That doesn't mean
> >
> > > that the individual lives of all creatures are a benefit--some are and
> >
> > some
> >
> > > are not. But there is a big difference between life itself, and the
> >
> > individual
> >
> > > life an animal experiences. It's rather hard to believe, but it appears
> >
> > that
> >
> > > some people can't understand the difference between the two, probably
> > > because the same word is being used to denote two different ideas.
> >
> > I fail to see were that double meaning pertains in the original post. Yes
> > there is Life; yes there are individual lives. So what?
>
>
>     It has been suggested (stupidly imo) that if life is a benefit, then alll
> lives must be a benefit regardless of their quality.

Your stupid, fuckwitted statement above *proves* that 
YOU believe ALL lives must be a benefit regardless of 
quality.