www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:40:14 GMT, ipse dixit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:21:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>Now THAT could be true if you look at it the
>right way. I'm not Jon, and "firstoftwins" can
>vouch for that, but I could never guarantee you
>I'm not "just another character the Gonad
>is *playing.*", like a chess piece for instance.
>Don't you ever get that feeling you've been
>manoeuvred during some of your discussions
>with him?
I know that he tries to get me to make mistakes
and write things that I don't really believe. Of course
the question still remains, as it has for years now:
Why does he want people to think I believe things
that I don't? Why is it important to him what people
think that I believe? Of course if he's really a
dishonest "ARA" as I believe he is, then the reason
is more clear.
>>>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
>And where in all of that does Jon argue that
>a beneficiary is a beneficiary iff she is aware
>of being a beneficiary?
That example doesn't....it shows that he agrees with your (1).
>That's basically what
>you initially claimed he's arguing when writing,
>"Gonad relys on insisting that nothing has ever
>benefitted from anything, unless it's capable of
>understanding the concept of benefit."
This example shows that:
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Problems for Fuckwit, too
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 23:11:43 -0700
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
They don't because they can't conceive of the
idea of "benefit"
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
and this one included with the last one show that
he doesn't even know what he "thinks", much
less what other people think:
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: contemplative affections
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:50:08 GMT
Snuffles wrote:
> "firstoftwins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>What about Mercers lab rats? Do they benefit from his morbid
>>usage too?
>>
>>
> Lab rats tend to live longer in better conditions and suffer less than wild
> rats!
> Their Quality and Quantity of Life is greater.
If that's true, and I suppose it is for some of them,
then that sure sounds like a benefit to me.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>Jon argues that life cannot be a benefit, and
>that no life cannot be a loss, and my personal
>understanding of that is, 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.
>Your quotes reveal you do follow such a logical
>framework, and that's why premise (1) belongs
>to you.
No, it sure doesn't. I do consider it to be a
possibility--at least a possibility in some cases--
but there's probably no point going into that.
If you want to though, we can begin to discuss
it and see if it goes anywhere.
>>>>>>>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.
>>
>"I've given you ample opportunity in the past to
>move away from that position,
Which I have done many times.
>but time and time
>again you've gone back to it.
You only have a few examples of things I've
admitted were mistakes.
>Your contention,
>that vegans are wrong to prevent future farm
>animals from coming into being suggests the
>wrong is felt by the animals not yet born, that
>THEY will experience a loss if vegans prevent
>their lives from happening."
>Derek 2003-04-28
>
>>>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.
>>>
>Don't you agree?
No.
>>>>>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.
>
>Yes, he does, and these comments (below)
>prove it. He believes an animal benefits
>from getting to experience life and being
>able to reproduce after their predators have
>been removed by our moral consideration
>toward them.
>
>[start ipse dixit]
>>> As expected, and just like Harrison, you are now
>>> equivocating between who benefits from allowing
>>> animals to live ("getting to experience life") and
>>> reproduce. It's clear from your initial statement that
>>> you believe the animals themselves benefit ("The
>>> deer benefit from the loss of predation")
>[Dutch]
>>Of course they do
>[end]
>
>And
>
>[start ipse dixit]
>>You wrote that, "The deer benefit
>> from the loss of predators, *first* because they
>> are able to reproduce prodigiously...", so the
>> benefits you're referring to are;
>> 1) from living
>> 2) from producing
>> after we have removed their predators, so explain
>> how.
>>
>> You also wrote that the deer benefit *individually*;
>> "The deer are not subjected to constant predatory
>> pressure, that's a benefit to them *individually*, as
>> herds and as a wild species." *my emphasis*
>> Dutch Date: 2003-11-21
>>
>> Explain how.
>[Dutch]
>It's obvious.
>[end]
>
>And
>
>[start ipse dixit]
>> Then explain how they benefit;
>> 1) from living
>> 2) from producing
>[Dutch]
>It's self-evident
>[end]
>
>He also claims, as you do, that it's a moral
>consideration issue.
>
>"I have said this is a "moral consideration" issue."
>Dutch 2003-11-28
>
>His argument for removing predators from
>wild deer is the same as yours for removing
>vegans out to eliminate livestock, and the
>basis for his argument is the same as yours,
>too; namely, that they should be allowed to
>benefit from our moral consideration toward
>them and their unborn offspring.
Why do you think they should not be?
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>Hello.
(1) is your thing, not mine.
>>>>>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.
>
>You're joking! You've now given a non-existing
>beneficiary substance of matter as well as a
>relative position of being alive before birth.
No position of being alive before birth, though
I consider it a possibility. You people who keep
insisting I believe it really create a feeling of
contempt for you.
>These are impossible circumstances which logic
>tells us cannot be.
Oh really? Then are you saying that logic
somehow tells us that the matter which composes
living creatures poofs into existence only when the
creature is conceived? I don't believe it. I believe
the matter has been around for billions of years,
and has composed many things during that time.
>> But matter can't
>>benefit, so what is it that actually can benefit?
>>
>Only something already existing can benefit
>from something, and that existence has to be
>in a lower relative position from which it will
>be advanced to once that benefit has been
>received. Unborn beings don't exist and so
>have no relative position from which they can
>be advanced, apart from being more unborn
>than they already are, so they cannot benefit
>from life because their unborn position isn't
>relative to life to begin with.
Yeah, I understand what you are saying. It
still suprises me that anyone can believe life
is not a benefit, when they are capable of
understanding that nothing can benefit if it's
not alive.
>>>>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.
>>
>You've moved the goal posts there.
No. I've simply given an example where the
matter has been formed into a human body.
>Of course,
>a being can start receiving benefits once alive,
>but being prompted into life is not one of these
>benefits because its unborn or dead state hasn't
>advanced from any position that was relevant to
>life. It was dead, not relatively alive. LOL.
>
>>>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 think I'm doing something wrong in
>wanting to prevent future farm animals from
>coming into being,
I don't. But I will continue to point out that
veg*nism does nothing to help farm animals
--as you should also if you care about them
in the very least--just in case someone comes
along who wants to contribute to decent lives
for them with their diet.
>and the basis of your
>complaints rests on two assumptions;
>1) that life is a benefit
>2) that unborn animals will suffer a loss if their
> lives are prevented
>then proving to you that your complaints are
>invalid should benefit both of us.
>[..]
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
