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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:40:14 GMT, ipse dixit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > 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.

No, Fuckwit.  I have never done that.  What good would 
that do?

What I have tried to do, and what I have SUCCEEDED in 
doing, is getting you to write the truth of your 
beliefs.  That's what led to this:

       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.
       Fuckwit - 08/01/2000

and this:

       The animals that will be raised for us to eat
       are more than just "nothing", because they
       *will* be born unless something stops their
       lives from happening. Since that is the case,
       if something stops their lives from happening,
       whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
       them of the life they otherwise would have had.
       Fuckwit - 12/09/1999

and this:

       What gives you the right to want to deprive
       them [unborn animals] of having what life they
       could have?
       Fuckwit - 10/12/2001

and this:

       What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
       *could* get to live, is for people not to
       consider the fact that they are only keeping
       these animals from being killed, by keeping
       them from getting to live at all.
       Fuckwit - 10/19/1999

Those are all *voluntary*, *unmistaken* statements of 
your beliefs, Fuckwit, and they show that you believe 
EXACTLY what I have said you 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?

I don't, Fuckwit, and everyone knows it, including you. 
 You DO believe those things.  They're irrational and 
stupid and fuckwitted, and YOU believe them.



> > 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.

Yes, it sure does, Fuckwit.  You're just stuck.


> > but time and time 
> > again you've gone back to it. 
>
>
>     You only have a few examples of things I've
> admitted were mistakes.

They were not mistakes.  They revealed your innermost 
beliefs.

Was it a mistake to reveal your true beliefs, Fuckwit? 
 Was it a mistake for you to tell the truth?


> > >   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 consider it much more than merely a possibility.

> You people who keep
> insisting I believe it really create a feeling of
> contempt for you.

The contempt is all directed at you, Fuckwit, for being 
a fuckwit, and for being a liar.


> > 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.

You ought to:  I've kicked it into your thick skull 
often enough.

> It still suprises me that anyone can believe life
> is not a benefit,

It can't be.

> when they are capable of
> understanding that nothing can benefit if it's
> not alive. 

You just contradicted yourself.  The thing that comes 
into life wasn't alive when "it" received life, ergo 
life can't be a benefit.  It's that simple.