Re: If life is a benefit...

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:10:26 -0800, "Immortalist"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>"swamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:11:46 -0800, "Immortalist"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jonathan Ball" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> Immortalist wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:58 GMT, ipse dixit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
>> >> >>no life [ie never existing at all] is a loss.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > What is a benifit?
>> >>
>> >> Something that makes an EXISTING entity better off than
>> >> he was before receiving the something.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Then a...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> There's no "Then a..." What's *your* definition of "benefit," Derek?
>> We should be clear on this before you widen the fence you're sitting
>> on.
>>
>
>Whoever, the proposition has been dodge by you.

Do I have my Dereks and Davids confused? Doesn't really matter I
suppose, as those posting under multiple names are creating the
confusion.

The point is, there's no confusion between existing animals and
non-existent ones except in Mr. Harrison's mind.

If I've mixed up aliases I blame you guys,

-- swamp