Re: If life is a benefit...

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:09:07 -0800, "Immortalist"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> ><[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 sentence like, "it was a benifit to mankind that the genetic
> >monster
> >> >wasn't born" is not allowable in your language law?
> >>
> >>     Maybe the Gonad would say that mankind existed before the threat of
> >the
> >> monster became an issue. But that brings us back to whether or not
future
> >> humans could also benefit, if they didn't exist at the exact time of
the
> >monster's
> >> non-existence. Well what of it Gonad?
> >>
> >
> >If evolution is true and the first monkee to have a freaky human
>
>     I don't believe that's how it works.
>

What is "it?"

> >forsaw in
> >some way or another its prospects and makes choices that influence the
> >freaque,
>
>     I don't believe that one either.
>

What is it saying in your language?

> >did it happen before or after mankind?
> >
> >> >Or how about "before
> >> >they bawld to make a baby he arranged his economic house in order to
> >benifit
> >> >the one not yet concieved?"
> >>
> >>     Oh no, not according to the Gonad method. He doesn't even believe
that
> >> his own son benefits from anything, unless by now he understands the
> >concept:
> >> _________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >> >What is the opposite of benifit or something that makes worse?
> >> >
> >> >Better yet please use it in a couple of sentences that make it as
clearly
> >> >absurd as you are claiming.
> >> >
> >> >> That is why life _per se_ cannot be a benefit:  there
> >> >> was no existing entity prior to being alive.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>