Re: If life is a benefit...

"swamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
>

Do you have evidence that I posted under other names?

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

All times are not times that there is no confusion between existing and
non-existing animals since sometimes farmers get confused about how many
animals to breed for a given area before these animals exist.

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

My sister used to tell ma, "If you don't give me gas money I'll be late for
work!" Of course Ma sayths, "looks like its late then..."

> -- swamp