Re: Stumbling bumbling dog-blowing cracker, David Harrison - aka

You got beat like a mean dog *again*, Goo!  You just 
never tire of getting your ass kicked; very bizarre.


Goo - that's ****wit David Harrison - hopelessly 
overmatched and working overtime to be stupid, lied and 
presented no challenge:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> 
>> I never said they "move from 'pre-existence'"
> 
> "When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the 
> existence we know, we don't know if that move improves 
> its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged. 
> Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare 
> improves when it moves from "pre-existence" 

Here's what I wrote:

    No living entity benefits by coming into existence.
    Why not?

    Either the entity "pre-exists" before it comes into
    the existence we know, or it doesn't pre-exist.  If
    it doesn't, then life is not a benefit, because
    "benefit" is defined as something that improves the
    welfare of an entity, and prior to the entity
    existing, it had no welfare that could be improved.
    Therefore, existence - life _per se_ - is not a
    benefit.

    If the entity *does* have some kind of
    "pre-existence", we know nothing of the quality of
    its welfare.  When the entity moves from
    "pre-existence" into the existence we know, we don't
    know if that move improves its welfare, degrades it,
    or leaves it unchanged.  Unless we know with
    certainty that the entity's welfare improves when it
    moves from "pre-existence" into the life we can
    detect, we cannot conclude that life is a benefit to
    it.


You got beat *AGAIN*, Goo.  You always get beat.  I 
kick your pimply cracker ass every time.  You're beat, 
Goo - just flattened.