dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:53:29 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:01:38 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:27:49 GMT, "Dutch" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>>>>>>> Life is the benefit which makes all others possible,
>>>>>> I get it, you're determined to ride this fallacy all the way to the
grave.
>>>>> Unless you can explain how you think something that's not
>>>>> alive can benefit
>>>> It can't, that's precisely the point, in order for anything to
benefit
>>>> it first must be alive, as you say, which proves that coming to life
>>>> itself cannot be a benefit.
>>>>
>>>> Of course we have gone over this ground a couple of times before, you
>>>> never could get it before I don't expect you will this time.
>>> You tried explaining why pre-existent animals don't benefit
>>> from existence,
>> Did you understand that?
>
> LOL. The question remains how you think anything to
> do with pre-existence prevents existing beings from
> benefitting from their existence. Try explaining that now:
>
>>> but you've never been able to explain how
>>> that prevents existing animals from benefiting from existence.
>> I did, right above, like I said, I knew you wouldn't get it.
>
> There's nothing to "get" because you didn't explain
> what I asked you about. You can't, meaning you have
> not, and that you never will. Try! Try doing it NOW:
>
>>>> , all we have to consider is the fact I point
>>>>> out and you keep wi****ng you could oppose.
>>>> You're not pointing a fact when you say "life is the benefit that
makes
>>>> all others possible",
>>> So far it certainly appears to be.
>> Only if you ignore the actual meaning of the word "benefit" and use it
>> in the rhetorical.
>
> By pointing out that some beings benefit from decent
> lives of positive value?
That's just convoluted rhetoric.
>
>>> You need to make it
>>> appear that it is not somehow, before we can even consider
>>> how it might not be. You haven't been able to do that.
>> Yes, I have. A benefit is something good that happens *to* an entity.
>> Coming into existence cannot happen *to* an entity, because coming into
>> existence by definition cannot occur if an entity exists.
>>
>> But as I said, and as others have said, you're either too dense or too
>> heavily invested in your position to get what I just said.
>
> What you said doesn't explain how you think what you
> said prevents anything from benefitting from life.
>
>>>> you're making a rhetorical statement which as I
>>>> just showed is strictly speaking, not possible. What you are doing,
in
>>>> effect is saying that if you were not alive you could not enjoy ice
>>>> cream, which is true, but which does not really mean anything.
>>> It means that without the benefit of life you can't benefit
>>> from anything else.
>> You're calling life a benefit without first establi****ng that it is
one.
>
> Unless you can explain how it could possibly be otherwise,
> I have to take it for granted that life is the benefit which makes
> all others possible. Another one of the things you can't explain
> is how we could think of it differently, meaning that again all
> you have is a hollow claim with no way of thinking how it could
> possibly be correct.
>
>> Note that saying life is *good* is not the same as calling it a
benefit.
>
> The benefit allows for other benefits
Calling it a benefit does not make it one. It cannot be one.
but it also allows for
> things that give life a negative value as well, so the benefit
> of life doesn't insure that the experience of life is possitive,
> or "good". But you consistently have shown that you can't
> comprehend things like that, much less could you get into
> things like details which determine when it's a benefit and
> when it's not...
>
>> This is the differentiation you're missing. And you will undoubtedly
now
>> will always miss it, because you're deeply invested now.
>
> I can explain it to you better than you can understand
> it yourself.
>
>>> Why do you so desperately want it to
>>> be different, and how do you want it to be different, do you
>>> have any idea?
>> It just *is* different. What you should say is simply, "Without life
you
>> can't benefit from anything" That would be correct.
>
> So why do you think it's wrong to think it all the way through
> to the point of acknowledging that life is the benefit which
> makes all others possible? Why do you think it's okay to make
> the claim as long as we don't consider why it's true? Do you
> notice the similarity between that and claiming it's okay to eat
> meat provided we don't consider what the animals gain from
> our influence on them?
>
>> If one gets
>> something good we call it a benefit. Now you can see from that
statement
>> that life itself can't be a benefit, because you can't *get* life if
you
>> already have it. You can't benefit until you have life, and you can't
>> get life it you already have it, therefore life can't be called a
>> benefit, *unless* you are waxing rhetorically, using it to mean "Life
is
>> Wonderful". It isn't that difficult to understand.
>
> You still have yet to explain exactly how you think anything
> to do with pre-existence prevents all living creatures from
> benefitting from their own existence. Saying you've done it
> is just lying, so you should stop saying that you have. Provide
> an example of EXACTLY how you think pre-existence prevents
> all creatures from benefitting from their existence. GO!!!:
The paragraph right above explains exactly why existence CANNOT be a
benefit. I can't explain it any better.
The significance of "pre-existence" as Salt used it is to deal with
those who may say that existence is an *improvement* over the
alternative. Again, it's been explained to you 100's of times..
|
