Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied
and presented no challenge:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:55:08 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied
and presented no challenge:
>>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:53:29 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker -
lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:01:38 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker -
lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:27:49 GMT, "Dutch" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker
- lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> It's just another one of those facts
It's bull**** - meaningless bull****, Goo.
Goo - that just fits you like a glove.
>>>>> 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.
*NOTHING* benefits from coming into existence, Goo. We've proved that.
>>>>>> 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.
>
> Fortunately for all creatures that benefit from life,
NO creatures (there's that Southern Baptist bull**** again) benefit from
coming into existence.
>> 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.
>
> I've noticed that.
He explained it perfectly well, Goo.
> You have NEVER TRIED to explain how anything to do with
> pre-existence can prevent existing beings
You're not talking about existing beings, Goo, and you never were. You
have *ALWAYS* and *ONLY* been talking about how eeeeeeeeevil "vegan" are
trying to "deny life" to *pre-existing* beings.
>
>> 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..
>
> In contrast to that dishonesty:
No dishonesty. Your position - that coming into existence is a benefit
- is the dishonest one, Goo.
|
