XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Mon, 03 Sep 2012, "Dutch" was completely defeated by dh's challenge:   
      
   >dh@. presented "Dutch" with a challenge:   
   >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> dh@. wrote:   
   >>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared   
   >>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of   
   >>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...   
   >>>>   
   >>>>       Goo claims:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"   
   >>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes   
   >>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo   
   >>>>   
   >>>> and I don't believe him.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Because you're an idiot.   
   >>   
   >>      Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the   
   Goober   
   >> about that. Go:   
   >>   
   >   
   >Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the   
   >lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit   
   >requires an entity to receive it.   
      
       LOL!!! Explain how you want people to think that my having no uncle Jethro,   
   OR ANYTHING ELSE, is preventing you from benfitting from your existence as you   
   clearly appear to be doing. Go:   
      
   (correct prediction: you can't even make an attempt and are defeated by this   
   challenge completely and absolutely)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)