XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:58:55 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
      
   >On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:05:32 -0400, the following appeared   
   >in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:   
   >   
   >>On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:42:51 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:47:33 -0700, the following appeared   
   >>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Dutch :   
   >>>   
   >>>>dh@. wrote:   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >   
   >>>Now let's all listen to the WHOOOSH! as that passes over his   
   >>>head (or maybe through it; the medium would be identical)...   
   >   
   >>    LOL!!!! Maybe you think you can help team goober with this, and try to   
   >>explain what you think is preventing you from benefiting from your existence.   
   >   
   >Prediction confirmed   
      
       You confirmed that you can't explain it just as the goos can't. You may not   
   even believe their claim yourself. If you do, explain how you think you can   
   continue to benefit after you lose the benefit of life. That's another one the   
   goos have never been able to attempt explaining.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)