XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:21:39 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
      
   >On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:11:04 -0400, the following appeared   
   >in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:   
   >   
   >>On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:49:42 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:16:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:20:20 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:51:14 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>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 <   
   ospam@buzz.off> 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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Nonexistent entities cannot receive "benefits"; it's as   
   >>>>>simple as that.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    You need to explain what you want people to think prevents you from   
   >>>>benefitting from your life now. If you want them to think it has something   
   to do   
   >>>>with your pre-existent state as you suggested then you need to explain WHAT   
   >>>>about your pre-existent state is preventing you now and HOW it's doing so.   
   But   
   >>>>you can't do it as you've already shown, and the goos can't do it as they   
   have   
   >>>>show, so at this point it STILL appears that you're benefitting from your   
   life.   
   >>>>Since you can't say what's preventing you from benefitting now, your only   
   other   
   >>>>way of possibly showing life is not a benefit would be if you could   
   explain how   
   >>>>you think you can continue benefitting from anything after you're no longer   
   >>>>alive. You can't do that either though. You can't do anything except make a   
   >>>>claim you can't back up. Goo lied to you and you believe him,   
   >>>   
   >>>No I don't. Since I exist nothing prevents me from deriving   
   >>>benefits from that existence. The issue is about nonexistent   
   >>>entities, which can derive no benefits;   
   >>   
   >>    LOL!!! To YOU and to GOO it's about some pre-existent state but as I keep   
   >>pointing out you can't say what it is about your pre-existence that prevents   
   >>you, OR BILLIONS OF LIVESTOCK ANIMALS, from benefitting from life.   
   >   
   >You persist in conflating existing life with nonexistent   
   >life,   
      
       Many animals appear to benefit from lives of positive value REGARDLESS of   
   anything to do with pre-existence.   
      
   >but your inability to think is no one's problem but   
   >yours. Living things (such as Dutch and myself) can derive   
   >benefits because of that state, while nonliving things   
   >cannot, no benefits being available to that which doesn't   
   >exist.   
   >   
   >>>see, it says so   
   >>>right above your latest erroneous post. *Do* try to keep up,   
   >>>or at least to understand the original question.   
   >>   
   >>    WE are discussing animals that exist and will exist. You and the Goober   
   are   
   >>also very worried about.....whatever pre-existence issues you both have.   
   >   
   >It's that "will exist" that's the issue   
      
       It's what disturbs you most apparently, but if you're going to try helping   
   the goos then you need to explain what you think prevents you from benefitting   
   from your life NOW.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)