XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:35:36 -0700, Goo wrote:   
      
   >On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:20 -0500, the following appeared   
   >in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:   
   >   
   >>On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:55:34 -0700, Goo wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:54:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 10:46:07 -0700, Goo wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:04:54 -0500, the following appeared   
   >>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>    Existence and life itself would still both be benefits to you even   
   though   
   >>>>>>your life experience overall would be negative. It happens both ways and   
   the   
   >>>>>>value of life does change for individuals.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    The value does change even though you're apparently unaware of the   
   fact.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>>>    It's up to you to support your claim that it's not a benefit,   
   which would   
   >>>>>>>>require you saying what you want people to think prevents it from   
   being, which   
   >>>>>>>>you're totally unable to attempt to do.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>But I did (including just above), and so have others. The   
   >>>>>>>fact that you are apparently incapable of understanding the   
   >>>>>>>logic (or, in fact, damn near anything) isn't my problem.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    Not yet. Try now. Go:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Alre   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    LOL!!!! You lose.   
   >>>   
   >>>Nope; it's up to you to show how life is *always* a   
   >>>"benefit".   
   >>   
   >>    The fact that you can no longer benefit after you lose the benefit of   
   life   
   >>shows that life is a benefit. Duh.   
   >   
   >No, it doesn't.   
      
       It sure does Goob.   
      
   >It shows that life is a prerequisite for   
   >experience of anything, good or bad,   
      
       That's the beneficial part, Goo. Duh.   
      
   >no more.   
   >   
   >>>The burden of proof is on the claimant (that's   
   >>>you), as it always is. I make no claim; I simply deny that   
   >>>yours is valid without evidence.   
   >>   
   >>    LOL!!! No you do not.   
   >   
   >Yes, I do.   
      
       No Goober. You claim that it's NOT a benefit, but can't make any   
   attempt to pretend you have any clue what prevents it from being the benefit it   
   so clearly appears to be.   
   . . .   
   >> You claim that it's NOT a benefit, but can't make any   
   >>attempt to pretend you have any clue what prevents it from being the benefit   
   it   
   >>so clearly appears to be.   
   >>   
   >>>And the evidence *must*   
   >>>show that a life of pain and suffering is a "benefit" to the   
   >>>individual experiencing it.   
   >>   
   >>    Mine must NOT since I point out that even though life itself is a benefit   
   >>the individual life a being experiences may not be. The goos, and you, are   
   not   
   >>able to appreciate the distinction between these two definitions of the same   
   >>word:   
   >>_________________________________________________________   
   >>1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the   
   >>distinctive quality of animate beings   
   >>   
   >>2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make   
   >>up the existence of an individual   
   >>   
   >>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life   
      
   >   
   >You don't "point it out", you assert it, with no evidence or   
   >even valid logic to support that assertion. Assertions   
   >aren't facts.   
      
       I pointed out that you can't appreciate the distinction Goo, and then by   
   presenting it I pointed out what the distinction is. I showed clearly that   
   you're lying.   
      
   >Neither of these indicates that life is a "benefit". In   
   >fact, they support my position that it's a condition.   
      
       LOL.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)