Science > Abortion > Re: Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit"
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"~ Jonny ~" |
| Date: |
14 Jun 2004 11:59:37 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit" |
Jonathan Ball <jonball@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<u5Msc.8937$Tn6.5239@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
Every idiot who believes it is a benefit has offered a
definition of "benefit" that is some form of the
following:
something that promotes well-being
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=benefit&x=0&y=0
This assumes there ALREADY IS an entity that has a
well-being to promote: note that "promote" does NOT
mean "causes" or "is a necessary condition for having".
This is why initial existence - life per se - CANNOT
be a benefit, because prior to existence, there was no
entity with a well-being or welfare to promote.
Fuckwit David Harrison and his new-found bum-bandit
friend, fucktard JethroUK, both are trying to cling to
the illogical belief that life per se is some welfare
improvement. It is not: it CANNOT be. The very
basics of language indicate it cannot be. We speak of
something being a "benefit *to*" some entity. WHAT IS
THE ENTITY to which basic existence might be conferred?
Answer: prior to existing, there IS no entity.
Fuckwit David Harrison babbles, "explain how something
that doesn't exist can benefit." "IT" CAN'T! That's
just the point: something that doesn't exist CANNOT
benefit, and as there is no entity prior to existence,
existence itself CANNOT be a benefit.
This is really elementary stuff. That Fuckwit and
fucktard both refuse to see it is a frightening
indication of just how willfully stupid, how
self-limiting, some people can be.
I concur. Unfortunately such people are as common and widespread as dandelions.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit" |
15 Jun 2004 01:20:36 PM |
|
|
On 14 Jun 2004 21:59:37 -0700, most likely it was the moron Gonad who wrote:
The Gonad wrote:
WHAT IS
THE ENTITY to which basic existence might be conferred?
Answer: prior to existing, there IS no entity.
Fuckwit David Harrison babbles, "explain how something
that doesn't exist can benefit."
No, the stupid "AR" moron always twists things. I make it easy for
the moron, and invite him to explain how anything that's not alive can
benefit, just so he has a better chance of showing how something
besides life can be the benefit which makes all others possible. Even
giving the moron all that room--billions of examples to choose from--the
moron can't come up with a single one. That's because life is the
benefit which makes all others possible. And the "AR" "refutation" of
that fact is completely dependant on assigning more significance to
imaginary non-existent "entities", than to entities which do exist, like he
desperately does in the paragraph above...
"IT" CAN'T! That's
just the point: something that doesn't exist
and there...
CANNOT
benefit, and as there is no entity prior to existence,
and there...
existence itself CANNOT be a benefit.
This is really elementary stuff. That Fuckwit and
fucktard both refuse to see it is a frightening
indication of just how willfully stupid, how
self-limiting, some people can be.
I concur. Unfortunately such people are as common and widespread as dandelions.
Easy to believe that it's common for people NOT to consider
imaginary non-existent "entities" as being significant. But then,
I guess people who accept the beliefs of "AR", and examples
of talking pigs, are likely to believe something stupid like the
significance of imaginary non-existent "entities".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dieter" |
|
| Title: Re: Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit" |
15 Jun 2004 01:51:25 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 14 Jun 2004 21:59:37 -0700, most likely it was
Wrong. It's actually someone who doesn't much like me,
Fuckwit. Of course, he thinks you're FULL OF *****, too.
WHAT IS
THE ENTITY to which basic existence might be conferred?
Answer: prior to existing, there IS no entity.
Fuckwit David Harrison babbles, "explain how something
that doesn't exist can benefit."
No, the stupid "AR" moron always twists things.
I haven't twisted anything, Fuckwit. You write,
"explain how something that doesn't exist can benefit",
and I reply, "Something that doesn't exist CANNOT
benefit."
I make it easy and invite him to explain how anything that's not alive can
benefit
Something that's not alive CANNOT benefit, Fuckwit,
which is why existence per se CANNOT be a benefit:
Prior to existing the thing is not alive, hence
life/existence CANNOT be a benefit.
"IT" CAN'T! That's
just the point: something that doesn't exist
and there...
CANNOT
benefit, and as there is no entity prior to existence,
and there...
existence itself CANNOT be a benefit.
And THERE, Fuckwit: by the definitions YOU use,
existence cannot be a "benefit". QED
This is really elementary stuff. That Fuckwit and
fucktard both refuse to see it is a frightening
indication of just how willfully stupid, how
self-limiting, some people can be.
I concur. Unfortunately such people are as common and widespread as dandelions.
Easy to believe that it's common for people NOT to consider
imaginary non-existent "entities" as being significant.
You consider non-existent entities to be hugely
significant, Fuckwit:
The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
Right there, Fuckwit: "The animals that will be raised
for us to eat" do not yet exist, but YOU believe they
"are more than just 'nothing'."
You're fucked, Fuckwit: fucked by your own shitty
thinking.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why existence -- life per se -- *cannot* be a "benefit" |
16 Jun 2004 11:23:14 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:51:25 GMT, Dieter <d.Schmidt@deutsche_telekom.de> wrote:
dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
On 14 Jun 2004 21:59:37 -0700, most likely it was
Wrong. It's actually someone who doesn't much like me,
Fuckwit. Of course, he thinks you're FULL OF *****, too.
WHAT IS
THE ENTITY to which basic existence might be conferred?
Answer: prior to existing, there IS no entity.
Fuckwit David Harrison babbles, "explain how something
that doesn't exist can benefit."
No, the stupid "AR" moron always twists things.
I haven't twisted anything, Fuckwit. You write,
"explain how something that doesn't exist can benefit",
Post an example of me writing that Gonad.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
