tg wrote:
> wrote in message >. ..
>
>>On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:12:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yet another confused person has offered the faulty
>>>"logic of the larder" as a moral justification for
>>>human use of animals. That now makes two. Woo and yay.
>>>
>>>Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit to any
>>>creature.
>>
>> Then you still need to show how something (animal or not)
>>can benefit if it's not alive. Since you can't, we're left to
>>understand that life is the benefit which makes all others
>>possible.
>
>
> This is a very silly little discussion which is all about definition
> and tricky use of language. Make your point without that, if it
> matters so much.
>
> "Something can/cannot benefit if it's not alive" assumes some
> existence when it is dead.
>
> "Life is the benefit" begs the question.
>
> C'mon, you can do better.
No, he can't. Seriously. This has been his shabby
little attempt at a trick since he first began posting
to usenet, four-and-a-half years ago.
As you point out, it involves question-begging and
other tricky use of language. It's odd that ****WIT
would even attempt it, because he is an uneducated
high-school dropout, and simply doesn't have the skill
to engage in that kind of sophistry.