On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 14:03:46 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:59:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> You claim that our own
>>>> pre-existence prevents us from benefitting from our current
>>>> existence
>>>
>>>That's not even remotely close to a reasonable interpretation of his
>>>claim.
>>
>> Do you really want people to believe you hadn't noticed
>> that your own argument is completely dependant on considering
>> the possibility that something to do with pre-existence is preventing
>> us from benefitting from our existence now?
>
>Our argument has nothing to do with pre-existence

Then I challenge you to try arguing against the fact that many
beings benefit from lives of positive value without referring to
pre-existence. GO:
.. . .
>>>The claim is this.. We can assume that either there is a "pre-existent
>>>state" or that there is not,
>>
>> Regardless of which all evidence suggests that many beings
>> benefit from lives of positive mavlue
>
>That means it's *better_than* "lives of negative value"

No it does not. What a pathetically blatant lie! You referred specifically
to pre-existence, and I pointed out specifically how meaningless that was.
.. . .
>>>most probably the latter.
>>
>> It makes no difference either way since all evidence suggest
>> many beings benefit from lives of positive value. That fact is
>> very very significant, yet appears to be something else that's
>> beyond your ability to comprehend.
>
>I comprehend that a life of positive value is much better than a life of
>negative value

Now try using that to explain what you think prevents beings from
benefitting from lives of positive value. Go:

(Correct prediction: the stupid Goober can't do it.)

>*for a being that exists*. That is completely different than
>saying that life (regrardless of value)

No one has said that afawk, and if you accuse me of saying it
then that's just another EXTREMELY blatant lie from you, Goo,
and of course another one you can't even attempt to back up.

.. . .
>> You can't say you don't benefit from a rice cake simply
>> because you benefitted more from a big bowl of tofu and a steaming
>> pile of beets, or whatever you kooks eat.
>
>I didn't say that you benefit or don't benefit from *having* anything

Then again you were being dishonest by changing the
subject to something completely different while pretending
it was similar which it's not, so there's no point in going on
with that fantasy. That's often the case with you like when
you try to insist that raising children for sex slaves should be
thought of in the same way as raising livestock for food.