On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:52:06 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:

>On 10/31/2012 2:49 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>> to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>
>>>> Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>> snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>> You're an idiot.
>>
>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.
>>
>> No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>> is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.

>We have shown beyond dispute that one *cannot* benefit simply from
>coming into existence. It is based on the definition of benefit. A
>benefit is something that improves the welfare of an experiential
>entity, but coming into existence does not do that - it *establishes*
>the welfare - and therefore, coming into existence is not a benefit.

Prediction: The logic will again be ignored or denied, and
dh will continue to exhibit a complete lack of anything even
faintly resembling an ability to think while demanding
examples of what doesn't exist.

(My spellcheck is smarter than dh; it wanted to change "dh"
to "duh".)
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless