FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:45:17 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:05:00 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:22:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:46:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>We are talking, and have ALWAYS been
>>>>>>>>>>>talking, about an existential requirement for any
>>>>>>>>>>>benefit to exist in anyone's mind.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The only requirement for a benefit to exist is a benefactor.
>>>>>>>>>>A beneficiary doesn't need to exist before a benefit does.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes. The beneficiary MUST exist, else no benefit is
>>>>>>>>>realized.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>False.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, false.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, true.
>>>>
>>>>I can set up a legal arrangement for future beneficiaries
>>>>to benefit long after my death and long before they come
>>>>into being. That benefit would exist
>>>
>>>No,
>>>
>>>not until they exist and realize it.
>
>
> That's a lie.

Nope. By definition, a benefit is something that DOES
make an improvement in the welfare of a living entity
or collection of entities. Because the "future royals"
(jumping jesus) do not exist, there are no entities
with a welfare to be improved. Thus, there is no
benefit for "future royals".

>
>
>>>It's just
>>>stuff until they exist.
>>
>>It's a benefit waiting for them, and it does exist whether
>>the impending beneficiaries exist or not. You can't
>>escape that fact.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>Future heirs to my country's throne don't yet
>>>>>>>>exist, but their benefits certainly do
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nope - not until they realize them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They do exist
>>>>>
>>>>>No, they don't.
>>>>
>>>>Are you trying to assert that all the royal trappings
>>>>enjoyed by current royal family members don't exist
>>>>for future royals?
>>>
>>>Right,
>>
>>Wrong. Those benefits have existed for many generations
>>of royals, and still exist today for future royals to benefit by.
>>
>>
>>>because the "future royals" don't exist, so
>>>NOTHING exists for "them": there's no "them".
>>
>>Future royals don't need to exist for their benefits to exist,
>>as shown, so you ought to think this one through again
>>like I earlier advised.
>
>>>There might NEVER be "them": Great Britain might abolish
>>>the monarchy.
>>
>>Yet those benefits will still exist on display in The Tower

They're not benefits, they're just stuff.