Mike Lovell > wrote:

>On 2012-08-31, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>> ...but then by early August, you got the ****-brained idea to start
>>>> using PGP when posting to Usenet.
>>>> What the **** is wrong with you? Turn it off, mother****er.
>>> Nope. Deal with it.
>> Why don't you turn it off, you pretentious cocksucker? You really are a
>> pretentious, self-important prick.
>Pretentious? Me??? <spits latte out>

LOL! Just tell George, "Request denied." It may be that George
considers PGP to be something only 1137s and wa^^ab3s use.


---
Google is a liberal conspiracy. That's why cultists don't use it.

On 8/31/2012 10:22 AM, Fred wrote:
> George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 8/9/2012 3:07 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>> On 2012-08-09, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>>> [bullshit snipped]
>> ...but then by early August, you got the ****-brained idea to start
>> using PGP when posting to Usenet.
>> What the **** is wrong with you? Turn it off, mother****er.
>
> Um, George, many people use PGP to sign postings given that UUCP
> is not an authenticated protocol and forging people's idents is
> done millions of times daily.

Exactly how does using PGP or anything else prevent anyone from
"forging" Lovell's posts? So, I see a post in Usenet from a "Mike
Lovell" containing a lot of PGP bullshit in the text - how do I know
it's from the authentic Mike Lovell? In fact, I don't; no one does.

On 8/31/2012 10:35 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 8/31/2012 10:22 AM, Fred wrote:
>> George Plimpton > wrote:
>>> On 8/9/2012 3:07 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>> On 2012-08-09, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>>>> [bullshit snipped]
>>> ...but then by early August, you got the ****-brained idea to start
>>> using PGP when posting to Usenet.
>>> What the **** is wrong with you? Turn it off, mother****er.
>>
>> Um, George, many people use PGP to sign postings given that UUCP
>> is not an authenticated protocol and forging people's idents is
>> done millions of times daily.
>
> Exactly how does using PGP or anything else prevent anyone from
> "forging" Lovell's posts? So, I see a post in Usenet from a "Mike
> Lovell" containing a lot of PGP bullshit in the text - how do I know
> it's from the authentic Mike Lovell? In fact, I don't; no one does.

So I found a discussion of this very question in a group
comp.security.pgp: http://tinyurl.com/9uf4kdu

The reasons for using it are entirely unpersuasive, but I did learn
something about the social pathology of those who are most likely to
feel they need to use it, and now it makes perfect sense that Lovell
would use it.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:38:31 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:

>On 8/30/2012 2:28 PM, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>
>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>
>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>
>> George claims:
>>
>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>> a pre-existent state"
>
>Which is *exactly* what you do.
>
>Bob: look for a thread called "FAQ: ****wit's Beliefs". It's all laid
>out in great detail there. If you can't find one of the occasional
>(snicker) instances of it, I'll repost it.

No need; I've seen enough of his posts to get a fairly good
understanding of his level of comprehension. Or maybe
instead of "level" that should be "chasm"...
--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless

On 8/31/2012 12:29 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:38:31 -0700, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:
>
>> On 8/30/2012 2:28 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>>
>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>>
>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>>
>>> George claims:
>>>
>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>> a pre-existent state"
>>
>> Which is *exactly* what you do.
>>
>> Bob: look for a thread called "FAQ: ****wit's Beliefs". It's all laid
>> out in great detail there. If you can't find one of the occasional
>> (snicker) instances of it, I'll repost it.
>
> No need; I've seen enough of his posts to get a fairly good
> understanding of his level of comprehension. Or maybe
> instead of "level" that should be "chasm"...

How about "void"?

George Plimpton > wrote:
>On 8/31/2012 10:22 AM, Fred wrote:
>> George Plimpton > wrote:
>>> On 8/9/2012 3:07 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>> On 2012-08-09, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>>>> [bullshit snipped]
>>> ...but then by early August, you got the ****-brained idea to start
>>> using PGP when posting to Usenet.
>>> What the **** is wrong with you? Turn it off, mother****er.
>> Um, George, many people use PGP to sign postings given that UUCP
>> is not an authenticated protocol and forging people's idents is
>> done millions of times daily.
>Exactly how does using PGP or anything else prevent anyone from
>"forging" Lovell's posts?

It provides a digital signature that can be checked to verify that
it was in fact the person the message claimes to be who posted it.

If you need to learn how PGP works:

http://www.pgpi.org/doc/

I know that those who vote Republican aren't permitted to use Google.

---
Google is a liberal conspiracy. That's why cultists don't use it.

On 8/31/2012 4:16 PM, Fred wrote:
> George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 8/31/2012 10:22 AM, Fred wrote:
>>> George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>> On 8/9/2012 3:07 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-08-09, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>>>>> [bullshit snipped]
>>>> ...but then by early August, you got the ****-brained idea to start
>>>> using PGP when posting to Usenet.
>>>> What the **** is wrong with you? Turn it off, mother****er.
>>> Um, George, many people use PGP to sign postings given that UUCP
>>> is not an authenticated protocol and forging people's idents is
>>> done millions of times daily.
>> Exactly how does using PGP or anything else prevent anyone from
>> "forging" Lovell's posts?
>
> It provides a digital signature that can be checked to verify that
> it was in fact the person the message claimes to be who posted it.

I understand all that. I also can clearly see that there's no
legitimate need to worry about that, and that no one would ever take the
trouble to check that a post that appears under the ****wit Lovell's
name in fact matches the key - no one cares enough to do that.

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 12:31:05 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:

>On 8/31/2012 12:29 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:38:31 -0700, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:
>>
>>> On 8/30/2012 2:28 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>>>
>>>> George claims:
>>>>
>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>>> a pre-existent state"
>>>
>>> Which is *exactly* what you do.
>>>
>>> Bob: look for a thread called "FAQ: ****wit's Beliefs". It's all laid
>>> out in great detail there. If you can't find one of the occasional
>>> (snicker) instances of it, I'll repost it.
>>
>> No need; I've seen enough of his posts to get a fairly good
>> understanding of his level of comprehension. Or maybe
>> instead of "level" that should be "chasm"...
>
>How about "void"?

There y'go! ;-)
--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 22:18:01 -0700, Goo bitched:

>On 8/30/2012 10:03 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 2012-08-31, Goo bitched:
>>> ...but then by early August, you got the ****-brained idea to start
>>> using PGP when posting to Usenet.
>>>
>>> What the **** is wrong with you? Turn it off, mother****er.
>>
>> Nope. Deal with it.
>
>Why don't you turn it off, you pretentious cocksucker?

How's his system time Goo?

>You really are a pretentious, self-important prick.

Goober do you think he's more important than you are?

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:57:53 -0700, Goo wrote:

>> On 8/31/2012 10:22 AM, Fred wrote:
>>> George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>> On 8/9/2012 3:07 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-08-09, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>>>>> [bullshit snipped]
>>>> ...but then by early August, you got the ****-brained idea to start
>>>> using PGP when posting to Usenet.
>>>> What the **** is wrong with you? Turn it off, mother****er.
>>>
>>> Um, ...[Goo], many people use PGP to sign postings given that UUCP
>>> is not an authenticated protocol and forging people's idents is
>>> done millions of times daily.
>>
>> Exactly how does using PGP or anything else prevent anyone from
>> "forging" Lovell's posts? So, I see a post in Usenet from a "Mike
>> Lovell" containing a lot of PGP bullshit in the text - how do I know
>> it's from the authentic Mike Lovell? In fact, I don't; no one does.
>
>So I found a discussion of this very question in a group
>comp.security.pgp: http://tinyurl.com/9uf4kdu
>
>The reasons for using it are entirely unpersuasive, but I did learn
>something about the social pathology of those who are most likely to
>feel they need to use it, and now it makes perfect sense that Lovell
>would use it.

Well since you dishonestly alter people's quotes and dishonestly post stupid
things AS different people Goob, anyone having exchanges with you is likely to
have such dishonesty directed at them BY YOU. Did you forget about that part,
Goober?

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:22:14 -0500, Mike Lovell > wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 2012-08-31, Goo wrote:
>>>> ...but then by early August, you got the ****-brained idea to start
>>>> using PGP when posting to Usenet.
>>>>
>>>> What the **** is wrong with you? Turn it off, mother****er.
>>>
>>> Nope. Deal with it.
>>
>> Why don't you turn it off, you pretentious cocksucker? You really are a
>> pretentious, self-important prick.
>
>Pretentious? Me??? <spits latte out>
>
>Nope, I shall not. Many theist trolls try and forge posts from me,
>because I'm the atheist pope.

You think you're an atheist pope who considers the possibility of God's
existence?

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 23:41:23 -0500, Mike Lovell > wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 2012-08-30, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>>>He imagines this is OK because he was brainwashed to believe in a
>>>>>creator in his early childhood.
>>>>
>>>> You think your faith that God does not exist is OK because it's the only
>>>> thing you're not afraid to consider.
>>>
>>>What faith that God doesn't exist??
>>>
>>>Who is saying God doesn't exist? Or do we now have faith in positions
>>>we don't even hold?
>>
>> IF you are able to consider the possibility that God does exist, then WHAT
>> tf is your problem with people who believe he does?
>
>Nothing if they keep it to themselves. If they try and assert it in
>alt.atheism I will point out how irrational they are being.

If they truly believe God exists there's nothing wrong with them trying to
get atheists to believe it. It's not even bad when they point out that some
faiths believe if you don't accept God as your lord Satan is your lord
automatically, and Christians believe you have to do that through Jesus. You may
think you know that's not true, but if it is true what you believe is what Satan
wants you to believe. Notice the Satanic Bible denies his existence, showing
that if he does exist he likes it better when people don't believe it. That
would make them easier to influence because they wouldn't be on guard against
it, and it probably would be better for his position in other ways too.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 23:55:15 -0500, Mike Lovell > wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 2012-08-30, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>It's a common Christian argument. That all the people throughout the
>>>ages were referring to their God.
>>>
>>>It's a way of trying to "steal God" as it were. A theistic land-grab.
>>
>> You sure have that wrong. If there is a creator then all who worship him
>> worship the same being. [...]
>
>Some people believe there are numerous Gods and creators.
>
>And the way they worship is also important. As is their conflicting
>view that often leads to armed conflict,

I'm of the opinion that the vast majority of "religious" wars probably would
have happened for some other reason, like greed, even if they didn't have a
belief in God.

>death and suffering.
>
>> Only if there is more than one can people be worshiping
>> more than one. [...]
>
>Which some people believe.

All that I've heard of have a main God who is the creator.

>> It's possible some people believed we have more than one moon, [...]
>
>We *know* we have one moon.
>
>We do not know any Gods exist, let alone the number of them if they do.
>
>
>You example is completely invalid. You must pick something we don't
>know.

You can't think abou this in a realistic way as I pointed out. You're like a
dog trying to figure it out or something. You can't even get to the starting
line. You maunder about being able to, but in every situation where you are
tested like this one you fail entirely. You just can't do it. Whether it's that
you are physically mentally incapable or just unwilling, you can't do it.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 23:52:20 -0500, Mike Lovell > wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 2012-08-30, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>Then it's not faith if evidence supports it.
>>>
>>>Evidence is not subjective.
>>
>> The amount of confidence you have that something is correct is the same as
>> the amount of faith you have. You can have little or no faith, or you can have
>> strong faith. The amount of faith a person has that God does not exist is what
>> determines how strong an atheist the person is or is not.
>
>That's not what faith means.

It sure is.

>"belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
>would be substantiated by fact."

Strong atheists are in the same position. Were you somehow unaware of that,
and if so, what different position had you thought they were in?

>>>> The only people I've seen who just "had" faith without having any reasons
>>>> for it were on TV shows. The ones I've actually met have their reasons for
>>>> believing.
>>>
>>>Really? I've met none. Only ones they lie and create back-stories.
>>
>> The ones I've heard about often involve nearly being killed or horribly
>> injured.
>
>You've met a lot of nearly killed or horrible injured people then. And
>apparently not many other Christians.

It's something else you can't comprehend. It's not an appreciation problem
with you even, but you truly can't comprehend that faith is developed for
reasons. Even though all of your own faith has been developed for reasons you
can't comprehend that the same is true for other people. But then you try
dishonestly to deny your own faith, amusingly in what seems to be everything you
have faith in. That necessarily puts you in the group of people who are most
clueless.

>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, still a non sequitur. Your immune system provides no evidence
>>>>>for a creator.
>>>>
>>>> It sure does, even if one doesn't exist.
>>>
>>>Then it's not evidence then!
>>
>> It is even if there's no creator. What if there IS a creator? Do you think
>> it would be evidence if there is one?
>
>Nope,

That's amusing.

>it still would no be evidence regardless. It does not follow.
>it's a non sequitur.
>
>> . . .
>>>> YOU would have to show some sign that you're able to consider the
>>>> possibility, which you have not and probably can not.
>>>
>>>Like?
>>
>> Try anything, to begin with.
>
>You're have to do better than that. What sign would you like? I've
>already stated that I am open to the possibility, which is "something".
>You obviously need more than that.
>
>What?

Here's my attempt to think about the possibility basics list. See what you
can appreciate on it and what you can't:

1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.

2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.

3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.

4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.

5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.

6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.

7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.

8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.

9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.

10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.

11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.

12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.

13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.

14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out
of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"
in most if not all canonical texts.)

15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.

16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.

17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 22:02:00 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On 8/30/2012 2:00 PM, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:00:40 -0500, Mike Lovell > wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 2012-08-28, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>>>> Yes you do, LOL...and you're obviously ashamed that you do. It's amusing,
>>>>>> but also pathetic.
>>>>>
>>>>> No I do not. Some things I have faith in, gravity is now one of them.
>>>>
>>>> It sure is. You also have faith that there will be enough oxygen for you to
>>>> survive when you enter a building or vehicle. Are you ashamed of that one too?
>>>
>>> Nope, I don't have faith in those things.
>>>
>>> You can keep asserting I do, you can't force me to have faith in these
>>> things ;-)
>>>
>>>>> If there were no evidence I'd fly away faith would be required.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you spot the evidence that I won't fly off the planet? ;-) You
>>>>> should have had enough time to accumulate this evidence. Say every
>>>>> waking moment of your entire life.
>>>>
>>>> The evidence is what gives you faith. That's the way it is with the people
>>>> I've met who have faith in God as well. Things happen that are evidence to them
>>>> that God exists, whether he does or not.
>>>
>>> Then it's not faith if evidence supports it.
>>>
>>> Evidence is not subjective.
>>
>> The amount of confidence you have that something is correct is the same as
>> the amount of faith you have.
>
>No. Faith and confidence are not the same thing - not even close.

__________________________________________________ _______
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...7698&dict=CALD

faith (TRUST) Show phonetics
noun [u]
great trust or confidence in something or someone
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 23:49:05 -0500, Mike Lovell > wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 2012-08-30, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>No I do not. You don't tell me what I think, I tell you what I think
>>>;-)
>>
>> You have faith that gravity will keep you on the Earth and I know it.
>
>No, I do not.
>
>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
>"2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
>would be substantiated by fact."

LOL! Your dishonesty has climbed to a higher level. It's pretty blatantly
and desperately dishonest to try that trick when the number one definition
supports what I've been pointing out:

"1. confidence or trust in a person or thing"

>>>>>What a ridiculous notion. Gravity is a fact, faith is not required.
>>>>
>>>> You have faith that gravity will keep you on the planet. That is a fact. You
>>>> appear to be very ashamed of that faith, which is also a fact AND amusing.
>>>
>>>If there were no evidence to support it then it would be faith.
>>>
>>>There is. Shit tons of it.
>>
>> The amount of evidence has nothing to do with whether or not you have faith.
>> Your belief and the strength or lack of strength in it are ALL that matters.
>
>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
>"2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
>would be substantiated by fact."

LOL!!! It's hilarious that you have repeated that same stupidly blatant
display of dishonesty. When a person stoops to dishonesty I know they can't
argue against what I'm pointing out any more, and to do what you did shows you
must have finally also figured out that I'm right. They don't always figure it
out even when they can't argue any more...I don't believe they always do anyway.
What it comes down to is wondering if a person is really stupid enough to
believe what they claim, or if they're dishonestly pretending to be for whatever
reason(s). In some cases I KNOW when people know they're lying, but in others
I'm not sure. In this case though, I'm pretty sure you know you're lying. If you
were THAT stupid I doubt you'd be able to discuss the issue at all. Then again,
maybe you can't. You can't consider the possibility of God's existence in a
realistic way, we have seen that, so maybe....

>>>>>>>There is no evidence for a creator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You immune system is evidence of a creator, whether one exists or not.
>>>>>
>>>>>Non sequitur
>>>>
>>>> It's just another fact you don't like. There are lots of similar facts which
>>>> you also would not like. That's really extra amusing since you seem to want to
>>>> pretend you're capable of considering the possibility that God does exist.
>>>
>>>Then your intestines are evidence that giant hippo sneezed the Universe
>>>into existence.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
>Then you better lead us from "a creator" to the human immune system.
>Take us on that journey of evidence please.

It seems to be a planned and created thing. There are lots of things like
that. If you can't recognise any, then that's just another mental limitation you
may or may not learn to overcome at some point in your life. You probably never
will though...imo.

>>>>>You pray 1,000 times. Remember the 1 good result which happened anyway
>>>>>through chance, and discount the 999 times it did not work.
>>>>
>>>> That's not what I was referring to. It's not what you were referring to
>>>> either. We were both referring to no evidence, not some.
>>>
>>>There is no evidence there.
>>
>> You acted like the one good result is evidence for some people, and now you
>> seem to have forgotten.
>
>It's not evidence supporting their case,

It sure is.

>it's evidence that there's such
>a thing as "probability".

That TOO. ("You probably never will though...imo.")

>>>It's probability. Taking 1 good result as evidence of something and
>>>dismissing the 999 times that it failed.
>>>
>>>You run with that 1 as if the others didn't happen.
>>
>> I doubt it happens that way often, if ever. More often it would be that
>> prayer seems to help things more often than not, not almost never. So you're
>> still just making up unlikely souding fantasy and then trying to apply it to
>> every person's life.
>
>Evidence for this?

It's unlikely sounding and I know it's fantasy in regards to everyone I've
discussed it with.

>All studies I've seen on the power of prayer, scientific studies, show
>it to have zero effect.
>
>It does not effect the probability.

I have complete confidence that there are "studies" which support both that
it does and that it does not. If I'm correct, you are again clueless.

>>>Well looks like a double straw man there.
>>>
>>>I do consider the possibility. And I don't say God doesn't exist, let
>>>alone have fait that he does not.
>>
>> But you do have faith that he doesn't have anything to do with the outcome
>> of people's prayers if he does exist, apparently. LOL...that's even worse than
>> having faith he doesn't exist, imo.
>
>There's no faith involved there, I will remind you once mo
>
>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
>"belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
>would be substantiated by fact.:
>
>
>Scientific studies have shown no "power" behind prayer.
>
>>>It's not my insistance, it's a fact.
>>>
>>>Seeing as I tried all things not proven to exist equally, and you treat
>>>God differently than these things you must therefore have proof that God
>>>exists.
>>
>> No, it's just more possible that some intelligent beings from other parts of
>> the universe have had influence on the development of this planet, than some of
>> the things you like to think about like leprechauns and bugs bunny or whatever.
>
>Please show the math for these scenarios.
>
>If one is more possible there must be a reason behind this.

Yes there is. It's because humans by now have learned quite a lot about the
creatures that exist on this planet, and nothing at all about creatures that
exist on ANY other. It seems, even as clueless and unable to think things
through as you are, even you should have been able to figure that out. You
should have been able to figure it out for yourself within at most the first
twenty years of your life, and certainly you should have figured it out the
first time the question entered your challenged little mind. It's so obvious
even a grade school kid could get it if you were able to explain it to one.

>>>> Then why do you want people to think God isn't a consideration to anyone
>>>> with a brain, don't you have any idea at all???
>>>
>>>I don't want them to think anything.
>>
>> Why do you ridicule people for their faith if you don't want them to believe
>> something they don't already believe, or whatever you're trying to do???
>
>I ridicule them for acting irrationally.

Yet you are acting more ridiculous and irrational than they are, as well as
more clueless AND don't forget the idiotically high level of dishonesty you've
desperately moved up to.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>
>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>
>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>
>> Goo claims:
>>
>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>
>> and I don't believe him.
>>
>
>Because you're an idiot.

Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober
about that. Go:

dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>>
>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>>
>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>>
>>> Goo claims:
>>>
>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>>
>>> and I don't believe him.
>>>
>>
>> Because you're an idiot.
>
> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober
> about that. Go:
>

Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the
lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit
requires an entity to receive it.

On 8/26/2012 7:36 AM, fasgnadh wrote:
> On Aug 7, 12:54 pm, > wrote:
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> Don't be such a pedantic literalist ****. =A0As ****wit uses it, "unborn
>>>> animals" means animals that haven't even been conceived.
>>
>>> The context is his statement "In contrast to that most stupidly
>>> blatant of lies, every pregnant
>>> animal carries at least one unborn animal."
>>
>> If God interacts with our universe in any way, the effects of
>> his interaction must have some physical manifestation.
>
> Their names were Moses Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Krsna.. et al..
>
> they inspired great and enduring civilisations, proving the efficacy
> of their teaching.

They piled a load of bullshit on a stupid and scared population.

>
>> Hence
>> his interaction with our universe must be in principle detectable.
>
> Judeao Christian Islamic civilisation is pretty apparrent
> to any sentient being..
>
> unless you have your head up your arse... ie are an atheist.
>
>
>> If God is essentially nondetectable, it must therefore be the
>> case that he does not interact with our universe in any way.

That nonsense is that there is no such thing as a god. Wake up you idiots.

On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:47:33 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Dutch >:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>>>
>>>> Goo claims:
>>>>
>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>>>
>>>> and I don't believe him.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because you're an idiot.
>>
>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober
>> about that. Go:
>>
>
>Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the
>lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit
>requires an entity to receive it.

Now let's all listen to the WHOOOSH! as that passes over his
head (or maybe through it; the medium would be identical)...
--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless

On Mon, 03 Sep 2012, "Dutch" was completely defeated by dh's challenge:

>dh@. presented "Dutch" with a challenge:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>>>
>>>> Goo claims:
>>>>
>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>>>
>>>> and I don't believe him.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because you're an idiot.
>>
>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober
>> about that. Go:
>>
>
>Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the
>lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit
>requires an entity to receive it.

LOL!!! Explain how you want people to think that my having no uncle Jethro,
OR ANYTHING ELSE, is preventing you from benfitting from your existence as you
clearly appear to be doing. Go:

(correct prediction: you can't even make an attempt and are defeated by this
challenge completely and absolutely)

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:42:51 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:47:33 -0700, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by Dutch >:
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>>>>
>>>>> Goo claims:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>> and I don't believe him.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because you're an idiot.
>>>
>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober
>>> about that. Go:
>>>
>>
>>Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the
>>lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit
>>requires an entity to receive it.
>
>Now let's

LOL!!!! Maybe you think you can help team goober with this, and try to
explain what you think is preventing you from benefiting from your existence. If
you can, then see if you can explain what you want people to think prevents
everything that ever lives from benefitting from its existence. My prediction is
you can't do it just as the goos can't do it, and I also predict that you won't
even be able to make an attempt. I expect you to prove me right which would be
good for me, but if you are able to make an attempt that should be good for
another laugh so it looks like I win either way with this one.

On 9/4/2012 12:05 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012, "Dutch" completely demolished ****wit David Harrison:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison presented "Dutch" with a no challenge at all, because ****wit *CAN'T* challenge anyone:
>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>>>>
>>>>> Goo claims:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>> and I don't believe him.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because you're an idiot.
>>>
>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober
>>> about that. Go:
>>>
>>
>> Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the
>> lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit
>> requires an entity to receive it.
>
> LOL!!! Explain how you want people to think that

Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, ****wit.
It cannot be.

dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012, nobody is ever defeated by dh's challenges:
>
>> dh@. presented "Dutch" with a challenge:
>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>>>>
>>>>> Goo claims:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>> and I don't believe him.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because you're an idiot.
>>>
>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober
>>> about that. Go:
>>>
>>
>> Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the
>> lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit
>> requires an entity to receive it.
>
> LOL!!! Explain how you want people to think that my having no uncle Jethro,
> OR ANYTHING ELSE, is preventing you from benfitting from your existence as you
> clearly appear to be doing. Go:

Simple, read Salt again, this time for comprehension.

> (correct prediction: you can't even make an attempt and are defeated by this
> challenge completely and absolutely)

It was no challenge, you were defeated before you started.

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:05:32 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:42:51 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:47:33 -0700, the following appeared
>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Dutch >:
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo claims:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and I don't believe him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because you're an idiot.
>>>>
>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober
>>>> about that. Go:
>>>>
>>>
>>>Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the
>>>lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit
>>>requires an entity to receive it.

>>Now let's all listen to the WHOOOSH! as that passes over his
>>head (or maybe through it; the medium would be identical)...

> LOL!!!! Maybe you think you can help team goober with this, and try to
>explain what you think is preventing you from benefiting from your existence.

Prediction confirmed; it's so nice when you do that.
--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless

On 9/4/2012 12:05 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:42:51 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:47:33 -0700, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dutch >:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo claims:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and I don't believe him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because you're an idiot.
>>>>
>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober
>>>> about that. Go:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the
>>> lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit
>>> requires an entity to receive it.
>>
>> Now let's
>
> LOL!!!! Maybe you think you can help team goober with this, and try to
> explain what you think is preventing you from benefiting from your existence.

Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit. It cannot
be one, by definition.

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:27:50 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012, nobody is ever defeated by dh's challenges:
>>
>>> dh@. presented "Dutch" with a challenge:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo claims:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and I don't believe him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because you're an idiot.
>>>>
>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober
>>>> about that. Go:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the
>>> lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit
>>> requires an entity to receive it.
>>
>> LOL!!! Explain how you want people to think that my having no uncle Jethro,
>> OR ANYTHING ELSE, is preventing you from benfitting from your existence as you
>> clearly appear to be doing. Go:
>
>Simple, read Salt again, this time for comprehension.

"If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am" - Salt

The pig lived only to be eaten. If didn't specifically say it wished it had
never been born even though your imaginary pig DID know it was going to be
killed and even that it was going to be eaten. Real pigs have no idea they will
be killed and even less that they will be eaten. The fantasy by your
eliminationist hero is crap, but you love it because it supports elimination.
That's yet another way you reveal yourself, btw.

>> (correct prediction: you can't even make an attempt and are defeated by this
>> challenge completely and absolutely)
>
>It was no challenge

In contrast to that most blatant of lies it's a challenge that remains and
you can't even attempt to meet it.

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 12:50:45 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:05:14 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Sep 2012, "Dutch" was completely defeated by dh's challenge:
>>
>>>dh@. presented "Dutch" with a challenge:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo claims:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and I don't believe him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because you're an idiot.
>>>>
>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober
>>>> about that. Go:
>>>>
>>>
>>>Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the
>>>lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit
>>>requires an entity to receive it.
>>
>> LOL!!! Explain how you want people to think that my having no uncle Jethro,
>>OR ANYTHING ELSE, is preventing you from benfitting from your existence as you
>>clearly appear to be doing. Go:
>>
>>(correct prediction: you can't even make an attempt and are defeated by this
>>challenge completely and absolutely)
>
>Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, ****wit.
>It cannot be.

You can't explain what you think prevents it from being the benefit it so
clearly appears to be Goober. You have nothing but an empty, stupid claim but
are completely unable to back it up. You're just too inept Goob, as is your boy.

On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:58:55 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:05:32 -0400, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:42:51 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:47:33 -0700, the following appeared
>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Dutch >:
>>>
>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Goo claims:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and I don't believe him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you're an idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober
>>>>> about that. Go:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the
>>>>lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit
>>>>requires an entity to receive it.
>
>>>Now let's all listen to the WHOOOSH! as that passes over his
>>>head (or maybe through it; the medium would be identical)...
>
>> LOL!!!! Maybe you think you can help team goober with this, and try to
>>explain what you think is preventing you from benefiting from your existence.
>
>Prediction confirmed

You confirmed that you can't explain it just as the goos can't. You may not
even believe their claim yourself. If you do, explain how you think you can
continue to benefit after you lose the benefit of life. That's another one the
goos have never been able to attempt explaining.

On 9/6/2012 2:50 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:27:50 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012, nobody is ever defeated by dh's challenges:
>>>
>>>> dh@. presented "Dutch" with a challenge:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Goo claims:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and I don't believe him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you're an idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober
>>>>> about that. Go:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the
>>>> lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit
>>>> requires an entity to receive it.
>>>
>>> LOL!!! Explain how you want people to think that my having no uncle Jethro,
>>> OR ANYTHING ELSE, is preventing you from benfitting from your existence as you
>>> clearly appear to be doing. Go:
>>
>> Simple, read Salt again, this time for comprehension.
>
> "If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am" - Salt
>
> The pig lived only to be eaten.

He did not "benefit" from "getting to experience life."

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 12:50:45 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>>
>>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012, "Dutch" never challenged by ****wit:
>>>
>>>> dh@. presented "Dutch" with *NO* challenge:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Goo claims:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and I don't believe him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you're an idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober
>>>>> about that. Go:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the
>>>> lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit
>>>> requires an entity to receive it.
>>>
>>> LOL!!! Explain how you want people to think that my having no uncle Jethro,
>>> OR ANYTHING ELSE, is preventing you from benfitting from your existence as you
>>> clearly appear to be doing. Go:
>>>
>>> (correct prediction: you can't even make an attempt and are defeated by this
>>> challenge completely and absolutely)
>>
>> Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit, ****wit.
>> It cannot be.
>
> You can't explain what you think prevents it from being the benefit it so
> clearly appears to be

It does *not* "appear to be" a benefit, ****wit, and of course it isn't one.

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:58:55 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:05:32 -0400, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:42:51 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:47:33 -0700, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dutch >:
>>>>
>>>>> ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Prof. George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Goo claims:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and I don't believe him.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because you're an idiot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober
>>>>>> about that. Go:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the
>>>>> lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit
>>>>> requires an entity to receive it.
>>
>>>> Now let's all listen to the WHOOOSH! as that passes over his
>>>> head (or maybe through it; the medium would be identical)...
>>
>>> LOL!!!! Maybe you think you can help team goober with this, and try to
>>> explain what you think is preventing you from benefiting from your existence.
>>
>> Prediction confirmed
>
> You confirmed that

He confirmed that his observation would WHOOOSH! right over your head,
and of course he was right.

dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:27:50 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>> Simple, read Salt again, this time for comprehension.
>
> "If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am" - Salt

Not that part, but that was helpful.

> The pig lived only to be eaten.

He isn't complaining about that.

> If didn't specifically say it wished it had
> never been born

He accepts being born, to be meat.

> even though your imaginary pig DID know it was going to be
> killed and even that it was going to be eaten.

Salt never implies that actual pigs know they will be pork chops. You're
an idiot.

> Real pigs have no idea they will
> be killed and even less that they will be eaten.

Salt never says they do.

The fantasy by your
> eliminationist hero is crap, but you love it because it supports elimination.

No it doesn't, in the very part above that you quoted the pig *accepts*
livestock raising, despite the fact that the author doesn't agree with it.

"If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am" - Salt

In another part of the essay he bemoans filthy conditions, but that is
another debate.

The rhetorical pig is not complaining about the fact that he is pork for
human consumption, that he accepts, as you proved, what he can't abide
is the Logic of the Larder, that some people are not content with
bringing him into the world to be slaughtered for their benefit, they
add insult to injury by proclaiming that they deserve to be thought of
as the pig's most illustrious benefactor for sponsoring his existence in
the first place. Shabby sophistry he calls it and that's what it is.

> That's yet another way you reveal yourself, btw.
>
>>> (correct prediction: you can't even make an attempt and are defeated by this
>>> challenge completely and absolutely)
>>
>> It was no challenge
>
> In contrast to that most blatant of lies it's a challenge that remains and
> you can't even attempt to meet it.

You totally ignored the part of the essay that proves beyond a doubt why
coming into existence does not and cannot benefit an entity. Is your
cognitive dissonance preventing you from seeing it?

Need it pasted in for you?

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:51:14 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:58:55 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:05:32 -0400, the following appeared
>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>>On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:42:51 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:47:33 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Dutch >:
>>>>
>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Goo claims:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and I don't believe him.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because you're an idiot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober
>>>>>> about that. Go:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the
>>>>>lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit
>>>>>requires an entity to receive it.
>>
>>>>Now let's all listen to the WHOOOSH! as that passes over his
>>>>head (or maybe through it; the medium would be identical)...
>>
>>> LOL!!!! Maybe you think you can help team goober with this, and try to
>>>explain what you think is preventing you from benefiting from your existence.

>>Prediction confirmed

> You confirmed

....that you're functionally illiterate, and that you can't
understand simple logic even when it's explained in
excruciating detail, as Dutch did above:

"The only way that the concept 'benefit from existence' can
begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes a
pre-existent state"

IOW:

"A benefit requires an entity to receive it."

Nonexistent entities cannot receive "benefits"; it's as
simple as that.
--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:19:07 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:27:50 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>
>>> Simple, read Salt again, this time for comprehension.
>>
>> "If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am" - Salt
>
>Not that part, but that was helpful.
>
>> The pig lived only to be eaten.
>
>He isn't complaining about that.
>
>> If didn't specifically say it wished it had
>> never been born
>
>He accepts being born, to be meat.
>
>> even though your imaginary pig DID know it was going to be
>> killed and even that it was going to be eaten.
>
>Salt never implies that actual pigs know they will be pork chops. You're
>an idiot.

LOL!!! You're trying to pretend that I'm the idiot for pointing out Salt's
idiocy. LOL...
.. . .
>You totally ignored the part of the essay that proves beyond a doubt why
>coming into existence does not and cannot benefit an entity.

It's not in the fantasy, but if you want us to pretend that it is then you
need to present what you want us to think proves it. Try. Go:

On 9/10/2012 7:16 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:20:20 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:51:14 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:58:55 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:05:32 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:42:51 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:47:33 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dutch >:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>>>>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Goo claims:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>>>>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>>>>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and I don't believe him.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because you're an idiot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober
>>>>>>>> about that. Go:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the
>>>>>>> lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit
>>>>>>> requires an entity to receive it.
>>>>
>>>>>> Now let's all listen to the WHOOOSH! as that passes over his
>>>>>> head (or maybe through it; the medium would be identical)...
>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!!! Maybe you think you can help team goober with this, and try to
>>>>> explain what you think is preventing you from benefiting from your existence.
>>>>
>>>> Prediction confirmed
>>>
>>> You confirmed that you can't explain it just as the goos can't. You may not
>>> even believe their claim yourself. If you do, explain how you think you can
>>> continue to benefit after you lose the benefit of life. That's another one the
>>> goos have never been able to attempt explaining.
>>
>> Nonexistent entities cannot receive "benefits"; it's as
>> simple as that.
>
> You need to explain

He has, and so have I. Benefits can only be realized by entities that
exist.

On 9/10/2012 7:17 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:19:07 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:27:50 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>>> Simple, read Salt again, this time for comprehension.
>>>
>>> "If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am" - Salt
>>
>> Not that part, but that was helpful.
>>
>>> The pig lived only to be eaten.
>>
>> He isn't complaining about that.
>>
>>> If didn't specifically say it wished it had
>>> never been born
>>
>> He accepts being born, to be meat.
>>
>>> even though your imaginary pig DID know it was going to be
>>> killed and even that it was going to be eaten.
>>
>> Salt never implies that actual pigs know they will be pork chops. You're
>> an idiot.
>
> LOL!!! You're trying to pretend that I'm the idiot

There's no pretending - you *are* the idiot (as well as the convicted
felon.)

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:16:38 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:20:20 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:51:14 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:58:55 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:05:32 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:42:51 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:47:33 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Dutch >:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>>>>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Goo claims:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>>>>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>>>>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and I don't believe him.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because you're an idiot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober
>>>>>>>> about that. Go:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the
>>>>>>>lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit
>>>>>>>requires an entity to receive it.
>>>>
>>>>>>Now let's all listen to the WHOOOSH! as that passes over his
>>>>>>head (or maybe through it; the medium would be identical)...
>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!!! Maybe you think you can help team goober with this, and try to
>>>>>explain what you think is preventing you from benefiting from your existence.
>>>>
>>>>Prediction confirmed
>>>
>>> You confirmed that you can't explain it just as the goos can't. You may not
>>>even believe their claim yourself. If you do, explain how you think you can
>>>continue to benefit after you lose the benefit of life. That's another one the
>>>goos have never been able to attempt explaining.
>>
>>Nonexistent entities cannot receive "benefits"; it's as
>>simple as that.
>
> You need to explain what you want people to think prevents you from
>benefitting from your life now.

No I don't. Since I exist nothing prevents me from deriving
benefits from that existence. The issue is about nonexistent
entities, which can derive no benefits; see, it says so
right above your latest erroneous post. *Do* try to keep up,
or at least to understand the original question.

<snip irrelevant maunderings>
--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless

On 9/10/2012 9:49 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:16:38 -0400, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:20:20 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:51:14 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:58:55 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:05:32 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:42:51 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:47:33 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Dutch >:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>>>>>>>>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Goo claims:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>>>>>>>>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>>>>>>>>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and I don't believe him.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because you're an idiot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try presenting any reason(s) why you think anyone should believe the Goober
>>>>>>>>> about that. Go:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because it is true. Your uncle Jethro can't benefit from winning the
>>>>>>>> lottery unless he exists, that is true of all benefits. A benefit
>>>>>>>> requires an entity to receive it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now let's all listen to the WHOOOSH! as that passes over his
>>>>>>> head (or maybe through it; the medium would be identical)...
>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!!!! Maybe you think you can help team goober with this, and try to
>>>>>> explain what you think is preventing you from benefiting from your existence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prediction confirmed
>>>>
>>>> You confirmed that you can't explain it just as the goos can't. You may not
>>>> even believe their claim yourself. If you do, explain how you think you can
>>>> continue to benefit after you lose the benefit of life. That's another one the
>>>> goos have never been able to attempt explaining.
>>>
>>> Nonexistent entities cannot receive "benefits"; it's as
>>> simple as that.
>>
>> You need to explain what you want people to think prevents you from
>> benefitting from your life now.
>
> No I don't. Since I exist nothing prevents me from deriving
> benefits from that existence. The issue is about nonexistent
> entities, which can derive no benefits; see, it says so
> right above your latest erroneous post. *Do* try to keep up,
> or at least to understand the original question.

Technically, you benefit from events that occur *within* your existence:
getting adequate nutrition, enjoying the company of others, reading,
getting exercise, etc. No one benefits from existence itself.

As you correctly note, one must exist prior to anything being a benefit.
A benefit, by definition, is something that improves the welfare of an
entity. The entity must already exist (and, obviously, have a welfare)
before anything can be of benefit to it.

As I've explained before, ****wit Harrison is trying to "defeat"
"vegans" (so-called "ethical vegetarians") and other adherents (more or
less) of "animal rights" who wish to see the cessation of livestock
husbandry as the only way not to violate the "rights" of livestock
animals. ****wit wants to pretend that by not wanting any more
livestock animals to live, "vegans" and "aras" are somehow advocating
the withholding of a "benefit" from "them" - that is, from animals that
don't exist. Quite obviously, that is illogical nonsense.



> <snip irrelevant maunderings>
>

dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:19:07 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:27:50 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>>> Simple, read Salt again, this time for comprehension.
>>>
>>> "If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am" - Salt
>>
>> Not that part, but that was helpful.
>>
>>> The pig lived only to be eaten.
>>
>> He isn't complaining about that.
>>
>>> If didn't specifically say it wished it had
>>> never been born
>>
>> He accepts being born, to be meat.
>>
>>> even though your imaginary pig DID know it was going to be
>>> killed and even that it was going to be eaten.
>>
>> Salt never implies that actual pigs know they will be pork chops. You're
>> an idiot.
>
> LOL!!! You're trying to pretend that I'm the idiot for pointing out Salt's
> idiocy. LOL...

You're an idiot, that's no pretense.

> . . .
>> You totally ignored the part of the essay that proves beyond a doubt why
>> coming into existence does not and cannot benefit an entity.
>
> It's not in the fantasy, but if you want us to pretend that it is then you
> need to present what you want us to think proves it. Try. Go:

It's there, that's no pretense either.

"The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to compare
existence with non-existence. A person who is already in existence may
feel that he would rather have lived than not, but he must first have
the terra firma of existence to argue from; the moment he begins to
argue as if from the abyss of the non-existent, he talks nonsense, by
predicating good or evil, happiness or unhappiness, of that of which we
can predicate nothing."