Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
qhc891-fh819-efh81-ef8h1h9-384yv41p
|
|
|||
|
|||
qhc891-fh819-efh81-ef8h1h9-384yv41p
|
|
|||
|
|||
qhc891-fh819-efh81-ef8h1h9-384yv41p
|
|
|||
|
|||
qhc891-fh819-efh81-ef8h1h9-384yv41p
|
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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, Jon, so you cannot say they don't exist simply because no beneficiary exists yet to benefit by them. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. It's just >>stuff until they exist. > > > It's a benefit waiting for them It's not a benefit until and unless they exist. |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote
>>>>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. Those things are only *potential* benefits, contingent on someone being born to become the beneficiary. If no such person is born, they remain simply useless inanimate objects of no benefit to anyone. A benefit always requires a beneficiary, who by definition is already born, therefore the only thing he CANNOT EVER receive as a benefit is *life*. QED |
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:18:47 GMT, "misanthrope" > wrote:
>i don't condone the welshman's behaviour, but as you said yourself: > >> Well John Jones, if my positing has in some way caused >> you unhappiness then I'm sorry that it has, but can't realy >> feel any guilt for it, given the freakshow environment that >> news groups are and we willingly participate in them. It's morons like him who make it no better than it is imo. I first approached your group ignorantly thinking you folks had probably already been over this topic and had it pretty much hashed out by now, only to find that none of you even care about it. Later Boy Jones started bitching about the OT garbage posted by the Gonad, so I tried to at least show basic courtesy about it. And what did that get? A lot more childish trash from BJ. At some point you mentioned the back-biting issue, so I just let you know what the topic is again, ingnorantly hoping this group would have something to offer. For years I've been pointing out that some farm animals benefit from farming, and it's been met with supposed opposition the entire time. But the "opposition" is nothing. If I'm wrong, and in some mystical way no farm animal has ever benefitted from farming, I would like to find out. If life has never been a benefit for anything, I'd like to find that out too. But. I'm not going to find out from clowns like Dutch or the Gonad...they have done their best, which as I said is nothing. I'm interested to see if anyone can do better than nothing. Or if I'm right, I'm interested in seeing if anyone can explain to these morons that some of the billions of farm animals have benefitted from farming, and some have not, in a way they are capable of understanding. And/or that life is the benefit which makes all others possible, in a way they can understand. I've explained that without the benefit of life a zygote could never grow into an animal, and even an easy basic fact like that is beyond their ability to understand. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Candy Assed Canadian John Kinal Still Spamming US Politics Over Canadian Government - God does tell that Satanic enemies of Life do exist, And Other Lies By John Kinal, Sociopathic Canadian Newsgroup Terrorist | General Cooking | |||
Leaky pie filling jars | Preserving | |||
Vintage port - leaky bottle : ( | Wine | |||
How To Fillet A Homo | General Cooking | |||
Canadian foodie expression as per the Canadian Oxford | General Cooking |