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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1846 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-01-2005, 02:45 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #1847 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-01-2005, 03:28 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #1850 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-01-2005, 05:25 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #1851 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-01-2005, 09:14 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #1852 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-01-2005, 08:48 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
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 First-Post General Cooking 0 04-09-2016 12:10 AM
Leaky pie filling jars [email protected] Preserving 3 06-08-2007 08:18 PM
Vintage port - leaky bottle : ( [email protected] Wine 4 03-10-2006 02:35 AM
How To Fillet A Homo Sheldon General Cooking 6 30-04-2006 10:50 PM
Canadian foodie expression as per the Canadian Oxford alsandor General Cooking 0 09-12-2005 02:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017