FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   Vegan (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/)
-   -   query for the leaky Canadian homo (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/51211-query-leaky-canadian-homo.html)

John Jones 20-01-2005 11:13 PM

qhc891-fh819-efh81-ef8h1h9-384yv41p


John Jones 20-01-2005 11:13 PM

qhc891-fh819-efh81-ef8h1h9-384yv41p


John Jones 20-01-2005 11:13 PM

qhc891-fh819-efh81-ef8h1h9-384yv41p


John Jones 20-01-2005 11:13 PM

qhc891-fh819-efh81-ef8h1h9-384yv41p


John Jones 20-01-2005 11:13 PM

qhc891-fh819-efh81-ef8h1h9-384yv41p


Derek 21-01-2005 03:45 PM

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.

Rudy Canoza 21-01-2005 04:28 PM

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 22-01-2005 06:21 AM

wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:00:44 GMT, "misanthrope" > wrote:
>
>
>>Maybe alt.phil is the wrong group for you then.

>
>
> Oh yes, it's way too advanced for me.


Exactly.

Rudy Canoza 22-01-2005 06:23 AM

wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:39:54 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:30:21 GMT, "misanthrope" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>animal rights is an issue in which i have no interest, and i therefore feel
>>>>i'm unqualified to pronounce upon it.
>>>
>>>
>>> By now I'm convinced that no one in alt.philosophy has enough
>>>brain

>>
>>****wit: you are a high school drop out,

>
>
> That's a lie.


That's not a lie.

>>and you make
>>your living cleaning up a shitty beer dive. You have
>>no education.
>>
>>You are not smart or intelligent in the
>>least, a fact you demonstrate several times a day in
>>these forums.
>>
>>You are in no position to be telling anyone else he
>>isn't smart.
>>
>>You are the walking definition of stupid.

>
>
> Maybe,


No. Guaranteed.

Rudy Canoza 22-01-2005 06:25 AM

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.

Dutch 22-01-2005 10:14 AM

"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



[email protected] 22-01-2005 09:48 PM

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.



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter