On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:54:45 -0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:

>On 1/8/2013 1:57 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:49:04 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>> What do you want people to think is preventing you from
>>>> benefitting from
>>>> life?
>>>
>>> Goalpost shift? Your assertion was that "life is a benefit",
>>> not that "one can benefit from life"; I certainly have no
>>> argument with the latter. The answer to your *actual*
>>> original assertion that "life is a benefit" is by
>>> counterexample (two of them, actually; there are more
>>> available on request):
>>>
>>> The fact that you think there's some nebulous "benefit" in
>>> being born with a painful heart defect which kills you
>>> before the age of one, or born to abusive addict parents who
>>> beat you to death at the age of two (neither of which is any
>>> sort of "benefit"), is sufficient to reject your conjecture
>>> that "life is a benefit". A short life of nothing but pain
>>> isn't a "benefit".
>>>
>>> Now stop snipping the answer and claiming I've given no
>>> answer, you lying sack of shit.
>>>
>>
>> If by "life" one means the circumstances around you then they can be a
>> benefit or a harm. But he doesn't mean that, he is equivocating. He
>> means the very process of living,
>
>He means existence, period - with no regard to the quality of the existence.

That's exactly what he claimed. Until now, that is. Now it
seems he may have caught on to the idiocy of that position.
He should have, as it's been explained enough times with
enough examples that even he should finally "get it", and
he's trying to weasel-word around his idiocy in hopes no one
will notice. Unfortunately for him he's too stupid to do so
with even minimal competence, and too arrogant and dishonest
to admit his errors.

>> and that can't benefit you, because it
>> *is* you. But honestly, I don't think he knows he's doing it, he's too
>> stupid, he has just rehearsed all these different tortured wordings to
>> escape facing the utter stupidity of what he is saying for so long that
>> he thinks they make sense.
>
>He picked up this lame trick from someone else, and he doesn't know how
>to manipulate it.

Seems so...
--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless