Bartricks

Because they're directly relevant. No, a sensation is a mental state. This: is circular and uninformative. Look, you're clearly just a dogmatic materi...

Don't be sore, Hugh. Just read the OP and try and engage with the argument.

Look, if you want to insist that a person who has done nothing is not undeserving of harm, that's fine. YOu haven't refuted the argument, you've just ...

Yeah, that's because you can't address the argument so you need to tell yourself that the arguer has a problem. Whatever helps.

Yeah, shit happens. Good point. I'm certainly being out classed.

Er, it's a premise in the argument. Christ.

Er, when it comes to procreative acts the person does not yet exist. A non-existent person can't deserve anything. So: fail. Try again.

Liar. Which premise do you think is false then, eh? Your reason tells you that if someone has done nothing they deserve to come to harm????

It is self-evident to virtually everyone that if a person has done nothing, then they do not deserve to come to any harm. That's not remotely controve...

This is now too tedious for words. Have I denied that the benefits are good? Try and understand the argument. Try and understand why, despite being go...

Now we need to start again, don't we? You accept that this is true: innocent persons deserve benefits and no harms. They not get that. That bad. They ...

Then try and think of an example of an act that deprives a person of a benefit they deserve and where that fact about the act does not function as a m...

That's not an example. Provide an example of an act that creates an undeserved harm and where that fact about the act does not function as a moral neg...

What is your case? Give me a non question begging example of an act that creates undeserved harm and where the fact it creates undeserved harm does no...

So you accept that 1 and 2 are true. You realise that means you need to accept that 3 is true or qualify as thicker than a thick thing on national thi...

It quite obviously has the same form. So, that means you need to deny 1 or 2. Which one do you deny?

Answer my question.

I think you mean "mummy!!!! The nasty reasoning man is doing things with arguments again!!! Arrrgh!!! Run away!!" Yes?

Answer my question. Don't just say stuff. Answer the question.

Yes was sufficient. Do you see how this conforms to that valid argument form: 1. Innocent persons deserve benefits 2. Innocent persons deserve no harm...

So you disagree with my conclusion that innocent persons deserve harm free beneficial lives? Do you agree that this argument form is valid: P. Q. Ther...

Which quote?

What was?

no you didn't. You said something I couldn't understand. Quote a claim of mine - resist the urge to Express it it your own words (it won't mean the sa...

Which claim of MINE do you disagree with? Not yours. Mine. Quote me.

Are your sensations mental states? Pssst. The answer is yes. And then Berkeley beats you.

Which claim of mine do you disagree with?

Highlight something I said. Not you. Me.

Is a sensation a mental state?

What are you talking about? What false thing did I say in my last post. Highlight it and then we can talk about it

Do you know what other things being equal means?

You can't have done as you have just ignored the argument. If an innocent person deserves no harm and deserves benefits, then they deserve a harm free...

Read the op!!!!!!

Er, what? Why are you saying stuff that doesn't contradict anything I've said. Read what I said again and don't attribute to me thick inferences that ...

Read. The. OP. The fact they deserve benefits makes my case even stronger. Jeez louise.

Did you read the OP? I know they deserve benefits. They deserve no harm and they deserve a happy life. And they won't get that. See? That's called an ...

If you think it is as solid as air, tell me which premise is false.

You are not one for subtle distinctions, so this is going to be a waste of time. But if you deserve no harm and come to harm, that's bad. If you deser...

Fine. I'm not going to quibble. And can sensations exist outside minds?

I'm taking the pixie out of you. A person who hasn't done anything doesn't deserve to come to harm. That's not controversial. You think it is. It ain'...

A sensation of materialness? Er no. What the F do you mean? Do you have an Issac sense? What is a sense of materialness? Do explain

You haven't read him. And you seem incapable of understanding that the claim that percepts do not exist unpercieved is not equivalent to the claim tha...

We have a sensation of presentness. Do keep up.

From a pixie. And he learnt it from a tub of lard. And he learnt it from a waffle iron. And the waffle iron learnt it from me. So, if a person has don...

But in my community it means ice cream. So the murderer's death was his just ice cream? That makes no sense at all.

In my community desert means ice cream. So Bartdumb is arguing that if a person is created from scratch, then they are born ice cream. Which is silly....

But how do we know anything? That's the problem with antinatalist arguments. How does anyone know anything? And language. What does 'desert' mean anyw...

These are metaethical issues. If you're going to reject my argument by embracing some form of individual or collective subjectivism about morality, yo...

When's your next album coming out, Alanis?

You're too confused for words. I'm not going to explain again. Read the OP. Appearances are default evidence in support of what they represent to be t...