On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:29:39 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Mar 13, 8:09*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 22:50:40 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 8, 10:32*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:24:37 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Mar 6, 11:55*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:03:11 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >On Mar 5, 8:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:33:57 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >Obviously, therefore, you wouldn't have the least idea of how many
>> >> >> >> >collateral deaths are associated with one serving of tofu.
>>
>> >> >> >> * * That's because you don't so you can't tell me.
>>
>> >> >> >No, my ignorance has no causal bearing on your ignorance.
>>
>> >> >> * * Yet you try to blame me for your own inability to comprehend a significant
>> >> >> difference between lives of positive and negative value.
>>
>> >> >No, I don't.
>>
>> >> >There is no reason to think I would be unable to comprehend a
>> >> >definition that actually conveys some information, if you were able to
>> >> >offer one.
>>
>> >> * * I did.
>>
>> >No. The definition you offered obviously conveys no information.
>>
>> * * That's a lie.
>
>It's not. I sincerely believe it to be true, so it's not a lie. And
>you obviously haven't got any rational grounds for thinking that I
>don't sincerely believe it to be true.

Yes I do, because I don't believe you are stupid enough to believe it.

>You shouldn't accuse people of
>lying when you have no rational grounds for doing so. It's unethical.

I don't do it. I don't believe you're stupid enough to believe your claim
either, meaning I necessarily must believe you're lying, meaning I have very
rational grounds for accusing you of lying.

>> I even later pointed out some of the specific information it
>> conveys, but apparently you are incapable of comprehending.
>>
>
>Try again. What information does it convey?

For one thing the fact that life can have positive value or negative value
to the individual. For another that the amount of suffering an individual
experiences has an influence on what that value is. If you can get that far let
me know and maybe we can consider some of the other information it conveys, and
if you can figure out any more info it conveys on your own that would be extra
fun...like watching a child learn to walk...or at least crawl? Let's say crawl,
so you don't have to worry about falling down too far when you screw up.

>> >It really is quite tragic that you cannot grasp this.
>>
>> >> You couldn't comprehend.
>>
>> >Because the definition is meaningless and conveys no information.
>>
>> * * That has been a lie evey time you've told it, and will continue to be a lie
>> every time you tell it.
>>
>
>See

How do you want people to think it could ever become true?
.. . .
>> >> You can't figure it out on your own either,
>> >> or at least so far you haven't been able to.
>>
>> >It's not a question of "figuring anything out".
>>
>> * * Yes it is. I figured it out for myself, but you can't.
. . .
>> * * I did tell you. What did I tell you doc, do you have any clue at all?
>
>What you have said by way of trying to explain what you have in mind
>conveys no information whatsoever.

That will ALWAYS be a lie EVERY time you tell it. If you're still telling it
in five years, it will STILL be a lie in 5 years. And if you quit telling it for
twenty years and then tell it again it will STILL be a lie when you tell it
again in twenty years. That's how that works and there is nothing you can do to
change it. Not even additional lying can change it.