On Mar 19, 8:28*pm, dh@. wrote:
> 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.
>

I'm not talking about what you *believe*, I'm talking about what you
have *rational grounds for believing*. You obviously don't have
*rational grounds* for believing that I don't sincerely believe it to
be true. I do sincerely believe it to be true, and in fact, it is
true: the definition you offered obviously conveys no information, and
it's very sad that you can't see that.

> >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.
>

No, just because you *believe* something doesn't mean you have
*rational grounds* for believing it. On this occasion you obviously
don't.

> >> 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.
>

Your definition does convey the information that the amount of
suffering in an individual's life has a bearing on whether that life
has positive or negative value, but it doesn't convey any information
whatsoever about the criteria used to determine how much suffering
would be required to make a life of negative value, because it
specifies that in a completely circular way.

> >> >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?
> . . .
>

It obviously is true, and it's very sad that you can't see that.

> >> >> 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.

Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it so.