On Jul 30, 9:09*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>
> >> ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
> >>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
> >>> goddess" > wrote:
>
> >>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
> >>>> Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>> ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>
> >>>>>> * * * *The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
> >>>>>> considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
> >>>>>> that life still has positive value to them
>
> >>>> It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. *People can be motivated by
> >>>> negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).
>
> >>> * * * It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.
>
> >>>>> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
> >>>>> exist.
>
> >>>> That's a logical point.
>
> >>> * * * It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
> >>> that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago
>
> >> It is not a mistake in terminology
>
> > * * *That's a blatant lie.
>
> It's not. *It was not a mistake at all, ****wit. *It was and is your
> most deeply held belief:
>
> * * * * Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
> * * * * born if nothing prevents that from happening,
> * * * * that would experience the loss if their lives
> * * * * are prevented.
> * * * * ****wit - 08/01/2000
>
> You originally said it was a "mistake" in terminology because you
> claimed to view the "unborn animals" as "nothing", but of course that
> was a lie:
>
> * * * * The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> * * * * are more than just "nothing", because they
> * * * * *will* be born unless something stops their
> * * * * lives from happening. Since that is the case,
> * * * * if something stops their lives from happening,
> * * * * whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
> * * * * them of the life they otherwise would have had.
> * * * * ****wit - 12/09/1999
>
> Sorry, ****wit. *It is *NOT* a "mistake in terminology", as everyone can
> plainly see.

If someone makes two statements about what they believe that
contradict one another, then how do you tell which one is the lie?