On 7/31/2012 4:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
> 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?

The one that is trying to erase something else stupid that he said. In
this case, ****wit was frantically trying to undo the effect of his
notorious "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." statement by saying he
considered the unborn animals to be "nothing". But he had already said
they "...are more than just 'nothing'", and it is obvious that later
saying they are "nothing" was merely to try to escape the absurdity of
his August 2000 statement.

This kind of analysis comes easily to logical thinkers, Woopert - what's
your problem?