On 31 Jul., 16:19, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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?

Has it occurred to you that he might have changed his mind?