On 1 Aug., 15:09, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/1/2012 2:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 31 Jul., 19:28, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> On 7/31/2012 10:18 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On 31 Jul., 19:15, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>> On 7/31/2012 10:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> 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?
>
> >>>> He didn't. *Everything he's written since then proves it. *He *does*
> >>>> consider the unborn farm animals to be "more than just 'nothing'" - even
> >>>> you know that. *Everyone knows it. *****wit assigns moral weight to the
> >>>> possibility of "getting to experience life" for farm animals that
> >>>> wouldn't be bred into existence for decades. *****wit irrationally -
> >>>> insanely - thinks it is morally good *today* for the unborn farm animals
> >>>> themselves to want them to be bred into existence in the future; and he
> >>>> thinks you and all the other "vegan" twits whom he calls
> >>>> "eliminationists" are committing a moral wrong by wanting to stop the
> >>>> breeding of farm animals. *You know he thinks this. *You may for your
> >>>> own absurd and psychotic reasons wish to say that you don't know it, but
> >>>> you do know it, and we all know you know it.
>
> >>> So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?
>
> >> Doesn't think what? *He's claimed there are a couple of things he's
> >> written that are not his true thoughts. *Do you mean that he doesn't
> >> think unborn farm animals will suffer a "loss" if they are "prevented"
> >> from being conceived and born? *He says he doesn't think that because he
> >> became aware, thanks to me, of just how stupid and illogical and insane
> >> that sounds. *Of course, he *does* think it - it very clearly and
> >> obviously underlies everything else he has written on the topic.
>
> > So he's become aware thanks to you of how stupid and illogical and
> > insane it sounds, but he continues to hold on to the belief? Does this
> > not strike you as a bit weird?
>
> *Everything* about ****wit is at least "a bit" weird. *Have you
> forgotten already that he has said "time doesn't exist", because we
> "can't detect it?" *However, recall that he said:
>
> * * * * I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
> * * * * presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
> * * * * post my spew as everyone else does.
> * * * * ****wit - 11/30/1999
>
> So, his expression of his weird idea sounds stupid and illogical, but
> that doesn't mean it isn't his idea. *It *is* his idea. *How the ****
> else, you psychotic twit, do you explain the fact - it *is* a fact -
> that he assigns moral weight to animals' "getting to experience life"
> long before they exist, such that he regards any attempt to "prevent"
> that from happening as an immoral act of interference?
>

I can think of ways to explain how someone could hold such a view. If
you want the correct explanation you would probably do best to ask
him.

> >> Do you mean that he doesn't think the unborn animals "...are more than
> >> just 'nothing'", i.e., that he thinks they *are* "just 'nothing'"? *He
> >> said he thought they were "just 'nothing'" as a way of trying to shuffle
> >> away from his "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." ****wittery, because he
> >> didn't remember having said that they "...are more than just 'nothing'".
>
> > Why do you suppose he would lie about what he believes?
>
> Why does a congenital liar lie at all, you idiot? *****wit lies because
> he's a ****witted troll who suffers no consequence for lying in pursuit
> of his trolling. *****wit doesn't have a coherent story for *anything*
> he believes. *In 13 years of ****ing around spewing his nonsense in
> Usenet, he has never persuaded anyone to abandon their beliefs and adopt
> his. *****wit doesn't care about that. *He's just trolling, which is an
> essentially dishonest pastime. *If his basic purpose in participating in
> Usenet is something that is inherently dishonest, why would he have any
> qualms about adding to the dishonesty by lying about his beliefs?
>

If he's really just trolling, then that would suggest that he doesn't
believe anything that he writes.

> >> He's just ****ed. *He stated his true beliefs, in December 1999 and
> >> again in August 2000, and they show him to be an irrational idiot. *I
> >> don't think he's psychotic, as you are, but he's clearly irrational and
> >> incapable of clear and logical thinking.
>
> > Why do you think I am psychotic, Prof. Plimpton?
>
> I thought we were talking about ****wit and his absurd, irrationally
> held, dishonestly expressed beliefs?

We were, but you also made the statement that I am psychotic, and I
was curious about what had led you to that conclusion.