On 8/1/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
> 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.

They all are predicated on the belief that the unconceived animals
"pre-exist".


> If you want the correct explanation you would probably do best to ask
> him.

You're an idiot. He has already admitted he is unable to express his
beliefs coherently.


>>>> 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.

That doesn't follow.


>>>> 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,

Then stick to the topic, psycho-boi.