View Single Post
  #96 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Dietary ethics

On 1 Aug., 18:20, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/1/2012 9:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 Aug., 17:59, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> 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".

>
> > No, there are other ways to explain it,

>
> Nope.
>


Some philosophers hold that it makes sense to speak of the outcome
being better or worse, and that it makes the outcome better to bring
one more happy being into existence. This doesn't appeal to any notion
of the animal being "something" before it exists. Whatever you think
of that position, it is a coherent position held by some philosophers,
and it is a possible way to account for why David Harrison might hold
the view that he claims he does. I make no claims about whether this
is the real reason he holds that view, if indeed he does.

> >>> 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.

>
> > Well, maybe you'll never know then.

>
> We do know what his beliefs are.
>


You claim to know, but it is unclear how you would know.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> 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.

>
> > What do you mean by "trolling"?

>
> Saying stuff to stir shit up. *He knows that his deeply held beliefs are
> rejected by everyone, but he spews them to stir shit up anyway, even
> though the beliefs have been ridiculed and shown to be illogical bullshit..
>


Why is that an essentially dishonest pastime?

> >>>>>> 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.

>
> > You were the one who brought up the topic of psychosis.

>
> You were the one who exhibited psychosis.


In what way?