On 1 Aug., 18:08, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/1/2012 9:00 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 Aug., 16:04, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> On 8/1/2012 2:06 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On 31 Jul., 20:42, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?
>
> >>>> When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it
> >>>> sounds so he can't say he believes it.
>
> >>>> But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their
> >>>> failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".
>
> >>>> He's not bright enough to realize that by doing so he is admitting that
> >>>> he implicitly believes that non-existent animals can "lose" something.
>
> >>> It's one thing to claim he's being inconsistent; that's different from
> >>> claiming that he's lying about what he thinks.
>
> >> Let's look at two of his lies about what he thinks and believes. *The
> >> first is his claim that he doesn't believe that unborn farm animals,
> >> which he expects and wants to be born, will suffer a "loss" if something
> >> prevents their conception and birth. *When it became apparent to me, in
> >> the summer of 1999, that ****wit believes there *would* be some kind of
> >> moral loss if the farm animals he wants to exist were prevented from
> >> being conceived and born, I began asking him to describe the loss, and
> >> to identify who or what would experience it. *I was after him for over
> >> nine months to answer the question of who or what experiences the loss..
> >> * *I asked him literally dozens of times, even offering possible answers
> >> to him, one of which was the unborn animals. *Finally, in August 2000,
> >> some nine months later, he provided his classic example of ****wittery:
>
> >> * * * * *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
>
> >> When I pointed out the belief is absurd, and he began to be mocked for
> >> it, he immediately began furiously backpedaling from it. *But why
> >> wouldn't you think his answer would be honest, when he had had months to
> >> conceive of the answer? *And what about all his other statements that
> >> support the conclusion that he *does* believe unborn animals *do* exist,
> >> or "pre-exist", in some sense? *For example:
>
> >> * * * * *What gives you the right to want to deprive
> >> * * * * *them [unborn animals] of having what life they
> >> * * * * *could have?
> >> * * * * *****wit - 10/12/2001
>
> >> * * * * *What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
> >> * * * * **could* get to live, is for people not to
> >> * * * * *consider the fact that they are only keeping
> >> * * * * *these animals from being killed, by keeping
> >> * * * * *them from getting to live at all.
> >> * * * * *****wit - 10/19/1999
>
> >> * * * * *If you keep an animal from being born which
> >> * * * * *would have been born without your interference,
> >> * * * * *you have denied life to it, whether it actually
> >> * * * * *exists or not.
> >> * * * * *****wit - 28 Sept 1999http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu
>
> >> * * * * *If it is wrong to cut their lives short, it is
> >> * * * * *even more wrong to discourage them from ever
> >> * * * * *getting to experience life at all IMO.
> >> * * * * *****wit - 9 Nov 1999http://tinyurl.com/38bd9v
>
> >> It is obvious, even to a dull mentally ill plodder like you, that
> >> ****wit assigns some kind of moral weight to the interests of animals
> >> that haven't been conceived. *How *else* could he do so if he doesn't
> >> think they exist in some weird sense? *How *else* could he say that
> >> something could be "denied" or "unfair" to unconceived animals? *It is
> >> obvious, from the totality of the things he has written, that ****wit
> >> thinks unconceived farm animals exist "in some sense", which is the only
> >> way he can assign any moral weight to their "getting to experience life"
> >> before they are actually alive. *Of course, it's always possible that he
> >> isn't assigning any moral weight to it at all, and is instead throwing
> >> that bullshit out there as a smokescreen for *his* interest in seeing
> >> the animals exist so that he may eat them, but that only means we've
> >> caught him in a different lie.
>
> >> So, that takes care of lie #1: *if we are to take him at his word that
> >> it really is the interests of unconceived farm animals he is trying to
> >> protect, then he *necessarily* believes they will experience some "loss"
> >> if something prevents them from being conceived and born and "getting to
> >> experience life, and he is lying when he says he doesn't believe it. *He
> >> only says he doesn't believe it because the expression of the belief
> >> sounds absurd on its face, and he can't defend it.
>
> >> Now, for lie #2, specifically his statement that he considers the
> >> unconceived farm animals to be "nothing". *We can see that that's a lie
> >> first by the totality of all the other things he's written about
> >> unconceived farm animals being "denied" and "deprived" of life and
> >> experiencing "unfairness". *All of those statements demonstrate that he
> >> considers "them" to be "something", specifically "something" that can
> >> experience denial, deprivation, unfairness - and loss. *This is obvious
> >> and beyond dispute.
>
> >> The second way we see that he is lying about the unconceived animals
> >> being "nothing" is that it was said in a blatantly obvious effort to
> >> distance himself from the most absurd comment he had made, the one for
> >> which he was being mocked and ridiculed - the one which is entirely
> >> consistent with all the *other* things he said that prove he thinks the
> >> unconceived animals are "something".
>
> >> Finally, the third way we know he's lying about it is that he
> >> *explicitly* said they are "more than just 'nothing'" in an earlier
> >> unguarded moment in which he wasn't on the hot seat to try to defend, or
> >> run away from, an idiotic statement of belief:
>
> >> * * * * *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
>
> >> ****wit has simply made too many statements, both direct and indirect,
> >> that demonstrate his belief that unconceived farm animals are morally
> >> considerable "somethings", for you reasonably to think he doesn't
> >> believe it. *You *know* he believes it. *The only reason you wish to
> >> pretend you don't know it is your own wholly irrational hatred of me,
> >> such that if I say something that is obviously and demonstrably true,
> >> you irrationally react as if you think it isn't true. *That, Woopert, is
> >> evidence of your psychosis.
>
> > The quotations you provide from Harrison are all from a long time ago.
>
> He has expressed the same beliefs in other posts since then.
>

Well, he's being inconsistent then, isn't he? So it's probably pretty
hard for you to tell what he really believes, if indeed he himself
knows.

> > If he began "backpedalling" from the belief when you started providing
> > arguments against it, then it seems to me that one reasonable
> > interpretation of this development is simply that he was persuaded by
> > your arguments.
>
> He wasn't. *His backpedaling was tactical, simply to avoid the ridicule
> resulting from his oafish expression of his deeply held beliefs. *He
> wasn't backing away from the beliefs themselves; he continued to express
> the same ones worded differently.
>
> ****wit *still* believes that the "getting to experience life" is
> important - *morally* important - to the animals themselves, even before
> they are conceived and born and exist as rational people think of
> existence. *The *only* way he can believe that is if he believes they
> "pre-exist in some sense." *He does believe that. *He is an idiot.
>

Well, you certainly seem to be convinced.

> > I don't hate you
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha ha! *Yes, you do, Woopert. *It's irrational, but that's
> consistent for you.

Why do you think I hate you?