On 8/1/2012 9:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
> 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

Yeah, yeah, you've tried that shit before. It has to be better or worse
*for* someone or something that has a welfare that can be evaluated.
Saying that "it's just better" is nonsense.


>>>>> 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.

No, it's perfectly clear how *you* and I know: ****wit tells us.


>>>>>>>> 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?

Because he isn't trying to enlighten anyone. Shit-stirring simply for
the sake of stirring shit, even if one is stirring the shit by revealing
one's core beliefs, is dishonest.


>>>>>>>> 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?

<chortle>