On 8/1/2012 9:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
> 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?

No. His statements of belief are obvious, and so are his lies. Any
reasonable person can tell them apart.


>>> 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'm right.


>>> 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?

Irrationality.