On 1 Aug., 18:38, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
>

So you claim, although you appear to just be asserting it without
argument. That is beside the point. I am not articulating the view
with the purpose of defending it. I am simply pointing out that there
are ways to account for how David Harrison might hold that view,
contrary to what you said.

> >>>>> 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.
>

He tells us things that contradict each other so there is no way to
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?
>
> 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.
>

Doesn't seem so to me.

> >>>>>>>> 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>

It's a shame you don't feel like answering the question; I am sure
your attempt to explain how you are able to diagnose psychiatric
symptoms would be very amusing.