On 8/1/2012 9:42 AM, Rupert wrote:
> 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.

I've given the argument before. You know I'm right. "Better or worse"
as you're claiming "some philosophers" use them is an ethical
proposition, and that requires someone with a welfare state to
experience the outcome - someone to be the subject of the ethical outcome.


>>>>>>> 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.

There *is* a way to know, if one is capable of critical thinking. You
may not be, but I am, and I have done the thinking and explained the
results to you in a way that even a psychotic ****wit like you can
understand.


>>>>>>>>>> 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.

It is. You're just being obtuse.


>>>>>>>>>> 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

<guffaw>