On 8/1/2012 9:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 1, 6:41 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Really? He says things that contradict one another but he's not being
> inconsistent?

No. The things he says that are lies don't contradict his statements of
belief.



>> 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.
>>
>
> So you would appear to believe.

You know I'm right. You just like being an asshole.


>>>>> 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.
>
> No,

Yes.