On Aug 1, 6:51*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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..
>

Well, I don't remember any argument, and I don't know you're right,
and there are many highly intelligent philosophers who would disagree
with you.

> >>>>>>> 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.
>

No, you haven't given any satisfactory explanation of how you 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.
>
> 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>

Do you think I have delusions?