On 8/1/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 1, 6:52 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> Well, I must have misunderstood you

They don't contradict his statements of belief because the apparent
contradictions are lies. His statements of belief are "true" in the
sense that they accurately state his beliefs. When he says that the
"unborn animals" will experience some loss if their conception and birth
are prevented, he is expressing a belief that is in accord with all of
his other unsolicited statements of belief. When he says he couldn't
believe "they" would experience a loss because he considers them to be
"nothing", that is a lie, and so it cannot contradict his statement of
belief. Only if he truly believed that the unconceived farm animals are
"nothing" could it be contradictory, but he doesn't believe that, as I
have proved.


>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> You seem to react in a very hostile way when someone isn't persuaded
> by your argument.

You just like being an asshole - a bloated-ego 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.