On 8/1/2012 10:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 1, 7:03 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 8/1/2012 9:55 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> 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,
>>
>> Your brain has a number of crippling defects; poor memory is only one such.
>>
>
> I have an extremely good memory.

No, you don't. You've forgotten all about how I demolished your
contention that "better or worse" can obtain independently of anyone
experiencing them.


>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> I have done.
>>
>
> I haven't observed you doing so.

You have; you've just forgotten.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>
>> Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, many.