On 1 Aug., 19:29, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 8/1/2012 10:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 7:20 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> > I do have an extremely good memory.
>
> No, you don't.
>

Do you think there's any possibility that I might be in a better
position to know than 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.
>
> >>>> I have done.
>
> >>> I haven't observed you doing so.
>
> >> You have; you've just forgotten.
>
> > I find that implausible
>
> <smirk>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> > What are some examples?
>
> A delusion of competence, for one. *A delusion of being an ethicist, for
> another.

I do not believe that I am an ethicist and have never said that I am
one.

A delusion of competence in what domain?