On 8/2/2012 1:59 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 1, 7:18 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> 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.
>
> You appear to be confused about what "contradict" means.

No.


>> 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.
>
> You seem to be rather intolerant of differences of opinion.

No.


>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> What led you to the conclusion that I hate you

What you write here, and your obsession with me.