Rupert wrote:
> On 2 Aug., 06:03, Dutch > wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> He's inconsistent and a liar too. For example he claims to believe that
>> Jonathan Ball and I are vegans ("eliminationists"). It is not plausible
>> to me that even he could actually believe that. I think that means he's
>> lying, unless you have another explanation.
>
> Do you have any idea what would motivate him to lie?

He is not prepared to accept that opponents of AR disagree with his pet
argument. There have been quite a few others too, before you came along,
when this was a very lively interesting forum, unlike now. I think there
may be a fuzzy area here between self-delusion (cognitive dissonance)
and outright lying. Is he lying is his brain just will not allow him to
accept the obvious truth? The difficultly in his case I think is that if
he allows himself to accept the flaw in his argument then he may be
forced to confront the same issue with his rationalization for raising
fighting cocks. "They get to experience life because he raises them"
gets him off the hook, he believes.