On 8/2/2012 11:26 AM, Dutch wrote:
> 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.

He is either unable or unwilling to understand that his pet argument is
garbage. It has been demolished; there was never anything substantive
to it.

It does seem too implausible that ****wit wouldn't know that his
argument was destroyed more than a decade ago (actually, close to a
century ago.) The fact he sticks with it is part of the compelling
evidence that he is merely a troll.


> 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.
>