****wit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, 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
>>>>
>>>> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.
>>>
>>> So do animals in similar positions.
>>
>> No.
>
> LOL!!! The idea that

No.



>> You *should* understand, but fail to understand, that "getting to
>> experience life" is not a benefit.
>
> It often appears that it is a benefit

No. Existence *never* is, or appears to be, a benefit, ****wit. This
is proved beyond rational dispute. Existence *never* is a benefit to an
entity, ****wit - it is the condition required to receive any benefit,
but it is not itself a benefit. This is proved, ****wit.

On 7/31/2012 11:55 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:51:52 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:40:36 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> Those people already exist,
>>>
>>> So do animals in similar positions.
>>
>> No.
>
> LOL!!! The idea that there are no animals in similar positions is so stupid
> it's hilarious Goo.
>
>>>> life only has value to a being once they
>>>> exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.
>>>
>>> I understand that commercially raised pigs are no longer filthily housed and
>>> fed, and also that Salt didn't have any idea whether life is of positive value
>>> to most modern commercially raised pigs or not. I'd also say it's safe to
>>> believe that he wouldn't feel any livestock animals' lives were worth living the
>>> same as you and the Goober and all other misnomer addicts, meaning that none of
>>> you could make a realistic distinction between which lives seem to be negative
>>> and which seem to be positive.
>>
>> You *should* understand, but fail to understand, that "getting to
>> experience life" is not a benefit.
>
> It often appears that it is a benefit Goob so if you want people to think
> something prevents it from being one, YOU need to try to explain what you want
> people to think prevents it. Try explaining what you want people to think
> prevents you from benefitting from experiencing your own life, Goo. Go:
>
>
> (correct prediction: the Goober not only can't explain what he thinks is
> preventing him from benefitting, but he's ashamed to even attempt to explain)
>

****wit David Harrison, a convicted felon, lied:


>> You only showed that you're an incompetent liar.
>
> If you want anyone to think I'm lying

Everyone already thinks you're lying, Goo.

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:


>> It's a forgery, ****wit. Proved.
>
> It's YOUR quote

It's not a quote at all, ****wit. It's a forgery - proved.

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?

> 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?

> 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, Ball?

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.

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?


>> 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?


>> 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?

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 1999 http://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 1999 http://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.

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. If
you want the correct explanation you would probably do best to ask
him.

> >> 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.

> >> 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, but you also made the statement that I am psychotic, and I
was curious about what had led you to that conclusion.

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".


> 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.


>>>> 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.


>>>> 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.

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.
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. I do not necessarily say this is the correct
interpretation; it just seems to me as good as any other. It seems
pretty weird to me to think that someone would claim not to believe
something because they knew it wasn't defensible and yet still believe
it. That doesn't seem very logical to me.

I don't hate you, I find you very amusing. I have never said that I
think that what you say isn't true, I have just called into question
your reasons for believing it. It's very interesting that you claim to
have an insight into the symptoms of psychiatric illness.

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.


> 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.


> I don't hate you

Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, you do, Woopert. It's irrational, but that's
consistent for you.

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, but I am not all that
interested in speculating about why David Harrison believes what you
say he believes, assuming that he does. You are asking me to believe
that David Harrison claims not to believe something because he knows
it's indefensible, and yet deep down he still believes it. This seems
pretty illogical to me.

> > 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.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> 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"?

> >>>> 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. Explain why
you think I am psychotic. Do you think I have delusions?

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? So it's probably pretty
hard for you to tell what he really believes, if indeed he himself
knows.

> > 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 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?

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.


>>> 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.


>>
>>>>>> 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.


>>>>>> 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.

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 that it makes the outcome better to bring
one more happy being into existence. This doesn't appeal to any notion
of the animal being "something" before it exists. Whatever you think
of that position, it is a coherent position held by some philosophers,
and it is a possible way to account for why David Harrison might hold
the view that he claims he does. I make no claims about whether this
is the real reason he holds that view, if indeed he does.

> >>> 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.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> 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?

> >>>>>> 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?

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.


>>>>> 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.


>>>>>>>> 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.


>>>>>>>> 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>

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. 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.


>>> 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.

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. That is beside the point. I am not articulating the view
with the purpose of defending it. I am simply pointing out that there
are ways to account for how David Harrison might hold that view,
contrary to what you said.

> >>>>> 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.

> >>>>>>>> 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.

> >>>>>>>> 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; I am sure
your attempt to explain how you are able to diagnose psychiatric
symptoms would be very amusing.

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?

> *His statements of belief are obvious, and so are his lies. *Any
> reasonable person can tell them apart.
>

How?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> 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.

> >>> 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, I was asking you what led you to the conclusion that I hate you.

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.


>>>>>>> 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.


>>>>>>>>>> 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>

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.



>> 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.


>>>>> 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.

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, and I don't know you're right,
and there are many highly intelligent philosophers who would disagree
with 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.

> >>>>>>>>>> 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?

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.


>>>>>>>>> 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.


>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.

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, then.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> * 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.

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.

> >>>>>>>>> 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.

> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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's an example?