Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #106 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2012, 06:05 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Dietary ethics

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?

  #107 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2012, 06:18 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 8/1/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 6:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:44 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Aug 1, 6:41 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:17 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 18:08, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:00 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 16:04, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 2:06 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 20:42, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?


When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it
sounds so he can't say he believes it.


But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their
failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".


He's not bright enough to realize that by doing so he is admitting that
he implicitly believes that non-existent animals can "lose" something.


It's one thing to claim he's being inconsistent; that's different from
claiming that he's lying about what he thinks.


Let's look at two of his lies about what he thinks and believes. The
first is his claim that he doesn't believe that unborn farm animals,
which he expects and wants to be born, will suffer a "loss" if something
prevents their conception and birth. When it became apparent to me, in
the summer of 1999, that ****wit believes there *would* be some kind of
moral loss if the farm animals he wants to exist were prevented from
being conceived and born, I began asking him to describe the loss, and
to identify who or what would experience it. I was after him for over
nine months to answer the question of who or what experiences the loss.
I asked him literally dozens of times, even offering possible answers
to him, one of which was the unborn animals. Finally, in August 2000,
some nine months later, he provided his classic example of ****wittery:


Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000


When I pointed out the belief is absurd, and he began to be mocked for
it, he immediately began furiously backpedaling from it. But why
wouldn't you think his answer would be honest, when he had had months to
conceive of the answer? And what about all his other statements that
support the conclusion that he *does* believe unborn animals *do* exist,
or "pre-exist", in some sense? For example:


What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
****wit - 10/12/2001


What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
****wit - 10/19/1999


If you keep an animal from being born which
would have been born without your interference,
you have denied life to it, whether it actually
exists or not.
****wit - 28 Sept 1999http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu


If it is wrong to cut their lives short, it is
even more wrong to discourage them from ever
getting to experience life at all IMO.
****wit - 9 Nov 1999http://tinyurl.com/38bd9v


It is obvious, even to a dull mentally ill plodder like you, that
****wit assigns some kind of moral weight to the interests of animals
that haven't been conceived. How *else* could he do so if he doesn't
think they exist in some weird sense? How *else* could he say that
something could be "denied" or "unfair" to unconceived animals? It is
obvious, from the totality of the things he has written, that ****wit
thinks unconceived farm animals exist "in some sense", which is the only
way he can assign any moral weight to their "getting to experience life"
before they are actually alive. Of course, it's always possible that he
isn't assigning any moral weight to it at all, and is instead throwing
that bullshit out there as a smokescreen for *his* interest in seeing
the animals exist so that he may eat them, but that only means we've
caught him in a different lie.


So, that takes care of lie #1: if we are to take him at his word that
it really is the interests of unconceived farm animals he is trying to
protect, then he *necessarily* believes they will experience some "loss"
if something prevents them from being conceived and born and "getting to
experience life, and he is lying when he says he doesn't believe it. He
only says he doesn't believe it because the expression of the belief
sounds absurd on its face, and he can't defend it.


Now, for lie #2, specifically his statement that he considers the
unconceived farm animals to be "nothing". We can see that that's a lie
first by the totality of all the other things he's written about
unconceived farm animals being "denied" and "deprived" of life and
experiencing "unfairness". All of those statements demonstrate that he
considers "them" to be "something", specifically "something" that can
experience denial, deprivation, unfairness - and loss. This is obvious
and beyond dispute.


The second way we see that he is lying about the unconceived animals
being "nothing" is that it was said in a blatantly obvious effort to
distance himself from the most absurd comment he had made, the one for
which he was being mocked and ridiculed - the one which is entirely
consistent with all the *other* things he said that prove he thinks the
unconceived animals are "something".


Finally, the third way we know he's lying about it is that he
*explicitly* said they are "more than just 'nothing'" in an earlier
unguarded moment in which he wasn't on the hot seat to try to defend, or
run away from, an idiotic statement of belief:


The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999


****wit has simply made too many statements, both direct and indirect,
that demonstrate his belief that unconceived farm animals are morally
considerable "somethings", for you reasonably to think he doesn't
believe it. You *know* he believes it. The only reason you wish to
pretend you don't know it is your own wholly irrational hatred of me,
such that if I say something that is obviously and demonstrably true,
you irrationally react as if you think it isn't true. That, Woopert, is
evidence of your psychosis.


The quotations you provide from Harrison are all from a long time ago.


He has expressed the same beliefs in other posts since then.


Well, he's being inconsistent then, isn't he?


No.


Really? He says things that contradict one another but he's not being
inconsistent?


No. The things he says that are lies don't contradict his statements of
belief.


Well, I must have misunderstood you


They don't contradict his statements of belief because the apparent
contradictions are lies. His statements of belief are "true" in the
sense that they accurately state his beliefs. When he says that the
"unborn animals" will experience some loss if their conception and birth
are prevented, he is expressing a belief that is in accord with all of
his other unsolicited statements of belief. When he says he couldn't
believe "they" would experience a loss because he considers them to be
"nothing", that is a lie, and so it cannot contradict his statement of
belief. Only if he truly believed that the unconceived farm animals are
"nothing" could it be contradictory, but he doesn't believe that, as I
have proved.




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


If he began "backpedalling" from the belief when you started providing
arguments against it, then it seems to me that one reasonable
interpretation of this development is simply that he was persuaded by
your arguments.


He wasn't. His backpedaling was tactical, simply to avoid the ridicule
resulting from his oafish expression of his deeply held beliefs. He
wasn't backing away from the beliefs themselves; he continued to express
the same ones worded differently.


****wit *still* believes that the "getting to experience life" is
important - *morally* important - to the animals themselves, even before
they are conceived and born and exist as rational people think of
existence. The *only* way he can believe that is if he believes they
"pre-exist in some sense." He does believe that. He is an idiot.


Well, you certainly seem to be convinced.


I'm right.


So you would appear to believe.


You know I'm right. You just like being an asshole.


You seem to react in a very hostile way when someone isn't persuaded
by your argument.


You just like being an asshole - a bloated-ego asshole.


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.


  #108 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2012, 06:20 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 8/1/2012 10:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 7:03 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:55 AM, Rupert wrote:

On Aug 1, 6:51 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:42 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 18:38, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:24 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 18:20, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:09 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 17:59, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 15:09, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 2:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 19:28, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 10:18 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 19:15, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 10:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 16:19, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 4:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Jul 30, 9:09 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch wrote:


****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" wrote:


On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
Dutch wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
that life still has positive value to them


It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated by
negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).


It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.


Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
exist.


That's a logical point.


It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago


It is not a mistake in terminology


That's a blatant lie.


It's not. It was not a mistake at all, ****wit. It was and is your
most deeply held belief:


Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000


You originally said it was a "mistake" in terminology because you
claimed to view the "unborn animals" as "nothing", but of course that
was a lie:


The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999


Sorry, ****wit. It is *NOT* a "mistake in terminology", as everyone can
plainly see.


If someone makes two statements about what they believe that
contradict one another, then how do you tell which one is the lie?


The one that is trying to erase something else stupid that he said. In
this case, ****wit was frantically trying to undo the effect of his
notorious "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." statement by saying he
considered the unborn animals to be "nothing". But he had already said
they "...are more than just 'nothing'", and it is obvious that later
saying they are "nothing" was merely to try to escape the absurdity of
his August 2000 statement.


This kind of analysis comes easily to logical thinkers, Woopert - what's
your problem?


Has it occurred to you that he might have changed his mind?


He didn't. Everything he's written since then proves it. He *does*
consider the unborn farm animals to be "more than just 'nothing'" - even
you know that. Everyone knows it. ****wit assigns moral weight to the
possibility of "getting to experience life" for farm animals that
wouldn't be bred into existence for decades. ****wit irrationally -
insanely - thinks it is morally good *today* for the unborn farm animals
themselves to want them to be bred into existence in the future; and he
thinks you and all the other "vegan" twits whom he calls
"eliminationists" are committing a moral wrong by wanting to stop the
breeding of farm animals. You know he thinks this. You may for your
own absurd and psychotic reasons wish to say that you don't know it, but
you do know it, and we all know you know it.


So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?


Doesn't think what? He's claimed there are a couple of things he's
written that are not his true thoughts. Do you mean that he doesn't
think unborn farm animals will suffer a "loss" if they are "prevented"
from being conceived and born? He says he doesn't think that because he
became aware, thanks to me, of just how stupid and illogical and insane
that sounds. Of course, he *does* think it - it very clearly and
obviously underlies everything else he has written on the topic.


So he's become aware thanks to you of how stupid and illogical and
insane it sounds, but he continues to hold on to the belief? Does this
not strike you as a bit weird?


*Everything* about ****wit is at least "a bit" weird. Have you
forgotten already that he has said "time doesn't exist", because we
"can't detect it?" However, recall that he said:


I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
post my spew as everyone else does.
****wit - 11/30/1999


So, his expression of his weird idea sounds stupid and illogical, but
that doesn't mean it isn't his idea. It *is* his idea. How the ****
else, you psychotic twit, do you explain the fact - it *is* a fact -
that he assigns moral weight to animals' "getting to experience life"
long before they exist, such that he regards any attempt to "prevent"
that from happening as an immoral act of interference?


I can think of ways to explain how someone could hold such a view.


They all are predicated on the belief that the unconceived animals
"pre-exist".


No, there are other ways to explain it,


Nope.


Some philosophers hold that it makes sense to speak of the outcome
being better or worse, and


Yeah, yeah, you've tried that shit before. It has to be better or worse
*for* someone or something that has a welfare that can be evaluated.
Saying that "it's just better" is nonsense.


So you claim, although you appear to just be asserting it without
argument.


I've given the argument before. You know I'm right. "Better or worse"
as you're claiming "some philosophers" use them is an ethical
proposition, and that requires someone with a welfare state to
experience the outcome - someone to be the subject of the ethical outcome.


Well, I don't remember any argument,


Your brain has a number of crippling defects; poor memory is only one such.


I have an extremely good memory.


No, you don't. You've forgotten all about how I demolished your
contention that "better or worse" can obtain independently of anyone
experiencing them.


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


You're an idiot. He has already admitted he is unable to express his
beliefs coherently.


Well, maybe you'll never know then.


We do know what his beliefs are.


You claim to know, but it is unclear how you would know.


No, it's perfectly clear how *you* and I know: ****wit tells us.


He tells us things that contradict each other so there is no way to
know.


There *is* a way to know, if one is capable of critical thinking. You
may not be, but I am, and I have done the thinking and explained the
results to you in a way that even a psychotic ****wit like you can
understand.


No, you haven't given any satisfactory explanation of how you know.


I have done.


I haven't observed you doing so.


You have; you've just forgotten.


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.


  #109 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2012, 06:24 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Dietary ethics

On Aug 1, 7:20*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 10:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

On Aug 1, 7:03 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:55 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 1, 6:51 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:42 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 18:38, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:24 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 18:20, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:09 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 17:59, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 15:09, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 2:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 19:28, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 10:18 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 19:15, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 10:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 16:19, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 4:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Jul 30, 9:09 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch wrote:


****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" wrote:


On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
Dutch wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


* * * * * * * * *The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
that life still has positive value to them


It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. *People can be motivated by
negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).


* * * * * * * * It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.


Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
exist.


That's a logical point.


* * * * * * * * It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago


It is not a mistake in terminology


* * * * * * * *That's a blatant lie..


It's not. *It was not a mistake at all, ****wit. *It was and is your
most deeply held belief:


* * * * * * * * * Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
* * * * * * * * * born if nothing prevents that from happening,
* * * * * * * * * that would experience the loss if their lives
* * * * * * * * * are prevented.
* * * * * * * * * ****wit - 08/01/2000


You originally said it was a "mistake" in terminology because you
claimed to view the "unborn animals" as "nothing", but of course that
was a lie:


* * * * * * * * * The animals that will be raised for us to eat
* * * * * * * * * are more than just "nothing", because they
* * * * * * * * * *will* be born unless something stops their
* * * * * * * * * lives from happening. Since that is the case,
* * * * * * * * * if something stops their lives from happening,
* * * * * * * * * whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
* * * * * * * * * them of the life they otherwise would have had.
* * * * * * * * * ****wit - 12/09/1999


Sorry, ****wit. *It is *NOT* a "mistake in terminology", as everyone can
plainly see.


If someone makes two statements about what they believe that
contradict one another, then how do you tell which one is the lie?


The one that is trying to erase something else stupid that he said. *In
this case, ****wit was frantically trying to undo the effect of his
notorious "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." statement by saying he
considered the unborn animals to be "nothing". *But he had already said
they "...are more than just 'nothing'", and it is obvious that later
saying they are "nothing" was merely to try to escape the absurdity of
his August 2000 statement.


This kind of analysis comes easily to logical thinkers, Woopert - what's
your problem?


Has it occurred to you that he might have changed his mind?


He didn't. *Everything he's written since then proves it. *He *does*
consider the unborn farm animals to be "more than just 'nothing'" - even
you know that. *Everyone knows it. *****wit assigns moral weight to the
possibility of "getting to experience life" for farm animals that
wouldn't be bred into existence for decades. *****wit irrationally -
insanely - thinks it is morally good *today* for the unborn farm animals
themselves to want them to be bred into existence in the future; and he
thinks you and all the other "vegan" twits whom he calls
"eliminationists" are committing a moral wrong by wanting to stop the
breeding of farm animals. *You know he thinks this. *You may for your
own absurd and psychotic reasons wish to say that you don't know it, but
you do know it, and we all know you know it.


So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?


Doesn't think what? *He's claimed there are a couple of things he's
written that are not his true thoughts. *Do you mean that he doesn't
think unborn farm animals will suffer a "loss" if they are "prevented"
from being conceived and born? *He says he doesn't think that because he
became aware, thanks to me, of just how stupid and illogical and insane
that sounds. *Of course, he *does* think it - it very clearly and
obviously underlies everything else he has written on the topic.


So he's become aware thanks to you of how stupid and illogical and
insane it sounds, but he continues to hold on to the belief? Does this
not strike you as a bit weird?


*Everything* about ****wit is at least "a bit" weird. *Have you
forgotten already that he has said "time doesn't exist", because we
"can't detect it?" *However, recall that he said:


* * * * * * * I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
* * * * * * * presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
* * * * * * * post my spew as everyone else does.
* * * * * * * ****wit - 11/30/1999


So, his expression of his weird idea sounds stupid and illogical, but
that doesn't mean it isn't his idea. *It *is* his idea. *How the ****
else, you psychotic twit, do you explain the fact - it *is* a fact -
that he assigns moral weight to animals' "getting to experience life"
long before they exist, such that he regards any attempt to "prevent"
that from happening as an immoral act of interference?


I can think of ways to explain how someone could hold such a view.


They all are predicated on the belief that the unconceived animals
"pre-exist".


No, there are other ways to explain it,


Nope.


Some philosophers hold that it makes sense to speak of the outcome
being better or worse, and


Yeah, yeah, you've tried that shit before. *It has to be better or worse
*for* someone or something that has a welfare that can be evaluated.
Saying that "it's just better" is nonsense.


So you claim, although you appear to just be asserting it without
argument.


I've given the argument before. *You know I'm right. *"Better or worse"
as you're claiming "some philosophers" use them is an ethical
proposition, and that requires someone with a welfare state to
experience the outcome - someone to be the subject of the ethical outcome.


Well, I don't remember any argument,


Your brain has a number of crippling defects; poor memory is only one such.


I have an extremely good memory.


No, you don't. *You've forgotten all about how I demolished your
contention that "better or worse" can obtain independently of anyone
experiencing them.


I do have an extremely good memory. I know pi to 140 decimal places,
for example, and I once participated in a psychology experiment where
they said I had an amazing short-term memory. Our different
recollections about what took place when we discussed this issue
probably arise from a different understanding of what constitutes
"making an argument".

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


You're an idiot. *He has already admitted he is unable to express his
beliefs coherently.


Well, maybe you'll never know then.


We do know what his beliefs are.


You claim to know, but it is unclear how you would know.


No, it's perfectly clear how *you* and I know: *****wit tells us..


He tells us things that contradict each other so there is no way to
know.


There *is* a way to know, if one is capable of critical thinking. *You
may not be, but I am, and I have done the thinking and explained the
results to you in a way that even a psychotic ****wit like you can
understand.


No, you haven't given any satisfactory explanation of how you know.


I have done.


I haven't observed you doing so.


You have; you've just forgotten.


I find that implausible, to say the least.

Do you mean that he doesn't think the unborn animals "...are more than
just 'nothing'", i.e., that he thinks they *are* "just 'nothing'"? *He
said he thought they were "just 'nothing'" as a way of trying to shuffle
away from his "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." ****wittery, because he
didn't remember having said that they "...are more than just 'nothing'".


Why do you suppose he would lie about what he believes?


Why does a congenital liar lie at all, you idiot? *****wit lies because
he's a ****witted troll who suffers no consequence for lying in pursuit
of his trolling. *****wit doesn't have a coherent story for *anything*
he believes. *In 13 years of ****ing around spewing his nonsense in
Usenet, he has never persuaded anyone to abandon their beliefs and adopt
his. *****wit doesn't care about that. *He's just trolling, which is an
essentially dishonest pastime. *If his basic purpose in participating in
Usenet is something that is inherently dishonest, why would he have any
qualms about adding to the dishonesty by lying about his beliefs?


If he's really just trolling, then that would suggest that he doesn't
believe anything that he writes.


That doesn't follow.


What do you mean by "trolling"?


Saying stuff to stir shit up. *He knows that his deeply held beliefs are
rejected by everyone, but he spews them to stir shit up anyway, even
though the beliefs have been ridiculed and shown to be illogical bullshit.


Why is that an essentially dishonest pastime?


Because he isn't trying to enlighten anyone. *Shit-stirring simply for
the sake of stirring shit, even if one is stirring the shit by revealing
one's core beliefs, is dishonest.


Doesn't seem so to me.


It is. *You're just being obtuse.


He's just ****ed. *He stated his true beliefs, in December 1999 and
again in August 2000, and they show him to be an irrational idiot. *I
don't think he's psychotic, as you are, but he's clearly irrational and
incapable of clear and logical thinking.


Why do you think I am psychotic, Prof. Plimpton?


I thought we were talking about ****wit and his absurd, irrationally
held, dishonestly expressed beliefs?


We were,


Then stick to the topic, psycho-boi.


You were the one who brought up the topic of psychosis.


You were the one who exhibited psychosis.


In what way?


chortle


It's a shame you don't feel like answering the question


guffaw


Do you think I have delusions?


Ha ha ha ha ha! *Yes, many.


What are some examples?
  #110 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2012, 06:29 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 8/1/2012 10:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 7:20 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 10:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

On Aug 1, 7:03 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:55 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 1, 6:51 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:42 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 18:38, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:24 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 18:20, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:09 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 17:59, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 15:09, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 2:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 19:28, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 10:18 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 19:15, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 10:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 16:19, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 4:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Jul 30, 9:09 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch wrote:


****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" wrote:


On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
Dutch wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
that life still has positive value to them


It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated by
negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).


It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.


Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
exist.


That's a logical point.


It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago


It is not a mistake in terminology


That's a blatant lie.


It's not. It was not a mistake at all, ****wit. It was and is your
most deeply held belief:


Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000


You originally said it was a "mistake" in terminology because you
claimed to view the "unborn animals" as "nothing", but of course that
was a lie:


The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999


Sorry, ****wit. It is *NOT* a "mistake in terminology", as everyone can
plainly see.


If someone makes two statements about what they believe that
contradict one another, then how do you tell which one is the lie?


The one that is trying to erase something else stupid that he said. In
this case, ****wit was frantically trying to undo the effect of his
notorious "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." statement by saying he
considered the unborn animals to be "nothing". But he had already said
they "...are more than just 'nothing'", and it is obvious that later
saying they are "nothing" was merely to try to escape the absurdity of
his August 2000 statement.


This kind of analysis comes easily to logical thinkers, Woopert - what's
your problem?


Has it occurred to you that he might have changed his mind?


He didn't. Everything he's written since then proves it. He *does*
consider the unborn farm animals to be "more than just 'nothing'" - even
you know that. Everyone knows it. ****wit assigns moral weight to the
possibility of "getting to experience life" for farm animals that
wouldn't be bred into existence for decades. ****wit irrationally -
insanely - thinks it is morally good *today* for the unborn farm animals
themselves to want them to be bred into existence in the future; and he
thinks you and all the other "vegan" twits whom he calls
"eliminationists" are committing a moral wrong by wanting to stop the
breeding of farm animals. You know he thinks this. You may for your
own absurd and psychotic reasons wish to say that you don't know it, but
you do know it, and we all know you know it.


So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?


Doesn't think what? He's claimed there are a couple of things he's
written that are not his true thoughts. Do you mean that he doesn't
think unborn farm animals will suffer a "loss" if they are "prevented"
from being conceived and born? He says he doesn't think that because he
became aware, thanks to me, of just how stupid and illogical and insane
that sounds. Of course, he *does* think it - it very clearly and
obviously underlies everything else he has written on the topic.


So he's become aware thanks to you of how stupid and illogical and
insane it sounds, but he continues to hold on to the belief? Does this
not strike you as a bit weird?


*Everything* about ****wit is at least "a bit" weird. Have you
forgotten already that he has said "time doesn't exist", because we
"can't detect it?" However, recall that he said:


I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
post my spew as everyone else does.
****wit - 11/30/1999


So, his expression of his weird idea sounds stupid and illogical, but
that doesn't mean it isn't his idea. It *is* his idea. How the ****
else, you psychotic twit, do you explain the fact - it *is* a fact -
that he assigns moral weight to animals' "getting to experience life"
long before they exist, such that he regards any attempt to "prevent"
that from happening as an immoral act of interference?


I can think of ways to explain how someone could hold such a view.


They all are predicated on the belief that the unconceived animals
"pre-exist".


No, there are other ways to explain it,


Nope.


Some philosophers hold that it makes sense to speak of the outcome
being better or worse, and


Yeah, yeah, you've tried that shit before. It has to be better or worse
*for* someone or something that has a welfare that can be evaluated.
Saying that "it's just better" is nonsense.


So you claim, although you appear to just be asserting it without
argument.


I've given the argument before. You know I'm right. "Better or worse"
as you're claiming "some philosophers" use them is an ethical
proposition, and that requires someone with a welfare state to
experience the outcome - someone to be the subject of the ethical outcome.


Well, I don't remember any argument,


Your brain has a number of crippling defects; poor memory is only one such.


I have an extremely good memory.


No, you don't. You've forgotten all about how I demolished your
contention that "better or worse" can obtain independently of anyone
experiencing them.


I do have an extremely good memory.


No, you don't.


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


You're an idiot. He has already admitted he is unable to express his
beliefs coherently.


Well, maybe you'll never know then.


We do know what his beliefs are.


You claim to know, but it is unclear how you would know.


No, it's perfectly clear how *you* and I know: ****wit tells us.


He tells us things that contradict each other so there is no way to
know.


There *is* a way to know, if one is capable of critical thinking. You
may not be, but I am, and I have done the thinking and explained the
results to you in a way that even a psychotic ****wit like you can
understand.


No, you haven't given any satisfactory explanation of how you know.


I have done.


I haven't observed you doing so.


You have; you've just forgotten.


I find that implausible


smirk


Do you mean that he doesn't think the unborn animals "...are more than
just 'nothing'", i.e., that he thinks they *are* "just 'nothing'"? He
said he thought they were "just 'nothing'" as a way of trying to shuffle
away from his "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." ****wittery, because he
didn't remember having said that they "...are more than just 'nothing'".


Why do you suppose he would lie about what he believes?


Why does a congenital liar lie at all, you idiot? ****wit lies because
he's a ****witted troll who suffers no consequence for lying in pursuit
of his trolling. ****wit doesn't have a coherent story for *anything*
he believes. In 13 years of ****ing around spewing his nonsense in
Usenet, he has never persuaded anyone to abandon their beliefs and adopt
his. ****wit doesn't care about that. He's just trolling, which is an
essentially dishonest pastime. If his basic purpose in participating in
Usenet is something that is inherently dishonest, why would he have any
qualms about adding to the dishonesty by lying about his beliefs?


If he's really just trolling, then that would suggest that he doesn't
believe anything that he writes.


That doesn't follow.


What do you mean by "trolling"?


Saying stuff to stir shit up. He knows that his deeply held beliefs are
rejected by everyone, but he spews them to stir shit up anyway, even
though the beliefs have been ridiculed and shown to be illogical bullshit.


Why is that an essentially dishonest pastime?


Because he isn't trying to enlighten anyone. Shit-stirring simply for
the sake of stirring shit, even if one is stirring the shit by revealing
one's core beliefs, is dishonest.


Doesn't seem so to me.


It is. You're just being obtuse.


He's just ****ed. He stated his true beliefs, in December 1999 and
again in August 2000, and they show him to be an irrational idiot. I
don't think he's psychotic, as you are, but he's clearly irrational and
incapable of clear and logical thinking.


Why do you think I am psychotic, Prof. Plimpton?


I thought we were talking about ****wit and his absurd, irrationally
held, dishonestly expressed beliefs?


We were,


Then stick to the topic, psycho-boi.


You were the one who brought up the topic of psychosis.


You were the one who exhibited psychosis.


In what way?


chortle


It's a shame you don't feel like answering the question


guffaw


Do you think I have delusions?


Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, many.


What are some examples?


A delusion of competence, for one. A delusion of being an ethicist, for
another.



  #111 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 05:03 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default Dietary ethics

Rupert wrote:
On 31 Jul., 20:42, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?


When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it
sounds so he can't say he believes it.

But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their
failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".

He's not bright enough to realize that by doing so he is admitting that
he implicitly believes that non-existent animals can "lose" something.


It's one thing to claim he's being inconsistent; that's different from
claiming that he's lying about what he thinks.


He's inconsistent and a liar too. For example he claims to believe that
Jonathan Ball and I are vegans ("eliminationists"). It is not plausible
to me that even he could actually believe that. I think that means he's
lying, unless you have another explanation.
  #112 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 05:34 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 8/1/2012 9:03 PM, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On 31 Jul., 20:42, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?

When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it
sounds so he can't say he believes it.

But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their
failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent
AW".

He's not bright enough to realize that by doing so he is admitting that
he implicitly believes that non-existent animals can "lose" something.


It's one thing to claim he's being inconsistent; that's different from
claiming that he's lying about what he thinks.


He's inconsistent and a liar too. For example he claims to believe that
Jonathan Ball and I are vegans ("eliminationists"). It is not plausible
to me that even he could actually believe that. I think that means he's
lying, unless you have another explanation.


****wit doesn't believe it. He's lying when he says we are. Woopert
knows it, too - he knows ****wit is lying.

  #113 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 09:56 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Dietary ethics

On 2 Aug., 06:03, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On 31 Jul., 20:42, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?


When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it
sounds so he can't say he believes it.


But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their
failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".


He's not bright enough to realize that by doing so he is admitting that
he implicitly believes that non-existent animals can "lose" something.


It's one thing to claim he's being inconsistent; that's different from
claiming that he's lying about what he thinks.


He's inconsistent and a liar too. For example he claims to believe that
Jonathan Ball and I are vegans ("eliminationists"). It is not plausible
to me that even he could actually believe that. I think that means he's
lying, unless you have another explanation.


Do you have any idea what would motivate him to lie?
  #114 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 09:57 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Dietary ethics

On 1 Aug., 19:29, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 10:24 AM, Rupert wrote:

On Aug 1, 7:20 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 10:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 1, 7:03 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:55 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 1, 6:51 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:42 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 18:38, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:24 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 18:20, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:09 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 17:59, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 15:09, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 2:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 19:28, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 10:18 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 19:15, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 10:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 16:19, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 4:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Jul 30, 9:09 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch wrote:


****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" wrote:


On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
Dutch wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


* * * * * * * * * The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
that life still has positive value to them


It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. *People can be motivated by
negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).


* * * * * * * * *It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.


Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
exist.


That's a logical point.


* * * * * * * * *It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago


It is not a mistake in terminology


* * * * * * * * That's a blatant lie.


It's not. *It was not a mistake at all, ****wit. *It was and is your
most deeply held belief:


* * * * * * * * * *Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
* * * * * * * * * *born if nothing prevents that from happening,
* * * * * * * * * *that would experience the loss if their lives
* * * * * * * * * *are prevented.
* * * * * * * * * *****wit - 08/01/2000


You originally said it was a "mistake" in terminology because you
claimed to view the "unborn animals" as "nothing", but of course that
was a lie:


* * * * * * * * * *The animals that will be raised for us to eat
* * * * * * * * * *are more than just "nothing", because they
* * * * * * * * * **will* be born unless something stops their
* * * * * * * * * *lives from happening. Since that is the case,
* * * * * * * * * *if something stops their lives from happening,
* * * * * * * * * *whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
* * * * * * * * * *them of the life they otherwise would have had.
* * * * * * * * * *****wit - 12/09/1999


Sorry, ****wit. *It is *NOT* a "mistake in terminology", as everyone can
plainly see.


If someone makes two statements about what they believe that
contradict one another, then how do you tell which one is the lie?


The one that is trying to erase something else stupid that he said. *In
this case, ****wit was frantically trying to undo the effect of his
notorious "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." statement by saying he
considered the unborn animals to be "nothing". *But he had already said
they "...are more than just 'nothing'", and it is obvious that later
saying they are "nothing" was merely to try to escape the absurdity of
his August 2000 statement.


This kind of analysis comes easily to logical thinkers, Woopert - what's
your problem?


Has it occurred to you that he might have changed his mind?


He didn't. *Everything he's written since then proves it. *He *does*
consider the unborn farm animals to be "more than just 'nothing'" - even
you know that. *Everyone knows it. *****wit assigns moral weight to the
possibility of "getting to experience life" for farm animals that
wouldn't be bred into existence for decades. *****wit irrationally -
insanely - thinks it is morally good *today* for the unborn farm animals
themselves to want them to be bred into existence in the future; and he
thinks you and all the other "vegan" twits whom he calls
"eliminationists" are committing a moral wrong by wanting to stop the
breeding of farm animals. *You know he thinks this. *You may for your
own absurd and psychotic reasons wish to say that you don't know it, but
you do know it, and we all know you know it.


So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?


Doesn't think what? *He's claimed there are a couple of things he's
written that are not his true thoughts. *Do you mean that he doesn't
think unborn farm animals will suffer a "loss" if they are "prevented"
from being conceived and born? *He says he doesn't think that because he
became aware, thanks to me, of just how stupid and illogical and insane
that sounds. *Of course, he *does* think it - it very clearly and
obviously underlies everything else he has written on the topic.


So he's become aware thanks to you of how stupid and illogical and
insane it sounds, but he continues to hold on to the belief? Does this
not strike you as a bit weird?


*Everything* about ****wit is at least "a bit" weird. *Have you
forgotten already that he has said "time doesn't exist", because we
"can't detect it?" *However, recall that he said:


* * * * * * * *I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
* * * * * * * *presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
* * * * * * * *post my spew as everyone else does.
* * * * * * * *****wit - 11/30/1999


So, his expression of his weird idea sounds stupid and illogical, but
that doesn't mean it isn't his idea. *It *is* his idea. *How the ****
else, you psychotic twit, do you explain the fact - it *is* a fact -
that he assigns moral weight to animals' "getting to experience life"
long before they exist, such that he regards any attempt to "prevent"
that from happening as an immoral act of interference?


I can think of ways to explain how someone could hold such a view.


They all are predicated on the belief that the unconceived animals
"pre-exist".


No, there are other ways to explain it,


Nope.


Some philosophers hold that it makes sense to speak of the outcome
being better or worse, and


Yeah, yeah, you've tried that shit before. *It has to be better or worse
*for* someone or something that has a welfare that can be evaluated.
Saying that "it's just better" is nonsense.


So you claim, although you appear to just be asserting it without
argument.


I've given the argument before. *You know I'm right. *"Better or worse"
as you're claiming "some philosophers" use them is an ethical
proposition, and that requires someone with a welfare state to
experience the outcome - someone to be the subject of the ethical outcome.


Well, I don't remember any argument,


Your brain has a number of crippling defects; poor memory is only one such.


I have an extremely good memory.


No, you don't. *You've forgotten all about how I demolished your
contention that "better or worse" can obtain independently of anyone
experiencing them.


I do have an extremely good memory.


No, you don't.


Do you think there's any possibility that I might be in a better
position to know than you?

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


You're an idiot. *He has already admitted he is unable to express his
beliefs coherently.


Well, maybe you'll never know then.


We do know what his beliefs are.


You claim to know, but it is unclear how you would know.


No, it's perfectly clear how *you* and I know: *****wit tells us.


He tells us things that contradict each other so there is no way to
know.


There *is* a way to know, if one is capable of critical thinking. *You
may not be, but I am, and I have done the thinking and explained the
results to you in a way that even a psychotic ****wit like you can
understand.


No, you haven't given any satisfactory explanation of how you know.


I have done.


I haven't observed you doing so.


You have; you've just forgotten.


I find that implausible


smirk

Do you mean that he doesn't think the unborn animals "...are more than
just 'nothing'", i.e., that he thinks they *are* "just 'nothing'"? *He
said he thought they were "just 'nothing'" as a way of trying to shuffle
away from his "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." ****wittery, because he
didn't remember having said that they "...are more than just 'nothing'".


Why do you suppose he would lie about what he believes?


Why does a congenital liar lie at all, you idiot? *****wit lies because
he's a ****witted troll who suffers no consequence for lying in pursuit
of his trolling. *****wit doesn't have a coherent story for *anything*
he believes. *In 13 years of ****ing around spewing his nonsense in
Usenet, he has never persuaded anyone to abandon their beliefs and adopt
his. *****wit doesn't care about that. *He's just trolling, which is an
essentially dishonest pastime. *If his basic purpose in participating in
Usenet is something that is inherently dishonest, why would he have any
qualms about adding to the dishonesty by lying about his beliefs?


If he's really just trolling, then that would suggest that he doesn't
believe anything that he writes.


That doesn't follow.


What do you mean by "trolling"?


Saying stuff to stir shit up. *He knows that his deeply held beliefs are
rejected by everyone, but he spews them to stir shit up anyway, even
though the beliefs have been ridiculed and shown to be illogical bullshit.


Why is that an essentially dishonest pastime?


Because he isn't trying to enlighten anyone. *Shit-stirring simply for
the sake of stirring shit, even if one is stirring the shit by revealing
one's core beliefs, is dishonest.


Doesn't seem so to me.


It is. *You're just being obtuse.


He's just ****ed. *He stated his true beliefs, in December 1999 and
again in August 2000, and they show him to be an irrational idiot. *I
don't think he's psychotic, as you are, but he's clearly irrational and
incapable of clear and logical thinking.


Why do you think I am psychotic, Prof. Plimpton?


I thought we were talking about ****wit and his absurd, irrationally
held, dishonestly expressed beliefs?


We were,


Then stick to the topic, psycho-boi.


You were the one who brought up the topic of psychosis.


You were the one who exhibited psychosis.


In what way?


chortle


It's a shame you don't feel like answering the question


guffaw


Do you think I have delusions?


Ha ha ha ha ha! *Yes, many.


What are some examples?


A delusion of competence, for one. *A delusion of being an ethicist, for
another.


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

A delusion of competence in what domain?
  #115 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 09:59 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Dietary ethics

On Aug 1, 7:18*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

On Aug 1, 6:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:44 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 1, 6:41 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:17 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 18:08, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:00 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 16:04, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 2:06 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 20:42, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?


When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it
sounds so he can't say he believes it.


But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their
failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".


He's not bright enough to realize that by doing so he is admitting that
he implicitly believes that non-existent animals can "lose" something.


It's one thing to claim he's being inconsistent; that's different from
claiming that he's lying about what he thinks.


Let's look at two of his lies about what he thinks and believes. *The
first is his claim that he doesn't believe that unborn farm animals,
which he expects and wants to be born, will suffer a "loss" if something
prevents their conception and birth. *When it became apparent to me, in
the summer of 1999, that ****wit believes there *would* be some kind of
moral loss if the farm animals he wants to exist were prevented from
being conceived and born, I began asking him to describe the loss, and
to identify who or what would experience it. *I was after him for over
nine months to answer the question of who or what experiences the loss.
* * * I asked him literally dozens of times, even offering possible answers
to him, one of which was the unborn animals. *Finally, in August 2000,
some nine months later, he provided his classic example of ****wittery:


* * * * * * Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
* * * * * * born if nothing prevents that from happening,
* * * * * * that would experience the loss if their lives
* * * * * * are prevented.
* * * * * * ****wit - 08/01/2000


When I pointed out the belief is absurd, and he began to be mocked for
it, he immediately began furiously backpedaling from it. *But why
wouldn't you think his answer would be honest, when he had had months to
conceive of the answer? *And what about all his other statements that
support the conclusion that he *does* believe unborn animals *do* exist,
or "pre-exist", in some sense? *For example:


* * * * * * What gives you the right to want to deprive
* * * * * * them [unborn animals] of having what life they
* * * * * * could have?
* * * * * * ****wit - 10/12/2001


* * * * * * What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
* * * * * * *could* get to live, is for people not to
* * * * * * consider the fact that they are only keeping
* * * * * * these animals from being killed, by keeping
* * * * * * them from getting to live at all.
* * * * * * ****wit - 10/19/1999


* * * * * * If you keep an animal from being born which
* * * * * * would have been born without your interference,
* * * * * * you have denied life to it, whether it actually
* * * * * * exists or not.
* * * * * * ****wit - 28 Sept 1999http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu


* * * * * * If it is wrong to cut their lives short, it is
* * * * * * even more wrong to discourage them from ever
* * * * * * getting to experience life at all IMO.
* * * * * * ****wit - 9 Nov 1999http://tinyurl.com/38bd9v


It is obvious, even to a dull mentally ill plodder like you, that
****wit assigns some kind of moral weight to the interests of animals
that haven't been conceived. *How *else* could he do so if he doesn't
think they exist in some weird sense? *How *else* could he say that
something could be "denied" or "unfair" to unconceived animals? *It is
obvious, from the totality of the things he has written, that ****wit
thinks unconceived farm animals exist "in some sense", which is the only
way he can assign any moral weight to their "getting to experience life"
before they are actually alive. *Of course, it's always possible that he
isn't assigning any moral weight to it at all, and is instead throwing
that bullshit out there as a smokescreen for *his* interest in seeing
the animals exist so that he may eat them, but that only means we've
caught him in a different lie.


So, that takes care of lie #1: *if we are to take him at his word that
it really is the interests of unconceived farm animals he is trying to
protect, then he *necessarily* believes they will experience some "loss"
if something prevents them from being conceived and born and "getting to
experience life, and he is lying when he says he doesn't believe it. *He
only says he doesn't believe it because the expression of the belief
sounds absurd on its face, and he can't defend it.


Now, for lie #2, specifically his statement that he considers the
unconceived farm animals to be "nothing". *We can see that that's a lie
first by the totality of all the other things he's written about
unconceived farm animals being "denied" and "deprived" of life and
experiencing "unfairness". *All of those statements demonstrate that he
considers "them" to be "something", specifically "something" that can
experience denial, deprivation, unfairness - and loss. *This is obvious
and beyond dispute.


The second way we see that he is lying about the unconceived animals
being "nothing" is that it was said in a blatantly obvious effort to
distance himself from the most absurd comment he had made, the one for
which he was being mocked and ridiculed - the one which is entirely
consistent with all the *other* things he said that prove he thinks the
unconceived animals are "something".


Finally, the third way we know he's lying about it is that he
*explicitly* said they are "more than just 'nothing'" in an earlier
unguarded moment in which he wasn't on the hot seat to try to defend, or
run away from, an idiotic statement of belief:


* * * * * * The animals that will be raised for us to eat
* * * * * * are more than just "nothing", because they
* * * * * * *will* be born unless something stops their
* * * * * * lives from happening. Since that is the case,
* * * * * * if something stops their lives from happening,
* * * * * * whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
* * * * * * them of the life they otherwise would have had.
* * * * * * ****wit - 12/09/1999


****wit has simply made too many statements, both direct and indirect,
that demonstrate his belief that unconceived farm animals are morally
considerable "somethings", for you reasonably to think he doesn't
believe it. *You *know* he believes it. *The only reason you wish to
pretend you don't know it is your own wholly irrational hatred of me,
such that if I say something that is obviously and demonstrably true,
you irrationally react as if you think it isn't true. *That, Woopert, is
evidence of your psychosis.


The quotations you provide from Harrison are all from a long time ago.


He has expressed the same beliefs in other posts since then.


Well, he's being inconsistent then, isn't he?


No.


Really? He says things that contradict one another but he's not being
inconsistent?


No. *The things he says that are lies don't contradict his statements of
belief.


Well, I must have misunderstood you


They don't contradict his statements of belief because the apparent
contradictions are lies. *His statements of belief are "true" in the
sense that they accurately state his beliefs. *When he says that the
"unborn animals" will experience some loss if their conception and birth
are prevented, he is expressing a belief that is in accord with all of
his other unsolicited statements of belief. *When he says he couldn't
believe "they" would experience a loss because he considers them to be
"nothing", that is a lie, and so it cannot contradict his statement of
belief.


You appear to be confused about what "contradict" means.

*Only if he truly believed that the unconceived farm animals are
"nothing" could it be contradictory, but he doesn't believe that, as I
have proved.



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


If he began "backpedalling" from the belief when you started providing
arguments against it, then it seems to me that one reasonable
interpretation of this development is simply that he was persuaded by
your arguments.


He wasn't. *His backpedaling was tactical, simply to avoid the ridicule
resulting from his oafish expression of his deeply held beliefs. *He
wasn't backing away from the beliefs themselves; he continued to express
the same ones worded differently.


****wit *still* believes that the "getting to experience life" is
important - *morally* important - to the animals themselves, even before
they are conceived and born and exist as rational people think of
existence. *The *only* way he can believe that is if he believes they
"pre-exist in some sense." *He does believe that. *He is an idiot.


Well, you certainly seem to be convinced.


I'm right.


So you would appear to believe.


You know I'm right. *You just like being an asshole.


You seem to react in a very hostile way when someone isn't persuaded
by your argument.


You just like being an asshole - a bloated-ego asshole.


You seem to be rather intolerant of differences of opinion.

I don't hate you


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


Why do you think I hate you?


Irrationality.


No,


Yes.


What led you to the conclusion that I hate you, Ball?


  #116 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 02:38 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 8/2/2012 1:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 1 Aug., 19:29, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 10:24 AM, Rupert wrote:

On Aug 1, 7:20 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 10:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 1, 7:03 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:55 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 1, 6:51 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:42 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 18:38, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:24 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 18:20, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:09 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 17:59, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 15:09, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 2:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 19:28, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 10:18 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 19:15, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 10:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 16:19, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 4:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Jul 30, 9:09 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch wrote:


****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" wrote:


On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
Dutch wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
that life still has positive value to them


It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated by
negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).


It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.


Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
exist.


That's a logical point.


It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago


It is not a mistake in terminology


That's a blatant lie.


It's not. It was not a mistake at all, ****wit. It was and is your
most deeply held belief:


Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000


You originally said it was a "mistake" in terminology because you
claimed to view the "unborn animals" as "nothing", but of course that
was a lie:


The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999


Sorry, ****wit. It is *NOT* a "mistake in terminology", as everyone can
plainly see.


If someone makes two statements about what they believe that
contradict one another, then how do you tell which one is the lie?


The one that is trying to erase something else stupid that he said. In
this case, ****wit was frantically trying to undo the effect of his
notorious "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." statement by saying he
considered the unborn animals to be "nothing". But he had already said
they "...are more than just 'nothing'", and it is obvious that later
saying they are "nothing" was merely to try to escape the absurdity of
his August 2000 statement.


This kind of analysis comes easily to logical thinkers, Woopert - what's
your problem?


Has it occurred to you that he might have changed his mind?


He didn't. Everything he's written since then proves it. He *does*
consider the unborn farm animals to be "more than just 'nothing'" - even
you know that. Everyone knows it. ****wit assigns moral weight to the
possibility of "getting to experience life" for farm animals that
wouldn't be bred into existence for decades. ****wit irrationally -
insanely - thinks it is morally good *today* for the unborn farm animals
themselves to want them to be bred into existence in the future; and he
thinks you and all the other "vegan" twits whom he calls
"eliminationists" are committing a moral wrong by wanting to stop the
breeding of farm animals. You know he thinks this. You may for your
own absurd and psychotic reasons wish to say that you don't know it, but
you do know it, and we all know you know it.


So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?


Doesn't think what? He's claimed there are a couple of things he's
written that are not his true thoughts. Do you mean that he doesn't
think unborn farm animals will suffer a "loss" if they are "prevented"
from being conceived and born? He says he doesn't think that because he
became aware, thanks to me, of just how stupid and illogical and insane
that sounds. Of course, he *does* think it - it very clearly and
obviously underlies everything else he has written on the topic.


So he's become aware thanks to you of how stupid and illogical and
insane it sounds, but he continues to hold on to the belief? Does this
not strike you as a bit weird?


*Everything* about ****wit is at least "a bit" weird. Have you
forgotten already that he has said "time doesn't exist", because we
"can't detect it?" However, recall that he said:


I admit that I'm very weak in the area of
presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to
post my spew as everyone else does.
****wit - 11/30/1999


So, his expression of his weird idea sounds stupid and illogical, but
that doesn't mean it isn't his idea. It *is* his idea. How the ****
else, you psychotic twit, do you explain the fact - it *is* a fact -
that he assigns moral weight to animals' "getting to experience life"
long before they exist, such that he regards any attempt to "prevent"
that from happening as an immoral act of interference?


I can think of ways to explain how someone could hold such a view.


They all are predicated on the belief that the unconceived animals
"pre-exist".


No, there are other ways to explain it,


Nope.


Some philosophers hold that it makes sense to speak of the outcome
being better or worse, and


Yeah, yeah, you've tried that shit before. It has to be better or worse
*for* someone or something that has a welfare that can be evaluated.
Saying that "it's just better" is nonsense.


So you claim, although you appear to just be asserting it without
argument.


I've given the argument before. You know I'm right. "Better or worse"
as you're claiming "some philosophers" use them is an ethical
proposition, and that requires someone with a welfare state to
experience the outcome - someone to be the subject of the ethical outcome.


Well, I don't remember any argument,


Your brain has a number of crippling defects; poor memory is only one such.


I have an extremely good memory.


No, you don't. You've forgotten all about how I demolished your
contention that "better or worse" can obtain independently of anyone
experiencing them.


I do have an extremely good memory.


No, you don't.


Do you think there's any possibility that I might be in a better
position to know than you?


No.



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


You're an idiot. He has already admitted he is unable to express his
beliefs coherently.


Well, maybe you'll never know then.


We do know what his beliefs are.


You claim to know, but it is unclear how you would know.


No, it's perfectly clear how *you* and I know: ****wit tells us.


He tells us things that contradict each other so there is no way to
know.


There *is* a way to know, if one is capable of critical thinking. You
may not be, but I am, and I have done the thinking and explained the
results to you in a way that even a psychotic ****wit like you can
understand.


No, you haven't given any satisfactory explanation of how you know.


I have done.


I haven't observed you doing so.


You have; you've just forgotten.


I find that implausible


smirk

Do you mean that he doesn't think the unborn animals "...are more than
just 'nothing'", i.e., that he thinks they *are* "just 'nothing'"? He
said he thought they were "just 'nothing'" as a way of trying to shuffle
away from his "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." ****wittery, because he
didn't remember having said that they "...are more than just 'nothing'".


Why do you suppose he would lie about what he believes?


Why does a congenital liar lie at all, you idiot? ****wit lies because
he's a ****witted troll who suffers no consequence for lying in pursuit
of his trolling. ****wit doesn't have a coherent story for *anything*
he believes. In 13 years of ****ing around spewing his nonsense in
Usenet, he has never persuaded anyone to abandon their beliefs and adopt
his. ****wit doesn't care about that. He's just trolling, which is an
essentially dishonest pastime. If his basic purpose in participating in
Usenet is something that is inherently dishonest, why would he have any
qualms about adding to the dishonesty by lying about his beliefs?


If he's really just trolling, then that would suggest that he doesn't
believe anything that he writes.


That doesn't follow.


What do you mean by "trolling"?


Saying stuff to stir shit up. He knows that his deeply held beliefs are
rejected by everyone, but he spews them to stir shit up anyway, even
though the beliefs have been ridiculed and shown to be illogical bullshit.


Why is that an essentially dishonest pastime?


Because he isn't trying to enlighten anyone. Shit-stirring simply for
the sake of stirring shit, even if one is stirring the shit by revealing
one's core beliefs, is dishonest.


Doesn't seem so to me.


It is. You're just being obtuse.


He's just ****ed. He stated his true beliefs, in December 1999 and
again in August 2000, and they show him to be an irrational idiot. I
don't think he's psychotic, as you are, but he's clearly irrational and
incapable of clear and logical thinking.


Why do you think I am psychotic, Prof. Plimpton?


I thought we were talking about ****wit and his absurd, irrationally
held, dishonestly expressed beliefs?


We were,


Then stick to the topic, psycho-boi.


You were the one who brought up the topic of psychosis.


You were the one who exhibited psychosis.


In what way?


chortle


It's a shame you don't feel like answering the question


guffaw


Do you think I have delusions?


Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, many.


What are some examples?


A delusion of competence, for one. A delusion of being an ethicist, for
another.


I do not believe that I am an ethicist


You fancy yourself one.

  #117 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 02:39 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 8/2/2012 1:59 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 7:18 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

On Aug 1, 6:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:44 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 1, 6:41 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:17 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 18:08, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 9:00 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Aug., 16:04, George Plimpton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 2:06 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 31 Jul., 20:42, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?


When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it
sounds so he can't say he believes it.


But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their
failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".


He's not bright enough to realize that by doing so he is admitting that
he implicitly believes that non-existent animals can "lose" something.


It's one thing to claim he's being inconsistent; that's different from
claiming that he's lying about what he thinks.


Let's look at two of his lies about what he thinks and believes. The
first is his claim that he doesn't believe that unborn farm animals,
which he expects and wants to be born, will suffer a "loss" if something
prevents their conception and birth. When it became apparent to me, in
the summer of 1999, that ****wit believes there *would* be some kind of
moral loss if the farm animals he wants to exist were prevented from
being conceived and born, I began asking him to describe the loss, and
to identify who or what would experience it. I was after him for over
nine months to answer the question of who or what experiences the loss.
I asked him literally dozens of times, even offering possible answers
to him, one of which was the unborn animals. Finally, in August 2000,
some nine months later, he provided his classic example of ****wittery:


Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000


When I pointed out the belief is absurd, and he began to be mocked for
it, he immediately began furiously backpedaling from it. But why
wouldn't you think his answer would be honest, when he had had months to
conceive of the answer? And what about all his other statements that
support the conclusion that he *does* believe unborn animals *do* exist,
or "pre-exist", in some sense? For example:


What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
****wit - 10/12/2001


What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
****wit - 10/19/1999


If you keep an animal from being born which
would have been born without your interference,
you have denied life to it, whether it actually
exists or not.
****wit - 28 Sept 1999http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu


If it is wrong to cut their lives short, it is
even more wrong to discourage them from ever
getting to experience life at all IMO.
****wit - 9 Nov 1999http://tinyurl.com/38bd9v


It is obvious, even to a dull mentally ill plodder like you, that
****wit assigns some kind of moral weight to the interests of animals
that haven't been conceived. How *else* could he do so if he doesn't
think they exist in some weird sense? How *else* could he say that
something could be "denied" or "unfair" to unconceived animals? It is
obvious, from the totality of the things he has written, that ****wit
thinks unconceived farm animals exist "in some sense", which is the only
way he can assign any moral weight to their "getting to experience life"
before they are actually alive. Of course, it's always possible that he
isn't assigning any moral weight to it at all, and is instead throwing
that bullshit out there as a smokescreen for *his* interest in seeing
the animals exist so that he may eat them, but that only means we've
caught him in a different lie.


So, that takes care of lie #1: if we are to take him at his word that
it really is the interests of unconceived farm animals he is trying to
protect, then he *necessarily* believes they will experience some "loss"
if something prevents them from being conceived and born and "getting to
experience life, and he is lying when he says he doesn't believe it. He
only says he doesn't believe it because the expression of the belief
sounds absurd on its face, and he can't defend it.


Now, for lie #2, specifically his statement that he considers the
unconceived farm animals to be "nothing". We can see that that's a lie
first by the totality of all the other things he's written about
unconceived farm animals being "denied" and "deprived" of life and
experiencing "unfairness". All of those statements demonstrate that he
considers "them" to be "something", specifically "something" that can
experience denial, deprivation, unfairness - and loss. This is obvious
and beyond dispute.


The second way we see that he is lying about the unconceived animals
being "nothing" is that it was said in a blatantly obvious effort to
distance himself from the most absurd comment he had made, the one for
which he was being mocked and ridiculed - the one which is entirely
consistent with all the *other* things he said that prove he thinks the
unconceived animals are "something".


Finally, the third way we know he's lying about it is that he
*explicitly* said they are "more than just 'nothing'" in an earlier
unguarded moment in which he wasn't on the hot seat to try to defend, or
run away from, an idiotic statement of belief:


The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999


****wit has simply made too many statements, both direct and indirect,
that demonstrate his belief that unconceived farm animals are morally
considerable "somethings", for you reasonably to think he doesn't
believe it. You *know* he believes it. The only reason you wish to
pretend you don't know it is your own wholly irrational hatred of me,
such that if I say something that is obviously and demonstrably true,
you irrationally react as if you think it isn't true. That, Woopert, is
evidence of your psychosis.


The quotations you provide from Harrison are all from a long time ago.


He has expressed the same beliefs in other posts since then.


Well, he's being inconsistent then, isn't he?


No.


Really? He says things that contradict one another but he's not being
inconsistent?


No. The things he says that are lies don't contradict his statements of
belief.


Well, I must have misunderstood you


They don't contradict his statements of belief because the apparent
contradictions are lies. His statements of belief are "true" in the
sense that they accurately state his beliefs. When he says that the
"unborn animals" will experience some loss if their conception and birth
are prevented, he is expressing a belief that is in accord with all of
his other unsolicited statements of belief. When he says he couldn't
believe "they" would experience a loss because he considers them to be
"nothing", that is a lie, and so it cannot contradict his statement of
belief.


You appear to be confused about what "contradict" means.


No.


Only if he truly believed that the unconceived farm animals are
"nothing" could it be contradictory, but he doesn't believe that, as I
have proved.



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


If he began "backpedalling" from the belief when you started providing
arguments against it, then it seems to me that one reasonable
interpretation of this development is simply that he was persuaded by
your arguments.


He wasn't. His backpedaling was tactical, simply to avoid the ridicule
resulting from his oafish expression of his deeply held beliefs. He
wasn't backing away from the beliefs themselves; he continued to express
the same ones worded differently.


****wit *still* believes that the "getting to experience life" is
important - *morally* important - to the animals themselves, even before
they are conceived and born and exist as rational people think of
existence. The *only* way he can believe that is if he believes they
"pre-exist in some sense." He does believe that. He is an idiot.


Well, you certainly seem to be convinced.


I'm right.


So you would appear to believe.


You know I'm right. You just like being an asshole.


You seem to react in a very hostile way when someone isn't persuaded
by your argument.


You just like being an asshole - a bloated-ego asshole.


You seem to be rather intolerant of differences of opinion.


No.


I don't hate you


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


Why do you think I hate you?


Irrationality.


No,


Yes.


What led you to the conclusion that I hate you


What you write here, and your obsession with me.

  #118 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 02:56 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Dietary ethics

On 2 Aug., 15:38, George Plimpton wrote:


Yeah, yeah, you've tried that shit before. *It has to be better or worse
*for* someone or something that has a welfare that can be evaluated.
Saying that "it's just better" is nonsense.


So you claim, although you appear to just be asserting it without
argument.


I've given the argument before. *You know I'm right. *"Better or worse"
as you're claiming "some philosophers" use them is an ethical
proposition, and that requires someone with a welfare state to
experience the outcome - someone to be the subject of the ethical outcome.


Well, I don't remember any argument,


Your brain has a number of crippling defects; poor memory is only one such.


I have an extremely good memory.


No, you don't. *You've forgotten all about how I demolished your
contention that "better or worse" can obtain independently of anyone
experiencing them.


I do have an extremely good memory.


No, you don't.


Do you think there's any possibility that I might be in a better
position to know than you?


No.


People in the grip of delusions often refuse to consider any
possibility that they might be wrong.

You were the one who exhibited psychosis.


In what way?


chortle


It's a shame you don't feel like answering the question


guffaw


Do you think I have delusions?


Ha ha ha ha ha! *Yes, many.


What are some examples?


A delusion of competence, for one. *A delusion of being an ethicist, for
another.


I do not believe that I am an ethicist


You fancy yourself one.


You live in a fantasy world.

A delusion of competence in what domain?
  #119 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 02:59 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Dietary ethics

On Aug 2, 3:39*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
No. *The things he says that are lies don't contradict his statements of
belief.


Well, I must have misunderstood you


They don't contradict his statements of belief because the apparent
contradictions are lies. *His statements of belief are "true" in the
sense that they accurately state his beliefs. *When he says that the
"unborn animals" will experience some loss if their conception and birth
are prevented, he is expressing a belief that is in accord with all of
his other unsolicited statements of belief. *When he says he couldn't
believe "they" would experience a loss because he considers them to be
"nothing", that is a lie, and so it cannot contradict his statement of
belief.


You appear to be confused about what "contradict" means.


No.


I'm afraid you are actually.

* Only if he truly believed that the unconceived farm animals are
"nothing" could it be contradictory, but he doesn't believe that, as I
have proved.



****wit *still* believes that the "getting to experience life" is
important - *morally* important - to the animals themselves, even before
they are conceived and born and exist as rational people think of
existence. *The *only* way he can believe that is if he believes they
"pre-exist in some sense." *He does believe that. *He is an idiot.


Well, you certainly seem to be convinced.


I'm right.


So you would appear to believe.


You know I'm right. *You just like being an asshole.


You seem to react in a very hostile way when someone isn't persuaded
by your argument.


You just like being an asshole - a bloated-ego asshole.


You seem to be rather intolerant of differences of opinion.


No.


That's very funny.

I don't hate you


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


Why do you think I hate you?


Irrationality.


No,


Yes.


What led you to the conclusion that I hate you


What you write here, and your obsession with me.


Where do you see the evidence of hatred?
  #120 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2012, 03:38 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 8/2/2012 6:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 2 Aug., 15:38, George Plimpton wrote:


Yeah, yeah, you've tried that shit before. It has to be better or worse
*for* someone or something that has a welfare that can be evaluated.
Saying that "it's just better" is nonsense.


So you claim, although you appear to just be asserting it without
argument.


I've given the argument before. You know I'm right. "Better or worse"
as you're claiming "some philosophers" use them is an ethical
proposition, and that requires someone with a welfare state to
experience the outcome - someone to be the subject of the ethical outcome.


Well, I don't remember any argument,


Your brain has a number of crippling defects; poor memory is only one such.


I have an extremely good memory.


No, you don't. You've forgotten all about how I demolished your
contention that "better or worse" can obtain independently of anyone
experiencing them.


I do have an extremely good memory.


No, you don't.


Do you think there's any possibility that I might be in a better
position to know than you?


No.


People in the grip of delusions often refuse to consider any
possibility that they might be wrong.

You were the one who exhibited psychosis.


In what way?


chortle


It's a shame you don't feel like answering the question


guffaw


Do you think I have delusions?


Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, many.


What are some examples?


A delusion of competence, for one. A delusion of being an ethicist, for
another.


I do not believe that I am an ethicist


You fancy yourself one.


You live in a fantasy world.


No. You *do* fancy yourself an ethicist. You've even boasted of having
been invited to give "talks" on ethics, as if you're qualified to do so.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dietary ethics [email protected] Vegan 0 03-07-2012 05:42 PM
Dietary Question Virginia Tadrzynski[_2_] General Cooking 33 02-03-2010 04:16 AM
Attitudes toward dietary adversity Christine Dabney General Cooking 143 18-01-2008 12:27 AM
Cocoa (dietary) and UV photoprotection bobbie sellers Chocolate 0 04-08-2006 06:18 PM
Dietary Guidelines for Diabetics medianext05 Diabetic 1 10-07-2006 12:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017