 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / General Topics / May 2005Animals cannot be disappointed.
Animals cannot be disappointed. I did write that, and it's true. Yes they can. I did write that, and it's true. > Yes they can. > I did write that, and it's true. You write lots of sh.t, virtually all of it false. You f.cking bonehead. >You write lots of sh.t, virtually all of it false. You >f.cking bonehead. Prove it. > >You write lots of sh.t, virtually all of it false. You > >f.cking bonehead. > > Prove it. What, that bonehead Ron Hamilton's sh.t is virtually always false? No, I won't prove it. You just need to take my word for it. > > >You write lots of sh.t, virtually all of it false. You > > >f.cking bonehead. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What, that bonehead Ron Hamilton's sh.t is virtually always false? No, > I won't prove it. You just need to take my word for it. You just proved you can't.......and thanks much but we won't take your word for anything. >> Yes they can. >> I did write that, and it's true. > >You write lots of sh.t, virtually all of it false. You >f.cking bonehead. Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean that all animals can, but it does mean some of them can. Sad you're not able to understand that. One absurd "reason" you feel that life isn't worthy of consideration for any animals, is because you don't feel that they are capable of experiencing positive emotions to the degree that their lives could be worthy of consideration. But even though your prize argument --that imaginary nonexistent entities can not benefit--is true, there is much evidence that humans are capable of experiencing positive emotions to the degree that their lives are a benefit to them. And Goobernad, even though you can't understand it, the same is true for some animals too. >>>Yes they can. >>>I did write that, and it's true. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Animals experience disappointment No, they don't. Tell your mangy mutt dog you're going to take him for a walk, then sit on your pimply redneck a.s eating pork cracklins all afternoon instead and don't take him for the walk. He will not be disappointed. >>>>Yes they can. >>>>I did write that, and it's true. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >No, they don't. _________________________________________________________ The writings of Charles Darwin on the web by John van Wyhe Ph.D. [...] I formerly possessed a large dog, who, like every other dog, was much pleased to go out walking. He showed his pleasure by trotting gravely before me with high steps, head much raised, moderately erected ears, and tail carried aloft but not stiffly. Not far from my house a path branches off to the right, leading to the hot-house, which I used often to visit for a few moments, to look at my experimental plants. This was always a great disappointment to the dog, as he did not know whether I should continue my walk; and the instantaneous and complete change of expression which came over him as soon as my body swerved in the least towards the path (and I sometimes tried this as an experiment) was laughable. His look of dejection was known to every member of the family, and was called his hot-house face. This consisted in the head drooping much, the whole body sinking a little and remaining motionless; the ears and tail falling suddenly down, but the tail was by no means wagged. With the falling of the ears and of his great chaps, the eyes became much changed in appearance, and I fancied that they looked less bright. His aspect was that of piteous, hopeless dejection; and it was, as I have said, laughable, as the cause was so slight. [...] http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/expression/expression02.htm ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ >>>>>Yes they can. >>>>>I did write that, and it's true. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > few moments, to look at my experimental plants. This was always a great > disappointment to the dog, Projection, pure and simple. >>>>>>Yes they can. >>>>>>I did write that, and it's true. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Projection, pure and simple. LOL!!! Goobernicus Gonad says that Darwin was projecting. This is classic! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....! >>>>>>>Yes they can. >>>>>>>I did write that, and it's true. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > LOL!!! What's funny, GooberFuckwit? > Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any > child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean > that all animals can, but it does mean some of them > can. Definitely true of parrots. Billy, my Severe Macaw makes a disappointed vocal when he wants to come out to play and I have to walk away without him. It's not a scream for attention; it's a quick, low vocalization of disappointment without doubt.  SignatureSincerely, Joanne If it's right for you, then it's right, . . . . . for you!!! Play - http://www.jobird.com Pay for Play - http://www.jobird.com/refund.htm Looking for Love? - http://www.jobird.com/hearts.htm Garden Kinder CDs http://www.jobird.com/cd/gardenkinderhome.html >> Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any >>child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It's not a scream for attention; it's a quick, low vocalization of > disappointment without doubt. Bullshit. You are projecting. It's called anthropomorphization: the projection of human characteristics onto non-human things. >Bullshit. You are projecting. It's called >anthropomorphization: the projection of human >characteristics onto non-human things. Yeah, animals hate it when people do that! > >Bullshit. You are projecting. It's called > >anthropomorphization: the projection of human > >characteristics onto non-human things. > > Yeah, animals hate it when people do that! damn straight! They get severely disappointed. >>> Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any >>>child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Bullshit. She is quite likely to be a good and decent person Goonad, so try not acting like such the a.s. >You are projecting. It's called >anthropomorphization: the projection of human >characteristics onto non-human things. LOL!!! For one thing Goo, you are the LAST person who could possibly have a clue about something like that, because you can't even comprehend such things. As you say, facts like that are bullshit to you--completely beyond your ability to comprehend--yet they are quite obvious to many people. But the funniest part is: you are the one who thinks a fantasy about a talking pig who knows he's going to be killed and made into ham and sausages, somehow discredits the fact that many farm animals benefit from farming. Hilarious! You "ARAs" are a hoot, I'll say that about you. >>>> Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any >>>>child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > She is quite likely to be a good and decent person That's lovely. She still said some bullshit, though. >>You are projecting. It's called >>anthropomorphization: the projection of human >>characteristics onto non-human things. > > LOL!!! For one thing Goo Fuckwit, we have been through this before: YOU are the goober. "Goober" is an insult and slur against stupid fuckwitted southern rednecks, and YOU are the stupid fuckwitted southern redneck. YOU are the Goober. Don't make this mistake again. > you are the LAST person who > could possibly have a clue about something like that No, Fuckwit. I am the one who knows about this. You didn't even know the word "anthropomorphization" until I told it to you, and it's doubtful you even really know what it means now. >>>>> Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any >>>>>child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >stupid fuckwitted southern redneck. YOU are the >Goober. Don't make this mistake again. Goo is short for Goober. Goober is short for Goobernicus. You are Goobernicus Gonad. You "think" you are a genius and know everthing, so you don't try to learn, so you're really ignorant, and ignorant because you're too stupid to know it. >> you are the LAST person who >> could possibly have a clue about something like that > >No, Fuckwit. I am the one who knows about this. You don't even know what the hell we're talking about. Goobernicus. >You >didn't even know the word "anthropomorphization" until >I told it to you, and it's doubtful you even really >know what it means now. Some animals experience disappointment, and you are too stupid to realise it. Recognition of the fact is not anthropomorphism. This fantasy however, is: "it were unseemly for me, who am to-day a pig, and to-morrow but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of ethics, yet to my porcine intellect..." I should have been keeping a list of your lies that I have exposed over the years. It would be huge. Here again I'll expose you as a liar, with this example of me pointing out that your "AR" fantasy is an incredible example of anthropomorphism: _________________________________________________________ From: dh_ld@nomail.com Subject: exposing Jonathan Ball & Dutch as "ARAs" Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:23:05 GMT we now have absolute proof that both Dutch and the Gonad are "ARAs" who accept the beliefs of one of the earliest fathers of the "AR" concept, and one of the earliest promoters of vegetarianism. That early father of "AR" was Henry S. Salt. Here is absolute proof that they both accept Salt's beliefs ...this particular incredibly anthropomorphic example is from a fantasy that they consider to be the position of pigs: ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ It would appear that you learned the term from me, and are now trying to apply it to a situation that is not anthropomorphic. I certainly hope no one who reads your lies is stupid enough to believe them Goo. >>>>>> Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any >>>>>>child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Goo is short for Goober. And YOU are the only Goober here, Fuckwit. It is an insult aimed at stupid, fuckwitted rednecks: aimed at YOU, in other words. You are the Goober. >>>you are the LAST person who >>>could possibly have a clue about something like that >> >>No, Fuckwit. I am the one who knows about this. > > You don't even know what the hell we're talking about. I know EXACTLY what we're discussing, GooberFuckwit. >>You didn't even know the word "anthropomorphization" >>until I told it to you, and it's doubtful you even >>really know what it means now. > > Some animals experience disappointment NO animals except for humans experience disappointment. >NO animals except for humans experience disappointment. We've been here before Goo. If animals can experience disappointment, then you have no clue about reality. Some animals do experience disappointment, so you have no clue about reality. >>NO animals except for humans experience disappointment. > > We've been here before Goo. Yes, we have, GooberFuckwit. First of all, GooberFuckwit, we have been here to establishe that YOU, and you alone, are the only goober. Stop misapplying that term to others. It applies only to you. Second, GooberFuckwit, we have been here to establish that your beliefs about animals are purely your projection of your emotions onto animals. That is called anthropomorphization, and it is philosophically wrong. >we have been here to establish >that your beliefs about animals are purely your >projection of your emotions onto animals. That is >called anthropomorphization, and it is philosophically >wrong. We have also been here and found that you have no idea whether my beliefs are correct or not Goobernicus, because you don't have a clue which emotions they are and are not capable of. So as always, you are pretending to know all about something you have absolutely no clue about. But I invite you to prove me wrong Goo (because it's so funny to see you fail completely and miserably at it), and invite you to explain exactly which emotions animals are and are not capable of. > >we have been here to establish > >that your beliefs about animals are purely your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > We have also been here and found that you have no > idea whether my beliefs are correct or not, We DO know that your beliefs are completely incorrect. > because you don't have a clue which emotions they are > and are not capable of. We do know certain ones that they do not experience. Disappointment is one they do not experience. Period. >> >we have been here to establish >> >that your beliefs about animals are purely your [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >We do know certain ones that they do not experience. Disappointment is >one they do not experience. That's a lie. >Period. > >> >we have been here to establish > >> >that your beliefs about animals are purely your [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > That's a lie. No, Fuckwit. It isn't a lie. Your belief that they can experience disappointment is purely your anthropomorphic projection. There is no credible evidence non-human animals can experience disappointment. All we have are unreliable anecdotes from credulous dopes like you. >> On 12 May 2005 10:19:48 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >credible evidence non-human animals can experience disappointment. All >we have are unreliable anecdotes from credulous dopes like you. You're too stupid for this Goo. >>>On 12 May 2005 10:19:48 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > You're too stupid for this Goo. Fuckwit: YOU are the Goober. Stop repeating this fundamental error. There is one Goober, and you are it. I am both smarter and more intelligent than you, Fuckwit - you know it, I know it, everyone who has ever read these exchanges knows it. It isn't even close. >>>>On 12 May 2005 10:19:48 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> >>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >I am both smarter and more intelligent than you, You are Goobernicus Gonad. You are a moron. You are an "ARA". >Fuckwit - you know it, I know it, everyone who has ever >read these exchanges knows it. LOL! Even if every single person on the planet read your stupid lies and believed them, it would only prove that they're stupid enough to believe your lies Goober. Maybe they are, but that wouldn't mean you're smart, it would only mean that they're stupid. >It isn't even close. >>>>>On 12 May 2005 10:19:48 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > You are Goobernicus Gonad. You are a fuckwitted, stupid-beyond-belief 46-YEAR-OLD pseudo-"man" who still makes up silly sounding names. You are a punk, Fuckwit. You are not a real man. You didn't address the statement, Fuckwit. You are stupid, and I am not. >>Fuckwit - you know it, I know it, everyone who has ever >>read these exchanges knows it. > > LOL! You think it's funny that everyone correctly regards you as stupid? > > >we have been here to establish > > >that your beliefs about animals are purely your [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > We do know certain ones that they do not experience. Disappointment is > one they do not experience. Period. You've got to be kidding me!! Seriously, I am very disappointed that this discussion is even happening! WTF! Let's start with definition: dis·ap·point 1. To fail to satisfy the hope, desire, or expectation of. Rudy, are you saying animals have no hopes or desires? Or are you saying their hopes and desires are always satisfied? Here's another one for you, have you ever admitted to an error? You should try it every day, it makes you a better person. >>>On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > 1. To fail to satisfy the hope, desire, or expectation of. You IDIOT! That's what someone can do TO another. It is an ACTIVE verb: you disappoint me. TO BE disappointed is passive. The disappointed one doesn't DO anything. You've given an active verb to try to support an overly sentimental, anthropomorphizing view that animals can PASSIVELY be disappointed. You f.cking moron. For starters, animals do not have "hopes". They have primitive desires and expectations, but they are not "disappointed" when they are not satisfied. > Rudy, are you saying animals have no hopes or desires? They absolutely do not have hopes. They have primitive desires, and when the desires aren't met, the animals do not mope the way humans might. >>>>On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> >> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >For starters, animals do not have "hopes". They have >primitive desires and expectations, They are all related and some animals experience them. Most people are not too stupid to understand that Goober. >but they are not >"disappointed" when they are not satisfied. > >> Rudy, are you saying animals have no hopes or desires? > >They absolutely do not have hopes. You are too stupid to understand. >They have primitive >desires, and when the desires aren't met, the animals >do not mope the way humans might. How the hell could you know? >>>>>On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> >>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > They are all related They are not. You're too stupid and UNEDUCATED to know. >>but they are not >>"disappointed" when they are not satisfied. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You are too stupid to understand. You are the stupid uneducated dope in all this, GooberFuckwit. I am smart; more to the point, I am vastly smarter and better educated and more thoughtful than you. >>They have primitive >>desires, and when the desires aren't met, the animals >>do not mope the way humans might. >> > On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >You've got to be kidding me!! Seriously, I am very disappointed that >this discussion is even happening! WTF! You are dealing with a moron who "thinks" he's a genius. Since he believes he knows everything, and has believed it since grade school, he has learned very little if anything about reality since then. Don't forget that you're dealing with someone who thinks a fantasy about a talking pig which was written by one of his fellow "ARAs", somehow refutes the fact that some farm animals benefit from farming. And this same stupid moron believes that a fantasy about a talking is of some great value, but calls recognition of emotions in animals anthropomorphic. >Let's start with definition: >dis·ap·point [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Rudy, are you saying animals have no hopes or desires? Or are you >saying their hopes and desires are always satisfied? He is desperately trying to prevent people from recognizing that some farm animals benefit from farming, and will tell any lie he thinks will help with that. >Here's another one for you, have you ever admitted to an error? He is dedicated to his cause, and that dedication doesn't allow for admition of lies or errors. >You >should try it every day, it makes you a better person. He is an "ARA" pretending pitifully to be an "AR" opponent, trying to use the example of his character to portray true "AR" opponents as stupid, childish, above all dishonest, inconsiderate of humans and other animals, etc, so the last thing Goo wants to do is portray himself as a better person. >> Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any >>child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean >>that all animals can, but it does mean some of them >>can. > > Definitely true of parrots. No, it isn't. > Billy, my Severe Macaw makes a disappointed > vocal when he wants to come out to play and I have to walk away without him. > It's not a scream for attention; it's a quick, low vocalization of > disappointment without doubt. You're anthropomorphizing. >> Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any >> child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >It's not a scream for attention; it's a quick, low vocalization of >disappointment without doubt. It's not too surprising, though I had wondered if birds experience it. I never saw chickens show signs of it, but when something is taken from them that they like, the hens have ways of showing they are feeling the loss. I made a reply to the Gonad (sometimes posting as Rudy Canoza) which is a quote from Darwin regarding his dog expessing disappoinment. You might find the page of some interest: http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/expression/expression02.htm Darwin also explained his belief that emotions evolved as life itself did, and my impression is that he feels some animals are capable of more than others, which is almost certainly how it is. I read it a few years ago, and didn't save any of the quotes or mark the location, and haven't been able to find it. Gonad, if your reading this do something useful and hunt it up, along with your superior term for "experiencing life". >>> Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any >>>child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It's not too surprising, though I had wondered if birds experience it. They don't. She is anthropomorphizing. >>> Yes they can. >>> I did write that, and it's true. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > feel that they are capable of experiencing positive > emotions It's irrelevant. Farming an animal for food disqualifies you from claiming a moral bonus from the fact that the animal "experiences life". You don't get to kill and eat them and also feel smug that you 'allowed them the privilege of life'. This kind of "double-dipping" is intuitively distateful to anyone with a moral compass, something you evidently lack. >>>> Yes they can. >>>> I did write that, and it's true. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >from claiming a moral bonus from the fact that the animal >"experiences life". No it doesn't. >You don't get to kill and eat them and >also feel smug that you 'allowed them the privilege of life'. I can feel good that animals get to experience a decent life because humans raise them for food. Even the cls. >This kind of "double-dipping" is intuitively distateful to anyone >with a moral compass, something you evidently lack. So do you apparently, because you think you get a moral bonus for being beyond inconsiderate, to the point that you OPPOSE consideration of what the billions of animals get out of the arrangement. And you do it for the purely selfish reason that it disturbs you that people raise animals for food. >>>>>Yes they can. >>>>>I did write that, and it's true. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > No it doesn't. Yes, GooberFuckwit, it does. >>You don't get to kill and eat them and >>also feel smug that you 'allowed them the privilege of life'. > > I can feel good that animals get to experience a decent > life because humans raise them for food. Even the cls. You can feel better that they experience a decent life rather than a shitty life, but you may not legitimately feel better that they experienced life rather than never living. >>This kind of "double-dipping" is intuitively distasteful to anyone >>with a moral compass, something you evidently lack. > > So do you apparently No, he has a very well functioning moral compass. You hvae none at all. >>It's irrelevant. Farming an animal for food disqualifies you >>from claiming a moral bonus from the fact that the animal >>"experiences life". > > No it doesn't. Yes it does. The only feeling akin to morality you are permitted to experience is gratitude towards that animal for losing it's life for you . >>You don't get to kill and eat them and >>also feel smug that you 'allowed them the privilege of life'. > > I can feel good that animals get to experience a decent > life Yes, you can be happy that they have a decent life rather than a indecent life, not that they "get to experience life". >>This kind of "double-dipping" is intuitively distateful to anyone >>with a moral compass, something you evidently lack. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you OPPOSE consideration of what the billions of animals > get out of the arrangement. I vehemently oppose consideration of what animals "get out of the arrangement". What a disgusting turn of phrase, "the arrangement.." > And you do it for the purely > selfish reason that it disturbs you that people raise animals > for food. No, it disturbs me that there are people that are not satisfied to simply exploit animals for food and other products, but demand a moral gold star for it as well. >>>It's irrelevant. Farming an animal for food disqualifies you >>>from claiming a moral bonus from the fact that the animal [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Yes it does. The only feeling akin to morality you are >permitted to experience LOL! That is hilarious coming from a purely selfish a.s like yours. >is gratitude towards that animal >for losing it's life for you . [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >and other products, but demand a moral gold >star for it as well. It disturbs the hell out of you when someone considers the animals, because you only care about yourself. >>No, it disturbs me that there are people that are >>not satisfied to simply exploit animals for food [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It disturbs the hell out of you when someone considers > the animals No, GooberFuckwit. It bothers him that you only pretend to consider the animals while desperately trying to rationalize something you do purely for your own self interest. >>>>It's irrelevant. Farming an animal for food disqualifies you >>>>from claiming a moral bonus from the fact that the animal [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > LOL! That is hilarious coming from a purely selfish a.s > like yours. Oh yeah, I know, I'm a laugh a minute... You are not entititled to any moral credit because the animals you eat "experienced life." I don't understand why you think you even need it. What does it do for you, pretending that this moral credit exists? >>is gratitude towards that animal >>for losing it's life for you . [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > It disturbs the hell out of you when someone considers > the animals, because you only care about yourself. Quit pretending that you "consider the animals" in some unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't. You want those chicken fingers to keep comin', that all. > >>>>It's irrelevant. Farming an animal for food disqualifies you > >>>>from claiming a moral bonus from the fact that the animal [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > you eat "experienced life." I don't understand why you think > you even need it. Because when the "vegans" criticize him, it stings him for some reason. He is incapable of seeing the real flaw in their argument, so instead, he gets defensive, then tries to turn their criticism back at them. He fails, of course. > What does it do for you, pretending that this > moral credit exists? [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't. You want those > chicken fingers to keep comin', that all. > > <dh@.> wrote in message > news:qfts719vc4vb49tqn9459qn0r3tmehejj6@4ax.com... [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > you eat "experienced life." I don't understand why you think > > you even need it. Goober Canoza wrote: > Because when the "vegans" criticize him, it stings him for some reason. > He is incapable of seeing the real flaw in their argument, so instead, > he gets defensive, then tries to turn their criticism back at them. He > fails, of course. Goober Canoza must have been looking in a mirror while writing that last little bit of self criticism. When he realizes what he's done he'll throw a fit and go catatonic for a few days. > > What does it do for you, pretending that this > > moral credit exists? [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't. You want those > > chicken fingers to keep comin', that all. > He is incapable of seeing the real flaw in their argument What is then Goo? > > He is incapable of seeing the real flaw in their argument > > What is then Goo? Your question doesn't make any sense. Fuckwit, I'm getting tired of reminding you: YOU are the only goober here. Stop making this mistake. "Goober" refers to a dimwitted southern redneck: YOU, in other words. Stop using your mother's pet name for you on other people. >> On 9 May 2005 10:58:09 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Your question doesn't make any sense. That's because you don't believe there is any "real flaw in their argument". > >> On 9 May 2005 10:58:09 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That's because you don't believe there is any "real flaw in their argument". "What is then" was an absurd question, Fuckwit. There are several serious flaws, and I have correctly identified them. You have not. You have come up with a goofy idea because you feel the need to justify that you kill animals. >> On 12 May 2005 10:18:32 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >There are several serious flaws, There sure are, and you don't have a clue about any of them. >and I have correctly identified them. >You have not. You have come up with a goofy idea because you feel the >need to justify that you kill animals. >Quit pretending that you "consider the animals" in some >unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't. Do you? If so, explain how > On Sun, 8 May 2005 18:13:34 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote: > > >Quit pretending that you "consider the animals" in some > >unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't. > > Do you? If so, explain how I'm not the one claiming I do. When I attack your position you criticize me for not "considering the animals". That implies that you DO consider them in some unselfish way. That is a lie, your "consideration" is nothing more than a belief that the fact that we indirectly cause animals to be born bestows a kind a moral credit onto meat consumers. That belief (called "the logic of the larder") is a mistake. >> On Sun, 8 May 2005 18:13:34 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I'm not the one claiming I do. Good, because you "ARAs" certainly should never claim to care about the animals that you want to eliminate. >When I attack your position you criticize me >for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >credit onto meat consumers. That belief (called "the logic of the larder") >is a mistake. Some farm animals' lives are of positive value and some are not. Before you took so many gonadal stupid pills you used to understand that: _________________________________________________________ From: "Dutch" <no@email.com> Message-ID: <tl6u464lepm55d@news.supernews.com> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ You are the only person I know for a fact has gotten more stupid over the past several years, but you have obviously done it. I haven't done it with you though, so I can still understand that the method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal. Your childish "AR" fantasy about a talking pig in no way refutes it either, nor does anything else. > >> On Sun, 8 May 2005 18:13:34 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Good, because you "ARAs" certainly should never claim to care about > the animals that you want to eliminate. People who eat meat should never claim to be doing those animals a favour. QUIT PRETENDING THAT YOU *CONSIDER* ANIMALS IN SOME UNSELFISH WAY. > >When I attack your position you criticize me > >for [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Some farm animals' lives are of positive value and some are not. Before > you took so many gonadal stupid pills you used to understand that: People who eat meat should never claim to be doing those animals a favour. QUIT PRETENDING THAT YOU *CONSIDER* ANIMALS IN SOME UNSELFISH WAY. >> >> On Sun, 8 May 2005 18:13:34 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >QUIT PRETENDING THAT YOU *CONSIDER* ANIMALS IN SOME UNSELFISH WAY. I can. You can't. >>>>>>Quit pretending that you "consider the animals" in some >>>>>>unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I can. You do not. Stop lying about it. > >> On Sun, 8 May 2005 18:13:34 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Good, because you "ARAs" certainly should never claim to care about > the animals that you want to eliminate. You do not "consider the animals" in some selfless way, Fuckwit. What a joke. You are desperately trying to foster the illusion that you do, but your "consideration" is entirely self-serving. No one is fooled. > >When I attack your position you criticize me for not > >"considering the animals". That implies that you DO consider them in some > >unselfish way. That is a lie, your "consideration" is nothing more than a belief > >that the fact that we indirectly cause animals to be born bestows a kind a moral > >credit onto meat consumers. That belief (called "the logic of the larder") > >is a mistake. > > Some farm animals' lives are of positive value and some are not. non sequitur - utterly non responsive to what Dutch wrote. No animals "benefit" from coming into existence, Fuckwit. This is established as fact. STOP pretending that you give some selfless consideration to "the farm animals", Fuckwit. You do not, and everyone knows you do not. Everyone knows that all you are doing is trying to foster the illusion that you do; that what you actually are doing is clumsily trying to justify your killing of animals. > You are the only person I know for a fact has gotten more stupid YOU are the only person who has gotten more stupid, Fuckwit. It begins with your adoption of a discredited philosophy, the Illogic of the Larder, and it extends to your labeling established opponents of "ar" as "aras". > >Quit pretending that you "consider the animals" in some > >unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't. > > Do you? Irrelevant. YOU stop pretending that you do. You do not. Your pretense is a joke, and fools no one. You are merely considering yourself, and for obvious reasons you need to dress it up as consideration for animals. Stop it. Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in a way we as humans understand.Same goes for humans as people experience the same emotion in different ways,same as any other animal.....No matter how ya slice it,any emotional animal,human or not,still makes a great meal under the right circumstance. Glen (not Gay) SignatureI was an only child.....eventually! > > >> Yes they can. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > though you can't understand it, the same is true for > some animals too. > Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in a way we > as humans understand. Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy, Schadenfreude, exultance, pride. Humans *project* those emotions onto animals, because those are the emotions humans might feel if they had been in some situation in which they see animals. > Same goes for humans as people experience the same > emotion in different ways,same as any other animal.....No matter how ya > slice it,any emotional animal,human or not,still makes a great meal under > the right circumstance. > Glen (not Gay) > > Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in a way we > > as humans understand. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > emotions humans might feel if they had been in some > situation in which they see animals. In fact no other humans experience those emotions either, only Rudy. Humans *project* Rudy's emotions onto each other, because those are the emotions Rudy might feel if he had been in some situation in which we see each other. > > > Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in > a way we [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > emotions Rudy might feel if he had been in some situation in which we > see each other. Not an adult response. >> > > Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not >in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Not an adult response. That's the point Goo. Yours was stupid, ignorant, and childish, so he mimicked you. It's pretty funny, but you don't get it. >>>>>Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > That's the point Yes. Shevvie did not make an adult response. Neither did you. >>>>>>Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Yes. Shevvie did not make an adult response. Neither >did you. You lost that one Goo. >>>>>>>Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not >>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > You lost I won. You and Shevvie did not make adult responses. You never do. >> Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in a way we >> as humans understand. > >Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do >NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy, >Schadenfreude, exultance, pride. What do you think prevents them from experiencing simple things like that Goo? As yet we have no reason to believe they can't experience pride just as well as anger, or envy, or fear. So it is up to YOU to explain what causes the limitation, or we will have proof once again you don't have the slightest clue what you're trying to discuss. > >> Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in a way we > >> as humans understand. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What do you think prevents them from experiencing > simple things like that? I suspect the same thing that keeps them from doing differential calculus or studying philosophy, Fuckwit: the lack of human capacity. > As yet we have no reason > to believe they can't experience pride just as well as anger, > or envy, or fear. Yes, we have ample reason to believe they can't experience pride, Fuckwit - they give no evidence of it. I think you also can't experience it, Fuckwit, because you have nothing in your life of which to be proud. > > >> Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in > a way we [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I suspect the same thing that keeps them from doing differential > calculus or studying philosophy, Fuckwit: the lack of human capacity. So any human can do those things? I know some people who can't even take simple derivatives, is that due to lack of human capacity? > > As yet we have no reason > > to believe they can't experience pride just as well as anger, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > experience it, Fuckwit, because you have nothing in your life of which > to be proud. Perhaps you have never experienced pride if you cannot recognize it in others. A mother is proud of her offspring, proud of her abilitiy to care for them. A young hunter is proud of its first kill. A male is proud of his sexual prowess. A lion is proud of its pride (duh). A pet is proud when it pleases its master. Some pets are proud to have escaped their masters. I'm proud of you for recogninzing that "pride" refers to an emotional behavior observed in animals. > > > On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:35:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > So any human can do those things? No, but ONLY humans can. > I know some people who can't even > take simple derivatives, is that due to lack of human capacity? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Perhaps you have never experienced pride if you cannot recognize it in > others. I've experienced it myself and recognized it in others. > A mother is proud of her offspring, proud of her abilitiy to care for > them. Non human animal mothers are not. Their only connection to their offspring is feeding them and protecting them. > A young hunter is proud of its first kill. Non human hunting animals are not. > A male is proud of his sexual prowess. Not something to be proud of, but whatever. Non human males are not proud of it; they just do it. > A lion is proud of its pride (duh). No. > A pet is proud when it pleases its master. No. > Some pets are proud to have escaped their masters. No. Those last three were pure projection; pure anthropomorphism. Pure nonsense, too. > I'm proud of you for recogninzing that "pride" refers to an emotional > behavior observed in animals. Not in non human animals; not ever. >> > > On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:35:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >Non human animal mothers are not. Their only connection to their >offspring is feeding them and protecting them. You're just too stupid to recognize anything else Goo. There are lots of other connections. Even birds teach things to their young. You are so out of touch you don't have any clue at all what the hell you're trying to discuss. Pride is no harder to experience than anger, but for some stupid retarded reason you believe it is. That is only one of many examples of how stupid you are Goober. You are a moronic clown who "thinks" he's a genius. Your only humor is in your own stupidity, which is often pathetic but hilarious. In this particular case so far it's just pathetic, because you're not able to think enough about it to explain what what you believe restricts all nonhuman animals from experiencing simple basic emotions. >>>>>On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:35:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> >>> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > You're just too stupid I'm not stupid about anything, Fuckwit, and you know it. YOU are stupid, though: you barely finished high school, you didn't attend university, and you make your living doing menial bullshit work. That's the picture of southern redneck stupidity. >>>>>>On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:35:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > >I'm not stupid about anything You lost that one too. >> >> Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in >a way we [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I suspect the same thing that keeps them from doing differential >calculus or studying philosophy, How stupid of you. >Fuckwit: the lack of human capacity. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Yes, we have ample reason to believe they can't experience pride, We have none. We have absolutely no reason, and the proof of that is that you can provide absolutely no reason. >Fuckwit - they give no evidence of it. Some of them give plenty of evidence of it. You're just too ignorant to know it, and would be too stupid to recognize it if you saw it. That doesn't mean they're not capable of it, just that you're not capable of recognizing it. But you have never been in a situation where you could recognize it anyway, most likely. So, you have never been in a situation where an animal displayed pride, and if you ever were to be in one you would be unable to recognize it, but still hilariously you are insisting that they aren't capable of it. Not any of them! Gonad, you are a retard. >I think you also can't >experience it, Fuckwit, because you have nothing in your life of which >to be proud. I can be proud that I have defined you Goo. And a Google search will prove it. I can consider my definition of you to be a part of history. Do a Google search for you: Results 1 - 2 of 2 for goobernicus. (0.44 seconds) and the number one result is me defining you: Animals cannot be disappointed. ... Goobernicus Gonad says that Darwin was projecting. This is classic! ... You are Goobernicus Gonad. You "think" you are a genius ... www.pet-manual.co.uk/showthread/t-36756.html - 83k - >>>>>Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > How stupid of you. No, stupid Fuckwit. >>Fuckwit: the lack of human capacity. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > We have none. We have ample reason, Fuckwit: they give no evidence of it. >>Fuckwit - they give no evidence of it. > > Some of them give plenty of evidence of it. None of them give ANY evidence of it. >>I think you also can't >>experience it, Fuckwit, because you have nothing in your life of which >>to be proud. > > I can be proud that I have defined you You haven't defined me, Fuckwit. I have defined you. Completely. >>>>>>Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in >>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >None of them give ANY evidence of it. And you lose again. >>>I think you also can't >>>experience it, Fuckwit, because you have nothing in your life of which [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >You haven't defined me, Fuckwit. That's a lie Goober. >I have defined you. >Completely. >>>>>>>Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in >>>> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > That's a lie Nope. It's the truth. I have defined you. You are Fuckwit, and everyone thinks of you as Fuckwit, and in exactly the way I have fashioned. >>I have defined you. >>Completely. >>>You haven't defined me, Fuckwit. >> >> That's a lie > >Nope. Yup. You are Goobernicus Gonad. If you are truly as stupid as you claim to be, then you are exactly as I have defined you Goo. >>>>You haven't defined me, Fuckwit. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yup. No. Why are you using childish speak, Fuckwit? >>>>>>>Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in >>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > And you lose again. No, Fuckwit. NO non-human animals give ANY evidence of experiencing pride. ZERO. Just like you, Fuckwit - a ZERO. >>>>>>>>Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >No, Fuckwit. NO non-human animals give ANY evidence of >experiencing pride. Yes they do Goo. You're just too stupid to recognise it. Pride is no more impossible to experience than anger or fear, and you moronically display incredible stupidity by flaunting the fact that you "think" it is. >>>>>>>>>Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Yes they do No, they don't, Fuckwit. You're just too soppily sentimental not to realize it.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.