| Goober Canoza |
Animals cannot be disappointed.
I did write that, and it's true.
|
|
|
| banmilk@hotmail.com |
Yes they can.
I did write that, and it's true.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
banmilk@hotmail.com wrote:
> Yes they can.
> I did write that, and it's true.
You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
******* bonehead.
|
|
|
| Guardian Pegasus |
On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
>******* bonehead.
Prove it.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
Guardian Pegasus wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>
> >You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
> >******* bonehead.
>
> Prove it.
What, that bonehead Ron Hamilton's **** is virtually always false? No,
I won't prove it. You just need to take my word for it.
|
|
|
| banmilk@hotmail.com |
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Guardian Pegasus wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con>
wrote:
> >
> > >You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
> > >******* bonehead.
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> What, that bonehead Ron Hamilton's **** 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.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>banmilk@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Yes they can.
>> I did write that, and it's true.
>
>You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
>******* 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.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>
>
>>banmilk@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>Yes they can.
>>>I did write that, and it's true.
>>
>>You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
>>******* bonehead.
>
>
> 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
ass eating pork cracklins all afternoon instead and
don't take him for the walk. He will not be disappointed.
|
|
|
| Joanne |
<dh@.> wrote in message news:erpp71hc492ggf5mjj2odk3l6etf0b2vqu@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
> 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.
--
Sincerely,
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
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
Joanne wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in message news:erpp71hc492ggf5mjj2odk3l6etf0b2vqu@4ax.com...
>
>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>> 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.
Bull****. You are projecting. It's called
anthropomorphization: the projection of human
characteristics onto non-human things.
|
|
|
| Dutch |
<dh@.> wrote in message news:erpp71hc492ggf5mjj2odk3l6etf0b2vqu@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>
>>banmilk@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Yes they can.
>>> I did write that, and it's true.
>>
>>You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
>>******* 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
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.
|
|
|
| GWB |
On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:31:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>Bull****. You are projecting. It's called
>anthropomorphization: the projection of human
>characteristics onto non-human things.
Yeah, animals hate it when people do that!
|
|
|
| Bawl |
GWB wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:31:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>
> >Bull****. 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.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:31:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>Joanne wrote:
>
>> <dh@.> wrote in message news:erpp71hc492ggf5mjj2odk3l6etf0b2vqu@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>Bull****.
She is quite likely to be a good and decent person Goonad,
so try not acting like such the ass.
>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 bull**** 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.
|
|
|
| usual suspect |
Joanne wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in message news:erpp71hc492ggf5mjj2odk3l6etf0b2vqu@4ax.com...
>
>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>> 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.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Sat, 7 May 2005 11:08:24 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:erpp71hc492ggf5mjj2odk3l6etf0b2vqu@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>>
>>>banmilk@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> Yes they can.
>>>> I did write that, and it's true.
>>>
>>>You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
>>>******* 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
>
>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.
>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.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:17:45 GMT, "Joanne" <Joanne@jobirdnest.com> wrote:
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:erpp71hc492ggf5mjj2odk3l6etf0b2vqu@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>> 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.
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/cha...xpression02.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".
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Sat, 07 May 2005 16:52:02 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>banmilk@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>Yes they can.
>>>>I did write that, and it's true.
>>>
>>>You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
>>>******* bonehead.
>>
>>
>> Animals experience disappointment
>
>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/cha...xpression02.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:31:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>
>
>>Joanne wrote:
>>
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:erpp71hc492ggf5mjj2odk3l6etf0b2vqu@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>>Bull****.
>
>
> She is quite likely to be a good and decent person
That's lovely. She still said some bull****, though.
>>You are projecting. It's called
>>anthropomorphization: the projection of human
>>characteristics onto non-human things.
>
>
> LOL!!! For one thing Goo
****wit, we have been through this before: YOU are
the goober. "Goober" is an insult and slur against
stupid ****witted southern rednecks, and YOU are the
stupid ****witted 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, ****wit. 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.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2005 11:08:24 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:erpp71hc492ggf5mjj2odk3l6etf0b2vqu@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>banmilk@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Yes they can.
>>>>>I did write that, and it's true.
>>>>
>>>>You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
>>>>******* 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
>>
>>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, Goober****wit, 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 ****ty 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.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:17:45 GMT, "Joanne" <Joanne@jobirdnest.com> wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:erpp71hc492ggf5mjj2odk3l6etf0b2vqu@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>
> It's not too surprising, though I had wondered if birds experience it.
They don't. She is anthropomorphizing.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2005 16:52:02 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>banmilk@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Yes they can.
>>>>>I did write that, and it's true.
>>>>
>>>>You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
>>>>******* bonehead.
>>>
>>>
>>> Animals experience disappointment
>>
>>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,
Projection, pure and simple.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Sun, 08 May 2005 18:00:26 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 May 2005 16:52:02 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>banmilk@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes they can.
>>>>>>I did write that, and it's true.
>>>>>
>>>>>You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
>>>>>******* bonehead.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Animals experience disappointment
>>>
>>>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,
>
>Projection, pure and simple.
LOL!!! Goobernicus Gonad says that Darwin was projecting. This is classic!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....!
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Sun, 08 May 2005 17:52:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:31:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Joanne wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:erpp71hc492ggf5mjj2odk3l6etf0b2vqu@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>Bull****.
>>
>>
>> She is quite likely to be a good and decent person
>
>That's lovely. She still said some bull****, though.
>
>
>>>You are projecting. It's called
>>>anthropomorphization: the projection of human
>>>characteristics onto non-human things.
>>
>>
>> LOL!!! For one thing Goo
>
>****wit, we have been through this before: YOU are
>the goober. "Goober" is an insult and slur against
>stupid ****witted southern rednecks, and YOU are the
>stupid ****witted 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, ****wit. 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:
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
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.
|
|
|
| Dutch |
<dh@.> wrote in message news:5ehs71p8aa66kam2bsipfmtjm5t4otdq80@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 May 2005 11:08:24 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>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.
>
> 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.
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.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 17:52:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:31:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Joanne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:erpp71hc492ggf5mjj2odk3l6etf0b2vqu@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>Bull****.
>>>
>>>
>>> She is quite likely to be a good and decent person
>>
>>That's lovely. She still said some bull****, though.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>You are projecting. It's called
>>>>anthropomorphization: the projection of human
>>>>characteristics onto non-human things.
>>>
>>>
>>> LOL!!! For one thing Goo
>>
>>****wit, we have been through this before: YOU are
>>the goober. "Goober" is an insult and slur against
>>stupid ****witted southern rednecks, and YOU are the
>>stupid ****witted southern redneck. YOU are the
>>Goober. Don't make this mistake again.
>
>
> Goo is short for Goober.
And YOU are the only Goober here, ****wit. It is an
insult aimed at stupid, ****witted 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, ****wit. 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, Goober****wit.
>>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.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 18:00:26 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 07 May 2005 16:52:02 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>banmilk@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes they can.
>>>>>>>I did write that, and it's true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
>>>>>>******* bonehead.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Animals experience disappointment
>>>>
>>>>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,
>>
>>Projection, pure and simple.
>
>
> LOL!!!
What's funny, Goober****wit?
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Sun, 8 May 2005 12:07:29 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:5ehs71p8aa66kam2bsipfmtjm5t4otdq80@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 7 May 2005 11:08:24 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>>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
LOL! That is hilarious coming from a purely selfish ass
like yours.
>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.
>>
>> 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.
>
>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 disturbs the hell out of you when someone considers
the animals, because you only care about yourself.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:15:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>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.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 8 May 2005 12:07:29 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>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 disturbs the hell out of you when someone considers
> the animals
No, Goober****wit. 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.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:15:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>
>
>>NO animals except for humans experience disappointment.
>
>
> We've been here before Goo.
Yes, we have, Goober****wit. First of all,
Goober****wit, 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, Goober****wit, 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.
|
|
|
| Dutch |
<dh@.> wrote in message news:qfts719vc4vb49tqn9459qn0r3tmehejj6@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 May 2005 12:07:29 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:5ehs71p8aa66kam2bsipfmtjm5t4otdq80@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 7 May 2005 11:08:24 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>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
>
> LOL! That is hilarious coming from a purely selfish ass
> 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 .
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>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 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.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
Dutch wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in message
news:qfts719vc4vb49tqn9459qn0r3tmehejj6@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 8 May 2005 12:07:29 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >><dh@.> wrote in message
news:5ehs71p8aa66kam2bsipfmtjm5t4otdq80@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 7 May 2005 11:08:24 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>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
> >
> > LOL! That is hilarious coming from a purely selfish ass
> > 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.
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?
>
> >
> >>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.
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >>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 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.
|
|
|
| banmilk@hotmail.com |
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
> > <dh@.> wrote in message
> news:qfts719vc4vb49tqn9459qn0r3tmehejj6@4ax.com...
> > > On Sun, 8 May 2005 12:07:29 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >><dh@.> wrote in message
> news:5ehs71p8aa66kam2bsipfmtjm5t4otdq80@4ax.com...
> > >>> On Sat, 7 May 2005 11:08:24 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com>
wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>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
> > >
> > > LOL! That is hilarious coming from a purely selfish ass
> > > 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.
>
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?
> >
> > >
> > >>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.
> > >>>
> > >>> 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.
> > >>
> > >>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 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.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On 9 May 2005 10:58:09 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
> He is incapable of seeing the real flaw in their argument
What is then Goo?
|
|
|
| dh@. |
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
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>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.
|
|
|
| Dutch |
<dh@.> wrote
> 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.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
dh@. wrote:
> On 9 May 2005 10:58:09 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> > He is incapable of seeing the real flaw in their argument
>
> What is then Goo?
Your question doesn't make any sense.
****wit, 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.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>
> >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,
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.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
dh@. wrote:
> 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?
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.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On 12 May 2005 10:19:48 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>dh@. wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>>
>> >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,
>
>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.
That's a lie.
>Period.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On 12 May 2005 10:18:32 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 9 May 2005 10:58:09 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> > He is incapable of seeing the real flaw in their argument
>>
>> What is then Goo?
>
>Your question doesn't make any sense.
That's because you don't believe there is any "real flaw in their argument".
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:02:10 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
><dh@.> wrote
>> 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.
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
>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. 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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
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.
|
|
|
| Dutch |
<dh@.> wrote in message news:pii981dbhvgnuvb756r9j7dqo1leuv17cu@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:02:10 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote
> >> 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.
>
> 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
> >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.
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.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
dh@. wrote:
> On 12 May 2005 10:18:32 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 9 May 2005 10:58:09 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > He is incapable of seeing the real flaw in their argument
> >>
> >> What is then Goo?
> >
> >Your question doesn't make any sense.
>
> That's because you don't believe there is any "real flaw in their
argument".
"What is then" was an absurd question, ****wit.
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.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
dh@. wrote:
> On 12 May 2005 10:19:48 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con>
wrote:
> >>
> >> >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,
> >
> >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.
>
> That's a lie.
No, ****wit. 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.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:02:10 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote
> >> 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.
>
> 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, ****wit. 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, ****wit. This is
established as fact.
STOP pretending that you give some selfless consideration to "the farm
animals", ****wit. 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, ****wit. 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".
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On 13 May 2005 09:58:06 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 12 May 2005 10:18:32 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 9 May 2005 10:58:09 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > He is incapable of seeing the real flaw in their argument
>> >>
>> >> What is then Goo?
>> >
>> >Your question doesn't make any sense.
>>
>> That's because you don't believe there is any "real flaw in their
>argument".
>
>"What is then" was an absurd question, ****wit.
>
>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.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:19:36 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:pii981dbhvgnuvb756r9j7dqo1leuv17cu@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:02:10 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote
>> >> 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.
>>
>> 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.
I can. You can't.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On 13 May 2005 10:03:59 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 12 May 2005 10:19:48 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con>
>wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >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,
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>> That's a lie.
>
>No, ****wit. 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.
You're too stupid for this Goo.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
In-Reply-To: <gj9c81diu9j1c85ua9ncs3auru181jcs17@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <Nhqhe.1257$w21.22@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 17:10:05 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.3.208.30
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net 1116090605 69.3.208.30 (Sat, 14 May 2005 10:10:05 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 10:10:05 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Path: spool9-east.superfeed.net!propagator-sterling.newsfeeds.com!news-in.nuthinbutnews.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.ne
ws.atl.earthlink.net!newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!4d5d0503!not-for-mail
Xref: 127.0.0.1 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:160973 rec.pets.dogs.misc:105890 rec.pets.cats.misc:58350 rec.pets.birds:212283
dh@. wrote:
> On 13 May 2005 10:03:59 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On 12 May 2005 10:19:48 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
>>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con>
>>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>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,
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>> That's a lie.
>>
>>No, ****wit. 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.
>
>
> You're too stupid for this Goo.
****wit: 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,
****wit - you know it, I know it, everyone who has ever
read these exchanges knows it. It isn't even close.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:19:36 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:pii981dbhvgnuvb756r9j7dqo1leuv17cu@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:02:10 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>
> I can.
You do not. Stop lying about it.
|
|
|
| shevek4@yahoo.com |
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
> > On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con>
wrote:
> >
> > >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,
>
> 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.
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=B7ap=B7point
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.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
shevek4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con>
>
> wrote:
>
>>>>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,
>>
>>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.
>
>
>
> 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.
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 ******* 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.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Sat, 14 May 2005 17:10:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On 13 May 2005 10:03:59 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 12 May 2005 10:19:48 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
>>>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con>
>>>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>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,
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>> That's a lie.
>>>
>>>No, ****wit. 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.
>>
>>
>> You're too stupid for this Goo.
>
>****wit: 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,
You are Goobernicus Gonad. You are a moron. You are an "ARA".
>****wit - 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.
|
|
|
| Rudy Canoza |
dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 17:10:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 13 May 2005 10:03:59 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 12 May 2005 10:19:48 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com>
>>>>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con>
>>>>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>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,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a lie.
>>>>
>>>>No, ****wit. 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're too stupid for this Goo.
>>
>>****wit: 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,
>
>
> You are Goobernicus Gonad.
You are a ****witted, stupid-beyond-belief 46-YEAR-OLD
pseudo-"man" who still makes up silly sounding names.
You are a punk, ****wit. You are not a real man.
You didn't address the statement, ****wit. You are
stupid, and I am not.
>>****wit - 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?
|
|
|
|
