ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
pearl
ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
Video (8.38 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADhNch30Img
Rudy Canoza
> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
has-been.
pearl
'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.'
The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm
Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
Dutch
> "Rudy Canoza" <rudy-...@excite.com> wrote .
>> lesley the lying HIV-spreading slut of Cork blabbered:
>>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
>> ...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
>> has-been.
>
> 'Bullies project
Regan's voice has the melodious tones of a cross between a preacher and
a Johnny Cochrane type lawyer. In the followup video he is condescending
as hell to the other speakers. How dare they express childish opinions
that he has previously made mincemeat of in his books? Can't they read?
How dare they not revere the great Animal Rights authors? His speech is
long on emotive appeal and short on reason, no mention at all of course
of the collateral deaths issue.
Basically he is pompous, rude and a bully.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> >>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
> >> ...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
> >> has-been.
> >
> > 'Bullies project
>
> Regan's voice has the melodious tones of a cross between a preacher and
> a Johnny Cochrane type lawyer. In the followup video he is condescending
> as hell to the other speakers. How dare they express childish opinions
> that he has previously made mincemeat of in his books? Can't they read?
> How dare they not revere the great Animal Rights authors? His speech is
> long on emotive appeal and short on reason, no mention at all of course
> of the collateral deaths issue.
>
> Basically he is pompous, rude and a bully.
You have no credibility, mr. balloon clown, and you're still projecting.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
I'll remind you that you're the LAST person on earth that should be
bringing up the subject of credibility ms tinfoil hat.
Back to the topic..
Even in the hatchet-job of the video follow-up where all the against
speakers are shown only a minute or so in total, a lot of valid points
are raised which he never addresses in his conclusion, preferring to be
insulting and condescending.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> >> pearl wrote:
> >
> >>>>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
> >>>> ...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
> >>>> has-been.
> >>> 'Bullies project
> >> Regan's voice has the melodious tones of a cross between a preacher and
> >> a Johnny Cochrane type lawyer. In the followup video he is condescending
> >> as hell to the other speakers. How dare they express childish opinions
> >> that he has previously made mincemeat of in his books? Can't they read?
> >> How dare they not revere the great Animal Rights authors? His speech is
> >> long on emotive appeal and short on reason, no mention at all of course
> >> of the collateral deaths issue.
> >>
> >> Basically he is pompous, rude and a bully.
> >
> > You have no credibility, mr. balloon clown, and you're still projecting.
>
> I'll remind you that you're the LAST person on earth that should be
> bringing up the subject of credibility ms tinfoil hat.
And I'll remind you that every time you try that one on, you end up
crawling away with pie on your face. You are a proven liar, dutch.
> Back to the topic..
>
> Even in the hatchet-job of the video follow-up where all the against
> speakers are shown only a minute or so in total, a lot of valid points
> are raised which he never addresses in his conclusion, preferring to be
> insulting and condescending.
What "valid points" doesn't he address, you projecting hypocrite?
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:ZJ3ti.29752$fJ5.24783@pd7urf1no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
>>>>>> ...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
>>>>>> has-been.
>>>>> 'Bullies project
>>>> Regan's voice has the melodious tones of a cross between a preacher and
>>>> a Johnny Cochrane type lawyer. In the followup video he is condescending
>>>> as hell to the other speakers. How dare they express childish opinions
>>>> that he has previously made mincemeat of in his books? Can't they read?
>>>> How dare they not revere the great Animal Rights authors? His speech is
>>>> long on emotive appeal and short on reason, no mention at all of course
>>>> of the collateral deaths issue.
>>>>
>>>> Basically he is pompous, rude and a bully.
>>> You have no credibility, mr. balloon clown, and you're still projecting.
>> I'll remind you that you're the LAST person on earth that should be
>> bringing up the subject of credibility ms tinfoil hat.
>
> And I'll remind you that every time you try that one on, you end up
> crawling away with pie on your face. You are a proven liar, dutch.
What a sad, pathetic lot you are..
>> Back to the topic..
>>
>> Even in the hatchet-job of the video follow-up where all the against
>> speakers are shown only a minute or so in total, a lot of valid points
>> are raised which he never addresses in his conclusion, preferring to be
>> insulting and condescending.
>
> What "valid points" doesn't he address, you projecting hypocrite?
Watch the second video, the only con speaker he refers to specifically
is Germaine Greer, the rest he dismisses without comment in his rude,
condescending manner like a doddering schoolmaster.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:ZJ3ti.29752$fJ5.24783@pd7urf1no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
> >>>>>> ...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
> >>>>>> has-been.
> >>>>> 'Bullies project
> >>>> Regan's voice has the melodious tones of a cross between a preacher and
> >>>> a Johnny Cochrane type lawyer. In the followup video he is condescending
> >>>> as hell to the other speakers. How dare they express childish opinions
> >>>> that he has previously made mincemeat of in his books? Can't they read?
> >>>> How dare they not revere the great Animal Rights authors? His speech is
> >>>> long on emotive appeal and short on reason, no mention at all of course
> >>>> of the collateral deaths issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> Basically he is pompous, rude and a bully.
> >>> You have no credibility, mr. balloon clown, and you're still projecting.
>>
> >> I'll remind you that you're the LAST person on earth that should be
> >> bringing up the subject of credibility ms tinfoil hat.
> >
> > And I'll remind you that every time you try that one on, you end up
> > crawling away with pie on your face. You are a proven liar, dutch.
>
> What a sad, pathetic lot you are..
Translation: "What a sad, pathetic person I am.."
Dutch
>> is Germaine Greer, the rest he dismisses without comment in his rude,
>> condescending manner like a doddering schoolmaster.
>
> What "valid points"
Watch the second video dimwit.
Dutch
> What "valid points" doesn't he address
He made no reference to the point the Mary Warnock makes that it makes
no sense to lump all animals together as Regan does. Do we place the
same value on a virus as we do a chimpanzee? Steven Rose also makes this
point, that the most intuitive and widely held view of animals is that
moral value is directly related to sentience/intelligence. Wetlesen's
essay moralstat99 is built on this principle. Regan spends half his
rebuttal chirping ad hominems about the opponents of his ideas and very
little addressing their points. The people that uploaded the video, the
Christian Science Monitor folks, also weight the whole thing heavily
towards Regan by cutting out most of the opposing views.
pearl
Highly amused by the comparison between a chimp' and virus..
The intent of these videos is a focus on Tom Regan. There's a
great deal from both sides which isn't in the videos, the second
being just a very brief summing up. He says that the issues have
been addressed in the literature, and expresses astonishment that
none of these people had apparently read any of the AR literature
that they could put forward the arguments they did. Watch the
first video again. He states that what happens to sentient animals
matters to them as it does to us. That is what's morally relevant.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> >> Watch the second video, the only con speaker he refers to specifically
> >> is Germaine Greer, the rest he dismisses without comment in his rude,
> >> condescending manner like a doddering schoolmaster.
Projection. Dr. Regan is a great speaker. Here's the link for others:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG1Adi9dCbU&mode=related&search=
> > What "valid points"
>
> Watch the second video dimwit.
I just watched it again. '... the work of ethologists, and so on...
"we know _nothing_ about what is beneficial to other animals"?
"We know *nothing* , -scientifically- about what is harmful or
detrimental to other animals"?' Where /are/ you living, ditch?
pearl
Why do you believe that '"we should -not- mandate that
what is in their interest be protected as a matter of right."'?
It can only be because you consider your interests to be of
more value to you than the interests of others are to - you.
Your interests being as follows: eating "meat and gravy"and
financial profits of the animal exploitation industry. Can you
derive equal satisfaction and nutritional needs from a vegan
diet? Yes, and more, and anyway there is *no* comparing
a transient sensory pleasure to the life and killing of another.
Their loss is far greater if you take a rare moment to actually
consider what it is you are demanding attached to that pound
of flesh. As for financial benefit.. there's plenty to go around.
Get a better job, like in veganic horticulture, or as mr. balloon..
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:f2qti.32785$rX4.9684@pd7urf2no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>>>> Watch the second video, the only con speaker he refers to specifically
>>>> is Germaine Greer, the rest he dismisses without comment in his rude,
>>>> condescending manner like a doddering schoolmaster.
>
> Projection. Dr. Regan is a great speaker.
If you like rude, condescending blowhards. What colossal gall,
addressing those other speakers as if they were naughty students who
hadn't done their homework. Every one a highly respected person with
more credibility in their little fingers than Regan can ever aspire to.
He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
childish display.
Regan gets so much adulation from the converted, like you, that he
believes his own press clippings. He's so typical of ARAs, he make me puke.
Dutch
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:...
>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:f2qti.32785$rX4.9684@pd7urf2no...
>>> pearl wrote:
>>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>>>>> Watch the second video, the only con speaker he refers to specifically
>>>>> is Germaine Greer, the rest he dismisses without comment in his rude,
>>>>> condescending manner like a doddering schoolmaster.
>> Projection. Dr. Regan is a great speaker. Here's the link for others:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG1Adi9dCbU&mode=related&search=
>>
>>>> What "valid points"
>>> Watch the second video dimwit.
>> I just watched it again. '... the work of ethologists, and so on...
>> "we know _nothing_ about what is beneficial to other animals"?
>> "We know *nothing* , -scientifically- about what is harmful or
>> detrimental to other animals"?' Where /are/ you living, ditch?
>
> Why do you believe that '"we should -not- mandate that
> what is in their interest be protected as a matter of right."'?
Because it's completely absurd, we have no such capability, except in
some completely ad hoc token manner. Give your head an examination. If
we protected the interests of animals as a matter of right our species
would not last one more generation. Is that what you're going after? At
least then your ideas might make *some* sense.
> It can only be because you consider your interests to be of
> more value to you than the interests of others are to - you.
Of course I do. When I go to the store I buy food for *myself*, my
family, guests, not others. When I go to the movies I buy a ticket for
myself and my wife, when I go to the doctor we talk about *my* health.
The interests of the others are *their* business, not mine.
> Your interests being as follows: eating "meat and gravy"
Tonight I ate broccoli, potato salad, artichoke, and a free range
organic chicken breast. No gravy, I never eat gravy.
> and
> financial profits of the animal exploitation industry.
I assume that all of the people involved in producing the
above-mentioned food made a "financial profit", I certainly hope so,
since that's what makes our economy function.
> Can you
> derive equal satisfaction and nutritional needs from a vegan
> diet?
No.
Yes, and more,
No, been there, failed to thrive, not an option any more, not for me or
my wife.
> and anyway there is *no* comparing
> a transient sensory pleasure to the life and killing of another.
Food is not a mere sensory pleasure, but enjoying one's food is an
essential part of nutrition.
> Their loss is far greater if you take a rare moment to actually
> consider what it is you are demanding attached to that pound
> of flesh.
Animals gain and lose constantly by human agriculture, I couldn't change
that if I wanted to. I don't believe that the meat I eat causes
substantially more harm than anything else I consume, and even if
somewhat so, that's not a reason to make the sacrifice you seem to think
is necessary.
As for financial benefit.. there's plenty to go around.
> Get a better job, like in veganic horticulture, or as mr. balloon..
Your arguments are a failure and your bitterness is not doing you or
anyone else any good.
Rupert
> pearl wrote:
> > What "valid points" doesn't he address
>
> He made no reference to the point the Mary Warnock makes that it makes
> no sense to lump all animals together as Regan does.
He doesn't, and he made the reasonable point that if she'd read his
work (as she claimed to have done) then she really ought to know that.
> Do we place the
> same value on a virus as we do a chimpanzee?
Obviously it's absurd to suggest that any such thing follows from
Regan's work. It's borderline whether viruses even count as living
things.
> Steven Rose also makes this
> point, that the most intuitive and widely held view of animals is that
> moral value is directly related to sentience/intelligence.
There's nothing wrong with that, and Regan's work can be seen as
within that approach too.
> Wetlesen's
> essay moralstat99 is built on this principle.
... but doesn't adequately rebut the AMC.
> Regan spends half his
> rebuttal chirping ad hominems about the opponents of his ideas and very
> little addressing their points.
He did address their points, and what he said was pretty fair comment.
He could have been more polite and respectful, but you're hardly in a
position to criticize him about that.
> The people that uploaded the video, the
> Christian Science Monitor folks, also weight the whole thing heavily
> towards Regan by cutting out most of the opposing views.
Yes, it's a shame we couldn't hear more from his opponents' speeches.
Rupert
> pearl wrote:
> > "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:...
> >>> pearl wrote:
> >>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> >>>>> Watch the second video, the only con speaker he refers to specifically
> >>>>> is Germaine Greer, the rest he dismisses without comment in his rude,
> >>>>> condescending manner like a doddering schoolmaster.
> >> Projection. Dr. Regan is a great speaker. Here's the link for others:
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG1Adi9dCbU&mode=related&search=
>
> >>>> What "valid points"
> >>> Watch the second video dimwit.
> >> I just watched it again. '... the work of ethologists, and so on...
> >> "we know _nothing_ about what is beneficial to other animals"?
> >> "We know *nothing* , -scientifically- about what is harmful or
> >> detrimental to other animals"?' Where /are/ you living, ditch?
>
> > Why do you believe that '"we should -not- mandate that
> > what is in their interest be protected as a matter of right."'?
>
> Because it's completely absurd, we have no such capability, except in
> some completely ad hoc token manner.
Why shouldn't we do everything we reasonably can?
> anyone else any good.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dutch
> On Aug 6, 6:19 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
>>> What "valid points" doesn't he address
>> He made no reference to the point the Mary Warnock makes that it makes
>> no sense to lump all animals together as Regan does.
>
> He doesn't, and he made the reasonable point that if she'd read his
> work (as she claimed to have done) then she really ought to know that.
She is responding to the rhetoric of his speech, which is based on the
simplistic premise that the world is divided into humans (the oppressor)
and non-humans (the oppressed) It's not her fault that he chooses to
make an impassioned speech which does not reflect his true beliefs.
>
>> Do we place the
>> same value on a virus as we do a chimpanzee?
>
> Obviously it's absurd to suggest that any such thing follows from
> Regan's work. It's borderline whether viruses even count as living
> things.
But it follows from his speech which refers simply to humans and
non-human animals.
>
>> Steven Rose also makes this
>> point, that the most intuitive and widely held view of animals is that
>> moral value is directly related to sentience/intelligence.
>
> There's nothing wrong with that, and Regan's work can be seen as
> within that approach too.
Perhaps, but not his speech.
>
>> Wetlesen's
>> essay moralstat99 is built on this principle.
>
> ... but doesn't adequately rebut the AMC.
>
>> Regan spends half his
>> rebuttal chirping ad hominems about the opponents of his ideas and very
>> little addressing their points.
>
> He did address their points,
He said almost nothing about any of their points except mocking a remark
made by one speaker.
> and what he said was pretty fair comment.
It was rude and patronizing. It made him look weak.
> He could have been more polite and respectful, but you're hardly in a
> position to criticize him about that.
He was in a position where he ought to be polite and respectful, he
chose not to be, to his discredit. I'm not a renown philosopher, just a
guy with an opinion on usenet.
>
>> The people that uploaded the video, the
>> Christian Science Monitor folks, also weight the whole thing heavily
>> towards Regan by cutting out most of the opposing views.
>
> Yes, it's a shame we couldn't hear more from his opponents' speeches.
Perhaps we could get hold of them.
Rupert
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 6, 6:19 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> What "valid points" doesn't he address
> >> He made no reference to the point the Mary Warnock makes that it makes
> >> no sense to lump all animals together as Regan does.
>
> > He doesn't, and he made the reasonable point that if she'd read his
> > work (as she claimed to have done) then she really ought to know that.
>
> She is responding to the rhetoric of his speech, which is based on the
> simplistic premise that the world is divided into humans (the oppressor)
> and non-humans (the oppressed) It's not her fault that he chooses to
> make an impassioned speech which does not reflect his true beliefs.
>
He never implied that all non-human animals should be lumped together.
>
>
> >> Do we place the
> >> same value on a virus as we do a chimpanzee?
>
> > Obviously it's absurd to suggest that any such thing follows from
> > Regan's work. It's borderline whether viruses even count as living
> > things.
>
> But it follows from his speech which refers simply to humans and
> non-human animals.
>
No, it does not. Viruses do not belong to the animal kingdom, it's
borderline whether they are even organisms. They are certainly not
sentient, let alone "subjects-of-a-life". Obviously to ask "do we
place the same value on a virus as we do a chimpanzee" is absurd,
Regan's not committed to any such thing. He's quite right to refer her
to his work where he gives a detailed discussion of the issue of where
to draw the line.
>
>
> >> Steven Rose also makes this
> >> point, that the most intuitive and widely held view of animals is that
> >> moral value is directly related to sentience/intelligence.
>
> > There's nothing wrong with that, and Regan's work can be seen as
> > within that approach too.
>
> Perhaps, but not his speech.
>
In his speech he emphasized certain aspects of his work rather than
others.
>
>
> >> Wetlesen's
> >> essay moralstat99 is built on this principle.
>
> > ... but doesn't adequately rebut the AMC.
>
> >> Regan spends half his
> >> rebuttal chirping ad hominems about the opponents of his ideas and very
> >> little addressing their points.
>
> > He did address their points,
>
> He said almost nothing about any of their points except mocking a remark
> made by one speaker.
>
False.
> > and what he said was pretty fair comment.
>
> It was rude and patronizing. It made him look weak.
>
> > He could have been more polite and respectful, but you're hardly in a
> > position to criticize him about that.
>
> He was in a position where he ought to be polite and respectful, he
> chose not to be, to his discredit. I'm not a renown philosopher, just a
> guy with an opinion on usenet.
>
Well, for what it's worth, I lose respect for you when you're rude and
patronizing too.
>
>
> >> The people that uploaded the video, the
> >> Christian Science Monitor folks, also weight the whole thing heavily
> >> towards Regan by cutting out most of the opposing views.
>
> > Yes, it's a shame we couldn't hear more from his opponents' speeches.
>
> Perhaps we could get hold of them.
That would be great.
Dutch
> Why shouldn't we do everything we reasonably can?
As I define "reasonably" for my own situation, I do. That does not
include abstaining from meat. When I was your age it did.
Rupert
I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with your
feeling entitled to hurl abuse at me.
Dutch
I apologize inasmuch as I have hurled undeserved abuse, I do mean well,
and besides, as they say, "Sticks and stones.."
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:f2qti.32785$rX4.9684@pd7urf2no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> >>>> Watch the second video, the only con speaker he refers to specifically
> >>>> is Germaine Greer, the rest he dismisses without comment in his rude,
> >>>> condescending manner like a doddering schoolmaster.
> >
> > Projection. Dr. Regan is a great speaker.
>
> If you like rude, condescending blowhards.
Projection. And isn't ~ball~ your idol?
> What colossal gall,
> addressing those other speakers as if they were naughty students who
> hadn't done their homework.
The boot fits. They wore it.
> Every one a highly respected person with
> more credibility in their little fingers than Regan can ever aspire to.
As if you'd know anything about credibility and respect.
> He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
> the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
> read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
> childish display.
He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.
> Regan gets so much adulation from the converted, like you, that he
> believes his own press clippings. He's so typical of ARAs, he make me puke.
You're so full of hatred and jealousy, you're killing yourself.
'The Wannabe
Motivation: craves respect for being competent and
professional despite lacking in competence and professionalism
Mindset: deceptive
Malice: low to medium; when held accountable, medium to high
a.. similar to the attention-seeker
b.. is one of life's chronic underperformers and is best
described as ineffectual in everything
c.. craves undeserved respect and attention and will go to
considerable lengths to acquire them
d.. hangs around the fringes of a profession
e.. not professionally qualified but claims they are a
professional because they sit next to a professional or work
alongside or near or in the midst of professionals, or provide
services to professionals
f.. lacks the ability, competence and professionalism to be
a qualified professional
g.. wants so much to be seen as competent professional
person but is unable and unwilling to put in the work to
achieve this
h.. is unable and unwilling to apply knowledge gained
from experience but instead devotes time and effort to
improving skills of deception, manipulation, false claim,
denial and projection
i.. may have been rejected by their chosen profession
for lack of competence
j.. is spiteful towards and despises anyone who is qualified
in the profession from which the bully has been excluded by
virtue of lack of competence
k.. is likely to be vilifying the profession they want to
belong to or which they're claiming to be part of or which
they are claiming to represent
l.. displays a deep-seated envy and jealousy of the
professionals that he or she works alongside or claims to serve
m.. harbours a bitter resentment, grudge, distaste and
contempt for the professionals that he or she works alongside
or claims to serve
n.. is likely to be criticising, condemning, disadvantaging and
causing detriment to the professionals he or she works alongside
or claims to serve
o.. may seek positions of power over the professionals he
or she works alongside or claims to serve, perhaps to facilitate
a compulsion to criticise, condemn, disadvantage and cause
detriment
p.. is irresistibly drawn to organisations, roles and positions
which offer the wannabe power and control over the
professionals s/he despises (eg inspection regimes, approval
roles, regulatory bodies, ticksheet compliance schemes,
political correctness police, trade union official, etc) - and is
often described as a talentless jobsworth
q.. when in a position of power associates with and makes
alliances with or surrounds him or herself with clones, drones,
minions, fellow wannabes, sycophants and brown-nosers
r.. instinctively objects to any suggestion of change, reform,
improvement, progress or evolution, but has no viable or
positive alternatives of their own
s.. opposes every idea, suggestion, opinion, contribution or
reform on principle but has no original, positive, constructive
ideas or contributions of his or her own
t.. is likely to plagiarise and steal others' ideas which are
then put forward as their own
u.. may place undue emphasis or reliance on an old, minor
or irrelevant qualification to bolster their claim of belonging
to or deserving to belong to a profession
v.. may claim ambiguous or misleading or bogus or
fraudulent qualifications, associations and experience
w.. displays a superior sense of entitlement because they
associate with or serve higher performers
x.. emotionally immature
y.. controlling
z.. easily provoked
aa.. when challenged is adept at rewriting history to portray
themselves as competent, professional and successful, regardless
of multiple witnesses and overwhelming evidence to the contrary
ab.. quickly and loudly feigns victimhood when exposed and
held accountable, often repeatedly and loudly accusing the
person holding them accountable of being a bully
ac.. when held accountable makes conflicting and contradictory
threats and demands (eg demands apology but orders the other
person not to communicate with them)
ad.. when held accountable makes lots of loud but empty threats
(eg of legal action such as libel, slander, defamation etc)
ae.. only carries out threats of legal action when in the presence
of a superior serial bully, especially a sociopath type
af.. may indulge their jealousy and envy of professionals or those
they claim to serve by pursuing vindictive vendettas, sometimes
with the help of a superior serial bully, especially a sociopath type
ag.. is easily manipulated and controlled by a superior serial bully
ah.. may exploit some perceived vulnerability in self to ensure
drone loyalty
ai.. gives the appearance of loyalty to drones but will discard
them when they've served their purpose
...'
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm#Wannabe
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:XhQti.39249$fJ5.34707@pd7urf1no...
>> He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
>> the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
>> read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
>> childish display.
>
> He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.
They aren't ignorant, they read "The literature", as you converts like
to refer to your blessed sacred scrolls, several of them remark on that
fact, and they *reject* the arguments. It's not the revealed truth of
God you know, they're the *opinions* of people that agree with Reagan,
and *his own books*. He's an arrogant toad addressing highly respected
authors and fellow philosophers in that manner, but typical of the ARA,
he feels superior to them and entitled to verbally abuse them.
<snip usual verbal abuse>
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:...
> >> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:f2qti.32785$rX4.9684@pd7urf2no...
> >>> pearl wrote:
> >>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> >>>>> Watch the second video, the only con speaker he refers to specifically
> >>>>> is Germaine Greer, the rest he dismisses without comment in his rude,
> >>>>> condescending manner like a doddering schoolmaster.
> >> Projection. Dr. Regan is a great speaker. Here's the link for others:
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG1Adi9dCbU&mode=related&search=
> >>
> >>>> What "valid points"
> >>> Watch the second video dimwit.
> >> I just watched it again. '... the work of ethologists, and so on...
> >> "we know _nothing_ about what is beneficial to other animals"?
> >> "We know *nothing* , -scientifically- about what is harmful or
> >> detrimental to other animals"?' Where /are/ you living, ditch?
> >
> > Why do you believe that '"we should -not- mandate that
> > what is in their interest be protected as a matter of right."'?
>
> Because it's completely absurd, we have no such capability, except in
> some completely ad hoc token manner. Give your head an examination. If
> we protected the interests of animals as a matter of right our species
> would not last one more generation. Is that what you're going after? At
> least then your ideas might make *some* sense.
That is completely absurd. As it is, we're looking at ecological
disaster: climate change - drought, storms, floods, extreme
heat and cold; soil-erosion and advancing desertification;
emptying aquifers and pollution of ground water, waterways
and bodies of water. This is all fact and increasingly obvious.
Stockpiles of food are gone, and we've reached the bottom
of the barrel - not enough can be produced. As it is, over 800
million human beings are hungry and dying because land has
been taken over for livestock, and food fed to livestock. In
many areas there are conflicts and war over these resources.
Meanwhile millions of people are sick and dying because of
the meat, eggs and dairy they consume. It is you who is in
dire need of a head an examination, ditch. Respecting other
species interests is exactly what the world needs right now.
> > It can only be because you consider your interests to be of
> > more value to you than the interests of others are to - you.
>
> Of course I do. When I go to the store I buy food for *myself*, my
> family, guests, not others. When I go to the movies I buy a ticket for
> myself and my wife, when I go to the doctor we talk about *my* health.
> The interests of the others are *their* business, not mine.
An admission that you are too self-centered to consider the
very real and devastating impact your choice has on others.
> > Your interests being as follows: eating "meat and gravy"
>
> Tonight I ate broccoli, potato salad, artichoke, and a free range
> organic chicken breast. No gravy, I never eat gravy.
Whatever.
> > and
> > financial profits of the animal exploitation industry.
>
> I assume that all of the people involved in producing the
> above-mentioned food made a "financial profit", I certainly hope so,
> since that's what makes our economy function.
Tell us about all the subsidies and grants, and taxes.
> > Can you
> > derive equal satisfaction and nutritional needs from a vegan
> > diet?
>
> No.
False.
> Yes, and more,
>
> No, been there, failed to thrive, not an option any more, not for me or
> my wife.
Or the kids you never had... You have zero credibility.
> > and anyway there is *no* comparing
> > a transient sensory pleasure to the life and killing of another.
>
> Food is not a mere sensory pleasure, but enjoying one's food is an
> essential part of nutrition.
How often do you eat raw flesh? No? Raw bloody flesh is
a turn-off for humans. Cook it and smell the addictive fat.
> > Their loss is far greater if you take a rare moment to actually
> > consider what it is you are demanding attached to that pound
> > of flesh.
>
> Animals gain and lose constantly by human agriculture, I couldn't change
> that if I wanted to. I don't believe that the meat I eat causes
> substantially more harm than anything else I consume, and even if
> somewhat so,
'Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of the
soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined. On
lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages 13 tons
per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a slower pace, at
an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But erosion may exceed
100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures, and 54 percent of U.S.
pasture land is being overgrazed.
..
The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
American population.
..
About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from
grains and 15 million tons from forage crops.
..
More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
for cultivated feed grains.
..'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html
'U.S acres
Total dried beans and peas 2,140,851
Peanuts 1,436,034
Potatoes 1,309,963
Rice 2,424,864
Total sugar 2,172,550
Vegetables 3,264,343
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table2.html
= 12,748,605 acres; (* 0.4047) = 5,159,360 hectares.
+
Orchards, vineyards, and nursery 4,462,591 acres
(= 1,806,010 hectares)
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table6.html
+
6 million hectares grain (based on the above from Cornell).
=
Total: 12,965,370 hectares, round to 13 million hectares.
> that's not a reason to make the sacrifice you seem to think
> is necessary.
Let live, and live. Kill, and die. -That-'s your chosen sacrifice.
> As for financial benefit.. there's plenty to go around.
> > Get a better job, like in veganic horticulture, or as mr. balloon..
>
> Your arguments are a failure and your bitterness is not doing you or
> anyone else any good.
Projection.
'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge
Farming in harmony with nature
By Lauren Cahoon
Special to The Journal
August 4, 2006
VAN ETTEN - What if every farmer decided to turn off his machinery and
go without fossil fuels once and for all? And along with that, what if they
all stopped putting pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers on
their fields?
What if every gardener stopped pulling out their weeds and tilling their
soil? Chaos, you say? Mass shortages in crops and foods, gardens choked
with weeds? Perhaps so. But Rob Young, a Ph.D. student and lecturer at
Cornell University, has done all of the above with his small farm - and
the business, like the crops, is growing.
"We just got a new client who's running a restaurant in one of the local
towns - we brought them some of our lettuce and they went crazy over it
.... our lettuce just knocked them over, it's so good."
Young's Bison Ridge farm, located in Van Etten, runs almost completely
without the use of fossil fuels, fossil fuel-derived fertilizers, or pesticides.
The land has been farmed since the 1850s. Young and his wife, Katharine,
purchased the farm in 1989. Before that, Young worked as the Sustainable
Business Director for New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman. When
he discovered Bison Ridge, Young started working the land even while he
was still living in New Jersey. Eventually, Young and his wife moved to the
Ithaca area so they could start their graduate program at Cornell.
"We started doing a little gardening... then added more and more fields
.... at first, we just wanted it to be an organic farm" Rob explained.
Running an organic farm is admirable enough, but at some point, Young
took it a step farther.
"I had an epiphany," he said. "I was transplanting beets after a spring
rain, and I noticed how the land felt all hot and sticky - almost like
when you wipe out on your bike and you get a brush burn. I know it sounds
cheesy, but I could feel how that (farmed) land had gotten a 'brush burn'
when it was cleared and plowed.
"That's when I decided, I want to work with this land rather than against it."
After that, Young started throwing common farming practices out the
window. He reduced weeding, adding copious amounts of composted
mulch instead and, because of the life teeming in the healthy soils and fields
around the farm, Young lets natural predators get rid of any insect pests.
No mechanized machinery is used except for the primary plowing of new
fields. In fact, except for driving to and from the farm (in a hybrid car,
no less), no fossil fuels are used in any part of production. Irrigation
of crops is either gravity-fed from an old stone well dug in the 1800s or
through pumps driven by solar energy. Super-rich compost is used on all
of the crops along with clover, which fixes nitrogen and adds organic matter
to the soil. Crops are grown in multi-species patches, to mimic natural
communities (insect pests wreak less havoc when they're faced with diverse
types of vegetation).
In addition, the farm has a large greenhouse where most of the crops are
grown as seedlings during the late winter/early spring to get a head
start. The entire structure is heated by a huge bank of compost, whose
microbial activity keeps the growing beds at a toasty 70 degrees. During
the spring and summer, most of the plants are grown in outdoor raised
beds - which yield about three times as much per square meter as a regular
field.
"When people visit the farm, they comment on how we're not using a lot
of the land - they don't realize we're producing triple the amount of crops
from less land," Young said. "It is labor intensive, but you can target
your fertility management, and the produce is so good."
Young's passion for earth-friendly farming has proved to be infectious.
As a student, teaching assistant and teacher at Cornell, Young has had the
chance to tell many people in the community about Bison Ridge, which
is how Marion Dixon, a graduate student in developmental sociology, got
involved with the whole endeavor.
"I had wanted to farm forever - and was always telling myself, 'I'll do it
when I'm not in school,'" she said. But when she heard Young give a
speech about recycling and sustainable living at her dining hall, she knew
she had found her chance to actually get involved.
Dixon and Young now work the farm cooperatively, each contributing
their time and effort into the land.
"I've had a lot of ideas," Young said, "but the work has been done by a
lot of people - it's a community of people who have made his happen."
He said that because of Dixon's input, they now have a new way of
planting lettuce that has doubled production.
Although Young and Dixon are the only ones currently running the farm,
during the summer there are always several people who contribute, from
undergrads to graduate students to local people in the community - all
united by a common desire to work with the land.
"There's personal satisfaction in working the soil, being on the land and
outdoors," Dixon said. "You get to work out, and get that sense of
community - plus there's the quality, healthy food. ... It's about believing
in a localized economy, believing in production that's ecologically and
community-based."
The combination of working with the earth's natural systems and community
involvement has paid off. Over the course of several seasons, Bison Ridge
has grown a variety of vegetables, maple syrup, wheat as well as eggs from
free-range chickens. They have a range of clients, including a supermarket
and several restaurants, and have delivered produce to many families in
CSA (Community Sponsored Agriculture) programs.
Although small, Bison Ridge Farm has prospered due to its independence
from increasingly expensive fossil fuel. Young said that, since little if any
of their revenue is spent on gas, advertising or transportation, it makes
the food affordable to low-income people, another goal that Young and
Dixon are shooting for with their farming.
Although Young and Dixon are happy about the monetary gains the farm is
producing, they have the most passion and enthusiasm for the less tangible
goods the farm provides.
"It's such a delight to work with," Dixon said. "You feel alive when
you're there."
http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article%3FAID%3D/20060804/NEWS01/608040306/1002
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:XhQti.39249$fJ5.34707@pd7urf1no...
>
> >> He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
> >> the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
> >> read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
> >> childish display.
> >
> > He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.
>
> They aren't ignorant, they read "The literature",
The showed "*no evidence*" of reading the philosophical literature.
<snip usual verbal abuse>
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:GPWti.39889$fJ5.24475@pd7urf1no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:XhQti.39249$fJ5.34707@pd7urf1no...
>>>> He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
>>>> the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
>>>> read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
>>>> childish display.
>>> He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.
>> They aren't ignorant, they read "The literature",
>
> The showed "*no evidence*" of reading the philosophical literature.
Translation, they disagreed with the idea of "Animal Rights" therefore
they are to be treated like ignorant children.
Rupert
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in messagenews:XhQti.39249$fJ5.34707@pd7urf1no...
> >>>> He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
> >>>> the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
> >>>> read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
> >>>> childish display.
> >>> He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.
> >> They aren't ignorant, they read "The literature",
>
> > The showed "*no evidence*" of reading the philosophical literature.
>
> Translation, they disagreed with the idea of "Animal Rights" therefore
> they are to be treated like ignorant children.
No. They made arguments which appeared to show a lack of familiarity
with the literature, therefore Regan remarked on that fact.
Dutch
No, they made arguments which show that they don't subscribe to "the
literature" referring to books by "Animal Rights" authors like himself,
and he didn't simply "remark", he reacted in a completely inappropriate
supercilious manner. In doing so he harmed his own credibility more than
that of those towards whom he was directing his condescending attitude.
He would have left a much better impression if he had used that time to
inform rather than ridicule. The context was a formal debate in a
university forum, not a usenet slugfest.
Dr L Oh
GoMavs
stupidity. Conveniently forgetting that carnivores do exist on all levels of
the animal kingdom.
"Dr L Oh" <dr...@meded.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7skad39n2jn445kmc...@4ax.com...
pearl
>
> While I am all for treating animals humanely... Tom takes it to a level of
> stupidity. Conveniently forgetting that carnivores do exist on all levels of
> the animal kingdom.
Oxymoron.
'in搬u搶an
adj.
1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel.
2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
..
inhuman
adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold
blood"; "cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction"
[syn: cold, cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or
resembling something nonhuman; "something dark and
inhuman in form"; "a babel of inhuman noises"
..'
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman
George Plimpton
> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADhNch30Img
Regan says, "They [animals] are not only in the world, they are aware
of it, and also what happens to them." Bullshit. Animals are *not*
aware that they are in the world, they don't even know there's a world,
and they have no concept whatever of any "fate" in store for them.
Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.
"Like us, they bring a unified psychological presence to the world."
Bullshit - pure mealymouthed psychobabble.
No rational philosophy can come from a basis of such unmitigated bullshit.
Rupert
> On 7/30/2007 7:07 AM, pearl wrote:
>
> > ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
> > Video (8.38 minutes)
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADhNch30Img
>
> Regan says, "They [animals] are not only in the world, they are aware
> of it, and also what happens to them." Bullshit. Animals are *not*
> aware that they are in the world, they don't even know there's a world,
> and they have no concept whatever of any "fate" in store for them.
>
Wittgenstein, "The world is everything that is the case." Animals are
aware of some aspects of reality. They are not aware of the existence
of the planet earth or the universe, and they are not able to think at
a sufficient level of abstraction to be able to think to themselves
"The world is everything that is the case", but they are aware of some
aspects of reality, and that is enough for the claim to be true.
Animals are aware of what happens to them, and at least some of them
have some concept of the future.
> Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.
>
> "Like us, they bring a unified psychological presence to the world."
> Bullshit - pure mealymouthed psychobabble.
>
George Plimpton
> On Apr 24, 7:52 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 7/30/2007 7:07 AM, pearl wrote:
>>
>>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
>>> Video (8.38 minutes)
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADhNch30Img
>>
>> Regan says, "They [animals] are not only in the world, they are aware
>> of it, and also what happens to them." Bullshit. Animals are *not*
>> aware that they are in the world, they don't even know there's a world,
>> and they have no concept whatever of any "fate" in store for them.
>>
>
> The claim is that animals are aware of the world. To quote Ludwig
> Wittgenstein, "The world is everything that is the case."
> Animals are
> aware of some aspects of reality. They are not aware of the existence
> of the planet earth or the universe, and they are not able to think at
> a sufficient level of abstraction to be able to think to themselves
> "The world is everything that is the case", but they are aware of some
> aspects of reality, and that is enough for the claim to be true.
contemplates in any way the relationship between itself and the rest of
reality.
>> Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.
>>
>
> Actually, it is very obviously true.
them" is completely alien to animal mentation.
>
>> "Like us, they bring a unified psychological presence to the world."
>> Bullshit - pure mealymouthed psychobabble.
>>
>
> It's not bullshit.
Rupert
> On 4/25/2012 5:30 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24, 7:52 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 7/30/2007 7:07 AM, pearl wrote:
>
> >>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
> >>> Video (8.38 minutes)
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADhNch30Img
>
> >> Regan says, "They [animals] are not only in the world, they are aware
> >> of it, and also what happens to them." Bullshit. Animals are *not*
> >> aware that they are in the world, they don't even know there's a world,
> >> and they have no concept whatever of any "fate" in store for them.
>
> > The claim is that animals are aware of the world. To quote Ludwig
> > Wittgenstein, "The world is everything that is the case."
>
> Sophistry.
>
thenm?
> > Animals are
> > aware of some aspects of reality. They are not aware of the existence
> > of the planet earth or the universe, and they are not able to think at
> > a sufficient level of abstraction to be able to think to themselves
> > "The world is everything that is the case", but they are aware of some
> > aspects of reality, and that is enough for the claim to be true.
>
> Animals are not aware that they exist *in* reality. No animal
> contemplates in any way the relationship between itself and the rest of
> reality.
>
this claim to be true is for them to be aware of some aspects of
reality.
> >> Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.
>
> > Actually, it is very obviously true.
>
> No, it is very obviously false. *Nothing* matters to them.
George Plimpton
of the six blind men and the elephant ought to tell you that.
>>>> Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.
>>
>>> Actually, it is very obviously true.
>>
>> No, it is very obviously false. *Nothing* matters to them.
>
> These claims are quite absurd.
>
>> "Matters to them" is completely alien to animal mentation.
Rupert
obviously).
> Aspects of reality are not reality itself. The tale
> of the six blind men and the elephant ought to tell you that.
>
> >>>> Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.
>
> >>> Actually, it is very obviously true.
>
> >> No, it is very obviously false. *Nothing* matters to them.
>
> > These claims are quite absurd.
>
> They're not. They're correct. Because:
>
>
>
> >> "Matters to them" is completely alien to animal mentation.
>
> Because of that.
>
concept, and in any event the claim that nothing matters to animals
obviously doesn't follow from that at all, and is obvious nonsense.
George Plimpton
> I am correctly interpreting what Regan meant (quite obviously).
>
>> Aspects of reality are not reality itself. The tale
>> of the six blind men and the elephant ought to tell you that.
>>
>>>>>> Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.
>>
>>>>> Actually, it is very obviously true.
>>
>>>> No, it is very obviously false. *Nothing* matters to them.
>>
>>> These claims are quite absurd.
>>
>> They're not. They're correct. Because:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> "Matters to them" is completely alien to animal mentation.
>>
>> Because of that.
>>
>
> There is some evidence that some nonhuman animals do have that
> concept,
> and in any event the claim that nothing matters to animals
> obviously doesn't follow from that at all, and is obvious nonsense.
what "matters" in place of a non-existent judgment by animals; that is,
you're saying *as a human* that if you were an animal, certain things
would "matter" to you. That's bullshit - completely specious.
Mr.Smartypants
Rupert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Aspects of reality are not reality itself. The tale
> >> of the six blind men and the elephant ought to tell you that.
>
> >>>>>> Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.
>
> >>>>> Actually, it is very obviously true.
>
> >>>> No, it is very obviously false. *Nothing* matters to them.
>
> >>> These claims are quite absurd.
>
> >> They're not. They're correct. Because:
>
> >>>> "Matters to them" is completely alien to animal mentation.
>
> >> Because of that.
>
> > There is some evidence that some nonhuman animals do have that
> > concept,
>
> There isn't.
>
who have been taught sign language, and observations of empathy and
altruism even in completely nonlinguistic nonhuman animals. But that's
neither here nor there.
> > and in any event the claim that nothing matters to animals
> > obviously doesn't follow from that at all, and is obvious nonsense.
>
> Wrong. What you fuckwits are doing is substituting your judgment for
> what "matters" in place of a non-existent judgment by animals; that is,
> you're saying *as a human* that if you were an animal, certain things
> would "matter" to you. That's bullshit - completely specious.
animal whether or not he or she gets enough to eat.
George Plimpton
of reality is to be aware of reality.
>>
>>>> Aspects of reality are not reality itself. The tale
>>>> of the six blind men and the elephant ought to tell you that.
>>
>>>>>>>> Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.
>>
>>>>>>> Actually, it is very obviously true.
>>
>>>>>> No, it is very obviously false. *Nothing* matters to them.
>>
>>>>> These claims are quite absurd.
>>
>>>> They're not. They're correct. Because:
>>
>>>>>> "Matters to them" is completely alien to animal mentation.
>>
>>>> Because of that.
>>
>>> There is some evidence that some nonhuman animals do have that
>>> concept,
>>
>> There isn't.
>>
>
> Yes, there is, based on observation of primates like Koko the gorilla
> who have been taught sign language,
>>> and in any event the claim that nothing matters to animals
>>> obviously doesn't follow from that at all, and is obvious nonsense.
>>
>> Wrong. What you fuckwits are doing is substituting your judgment for
>> what "matters" in place of a non-existent judgment by animals; that is,
>> you're saying *as a human* that if you were an animal, certain things
>> would "matter" to you. That's bullshit - completely specious.
>
> Of course certain things matter to animals,
Rupert
Best of luck with that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> Aspects of reality are not reality itself. The tale
> >>>> of the six blind men and the elephant ought to tell you that.
>
> >>>>>>>> Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.
>
> >>>>>>> Actually, it is very obviously true.
>
> >>>>>> No, it is very obviously false. *Nothing* matters to them.
>
> >>>>> These claims are quite absurd.
>
> >>>> They're not. They're correct. Because:
>
> >>>>>> "Matters to them" is completely alien to animal mentation.
>
> >>>> Because of that.
>
> >>> There is some evidence that some nonhuman animals do have that
> >>> concept,
>
> >> There isn't.
>
> > Yes, there is, based on observation of primates like Koko the gorilla
> > who have been taught sign language,
>
> Does not demonstrate that anything "matters to her."
>
Do you think that things mattered to your son when he was two years
old?
> >>> and in any event the claim that nothing matters to animals
> >>> obviously doesn't follow from that at all, and is obvious nonsense.
>
> >> Wrong. What you fuckwits are doing is substituting your judgment for
> >> what "matters" in place of a non-existent judgment by animals; that is,
> >> you're saying *as a human* that if you were an animal, certain things
> >> would "matter" to you. That's bullshit - completely specious.
>
> > Of course certain things matter to animals,
>
> No.
George Plimpton
All of you fail, as a basic matter of logic. You fail because you are
assuming the very thing you must prove.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Aspects of reality are not reality itself. The tale
>>>>>> of the six blind men and the elephant ought to tell you that.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, it is very obviously true.
>>
>>>>>>>> No, it is very obviously false. *Nothing* matters to them.
>>
>>>>>>> These claims are quite absurd.
>>
>>>>>> They're not. They're correct. Because:
>>
>>>>>>>> "Matters to them" is completely alien to animal mentation.
>>
>>>>>> Because of that.
>>
>>>>> There is some evidence that some nonhuman animals do have that
>>>>> concept,
>>
>>>> There isn't.
>>
>>> Yes, there is, based on observation of primates like Koko the gorilla
>>> who have been taught sign language,
>>
>> Does not demonstrate that anything "matters to her."
>>
>
> Of course things matter to Koko,
some day no longer be in it.
>>>>> and in any event the claim that nothing matters to animals
>>>>> obviously doesn't follow from that at all, and is obvious nonsense.
>>
>>>> Wrong. What you fuckwits are doing is substituting your judgment for
>>>> what "matters" in place of a non-existent judgment by animals; that is,
>>>> you're saying *as a human* that if you were an animal, certain things
>>>> would "matter" to you. That's bullshit - completely specious.
>>
>>> Of course certain things matter to animals,
>>
>> No.
>
> You're an idiot.
Rupert
in order for this to be true it is sufficient that animals be aware of
some aspects of reality. (This is my claim, not Regan's, but I am
confident that Regan would agree with me.)
This is quite obvious. To see that it is true one just has to be a
native speaker of the English language. I have no interest in trying
to educate you about what a perfectly ordinary English sentence means.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> Aspects of reality are not reality itself. The tale
> >>>>>> of the six blind men and the elephant ought to tell you that.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Actually, it is very obviously true.
>
> >>>>>>>> No, it is very obviously false. *Nothing* matters to them.
>
> >>>>>>> These claims are quite absurd.
>
> >>>>>> They're not. They're correct. Because:
>
> >>>>>>>> "Matters to them" is completely alien to animal mentation.
>
> >>>>>> Because of that.
>
> >>>>> There is some evidence that some nonhuman animals do have that
> >>>>> concept,
>
> >>>> There isn't.
>
> >>> Yes, there is, based on observation of primates like Koko the gorilla
> >>> who have been taught sign language,
>
> >> Does not demonstrate that anything "matters to her."
>
> > Of course things matter to Koko,
>
> They don't. She has no awareness that there is a world, that she will
> some day no longer be in it.
>
aspects of the world just as you and I are, and just as your son was
when he was two years old. She has similar linguistic and cognitive
abilities to your son at the age of two. It is extremely obvious that
things matter to her, and that she is aware of the world. She also has
some understanding of the concept of death, although she becomes
fidgety and uncomfortable when asked to discuss her own death. It is
not clear to what extent she is aware of her own mortality.
Dutch
"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> >>> Yes, there is, based on observation of primates like Koko the gorilla
>> >>> who have been taught sign language,
>>
>> >> Does not demonstrate that anything "matters to her."
>>
>> > Of course things matter to Koko,
>>
>> They don't. She has no awareness that there is a world, that she will
>> some day no longer be in it.
>>
>
> She does understand the concept of death,
> and she is aware of various
> aspects of the world just as you and I are
going to elaborate but I shouldn't have to>
> and just as your son was
> when he was two years old.
philosopher or musician, the ape is permanently two years old.
> She has similar linguistic and cognitive
> abilities to your son at the age of two. It is extremely obvious that
> things matter to her, and that she is aware of the world. She also has
> some understanding of the concept of death, although she becomes
> fidgety and uncomfortable when asked to discuss her own death. It is
> not clear to what extent she is aware of her own mortality.
Rupert
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> >>> Yes, there is, based on observation of primates like Koko the gorilla
> >> >>> who have been taught sign language,
>
> >> >> Does not demonstrate that anything "matters to her."
>
> >> > Of course things matter to Koko,
>
> >> They don't. She has no awareness that there is a world, that she will
> >> some day no longer be in it.
>
> > She does understand the concept of death,
>
> On what do you base this?
>
> > and she is aware of various
> > aspects of the world just as you and I are
>
> No, not like that, human awareness is not like non-human awareness. <I was
> going to elaborate but I shouldn't have to>
>
I said it was a property we had in common, which is true. Also, her
awareness of the world is quite similar to what Ball's son's awareness
of the world was at the age of two.
> > and just as your son was
> > when he was two years old.
>
> His son possessed the capability to become a PhD in mathematics or a great
> philosopher or musician, the ape is permanently two years old.
>
Koko is learning the letters of the alphabet, she is not "permanently
two years old". She has less potential for cognitive development than
Ball's son, even if I am correct that Ball's son is retarded. So what?
> > She has similar linguistic and cognitive
> > abilities to your son at the age of two. It is extremely obvious that
> > things matter to her, and that she is aware of the world. She also has
> > some understanding of the concept of death, although she becomes
> > fidgety and uncomfortable when asked to discuss her own death. It is
> > not clear to what extent she is aware of her own mortality.
>
> All unsupported supposition.
Dutch
news:7ed79216-efd1-4c6f...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> >> >>> Yes, there is, based on observation of primates like Koko the
>> >> >>> gorilla
>> >> >>> who have been taught sign language,
>>
>> >> >> Does not demonstrate that anything "matters to her."
>>
>> >> > Of course things matter to Koko,
>>
>> >> They don't. She has no awareness that there is a world, that she will
>> >> some day no longer be in it.
>>
>> > She does understand the concept of death,
>>
>> On what do you base this?
>>
>
> She has discussions about it with her caregivers.
>> > and she is aware of various
>> > aspects of the world just as you and I are
>>
>> No, not like that, human awareness is not like non-human awareness. <I
>> was
>> going to elaborate but I shouldn't have to>
>>
>
> I didn't say that her awareness was similar to ours in every respect.
> I said it was a property we had in common, which is true.
> Also, her
> awareness of the world is quite similar to what Ball's son's awareness
> of the world was at the age of two.
argument.
>> > and just as your son was
>> > when he was two years old.
>>
>> His son possessed the capability to become a PhD in mathematics or a
>> great
>> philosopher or musician, the ape is permanently two years old.
>>
>
> I think Ball's son is retarded, isn't he?
>
> Koko is learning the letters of the alphabet, she is not "permanently
> two years old". She has less potential for cognitive development than
> Ball's son, even if I am correct that Ball's son is retarded. So what?
cognition, so we err on the safe side.
>> > She has similar linguistic and cognitive
>> > abilities to your son at the age of two. It is extremely obvious that
>> > things matter to her, and that she is aware of the world. She also has
>> > some understanding of the concept of death, although she becomes
>> > fidgety and uncomfortable when asked to discuss her own death. It is
>> > not clear to what extent she is aware of her own mortality.
>>
>> All unsupported supposition.
>
> No.
researchers. She mimics them.
Rupert
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:7ed79216-efd1-4c6f...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 8:06 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >> >> >>> Yes, there is, based on observation of primates like Koko the
> >> >> >>> gorilla
> >> >> >>> who have been taught sign language,
>
> >> >> >> Does not demonstrate that anything "matters to her."
>
> >> >> > Of course things matter to Koko,
>
> >> >> They don't. She has no awareness that there is a world, that she will
> >> >> some day no longer be in it.
>
> >> > She does understand the concept of death,
>
> >> On what do you base this?
>
> > She has discussions about it with her caregivers.
>
> They don't know what she is thinking, if anything.
>
> >> > and she is aware of various
> >> > aspects of the world just as you and I are
>
> >> No, not like that, human awareness is not like non-human awareness. <I
> >> was
> >> going to elaborate but I shouldn't have to>
>
> > I didn't say that her awareness was similar to ours in every respect.
> > I said it was a property we had in common, which is true.
>
> So what? Fruit flies are aware of various aspects of the world too.
>
rubbish. You may think it is a trivial point, if so take up the matter
with Ball who brought up the subject.
> > Also, her
> > awareness of the world is quite similar to what Ball's son's awareness
> > of the world was at the age of two.
>
> So you repeat the AMC again and again, but that doesn't make it a valid
> argument.
>
claim that Koko is not aware of the world then he should also claim
that his son was not aware of the world at the age of two.
>
>
> >> > and just as your son was
> >> > when he was two years old.
>
> >> His son possessed the capability to become a PhD in mathematics or a
> >> great
> >> philosopher or musician, the ape is permanently two years old.
>
> > I think Ball's son is retarded, isn't he?
>
> > Koko is learning the letters of the alphabet, she is not "permanently
> > two years old". She has less potential for cognitive development than
> > Ball's son, even if I am correct that Ball's son is retarded. So what?
>
> Cognitively impaired humans may still possess the capability of higher
> cognition, so we err on the safe side.
>
> >> > She has similar linguistic and cognitive
> >> > abilities to your son at the age of two. It is extremely obvious that
> >> > things matter to her, and that she is aware of the world. She also has
> >> > some understanding of the concept of death, although she becomes
> >> > fidgety and uncomfortable when asked to discuss her own death. It is
> >> > not clear to what extent she is aware of her own mortality.
>
> >> All unsupported supposition.
>
> > No.
>
> Yes, the interpretations of her trainers have been discredited by other
> researchers. She mimics them.