Animal emotions - II
Leif Erikson
an emotional state of "hopefulness", so they can't
experience "disappointment". If a mountain lion
doesn't catch the deer, it doesn't mope or do
*anything* that would indicate "disappointment". It
just starts hunting again.
If you tell your dog you're going to take it out for a
walk, and actually get the leash out and the dog gets
excited, but then you sit down and drink a beer and
watch the ballgame instead, the dog is not
"disappointed". It may appear a little confused,
because the usual outcome (of actually going for the
walk) did not follow the auditory signal "walk" or the
visual/auditory signal of "pick up leash", but it
doesn't feel "sad" or "disappointed". In a matter of
seconds, it has forgotten all about the walk. If
instead, a few minutes later, you engage the dog with
some other enjoyable behavior, the dog will participate
with exactly the same enthusiasm as it would have done
if this secondary activity had been the initial
stimulus instead of "walk".
Animals do not experience "disappointment". It is a
complex thought outside their mental world.
Whining, Crying, Bawl
Dave wrote:
"Odd that you're the only one who agrees with yourself."
Goo responds:
"No, not that odd, Fuckwit. It's all very reasonable,
and apparent to anyone who looks at intelligently. "
seabird
contrary. See:
Richard O'Barry, Behind the Dolphin Smile
Susan McCarthy and Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, When Elephants Weep: The
Emotional Lives of Animals
I don't believe that dogs are not disappointed..have you ever actually
lived with a dog?? ???
Leif Erikson
> And you can tell this...how? I think there is a lot of evidence to the
> contrary. See:
>
> Richard O'Barry, Behind the Dolphin Smile
> Susan McCarthy and Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, When Elephants Weep: The
> Emotional Lives of Animals
Steaming load of crap. Jeff M. Masson is a failed
psychiatrist and a professor of Sanskrit. He has no
expertise in animal emotions whatever. He's doing what
you're doing, albeit with a little more literary flair:
projecting your emotional values onto animals. His
theories are not empirically testable.
>
> I don't believe that dogs are not disappointed..have you ever actually
> lived with a dog?? ???
Yes. I've had lots of pets. I've observed that lots
of unsophisticated pet owners mistakenly believe their
animals have all sorts of capabilities the animals
don't really have.
shrubkiller
So Goo, you would like us to believe that you are a "sophisticated pet
owner"?
This doesn't sound very sophisticated:
.
Dave wrote:
"Odd that you're the only one who agrees with yourself."
Goo responds:
"No, not that odd, Fuckwit. It's all very reasonable,
and apparent to anyone who looks at intelligently. "
LOL!!
bill....@taylorandfrancis.com
Lotrs of unsophisticated people reading your original post probably
thought it meant something. The people who anthromorphosize dogs make
exactly the same error you do, even though you are on opposite sides of
the argument. They think they know things in an area where no one knows
much of anything. You might be right, you might be wrong and only a dog
could tell you. And he won't.
Will in New Haven
brian
>
> Yes. I've had lots of pets. I've observed that lots of unsophisticated
> pet owners mistakenly believe their animals have all sorts of capabilities
> the animals don't really have.
Bullshit!I've read lot's of BS about this topic.If dogs aren't aware why do
some bark at other dogs on the television?Mine does,many times he has raised
hell when he see's another dog on tv.When the scene changes and no more dog
on tv he stops barking at the tv.I do have a 62" tv so it makes it easier
for my dog to see the other dog,but none the less he is barking at another
dog as far as he's concerned.And I'll never believe that he's not!
Leif Erikson
> >
> > Yes. I've had lots of pets. I've observed that lots of unsophisticated
> > pet owners mistakenly believe their animals have all sorts of capabilities
> > the animals don't really have.
>
> Bullshit!I've read lot's of BS about this topic.If dogs aren't aware
Who said they're not "aware"? I didn't. I said they don't have a lot
of abilities that many people childishly want to attribute to them.
> why do
> some bark at other dogs on the television?Mine does,many times he has raised
> hell when he see's another dog on tv.When the scene changes and no more dog
> on tv he stops barking at the tv.I do have a 62" tv so it makes it easier
> for my dog to see the other dog,but none the less he is barking at another
> dog as far as he's concerned.And I'll never believe that he's not!
That he's not what? Not seeing the image of another dog? Why wouldn't
he be seeing it? What the hell is wrong with you, anyway?
bc...@canada.com
Leif Erikson wrote:
> brian wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes. I've had lots of pets. I've observed that lots of unsophisticated
> > > pet owners mistakenly believe their animals have all sorts of capabilities
> > > the animals don't really have.
> >
> > Bullshit!I've read lot's of BS about this topic.If dogs aren't aware
>
> Who said they're not "aware"? I didn't. I said they don't have a lot
> of abilities that many people childishly want to attribute to them.
They can anticipate and many people/animal partnerships have found they
can communicate needs/wishes/commands to each other.
>
>
> > why do
> > some bark at other dogs on the television?Mine does,many times he has raised
> > hell when he see's another dog on tv.When the scene changes and no more dog
> > on tv he stops barking at the tv.I do have a 62" tv so it makes it easier
> > for my dog to see the other dog,but none the less he is barking at another
> > dog as far as he's concerned.And I'll never believe that he's not!
>
> That he's not what? Not seeing the image of another dog? Why wouldn't
> he be seeing it? What the hell is wrong with you, anyway?
Not anywhere as much as is wrong with you Goober.
LOL!!
seabird
affection, boredom, and yes--disappointment. She has every bit as many
sides to her emotions as I have, I am quite sure. She can't read
Shakespeare or play the violin, it is true, but then I can't hunt for
mice or have kittens. :)
Whining, Crying, Bawl
Have you ever tried!!?
Don't say "can't" until you've tried,.....and when you fail,
try,try,try again.
;o)
Leif Erikson
> Well I've lived with a cat for six years. She feels pain,
That's not an emotion.
> anger, affection, boredom, and yes--disappointment.
No, not disappointment. Anger, affection and boredom
are primitive emotions that cats and other animals can
feel. Disappointment is a complex emotion that
requires mental abilities they simply don't have.
> She has every bit as many
> sides to her emotions as I have, I am quite sure.
No. This is where you are PROJECTING, also known as
anthropmorphization. You are trying to see human
qualities in your cat that the beast just doesn't have.
You really like your cat - in some misguided way, you
may even think you love her - but she doesn't
experience the bulk of what you attribute to her.
seabird
So you say, though just because you "say it" doesn't make it true.
However, even if animals experience *any* of the things we veg-heads
attribute to them, they should be protected from murder and painful
torture they go through to provide us with our greasy hamburgers, etc.
Jack Crenshaw
> seabird wrote:
>>...
>> I don't believe that dogs are not disappointed..have you ever actually
>> lived with a dog?? ???
>
>
> Yes. I've had lots of pets. I've observed that lots of unsophisticated
> pet owners mistakenly believe their animals have all sorts of
> capabilities the animals don't really have.
If pets have no emotions, why did you bother having them? Why not a
rubber tree instead? Surely you must have gotten _SOMETHING_ from the
arrangement. Otherwise your pet is merely a bother that must be fed,
then cleaned up after.
What reward did _YOU_ get from the arrangement?
Jack
Leif Erikson
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>> seabird wrote:
>
>
> >>...
>
>>> I don't believe that dogs are not disappointed..have you ever actually
>>> lived with a dog?? ???
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes. I've had lots of pets. I've observed that lots of
>> unsophisticated pet owners mistakenly believe their animals have all
>> sorts of capabilities the animals don't really have.
>
>
> If pets have no emotions, why did you bother having them?
I didn't say they have no emotions. Try to read with
better comprehension next time, please.
> Why not a
> rubber tree instead? Surely you must have gotten _SOMETHING_ from the
> arrangement. Otherwise your pet is merely a bother that must be fed,
> then cleaned up after.
>
> What reward did _YOU_ get from the arrangement?
Who cares what the reward for me is? Suffice it to say
there is one, or I wouldn't keep the pets.
Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
gentleman.
Whining, Crying, Bawl
Knowing Goober, it was probably sexual favors from the cat.
>
> Jack
Whining, Crying, Bawl
I KNEW it!! He *did* have sex with kitty.
Dave
Leif Erikson wrote:
> Animals do not feel "disappointment". They don't have
> an emotional state of "hopefulness", so they can't
> experience "disappointment". If a mountain lion
> doesn't catch the deer, it doesn't mope or do
> *anything* that would indicate "disappointment". It
> just starts hunting again.
>
> If you tell your dog you're going to take it out for a
> walk, and actually get the leash out and the dog gets
> excited, but then you sit down and drink a beer and
> watch the ballgame instead, the dog is not
> "disappointed". It may appear a little confused,
> because the usual outcome (of actually going for the
> walk) did not follow the auditory signal "walk" or the
> visual/auditory signal of "pick up leash", but it
> doesn't feel "sad" or "disappointed".
If the dog is confused by the fact that the usual outcome
does not follow the visual/auditory signal surely that
implies that the dog must have anticipated the former but
In previous posts in which you have presented your
mechanemorphistic bullshit you have asserted that
animals do not anticipate. Hmmm.
Leif Erikson
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>Animals do not feel "disappointment". They don't have
>>an emotional state of "hopefulness", so they can't
>>experience "disappointment". If a mountain lion
>>doesn't catch the deer, it doesn't mope or do
>>*anything* that would indicate "disappointment". It
>>just starts hunting again.
>>
>>If you tell your dog you're going to take it out for a
>>walk, and actually get the leash out and the dog gets
>>excited, but then you sit down and drink a beer and
>>watch the ballgame instead, the dog is not
>>"disappointed". It may appear a little confused,
>>because the usual outcome (of actually going for the
>>walk) did not follow the auditory signal "walk" or the
>>visual/auditory signal of "pick up leash", but it
>>doesn't feel "sad" or "disappointed".
>
>
> If the dog is confused by the fact that the usual outcome
> does not follow the visual/auditory signal surely that
> implies that the dog must have anticipated
He didn't anticipate. Dogs don't anticipate.
Finola
"Leif Erikson" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:aC99g.1878$Jf....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> He didn't anticipate. Dogs don't anticipate.
They most certainly do, my dog anticipates me coming home..that's been
proven
Anticipates getting his dinner
Anticipated going for a ride as he sees me getting dressed
Anticipates going outside with me when he sees me filling my hummer feeders
Sees me going into the drawer where the nail clippers are he anticipates
getting his nails clipped and takes off.
Anticipates many things.
an·tic·i·pate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-ts-pt)
v. an·tic·i·pat·ed, an·tic·i·pat·ing, an·tic·i·pates
v. tr.
1.. To feel or realize beforehand; foresee: hadn't anticipated the crowds
at the zoo.
2.. To look forward to, especially with pleasure; expect: anticipated a
pleasant hike in the country.
3.. To deal with beforehand; act so as to mitigate, nullify, or prevent:
anticipated the storm by boarding up the windows. See Synonyms at expect.
4.. To cause to happen in advance; accelerate.
5.. To use in advance, as income not yet available.
6.. To pay (a debt) before it is due.
Fred Williams
That's exactly right Finola. But the original posting is really just a
toll trying to cause problems. It's best not to feed them.
--
Fred.
Jack Crenshaw
> Jack Crenshaw wrote:
>
>> Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>>> seabird wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >>...
>>
>>>> I don't believe that dogs are not disappointed..have you ever actually
>>>> lived with a dog?? ???
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. I've had lots of pets. I've observed that lots of
>>> unsophisticated pet owners mistakenly believe their animals have all
>>> sorts of capabilities the animals don't really have.
>>
>>
>>
>> If pets have no emotions, why did you bother having them?
>
>
> I didn't say they have no emotions. Try to read with better
> comprehension next time, please.
Wow. Brilliance and civility in the same package. What a guy.
Jack
Jack Crenshaw
Yep, that's what I was thinking, too. Great minds ...
Jack
dh
>seabird wrote:
>
>> I don't believe that dogs are not disappointed..have you ever actually
>> lived with a dog?? ???
>
>Yes. I've had lots of pets. I've observed that lots
>of unsophisticated pet owners mistakenly believe their
>animals have all sorts of capabilities the animals
>don't really have.
That's a more popular but somewhat less moronic brand
of idiocy than you're displaying Goober. But you fall for that
one yourself too Goo...let's not forget how you hug all over
Henry "ar" Salt's talking pig...
dh
>
>Leif Erikson wrote:
>> seabird wrote:
>> > And you can tell this...how? I think there is a lot of evidence to the
>> > contrary. See:
>> >
>> > Richard O'Barry, Behind the Dolphin Smile
>> > Susan McCarthy and Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, When Elephants Weep: The
>> > Emotional Lives of Animals
>>
>> Steaming load of crap. Jeff M. Masson is a failed
>> psychiatrist and a professor of Sanskrit. He has no
>> expertise in animal emotions whatever. He's doing what
>> you're doing, albeit with a little more literary flair:
>> projecting your emotional values onto animals. His
>> theories are not empirically testable.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I don't believe that dogs are not disappointed..have you ever actually
>> > lived with a dog?? ???
>>
>> Yes. I've had lots of pets. I've observed that lots
>> of unsophisticated pet owners mistakenly believe their
>> animals have all sorts of capabilities the animals
>> don't really have.
>
>Lotrs of unsophisticated people reading your original post probably
>thought it meant something.
Some people just aren't familiar with Goobernicus yet. But after a
while when you recognise a post from one of the many characters
that Goo pretends to be, you instantly begin to wonder what sort
of absurdity, dishonesty, inconsideration, ineptitude, etc... you're
about to read this time....
>The people who anthromorphosize dogs make
>exactly the same error you do, even though you are on opposite sides of
>the argument.
Yes but Goo's is the more stupid because he has nothing but
pathetic maundering to "support" his absurd claims. We can let
Goo show that for himself, simply by inviting him to prove it false.
When he fails to, we will have another example of his ineptitude
in the area of understanding even his own absurd ideas. Here
is his invitation:
Goo, if disappointment was not the cause of this dog's change
in behavior, which gives the clear appearance of being caused
by disappointment:
_________________________________________________________
I formerly possessed a large dog, who, like every other dog, was much pleased
to go out walking. He showed his pleasure by trotting gravely before me with
high steps, head much raised, moderately erected ears, and tail carried aloft but
not stiffly. Not far from my house a path branches off to the right, leading to the
hot-house, which I used often to visit for a few moments, to look at my
experimental plants. This was always a great disappointment to the dog, as he
did not know whether I should continue my walk; and the instantaneous and
complete change of expression which came over him as soon as my body
swerved in the least towards the path (and I sometimes tried this as an
experiment) was laughable. His look of dejection was known to every member
of the family, and was called his hot-house face. This consisted in the head
drooping much, the whole body sinking a little and remaining motionless; the
ears and tail falling suddenly down, but the tail was by no means wagged. With
the falling of the ears and of his great chaps, the eyes became much changed
in appearance, and I fancied that they looked less bright. His aspect was that
of piteous, hopeless dejection; and it was, as I have said, laughable, as the
cause was so slight.
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/expression/expression02.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
then what do you think was the cause? Goo??? Don't just maunder
some pitiful lameness about it "not" being disappointment, but just
say WHAT you think was the real cause IF you're not too inept to
be able to do so.
(note: he is)
dh
This is pretty hilarious. It appears that our poor Goober
is feeling lonely, and he's desperately hoping to come across
someone else as stupid as he is. No luck yet...
dh
>Animals do not feel "disappointment". They don't have
>an emotional state of "hopefulness", so they can't
>experience "disappointment". If a mountain lion
>doesn't catch the deer, it doesn't mope or do
>*anything* that would indicate "disappointment".
How could you know, Goo?
>It just starts hunting again.
>
>If you tell your dog you're going to take it out for a
>walk, and actually get the leash out and the dog gets
>excited, but then you sit down and drink a beer and
>watch the ballgame instead, the dog is not
>"disappointed". It may appear a little confused,
>because the usual outcome (of actually going for the
>walk) did not follow the auditory signal "walk" or the
>visual/auditory signal of "pick up leash",
How could that confuse it Goober?
>but it doesn't feel "sad" or "disappointed".
What prevents it from feeling that too, Goo?
Leif Erikson
> "Leif Erikson" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
> news:aC99g.1878$Jf....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>>He didn't anticipate. Dogs don't anticipate.
>
>
> They most certainly do, my dog anticipates me coming home..that's been
> proven
> Anticipates getting his dinner
> Anticipated going for a ride as he sees me getting dressed
> Anticipates going outside with me when he sees me filling my hummer feeders
> Sees me going into the drawer where the nail clippers are he anticipates
> getting his nails clipped and takes off.
All of these are merely stimulus/response. They aren't
anticipation. You can anticipate the next occurrence
of Christmas, or payday, or some other event that
doesn't require a signal from someone else in order for
you to think about it. Your dog can't do that, nor can
any other non-human animal.
Leif Erikson
You understood me as having said something I didn't
say. I can only assume you didn't comprehend what I wrote.
Leif Erikson
> On Thu, 11 May 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>seabird wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't believe that dogs are not disappointed..have you ever actually
>>>lived with a dog?? ???
>>
>>Yes. I've had lots of pets. I've observed that lots
>>of unsophisticated pet owners mistakenly believe their
>>animals have all sorts of capabilities the animals
>>don't really have.
>
>
> That's a more popular but somewhat less moronic brand
> of idiocy than you're displaying Leif.
Attributing human characteristics to animals is pure
idiocy, Fuckwit.
> But you fall for that
> one yourself too Leif
No, not at all.
> ...let's not forget how you hug all over
> Henry "ar" Salt's talking pig...
No such thing. Salt has written an essay that contains
a short allegory. There is no talking pig.
Leif Erikson
with pigs, lied:
> On Wed, 10 May 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>It just starts hunting again.
>>
>>If you tell your dog you're going to take it out for a
>>walk, and actually get the leash out and the dog gets
>>excited, but then you sit down and drink a beer and
>>watch the ballgame instead, the dog is not
>>"disappointed". It may appear a little confused,
>>because the usual outcome (of actually going for the
>>walk) did not follow the auditory signal "walk" or the
>>visual/auditory signal of "pick up leash",
>>but it doesn't feel "sad" or "disappointed".
>
>
> What prevents it from feeling that too, Leif?
Lack of ability.
TaraG
That is not only a mischaracterization of the animals response, its also a
serious mischaracterization of our own anticipatory responses. We rely on
stimuli as well.
T
shrubkiller
It's obvious Goo that *you* can't even comprehend what you wrote.
As evidence I present:
Finola
Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word, which is why I
copied the definition of the word for you.
See I anticipated that you would have an ignorant response.
I think my dog is actually smarter than you are.
Leif Erikson
> "Leif Erikson" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
> news:ZTn9g.3978$u4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Finola wrote:
>>
>>>"Leif Erikson" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
>>>news:aC99g.1878$Jf....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>He didn't anticipate. Dogs don't anticipate.
>>>
>>>
>>>They most certainly do, my dog anticipates me coming home..that's been
>>>proven
>>>Anticipates getting his dinner
>>>Anticipated going for a ride as he sees me getting dressed
>>>Anticipates going outside with me when he sees me filling my hummer
>>>feeders
>>>Sees me going into the drawer where the nail clippers are he anticipates
>>>getting his nails clipped and takes off.
>>
>>All of these are merely stimulus/response. They aren't anticipation. You
>>can anticipate the next occurrence of Christmas, or payday, or some other
>>event that doesn't require a signal from someone else in order for you to
>>think about it. Your dog can't do that, nor can any other non-human
>>animal.
>
>
> Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word,
I do.
> See I anticipated that you would have an ignorant response.
Actually, although you didn't anticipate anything of
the kind, the example is useful, because an intelligent
human who is familiar with the issue of animal
mental/emotional capabilities might well anticipate a
particular response, even without a signal. You, of
course, didn't; you're merely saying you did in order
to try to appear smarter than you really are.
> I think my dog is actually smarter than you are.
No, you don't think that. Your dog evidently can do
some things that neither I nor any other human can do,
but that doesn't make him smarter, and you don't think
he is; you were just going for a cheap, sophomoric insult.
Glorfindel
...
>>>"Leif Erikson" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
>>>news:aC99g.1878$Jf....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>>>He didn't anticipate. Dogs don't anticipate.
>>>They most certainly do, my dog anticipates me coming home..that's been
>>>proven
...
>>All of these are merely stimulus/response. They aren't anticipation. You
>>can anticipate the next occurrence of Christmas, or payday, or some other
>>event that doesn't require a signal from someone else in order for you to
>>think about it. Your dog can't do that, nor can any other non-human
>>animal.
> That is not only a mischaracterization of the animals response, its also a
> serious mischaracterization of our own anticipatory responses. We rely on
> stimuli as well.
Also, animals in general, and dogs in particular, will respond before
any specific stimuli have been provided, if there is a routine in
their life. For example, my own dog knows that we generally go to bed
around a certain time. Even if we have something which keeps us from
giving the usual going-to-bed signals, like drawing the bath water,
the dog will go into the bedroom and lie down in his usual place at
the right time. The humans may still be doing not-going-to-bed things
like reading, working on the computer, or watching TV, but the dog
clearly anticipates that they *ought* to be going to bed around this
time.
Recent studies which show that some animals can practice deceptive
behaviors to fool conspecifics also show that the animals can
anticipate that if they provide certain stimuli, their fellows
will probably respond in a certain way. So they learn to provide
false stimuli. This must demonstrate a very complex and
sophisticated form of anticipation. They not only can anticipate that
"If I do *this* the other animal will do *that*" but "if I do *this*
the other animal will respond in *this* way, so I will fool him/her
by providing stimuli which will make him do something else instead."
It's a double layer of anticipation, and cannot be instinctive.
It's not like a bird pretending to have a broken wing, but is based on
behaviors in a social group learned by observation.
Leif Erikson
sister, blabbered:
> TaraG wrote:
>
>> "Leif Erikson" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
>> news:ZTn9g.3978$u4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
> ...
>
>>>> "Leif Erikson" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:aC99g.1878$Jf....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>
>>>>> He didn't anticipate. Dogs don't anticipate.
>
>
>>>> They most certainly do, my dog anticipates me coming home..that's been
>>>> proven
>
>
> ...
>
>>> All of these are merely stimulus/response. They aren't
>>> anticipation. You can anticipate the next occurrence of Christmas,
>>> or payday, or some other event that doesn't require a signal from
>>> someone else in order for you to think about it. Your dog can't do
>>> that, nor can any other non-human animal.
>
>
>> That is not only a mischaracterization of the animals response, its
>> also a serious mischaracterization of our own anticipatory responses.
>> We rely on stimuli as well.
>
>
> Also, animals in general, and dogs in particular, will respond before
> any specific stimuli have been provided, if there is a routine in
> their life. For example, my own dog knows that we generally go to bed
> around a certain time. Even if we have something which keeps us from
> giving the usual going-to-bed signals, like drawing the bath water,
There are numerous others.
> the dog will go into the bedroom and lie down in his usual place at
> the right time. The humans may still be doing not-going-to-bed things
> like reading, working on the computer, or watching TV, but the dog
> clearly anticipates that they *ought* to be going to bed around this
> time.
No. The dog has a set of Circadian rhythms, too.
There is no "anticipation"; the dog just realizes it's
sleep time.
> Recent studies which show that some animals can practice deceptive
> behaviors to fool conspecifics also show that the animals can
> anticipate that if they provide certain stimuli, their fellows
> will probably respond in a certain way.
This is not "anticipation".
> So they learn to provide
> false stimuli. This must demonstrate a very complex and
> sophisticated form of anticipation. They not only can anticipate that
> "If I do *this* the other animal will do *that*" but "if I do *this*
> the other animal will respond in *this* way, so I will fool him/her
> by providing stimuli which will make him do something else instead."
> It's a double layer of anticipation, and cannot be instinctive.
You're not qualified to say. You have no expertise.
Anyway, these studies are not conclusive. They are not
considered definitive among ethologists.
Glorfindel
> Glorfindel wrote:
...
>> the dog will go into the bedroom and lie down in his usual place at
>> the right time. The humans may still be doing not-going-to-bed things
>> like reading, working on the computer, or watching TV, but the dog
>> clearly anticipates that they *ought* to be going to bed around this
>> time.
> No. The dog has a set of Circadian rhythms, too. There is no
> "anticipation"; the dog just realizes it's sleep time.
The interesting thing is that it is the only time the dog goes
into the bedroom to sleep. The rest of the day, he sleeps on
the couch, in the office, on his rug on the patio, but never in
the bedroom. He anticipates that the humans will follow a
routine.
>> Recent studies which show that some animals can practice deceptive
>> behaviors to fool conspecifics also show that the animals can
>> anticipate that if they provide certain stimuli, their fellows
>> will probably respond in a certain way.
> This is not "anticipation".
How are you defining the word?
>> So they learn to provide
>> false stimuli. This must demonstrate a very complex and
>> sophisticated form of anticipation. They not only can anticipate that
>> "If I do *this* the other animal will do *that*" but "if I do *this*
>> the other animal will respond in *this* way, so I will fool him/her
>> by providing stimuli which will make him do something else instead."
>> It's a double layer of anticipation, and cannot be instinctive.
> You're not qualified to say. You have no expertise.
You have no more than I, and probably less.
> Anyway, these studies are not conclusive. They are not considered
> definitive among ethologists.
Very little is considered definitive among ethologists.
This appears to be the best information we lay people have now.
Eden
sister, blabbered:
>
>> Glorfindel wrote:
No - KAREN WINTER, sappily sentimental animal-loving
sob sister, blabbered:
>
>
> ...
>
>>> the dog will go into the bedroom and lie down in his usual place at
>>> the right time. The humans may still be doing not-going-to-bed things
>>> like reading, working on the computer, or watching TV, but the dog
>>> clearly anticipates that they *ought* to be going to bed around this
>>> time.
>
>
>> No. The dog has a set of Circadian rhythms, too. There is no
>> "anticipation"; the dog just realizes it's sleep time.
>
>
> The interesting thing is that it is the only time the dog goes
> into the bedroom to sleep. The rest of the day, he sleeps on
> the couch, in the office, on his rug on the patio, but never in
> the bedroom. He anticipates that the humans will follow a
> routine.
>
>>> Recent studies which show that some animals can practice deceptive
>>> behaviors to fool conspecifics also show that the animals can
>>> anticipate that if they provide certain stimuli, their fellows
>>> will probably respond in a certain way.
>
>
>> This is not "anticipation".
>
>
> How are you defining the word?
The conscious state that an entity expects something to
occur in an indefinite future, with or without - but
mostly without - some triggering signal. When a
child's father says he will take the child some place
"next weekend", this conveys symbolic information that
animals cannot grasp. If the child is old enough to
understand "next weekend", the child anticipates the
event between the statement and the weekend, without
any additional signals. No animal can do that.
>>> So they learn to provide
>>> false stimuli. This must demonstrate a very complex and
>>> sophisticated form of anticipation. They not only can anticipate that
>>> "If I do *this* the other animal will do *that*" but "if I do *this*
>>> the other animal will respond in *this* way, so I will fool him/her
>>> by providing stimuli which will make him do something else instead."
>>> It's a double layer of anticipation, and cannot be instinctive.
>
>
>> You're not qualified to say. You have no expertise.
>
>
> You have no more than I,
You have NONE, but you are pretending to speak
authoritatively. You have read some stuff you like;
that's all.
>> Anyway, these studies are not conclusive. They are not considered
>> definitive among ethologists.
>
>
> Very little is considered definitive among ethologists.
>
> This appears to be the best information we lay people have now.
No. It appears to be the information you like. You
have a warped, anthropocentric view of animals that
leads you to see things that aren't so.
Glorfindel
....
>>> This is not "anticipation".
>> How are you defining the word?
> The conscious state that an entity expects something to occur in an
> indefinite future, with or without - but mostly without - some
> triggering signal.
That certainly appears to be true of many species of animals,
especially social species.
It's interesting to watch animals turn signals around and
try to train their guardians, in a way which shows they
understand an if/then correlation in the future. For
example, a dog who has learned that "Sit" will gain a
treat, may also use "sit" to influence the guardian to
do something else. It becomes a form of "please" or "I
want this" even if no treat is anywhere in sight, and the
thing the dog wants has nothing to do with food -- for
example, to be let out on the patio to bark at a passing cat.
I see that as a simple form of symbolic communication.
> When a child's father says he will take the child
> some place "next weekend", this conveys symbolic information that
> animals cannot grasp.
That says that the only possible signal is verbal. That
is much too limited a definition of information.
....
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions you illiterate toad, it was
allegorical. The blindfolded statue holding scales is an allegory of
justice, it doesn't mean that statues can tell right from wrong.
http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf
Ron
Goo, the statement wasn't that the dog was smarter than ALL humans only
that the dog was smarter than YOU.
I doubt anyone would disagree with that.
Jack Crenshaw
Who could? It is gibberish.
Jack
testi...@testus.dot
>dh pointed out:
>
>> ...let's not forget how you hug all over
>> Henry "ar" Salt's talking pig fantasy
>
>No such thing. Salt has written an essay
In order for the fantasy to be any more than a children's story
type of fantasy, it would be required that (in order of appearance):
1. pigs are capable of replying to humans
2. pigs are aware of revered moralists
3. pigs understand the concept of pleading
4. pigs contemplate time
5. pigs contemplate their own existence
6. pigs contemplate the future
7. pigs understand their bodies will be butchered
and prepared in specific ways
8. pigs understand and are capable of disputing
verbally with humans
9. pigs consider that they may be unworthy to dispute
with "a master of ethics"
10. pigs consider themselves to have an inferior intellect
11. pigs know humans deliberately raise them
12. pigs are aware of death
13. pigs know they can be killed
14. pigs know humans deliberately kill them
15. pigs know humans eat their dead bodies
16. pigs consider what motivates human thinking
17. pigs are aware of moral reasoning
18. pigs believe recognition of the fact that they only exist because
humans raise them, can only be done in an attempt "to find a
moral reason" for devouring them
19. pigs consider how they come into existence
20. pigs accurately understand what humans do and do not consider
21. pigs contemplate their own fate
22. pigs would rather they had never been born
23. pigs know humans eat meat
24. pigs know they are "pork"
25. pigs have a "so be it" attitude about humans killing them for food
26. pigs are able to understand human speach
27. pigs believe recognition of the fact that they only exist because
humans raise them, is in some way "sophistry"
28. pigs understand the situation they are in
29. pigs understand how the situation they are in relates to humans
30. pigs are aware of filth
31. pigs feel they are forced to live in filth
32. pigs contemplate the fact that humans feed them
33. pigs feel that what and or how they are fed is filthy
34. pigs contemplate what will happen to their bodies after their death
testi...@testus.dot
>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Thu, 11 May 2006 Goo wrote:
>>>pet owners mistakenly believe their
>>>animals have all sorts of capabilities the animals
>>>don't really have.
>>
>> That's a more popular but somewhat less moronic brand
>> of idiocy than you're displaying Goober. But you fall for that
>> one yourself too Goo...let's not forget how you hug all over
>> Henry "ar" Salt's talking pig...
>
>Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions
It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans. Duh!
It didn't work with me.
Leif Erikson
> On Sat, 13 May 2006, Leif Erikson blasted Fuckwit's childish tendency to anthropomorphize:
>
> >Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker, lied:
> >
> >> ...let's not forget how you hug all over
> >> Henry "ar" Salt's talking pig fantasy
> >
> >No such thing. Salt has written an essay
>
> In order for the fantasy
No fantasy. Salt did not write any fantasy, as literate people - but
not ignorant fuckwitted crackers - can immediately see. Salt wrote an
essay, and in the essay he used the allegorical style. Literate people
know that. Ignorant fuckwitted possum-eating crackers don't know it.
I hope that helps.
Leif Erikson
No, it isn't, and you don't even think it is; you just went for a cheap
insult right now. If you thought it was gibberish, you would have said
so in the first place, rather than trying - stupidly - to reply to
something you didn't understand.
The fact is, it makes complete sense, but only to someone who reads
carefully before running his mouth - something you don't have the self
restraint to do.
Thanks for playing.
Leif Erikson
blabbered:
> Eden wrote:
>
> ....
>
> >>> This is not "anticipation".
>
> >> How are you defining the word?
>
> > The conscious state that an entity expects something to occur in an
> > indefinite future, with or without - but mostly without - some
> > triggering signal.
>
> That certainly appears to be true of many species of animals,
> especially social species.
No.
>
> > When a child's father says he will take the child
> > some place "next weekend", this conveys symbolic information that
> > animals cannot grasp.
>
> That says that the only possible signal is verbal.
Symbolic times and places, as opposed to mere signals, *require*
language to be communicated. That's why animals can't engage in it.
"Ancient Rome", "next Christmas", "the Roaring 20s" - these are all
symbolic times and places that no animals can ever grasp; nor is there
any evidence, at all, to indicate some analogous symbolic times/places
in their world. You, being a sappy sentimentalist about aniamls,
probably choose to believe they have such symbolic times and places,
but there's no evidence for it - you're engaging in wish projection.
"The cats of Rome know nothing of the mice of Athens." - Geza Szamosi
"No dog knows there have been dogs before him, and
will be dogs after him." Kenneth Boulding
> That is much too limited a definition of information.
You mean, Karen, that it's too inconvenient for your childish
fairy-tale beliefs about animals. "glorfindel" comes to make a lot of
sense about now. You live in fantasy worlds.
shrubkiller
Like you did Goo?
Dave wrote:
"Odd that you're the only one who agrees with yourself."
Goo responds:
"No, not that odd, Fuckwit. It's all very reasonable,
and apparent to anyone who looks at intelligently. "
LOL!!
Stupid little gibberish spouting dwarf.
Leif Erikson
Yes - he wrote "Odd, that"
> Leif responds:
>
> "No, not that odd, Fuckwit.
Correct.
That burning cigar is coming for your forehead, ronnnnnnnnie. It's
going to hurt when I crush it out right below your hairline. You'd
better run, ronnnnnnnnnie.
Jack Crenshaw
Ok, leaf. I bow to the unbearable brilliance of your intellect, and the
incomparable logic of your prose.
Jack
Glorfindel
...
>>>The conscious state that an entity expects something to occur in an
>>>indefinite future, with or without - but mostly without - some
>>>triggering signal.
>>That certainly appears to be true of many species of animals,
>>especially social species.
> No.
That is hardly an argument.
...
>>> When a child's father says he will take the child
>>>some place "next weekend", this conveys symbolic information that
>>>animals cannot grasp.
>>That says that the only possible signal is verbal.
> Symbolic times and places, as opposed to mere signals, *require*
> language to be communicated. That's why animals can't engage in it.
> "Ancient Rome", "next Christmas", "the Roaring 20s" - these are all
> symbolic times and places that no animals can ever grasp;
Obviously. No one suggests they could.
> nor is there
> any evidence, at all, to indicate some analogous symbolic times/places
> in their world.
You are correct in that -- but that is not the kind of communication
we are talking about at all, and I'm sure you realize that. To say that
an animal cannot understand "ancient Rome" does not mean that an animal
cannot anticipate that something will happen in the future because it
has happened in the past, or that an animal cannot communicate by
applying a behavior which he understands in one context to another
different but similar context. To carry out the behavior which resulted
in a treat in one context to a situation where something totally
unrelated is desired by the dog requires a limited form of abstraction.
....
> "No dog knows there have been dogs before him, and
> will be dogs after him." Kenneth Boulding
However, we do know that some species of animals have learned
cultures which are passed on from one generation of a particular
population to another. Animals are capable of making original
discoveries and teaching them to other animals in their group,
passing them on to future generations.
....
Leif Erikson
Trite, jacko - trite.
Leif Erikson
anthropomorphizer, stupidly blabbered:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>> Karen Winter, sappily sentimental animal anthropomorphizer, stupidly blabbered:
>
>>>> The conscious state that an entity expects something to occur in an
>>>> indefinite future, with or without - but mostly without - some
>>>> triggering signal.
>
>
>>> That certainly appears to be true of many species of animals,
>>> especially social species.
>
>
>> No.
>
>
> That is hardly an argument.
Given yours, mine is just fine.
>>>> When a child's father says he will take the child
>>>> some place "next weekend", this conveys symbolic information that
>>>> animals cannot grasp.
>
>
>>> That says that the only possible signal is verbal.
>
>
>> Symbolic times and places, as opposed to mere signals, *require*
>> language to be communicated. That's why animals can't engage in it.
>
>
>> "Ancient Rome", "next Christmas", "the Roaring 20s" - these are all
>> symbolic times and places that no animals can ever grasp;
>
>
> Obviously. No one suggests they could.
Anticipation is about symbolic communication. It's
clearly much more than mere cause and effect.
Go back, you stupid argumentative ignorant pig-headed
twat, to my example of the child promised a trip out
for ice cream, perhaps "tomorrow" or "next weekend".
No animal can comprehend those times, or the nature of
a treat *experience* (as opposed to the simple
Pavlovian nature of an immediate food treat.) The
child anticipates the complete experience of the ice
cream excursion following a considerable time interval.
THAT is anticipation. The dog doesn't do that, or
anything remotely like it.
You're being your usual pig-headed idiotic self, Karen.
You're trying to imagine an equality, or at the least
a close similarity, between two experiences that are
qualitatively SO far apart as to be utterly different -
absolutely incomparable. Just concede.
>> nor is there
>> any evidence, at all, to indicate some analogous symbolic times/places
>> in their world.
>
>
> You are correct in that -- but that is not the kind of communication
> we are talking about at all,
It is exactly what we're talking about.
Dutch
That was not the point of it at all, that idea does not appear in the essay
or is it ever implied. When the pig says "If, then, thou art firm set on
pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou hast not spared my life, at
least spare me thy sophistry" it is the author speaking by means of a
literary device, and he is saying, 'If you feel you have the right to kill
and eat a pig, then there's nothing I can say that will change your mind,
but in the name of human decency don't try to claim that you're doing the
pig a favor.'
Leif Erikson
cracker, lied:
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:21:27 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 May 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>>>pet owners mistakenly believe their
>>>>animals have all sorts of capabilities the animals
>>>>don't really have.
>>>
>>> That's a more popular but somewhat less moronic brand
>>>of idiocy than you're displaying Goober. But you fall for that
>>>one yourself too Goo...let's not forget how you hug all over
>>>Henry "ar" Salt's talking pig...
>>
>>Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions
>
>
> It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
> suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans.
No, it absolutely was not that, Fuckwit, and you know
it. We have explained in simple language that even a
dropout like you can understand what Salt's essay is
about. It is ONLY about the invalidity and logical
absurdity of the belief that causing animals to "get to
experience life" somehow offsets any moral harm that is
done in killing them. That is what it is about,
Fuckwit, and you know it, because Dutch and I have
patiently explained it to you. Stop lying.
Glorfindel
Anticipation is
...
>>>>> The conscious state that an entity expects something to occur in an
>>>>> indefinite future, with or without - but mostly without - some
>>>>> triggering signal.
....
> Anticipation is about symbolic communication.
.....
That's not the definition you gave earlier, nor do I think it
applies in many cases with humans anticipating something.
Why should anticipation require *symbolic* communication?
Anticipation requires the ability to extrapolate from a past
event to a probable future event. You've agreed a signal
of some kind may be involved, but need not be. One example
would be where a dog has learned that his guardian usually
comes home at a certain time each day. Many dogs will start
expecting the person at about the same time each day, even
if no direct signal (such as the sound of the car engine)
is given. I think you could say the same of a pack of
wolves who respond to signals, such as physical movements
and sounds, with the anticipation that a hunt will take place.
...
Leif Erikson
anthropomorphizer, stupidly blabbered:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>> Karen Winter, sappily sentimental animal anthropomorphizer, stupidly blabbered:
>>
>>> Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Karen Winter, sappily sentimental animal anthropomorphizer, stupidly blabbered:
>
>
>>>>>> The conscious state that an entity expects something to occur in an
>>>>>> indefinite future, with or without - but mostly without - some
>>>>>> triggering signal.
>
>
> ....
>
>> Anticipation is about symbolic communication.
>
>
> .....
>
> That's not the definition you gave earlier,
It's implied.
> Anticipation requires the ability to extrapolate from a past
> event to a probable future event.
NO. It does *not* require any past event. This is why
animals CANNOT anticipate in the way we're talking
about. They *do* need the past event, and that's why
it's mere signal-response. Humans don't need it - they
can fill in the gaps.
> You've agreed a signal
> of some kind may be involved, but need not be.
You just said it must be, when you said it requires
some past event. What you wrongly are calling
"anticipation" requires a repetition of that past
event. Humans don't need that.
shrubkiller
So if I wiped my bum in your presence would you anticipate that you
were about to be fed Goober?
F***! You're stupid!
Glorfindel
...
>>>>>>> The conscious state that an entity expects something to occur in an
>>>>>>> indefinite future, with or without - but mostly without - some
>>>>>>> triggering signal.
....
>>> Anticipation is about symbolic communication.
.....
>> That's not the definition you gave earlier,
> It's implied.
No, it is not. You cannot claim something is "implied" in a definition
if you do not state it specifically.
...
>> Anticipation requires the ability to extrapolate from a past
>> event to a probable future event.
> NO. It does *not* require any past event.
....
Certainly it does. In the case of your own example, you would need
a past event to connect the words "ice cream" with the physical
object, ice cream. I could say, "I'm taking you out for some
feeblefetzer," but there would be no anticipation involved if
you did not know what feeblefetzer was, or if I said the sentence in
a language you did not know. Similarly, without a past event as a
referent, anyone, human or animal, would not know how to respond
to a signal, verbal or non-verbal -- the signal would simply
be meaningless.
Leif Erikson
blabbered:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>> Karen Winter, sappily sentimental animal anthropomorphizer, stupidly blabbered:
>>>
>>> Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Karen Winter, sappily sentimental animal anthropomorphizer, stupidly blabbered:
>>>>>
>>>>> Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Karen Winter, sappily sentimental animal anthropomorphizer, stupidly blabbered:
>
> >>>>>>> indefinite future, with or without - but mostly without - some
> >>>>>>> triggering signal.
>
> ....
>
> >>> Anticipation is about symbolic communication.
>
> .....
>
> >> That's not the definition you gave earlier,
>
> > It's implied.
>
> No, it is not.
Yes, it is.
> You cannot claim something is "implied" in a definition
> if you do not state it specifically.
Don't be a bigger fucking moron than you already present yourself to
be, Karen. OF COURSE something can be implied in a definition.
> >> Anticipation requires the ability to extrapolate from a past
> >> event to a probable future event.
>
> > NO. It does *not* require any past event.
>
> ....
>
> Certainly it does.
No, it does not.
The anticipation is of an event, "going out for ice cream on Saturday",
that need never have happened before.
Glorfindel
...
> The anticipation is of an event, "going out for ice cream on Saturday",
> that need never have happened before.
The event need not have happened, but some past event is necessary
to provide a referent for ice cream. Without a past event as
referent, the signal is meaningless and anticipation cannot occur,
because there is no meaningful thing to anticipate.
This is what I was talking about with a dog using the "treat"
signal for some other desired result. The "going out to bark
at the cat" or "cross the road to see other dog" may never have
happened, but the dog sits, by analogy that sitting brought about
X and may bring about Y, which is also desired.
Leif Erikson
blabbered:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>> Karen Winter, sappily sentimental animal anthropomorphizer, stupidly
>> blabbered:
>>> Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Karen Winter, sappily sentimental animal anthropomorphizer, stupidly blabbered:
> >>>>
> >>>> Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Karen Winter, sappily sentimental animal anthropomorphizer, stupidly blabbered:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Karen Winter, sappily sentimental animal anthropomorphizer, stupidly blabbered:
>
> ...
>
> > The anticipation is of an event, "going out for ice cream on Saturday",
> > that need never have happened before.
>
>
> The event need not have happened,
For a dog, or any other non-human animal, the exact event MUST have
happened in order for the animal to "anticipate" it. For humans, that
isn't so.
Concede, Karen. It's over.
Glorfindel
....
>>>The anticipation is of an event, "going out for ice cream on Saturday",
>>>that need never have happened before.
>>The event need not have happened,
> For a dog, or any other non-human animal, the exact event MUST have
> happened in order for the animal to "anticipate" it. For humans, that
> isn't so.
No, I don't agree, for the reasons I have given.
Even if it were so, that would not prove that animals do not
anticipate, which was your original claim. You are now
moving the goal posts.
> Concede. It's over.
You are far too eager to claim to have made your point without
any evidence. Simply stating you have done so does not make
it so.
Ron
*That* is Goober's modus operendi..............then he runs away for a
while.
William Robb
"Glorfindel" <
> wrote in message
>
> Even if it were so, that would not prove that animals do not
> anticipate, which was your original claim. You are now
> moving the goal posts.
At the moment, my dogs are anticipating the arrival home of my wife, and the
nice things that happen when she gets home, such as supper.
I can tell this by the noises emanating from near the back door.
Anyone who claims dogs don't anticipate things has never owned a live dog.
--
William Robb
Dwayne Johnson
follow the visual/auditory signal surely that implies that the dog must
have anticipated the former but In previous posts in which you have
presented your mechanemorphistic bullshit you have asserted that animals
do not anticipate. Hmmm.*
**********************************************************************************************
this poster doesn't watch many animal shows...
shrubkiller
Goo is an idiot who can't anticipate anything himself therefore he
transfers that inability to all living things.
dh
>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing
>cracker, lied:
>
>> On Sun, 14 May 2006, Gooboy "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 11 May 2006 a stupid Goober wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>pet owners mistakenly believe their
>>>>>animals have all sorts of capabilities the animals
>>>>>don't really have.
>>>>
>>>> That's a more popular but somewhat less moronic brand
>>>>of idiocy than you're displaying Goober. But you fall for that
>>>>one yourself too Goo...let's not forget how you hug all over
>>>>Henry "ar" Salt's talking pig...
>>>
>>>Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions
>>
>>
>> It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
>> suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans.
>
>No, it absolutely was not that, Fuckwit, and you know
>it.
Why did your hero pretend to speak for a pig about an issue
that a pig could never be aware of--much less opine on--if not
in an attempt to create the dishonest impression that pigs are
aware of such things and suffer from the knowledge, Goo?
>We have explained in simple language that even a
>dropout like you can understand what Salt's essay is
>about. It is ONLY about the invalidity and logical
>absurdity of the belief that causing animals to "get to
>experience life" somehow offsets any moral harm that is
>done in killing them.
What exactly is the moral harm in killing them Goo?
>That is what it is about,
>Fuckwit, and you know it, because Dutch and I have
>patiently explained it to you. Stop lying.
LOL!!! Oh Goo. The fantasy isn't "about" something simply
because a couple of freaks like you want everyone to believe
it is. It was about creating the false impression that livestock
somehow suffer from the knowledge that they will be killed
by humans--which none of them do--but obviously "ar" Salt
wanted to create the impression that some if not all of them do.
dh
><testi...@testus.dot> wrote
>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:21:27 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>>Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions
>>
>> It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
>> suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans. Duh!
>> It didn't work with me.
>
>That was not the point
LOL...I mean: I can't believe that, especially coming from you
or Goo. No. Since it doesn't apply to any reality, as yet I can only
believe it was intended to encourage a false impression, and you
and Goo lying about the dishonesty behind it is just something else
to laugh at.
>of it at all, that idea does not appear in the essay
>or is it ever implied. When the pig says "If, then, thou art firm set on
>pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou hast not spared my life, at
>least spare me thy sophistry"
Pigs do only live because we raise them for food. It's more like
sophistry when "aras" dishonestly and disgustingly want to claim
credit for promoting rights or anything else for potential future
animals they want to prevent from having any type of life at all.
>it is the author speaking by means of a
>literary device, and he is saying, 'If you feel you have the right to kill
>and eat a pig, then there's nothing I can say that will change your mind,
>but in the name of human decency don't try to claim that you're doing the
>pig a favor.'
That wouldn't apply to any situations in which the pigs don't know
they will be killed and eaten, which is ALL situations. So, it's still only
a fantasy about a talking pig who knows that he's pork...etc...ect...ect...
Leif Erikson
> On Tue, 16 May 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing
> >cracker, lied:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
> >>>
> >>>>On Thu, 11 May 2006 Leif Erikson, the intellectual better of Fuckwit in every conceivable way, wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>pet owners mistakenly believe their
> >>>>>animals have all sorts of capabilities the animals
> >>>>>don't really have.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's a more popular but somewhat less moronic brand
> >>>>of idiocy than you're displaying Goober. But you fall for that
> >>>>one yourself too Goo...let's not forget how you hug all over
> >>>>Henry "ar" Salt's talking pig...
> >>>
> >>>Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions
> >>
> >>
> >> It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
> >> suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans.
> >
> >No, it absolutely was not that, Fuckwit, and you know
> >it.
>
> Why did your hero pretend to speak for a pig
Salt didn't do that, Fuckwit. You made that up. You lied.
Salt demonstrates, conclusively, that causing animals to "get to
experience life" does *not* mitigate the moral harm, if any, of killing
them. That's what Salt intended to do, and he did an excellent job of
it. Your silly "animals getting to experience life" crapola was
demolished more than half a century before you even were born, Fuckwit.
> >We have explained in simple language that even a
> >dropout like you can understand what Salt's essay is
> >about. It is ONLY about the invalidity and logical
> >absurdity of the belief that causing animals to "get to
> >experience life" somehow offsets any moral harm that is
> >done in killing them.
>
> What exactly is the moral harm in killing them Leif?
I don't feel there is any moral harm in killing them, Fuckwit - and you
know I don't. But *YOU* obviously feel there is moral harm that needs
to be mitigated. Your attempt at mitigation fails.
Fuckwit - *everything* you attempt to do in life has been a failure.
>
> >That is what it is about,
> >Fuckwit, and you know it, because Dutch and I have
> >patiently explained it to you. Stop lying.
>
> LOL!!! Oh Leif. The fantasy
No fantasy, Fuckwit.
> It was about creating the false impression that livestock
> somehow suffer from the knowledge that they will be killed
No, Fuckwit. Salt's essay ABSOLUTELY is not about that, nor does it
depend on it in any way. You're just too stupid to understand,
Fuckwit, that your lying about Salt's essay has been a total failure.
Salt's essay ONLY intends to show that claiming some moral credit for
causing animals to "get to experience life" does not mitigate the moral
harm, if any, of killing them. The essay neither claims nor depends on
a belief that animals know what happens to them. There are only two
possible explanations for your stupid insistence on this point,
Fuckwit: either you are too stupid to understand what Salt has really
said, or you are deliberately lying. Which is it, Fuckwit?
Leif Erikson
cracker, lied:
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:48:08 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant pig-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>
>>>On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:21:27 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions
>>>
>>> It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
>>>suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans. Duh!
>>>It didn't work with me.
>>
>>That was not the point
>
>
> LOL
It wasn't the point of it AT ALL, Fuckwit. Salt
ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT say, or imply, that livestock know
they will be killed. You are LYING, Fuckwit.
>
>>of it at all, that idea does not appear in the essay
>>or is it ever implied. When the pig says "If, then, thou art firm set on
>>pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou hast not spared my life, at
>>least spare me thy sophistry", it is the author speaking by means of a
>>literary device,
>
>
> Pigs do only live because we raise them for food.
Irrelevant. You CANNOT claim moral credit for their
"getting to experience life", as a means of mitigating
the moral harm, if any, of killing them.
ANSWER the question, Fuckwit: why do you feel you need
to mitigate moral harm from killing livestock?
>>it is the author speaking by means of a
>>literary device, and he is saying, 'If you feel you have the right to kill
>>and eat a pig, then there's nothing I can say that will change your mind,
>>but in the name of human decency don't try to claim that you're doing the
>>pig a favor.'
>
>
> That wouldn't apply to any situations in which the pigs don't know
> they will be killed and eaten,
Yes, it certainly DOES apply, Fuckwit. The knowledge
of the pigs is *IRRELEVANT*. Claiming that you're
"doing the pig a favor" by causing him to "get to
experience life" is *invalid*, Fuckwit, *irrespective*
of the knowledge of the pig.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:48:08 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>><testi...@testus.dot> wrote
>>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:21:27 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions
>>>
>>> It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
>>> suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans. Duh!
>>> It didn't work with me.
>>
>>That was not the point
>
> LOL...I mean: I can't believe that,
It's not a case of what you believe, the notion that pigs know they will be
killed does not appear in the piece, you introduced it as a strawman. The
essay is about human integrity as expressed through our attitude towards
animals. Salt believes it to be a moral violation to raise animals for food,
but a crime against human decency to also claim a moral victory in it. I
disagree with the first part but agree wholeheartedly with the second.
Leif Erikson
> Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant pig-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>
>>On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:48:08 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant pig-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:21:27 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions
>>>>
>>>> It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
>>>>suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans. Duh!
>>>>It didn't work with me.
>>>
>>>That was not the point
>>
>> LOL...I mean: I can't believe that,
>
>
> It's not a case of what you believe, the notion that pigs know they will be
> killed does not appear in the piece, you introduced it as a strawman.
Exactly right. Salt doesn't say it, doesn't imply it,
and his conclusion doesn't depend on it. It's entirely
Fuckwit's phony straw man.
> The essay is about human integrity as expressed through our attitude towards
> animals. Salt believes it to be a moral violation to raise animals for food,
> but a crime against human decency to also claim a moral victory in it. I
> disagree with the first part but agree wholeheartedly with the second.
Right again.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:aulm62hcren0p644f...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 May 2006, Goo wrote:
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing
>>cracker, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 May 2006, Gooboy "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 11 May 2006 a stupid Goober wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>pet owners mistakenly believe their
>>>>>>animals have all sorts of capabilities the animals
>>>>>>don't really have.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a more popular but somewhat less moronic brand
>>>>>of idiocy than you're displaying Goober. But you fall for that
>>>>>one yourself too Goo...let's not forget how you hug all over
>>>>>Henry "ar" Salt's talking pig...
>>>>
>>>>Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions
>>>
>>>
>>> It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
>>> suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans.
>>
>>No, it absolutely was not that, Fuckwit, and you know
>>it.
>
> Why did your hero pretend to speak for a pig about an issue
> that a pig could never be aware of--much less opine on--if not
> in an attempt to create the dishonest impression that pigs are
> aware of such things and suffer from the knowledge, Goo?
Salt assumes his readers have the basic intelligence to know that pigs can't
talk, and that they are not capable of the kind of abstract thinking you are
inferring. The use of the allegorical is a literary device, to make an essay
more entertaining and readable, more memorable. Besides being an animal
rights advocate, he also happens to be a skilled writer.
>>We have explained in simple language that even a
>>dropout like you can understand what Salt's essay is
>>about. It is ONLY about the invalidity and logical
>>absurdity of the belief that causing animals to "get to
>>experience life" somehow offsets any moral harm that is
>>done in killing them.
>
> What exactly is the moral harm in killing them Goo?
There isn't any, which is why your campaign to make people take into
consideration that they "experience life" is evidence that you are a kind of
a bizarro ARA.
>>That is what it is about,
>>Fuckwit, and you know it, because Dutch and I have
>>patiently explained it to you. Stop lying.
>
> LOL!!! Oh Goo. The fantasy isn't "about" something simply
> because a couple of freaks like you want everyone to believe
> it is. It was about creating the false impression that livestock
> somehow suffer from the knowledge that they will be killed
> by humans--which none of them do
Don't you think animals on a slaughter line might get a clue about it? You
assume a lot of intelligence in animals, why would they be totally unaware
of the meaning of the moans and squeals of members of their own species
being killed?
--but obviously "ar" Salt
> wanted to create the impression that some if not all of them do.
It's notable that you assume a very dismal level of intelligence of the
readers, as people often see the world as refelections of themselves.
dh
>See I anticipated that you would have an ignorant response.
A safe bet whenever dealing with this Goober. It's part of what makes
him Goobernicus. The other part is that the poor fool thinks he's a genius,
and the fun and often hilarious part of that is he sometimes/often boasts
of his intelligence. Evidence is always coming in, but it suggests that our
Goo may well be the stupidest Goober doing that.
Leif Erikson
>
> >See I anticipated that you would have an ignorant response.
>
> A safe bet whenever dealing
Animals do not "benefit" from coming into existence, Fuckwit.
dh
>
>Leif Erikson wrote:
>> Finola wrote:
>>
>> > "Leif Erikson" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
>> > news:ZTn9g.3978$u4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> >>Finola wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>"Leif Erikson" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
>> >>>news:aC99g.1878$Jf....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>He didn't anticipate. Dogs don't anticipate.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>They most certainly do, my dog anticipates me coming home..that's been
>> >>>proven
>> >>>Anticipates getting his dinner
>> >>>Anticipated going for a ride as he sees me getting dressed
>> >>>Anticipates going outside with me when he sees me filling my hummer
>> >>>feeders
>> >>>Sees me going into the drawer where the nail clippers are he anticipates
>> >>>getting his nails clipped and takes off.
>> >>
>> >>All of these are merely stimulus/response. They aren't anticipation. You
>> >>can anticipate the next occurrence of Christmas, or payday, or some other
>> >>event that doesn't require a signal from someone else in order for you to
>> >>think about it. Your dog can't do that, nor can any other non-human
>> >>animal.
>> >
>> >
>> > Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word,
>>
>> I do.
>>
>>
>> > See I anticipated that you would have an ignorant response.
>>
>> Actually, although you didn't anticipate anything of
>> the kind, the example is useful, because an intelligent
>> human who is familiar with the issue of animal
>> mental/emotional capabilities might well anticipate a
>> particular response, even without a signal. You, of
>> course, didn't; you're merely saying you did in order
>> to try to appear smarter than you really are.
>>
>>
>> > I think my dog is actually smarter than you are.
>>
>> No, you don't think that. Your dog evidently can do
>> some things that neither I nor any other human can do,
>> but that doesn't make him smarter, and you don't think
>> he is; you were just going for a cheap, sophomoric insult.
>
>
>Goo, the statement wasn't that the dog was smarter than ALL humans only
>that the dog was smarter than YOU.
>
>I doubt anyone would disagree with that.
The Goober has certainly made it clear that dogs know more
about anticipation than he does.
dh
>you didn't anticipate anything of the kind
LOL!!! Your ignorance and stupidity are both in grand display,
you poor inept Goober. Everyone learns to anticipate ineptitude
and absurdity from you, Goo, and you rarely disappoint:
"Anticipation requires language." - Goo
"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing benefits from
coming into existence. No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo
"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo
"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or any
other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo
"I can explain myself in logical and coherent terms" - Goo
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
Message-ID: <cJ9Kf.1332$5M6...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>
Ron asked:
>So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into existance
>and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the lowest price in
>the beef industry......and all that done with the singular purpose of
>supplying the pet food industry?
Yes.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"I educated the public" - Goo
"I haven't made any absurd claims" - Goo
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:48:08 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>><testi...@testus.dot> wrote
>>>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:21:27 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions
>>>>
>>>> It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
>>>> suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans. Duh!
>>>> It didn't work with me.
>>>
>>>That was not the point
>>
>> LOL...I mean: I can't believe that,
>
>It's not a case of what you believe, the notion that pigs know they will be
>killed does not appear in the piece
How can someone speak for pig about something the pig could not
have a clue about, without creating a fantasy?
dh
>Salt demonstrates, conclusively, that causing animals to "get to
>experience life" does *not* mitigate the moral harm, if any, of killing
>them.
Post exactly what you believe accomplished that Goo, or it
will be known that you're just lying again. He didn't do it Goobernicus,
and *that* is exactly why you can't post any example(s) of him doing
it. Neither can you, Goo, which is why you won't be doing it yourself
either. But you want to be able to Goober, and you want it so bad!
Why Goo? Why do you want to prove that none of their lives are
worth living? What makes you feel better by clinging to that false
and nasty belief? I'd really like to know what you like about it Goo.
You could at least tell me that since you've been such an ass about
it for all these years.
Rudy Canoza
> >>>
> >>>>>Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions
> >>>>
> >>>> It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
> >>>> suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans. Duh!
> >>>> It didn't work with me.
> >>>
> >>>That was not the point
> >>
> >> LOL...I mean: I can't believe that,
> >
> >It's not a case of what you believe, the notion that pigs know they will be
> >killed does not appear in the piece
>
> How can someone speak for pig
Salt is not "speak[ing] for pig", Fuckwit. He is speaking about what
is so: that causing the pig to exist in the first place is not
providing the pig a "benefit".
Rudy Canoza
>
> >Salt demonstrates, conclusively, that causing animals to "get to
> >experience life" does *not* mitigate the moral harm, if any, of killing
> >them.
>
> will be known that you're just lying again. He didn't do it Leif,
He did, Fuckwit. He showed, in a superb and concise essay, that
causing the pig to exist is not doing the pig any "favor" or "benefit";
it is done *only* for the benefit of those who consume the pig.
Rudy Canoza
>
> >you didn't anticipate anything of the kind
>
> LOL!!!
The sappy bitch didn't anticipate anything of the kind, Fuckwit
Rudy Canoza
> >that the dog was smarter than Fuckwit David Harrison.
> >
> >I doubt anyone would disagree with that.
>
> The Goober has certainly made it clear that dogs
don't anticipate.
I hope that helps, Fuckwit.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
When he has the pig say, "spare me thy sophistry" he is not implying that
pigs talk or know what sophistry means, hell, you don't even know what it
means. That is Salt speaking via a rhetorical device to *you* about human
attitudes. You're too much of a redneck for this topic David.
shrubkiller
Stupid Goober had to go back to being "rudy" because no one pays any
attention to "Leif"
What a fu**stick.
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:aulm62hcren0p644f...@4ax.com...
>> LOL!!! Oh Goo. The fantasy isn't "about" something simply
>> because a couple of freaks like you want everyone to believe
>> it is. It was about creating the false impression that livestock
>> somehow suffer from the knowledge that they will be killed
>> by humans--which none of them do
>
>Don't you think animals on a slaughter line might get a clue about it?
Not yet. If you could explain how they could figure it out, maybe
then. But you can't, because they can't, so I'll never think they can.
>You
>assume a lot of intelligence in animals, why would they be totally unaware
>of the meaning of the moans and squeals of members of their own species
>being killed?
They never learn about death. When do you think they could possibly
learn? How???
>--but obviously "ar" Salt
>> wanted to create the impression that some if not all of them do.
>
>It's notable that you assume a very dismal level of intelligence of the
>readers,
I didn't say anything about how many people would be stupid enough
to believe it like you did, I just pointed out that he wants us to.
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:23:54 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:48:08 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><testi...@testus.dot> wrote
>>>>>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:21:27 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
>>>>>> suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans. Duh!
>>>>>> It didn't work with me.
>>>>>
>>>>>That was not the point
>>>>
>>>> LOL...I mean: I can't believe that,
>>>
>>>It's not a case of what you believe, the notion that pigs know they will
>>>be
>>>killed does not appear in the piece
>>
>> How can someone speak for pig about something the pig could not
>> have a clue about, without creating a fantasy?
>
>When he has the pig say, "spare me thy sophistry" he is not implying that
>pigs talk or know what sophistry means,
He is creating a fantasy, much as you desperately wish there was
something more worthwhile about it. Your pathetic "ar" fantasy is no
more persuasive than a fantasy about a spider writing "some pig",
and all the rest of the garbage that went along with that equivalent
children's story. As I've mentioned before you're like a young child,
and Salt wrote his fool's fantasy to attract people with child like
beliefs...people like you, and Goo.
>hell, you don't even know what it means.
It doesn't look as dificult to understand as you appear to believe
it is:
_________________________________________________________
Main Entry: soph·ist·ry
Pronunciation: 'sä-f&-strE
Function: noun
1 : subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sophistry
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Pointing out that some farm animals have lives of positive value,
depending on the quality of their lives, is reality. But you have so
much faith that their elimination is the only way to go, you can't
understand why it's true so it seems like sophistry to you. Pretending
that "ar" would provided better lives, longer lives, rights or anything
else for the very animals it is intended to prevent from living IS
sophistry, but you amusingly are completely incapable of understanding
the fact. The cognitive dissonance you would have to overcome in
order to understand the truth, would be so great that you could never
handle it, so you never will. Others of us who have always understood,
are in a completely opposite position than you/"aras". We can sort of
sympathise, though much more often scoff and laugh at, but we can't
help you poor child like fools. Only you could do that, but if you had the
stuff it takes to do it you wouldn't be in the pathetic position you're in,
so it's not likely you'll ever "grow out of it".
>That is Salt speaking via a rhetorical device to *you* about human
>attitudes. You're too much of a redneck for this topic David.
Not completely. We have established by your refusal to answser the
question, that both of us are aware it was only a fantasy. Of course
it's all you could do other than make no reply. It's amusing to consider
you ever admitting that it is only a fantasy, and therefore Salt could
have made up whatever he wanted to, which is in fact what he did.
So. As we've covered in the past the "pig" could just as easily say to
an "ara": It is not for "their"' sake, but for thine, that you would
prevent livestock from having decent lives and humane deaths.
dh
>Salt is not "speak[ing] for pig"
_________________________________________________________
From: "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
Message-ID: <108m9om...@news.supernews.com>
Henry S. Salt speaks for the pig here, you ought to listen.
...
The pig says . . .
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
dh
>dh suggested:
>
>>On 17 May 2006, an awed Goober boasted of his hero:
>
>>>Salt demonstrates, conclusively, that causing animals to "get to
>>>experience life" does *not* mitigate the moral harm, if any, of killing
>>>them.
>
> Post exactly what you believe accomplished that Goo, or it
>will be known that you're just lying again. He didn't do it Goobernicus,
>and *that* is exactly why you can't post any example(s) of him doing
>it.
>He
Goo, unless you can present something to consider, there is just
nothing to consider. No one else is going to pretend along with you
that it exists, you poor moron. You can't even say what it is you
think you're trying to talk about Goober...lol...oh what a Goo....
dh
>dh laughed:
>
>> LOL!!!
>
>The sappy bitch didn't anticipate anything of the kind
We all do when we think of you, Goo. The good lady correctly anticipated
your ineptness you sappy ass. Maybe you really can't understand Goober
--if your cognitive dissonance prevents it--but people do become aware that
you're reliably inept. And inconsiderate. Childish. Absurd. And then there's
that *stupid* thing you've got going on... What happened to the "Leif"
bullshit btw Goo? Did you forget who you think you are this week?
Leif Erikson
> On 19 May 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant pig-sodomizing cracker, blabbered:
>>
>>
>>>On 17 May 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>>>>Salt demonstrates, conclusively, that causing animals to "get to
>>>>experience life" does *not* mitigate the moral harm, if any, of killing
>>>>them.
>>
>> Post exactly what you believe accomplished that Goo, or it
>>will be known that you're just lying again. He didn't do it Goobernicus,
>>and *that* is exactly why you can't post any example(s) of him doing
>>it.
>
>
>>He did, Fuckwit. He showed, in a superb and concise essay, that
>>causing the pig to exist is not doing the pig any "favor" or "benefit";
>>it is done *only* for the benefit of those who consume the pig.
>
>
> Leif, unless you can present something to consider
That *IS* the thing for you to consider, Fuckwit: your
story about existence being a "benefit" for farm
animals is simply wrong.
Leif Erikson
> On 19 May 2006, Leif Erikson won again:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant pig-sodomizing cracker, blabbered:
>>
>>
>>> LOL!!!
>>
>>The sappy bitch didn't anticipate anything of the kind
>
>
> We all do
You never do, Fuckwit.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
>>> because a couple of freaks like you want everyone to believe
>>> it is. It was about creating the false impression that livestock
>>> somehow suffer from the knowledge that they will be killed
>>> by humans--which none of them do
>>
>>Don't you think animals on a slaughter line might get a clue about it?
>
> Not yet. If you could explain how they could figure it out, maybe
> then. But you can't, because they can't, so I'll never think they can.
They see, hear and smell the fear of others of their kind.
>>You
>>assume a lot of intelligence in animals, why would they be totally unaware
>>of the meaning of the moans and squeals of members of their own species
>>being killed?
>
> They never learn about death.
Nobody learns about death, we only make assumptions about it.
> When do you think they could possibly
> learn? How???
Animals are not aware of the concept of "mortality", nobody is saying that,
but they certainly understand threats and clues about being harmed and have
severe aversions to those things.
>>--but obviously "ar" Salt
>>> wanted to create the impression that some if not all of them do.
>>
>>It's notable that you assume a very dismal level of intelligence of the
>>readers,
>
> I didn't say anything about how many people would be stupid enough
> to believe it like you did, I just pointed out that he wants us to.
You assume that people are as dull and literal-minded as you, they aren't.
>>as people often see the world as reflections of themselves.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:d13v62pc04dkdmgj2...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 May 2006 18:29:17 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:23:54 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:48:08 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><testi...@testus.dot> wrote
>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:21:27 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
>>>>>>> suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans. Duh!
>>>>>>> It didn't work with me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That was not the point
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL...I mean: I can't believe that,
>>>>
>>>>It's not a case of what you believe, the notion that pigs know they will
>>>>be
>>>>killed does not appear in the piece
>>>
>>> How can someone speak for pig about something the pig could not
>>> have a clue about, without creating a fantasy?
>>
>>When he has the pig say, "spare me thy sophistry" he is not implying that
>>pigs talk or know what sophistry means,
>
> He is creating a fantasy,
No, he is not, get a clue. There is NO fantasy in the essay, it is an
allegory. Learn the difference.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
> On 17 May 2006, it was correctly stated that:
>
>>Salt demonstrates, conclusively, that causing animals to "get to
>>experience life" does *not* mitigate the moral harm, if any, of killing
>>them.
>
> Post exactly what you believe accomplished that
Here it is, although you are obviously mentally incompetent to grasp it.
"The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to compare
existence with non-existence. A person who is already in existence may feel
that he would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra
firma of existence to argue from; the moment he begins to argue as if from
the abyss of the non-existent, he talks nonsense, by predicating good or
evil, happiness or unhappiness, of that of which we can predicate nothing.
When, therefore, we talk of "bringing a being," as we vaguely express it,
into the world," we cannot claim from that being any gratitude for our
action, or drive a bargain with him, and a very shabby one, on that account;
nor can our duties to him be evaded by any such quibble, in which the wish
is so obviously father to the thought. Nor, in this connection, is it
necessary to enter on the question of ante-natal existence, because, if such
existence there be, we have no reason for assuming that it is less happy
than the present existence; and thus equally the argument falls to the
ground. It is absurd to compare a supposed preexistence, or nonexistence,
with actual individual life as known to us here. All reasoning based on such
comparison must necessarily be false, and will lead to grotesque
conclusions."
Dutch
>>No such thing. Salt has written an essay
>
> In order for the fantasy to be any more than a children's story
It's *allegory* fuckwit, requiring no belief that pigs possess human
abilities.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:t23v62930cvl9rhfi...@4ax.com...
> On 19 May 2006, the Goober claimed:
>
>>Salt is not "speak[ing] for pig"
> _________________________________________________________
> From: "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
> Message-ID: <108m9om...@news.supernews.com>
>
> Henry S. Salt speaks for the pig here, you ought to listen.
I was extending the allegory, but since you don't understand what that means
it was wasted on you.