PDA

View Full Version : Animals cannot be disappointed.


Goober Canoza
May 5th 05, 07:23 AM
Animals cannot be disappointed.
I did write that, and it's true.

May 5th 05, 09:45 PM
Yes they can.
I did write that, and it's true.

Rudy Canoza
May 5th 05, 10:03 PM
wrote:
> Yes they can.
> I did write that, and it's true.

You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
****ing bonehead.

Guardian Pegasus
May 6th 05, 07:02 AM
On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
>****ing bonehead.

Prove it.

Rudy Canoza
May 6th 05, 07:22 PM
Guardian Pegasus wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> >You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
> >****ing bonehead.
>
> Prove it.

What, that bonehead Ron Hamilton's **** is virtually always false? No,
I won't prove it. You just need to take my word for it.

May 7th 05, 03:01 AM
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Guardian Pegasus wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
wrote:
> >
> > >You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
> > >****ing bonehead.
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> What, that bonehead Ron Hamilton's **** is virtually always false?
No,
> I won't prove it. You just need to take my word for it.

You just proved you can't.......and thanks much but we won't take your
word for anything.

May 7th 05, 05:06 PM
On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

wrote:
>> Yes they can.
>> I did write that, and it's true.
>
>You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
>****ing bonehead.

Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any
child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean
that all animals can, but it does mean some of them
can. Sad you're not able to understand that.

One absurd "reason" you feel that life isn't worthy
of consideration for any animals, is because you don't
feel that they are capable of experiencing positive
emotions to the degree that their lives could be worthy
of consideration. But even though your prize argument
--that imaginary nonexistent entities can not benefit--is
true, there is much evidence that humans are capable
of experiencing positive emotions to the degree that
their lives are a benefit to them. And Goobernad, even
though you can't understand it, the same is true for
some animals too.

Rudy Canoza
May 7th 05, 05:52 PM
[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Yes they can.
>>>I did write that, and it's true.
>>
>>You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
>>****ing bonehead.
>
>
> Animals experience disappointment

No, they don't. Tell your mangy mutt dog you're going
to take him for a walk, then sit on your pimply redneck
ass eating pork cracklins all afternoon instead and
don't take him for the walk. He will not be disappointed.

Joanne
May 7th 05, 06:17 PM
<[email protected]> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any
> child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean
> that all animals can, but it does mean some of them
> can.

Definitely true of parrots. Billy, my Severe Macaw makes a disappointed
vocal when he wants to come out to play and I have to walk away without him.
It's not a scream for attention; it's a quick, low vocalization of
disappointment without doubt.

--
Sincerely,
Joanne

If it's right for you, then it's right, . . . . . for you!!!

Play - http://www.jobird.com
Pay for Play - http://www.jobird.com/refund.htm
Looking for Love? - http://www.jobird.com/hearts.htm
Garden Kinder CDs
http://www.jobird.com/cd/gardenkinderhome.html

Rudy Canoza
May 7th 05, 06:31 PM
Joanne wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote in message ...
>
>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any
>>child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean
>>that all animals can, but it does mean some of them
>>can.
>
>
> Definitely true of parrots. Billy, my Severe Macaw makes a disappointed
> vocal when he wants to come out to play and I have to walk away without him.
> It's not a scream for attention; it's a quick, low vocalization of
> disappointment without doubt.

Bull****. You are projecting. It's called
anthropomorphization: the projection of human
characteristics onto non-human things.

Dutch
May 7th 05, 07:08 PM
<[email protected]> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>> Yes they can.
>>> I did write that, and it's true.
>>
>>You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
>>****ing bonehead.
>
> Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any
> child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean
> that all animals can, but it does mean some of them
> can. Sad you're not able to understand that.
>
> One absurd "reason" you feel that life isn't worthy
> of consideration for any animals, is because you don't
> feel that they are capable of experiencing positive
> emotions

It's irrelevant. Farming an animal for food disqualifies you
from claiming a moral bonus from the fact that the animal
"experiences life". You don't get to kill and eat them and
also feel smug that you 'allowed them the privilege of life'.
This kind of "double-dipping" is intuitively distateful to anyone
with a moral compass, something you evidently lack.

GWB
May 7th 05, 08:51 PM
On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:31:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>Bull****. You are projecting. It's called
>anthropomorphization: the projection of human
>characteristics onto non-human things.

Yeah, animals hate it when people do that!

Bawl
May 8th 05, 05:38 PM
GWB wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:31:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> >Bull****. You are projecting. It's called
> >anthropomorphization: the projection of human
> >characteristics onto non-human things.
>
> Yeah, animals hate it when people do that!


damn straight! They get severely disappointed.

May 8th 05, 06:00 PM
On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:31:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>Joanne wrote:
>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message ...
>>
>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>> Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any
>>>child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean
>>>that all animals can, but it does mean some of them
>>>can.
>>
>>
>> Definitely true of parrots. Billy, my Severe Macaw makes a disappointed
>> vocal when he wants to come out to play and I have to walk away without him.
>> It's not a scream for attention; it's a quick, low vocalization of
>> disappointment without doubt.
>
>Bull****.

She is quite likely to be a good and decent person Goonad,
so try not acting like such the ass.

>You are projecting. It's called
>anthropomorphization: the projection of human
>characteristics onto non-human things.

LOL!!! For one thing Goo, you are the LAST person who
could possibly have a clue about something like that, because
you can't even comprehend such things. As you say, facts
like that are bull**** to you--completely beyond your ability to
comprehend--yet they are quite obvious to many people. But
the funniest part is: you are the one who thinks a fantasy about
a talking pig who knows he's going to be killed and made into
ham and sausages, somehow discredits the fact that many farm
animals benefit from farming. Hilarious! You "ARAs" are a hoot,
I'll say that about you.

May 8th 05, 06:27 PM
On Sat, 7 May 2005 11:08:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>
wrote:
>>>> Yes they can.
>>>> I did write that, and it's true.
>>>
>>>You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
>>>****ing bonehead.
>>
>> Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any
>> child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean
>> that all animals can, but it does mean some of them
>> can. Sad you're not able to understand that.
>>
>> One absurd "reason" you feel that life isn't worthy
>> of consideration for any animals, is because you don't
>> feel that they are capable of experiencing positive
>> emotions
>
>It's irrelevant. Farming an animal for food disqualifies you
>from claiming a moral bonus from the fact that the animal
>"experiences life".

No it doesn't.

>You don't get to kill and eat them and
>also feel smug that you 'allowed them the privilege of life'.

I can feel good that animals get to experience a decent
life because humans raise them for food. Even the cls.

>This kind of "double-dipping" is intuitively distateful to anyone
>with a moral compass, something you evidently lack.

So do you apparently, because you think you get a moral
bonus for being beyond inconsiderate, to the point that
you OPPOSE consideration of what the billions of animals
get out of the arrangement. And you do it for the purely
selfish reason that it disturbs you that people raise animals
for food.

usual suspect
May 8th 05, 06:29 PM
Joanne wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message ...
>
>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any
>>child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean
>>that all animals can, but it does mean some of them
>>can.
>
>
> Definitely true of parrots.

No, it isn't.

> Billy, my Severe Macaw makes a disappointed
> vocal when he wants to come out to play and I have to walk away without him.
> It's not a scream for attention; it's a quick, low vocalization of
> disappointment without doubt.

You're anthropomorphizing.

May 8th 05, 06:44 PM
On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:17:45 GMT, "Joanne" > wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any
>> child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean
>> that all animals can, but it does mean some of them
>> can.
>
>Definitely true of parrots. Billy, my Severe Macaw makes a disappointed
>vocal when he wants to come out to play and I have to walk away without him.
>It's not a scream for attention; it's a quick, low vocalization of
>disappointment without doubt.

It's not too surprising, though I had wondered if birds experience it.
I never saw chickens show signs of it, but when something is taken
from them that they like, the hens have ways of showing they are
feeling the loss. I made a reply to the Gonad (sometimes posting
as Rudy Canoza) which is a quote from Darwin regarding his dog
expessing disappoinment. You might find the page of some interest:

http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/expression/expression02.htm

Darwin also explained his belief that emotions evolved as life itself
did, and my impression is that he feels some animals are capable
of more than others, which is almost certainly how it is. I read it a
few years ago, and didn't save any of the quotes or mark the
location, and haven't been able to find it. Gonad, if your reading this
do something useful and hunt it up, along with your superior term
for "experiencing life".

May 8th 05, 06:44 PM
On Sat, 07 May 2005 16:52:02 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>Yes they can.
>>>>I did write that, and it's true.
>>>
>>>You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
>>>****ing bonehead.
>>
>>
>> Animals experience disappointment
>
>No, they don't.
__________________________________________________ _______
The writings of Charles Darwin on the web
by John van Wyhe Ph.D.
[...]
I formerly possessed a large dog, who, like every other dog, was much
pleased to go out walking. He showed his pleasure by trotting gravely
before me with high steps, head much raised, moderately erected ears,
and tail carried aloft but not stiffly. Not far from my house a path branches
off to the right, leading to the hot-house, which I used often to visit for a
few moments, to look at my experimental plants. This was always a great
disappointment to the dog, as he did not know whether I should continue
my walk; and the instantaneous and complete change of expression which
came over him as soon as my body swerved in the least towards the path
(and I sometimes tried this as an experiment) was laughable. His look of
dejection was known to every member of the family, and was called his
hot-house face. This consisted in the head drooping much, the whole body
sinking a little and remaining motionless; the ears and tail falling suddenly
down, but the tail was by no means wagged. With the falling of the ears and
of his great chaps, the eyes became much changed in appearance, and I
fancied that they looked less bright. His aspect was that of piteous, hopeless
dejection; and it was, as I have said, laughable, as the cause was so slight.
[...]
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/expression/expression02.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

Rudy Canoza
May 8th 05, 06:52 PM
[email protected] wrote:

> On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:31:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Joanne wrote:
>>
>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any
>>>>child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean
>>>>that all animals can, but it does mean some of them
>>>>can.
>>>
>>>
>>>Definitely true of parrots. Billy, my Severe Macaw makes a disappointed
>>>vocal when he wants to come out to play and I have to walk away without him.
>>>It's not a scream for attention; it's a quick, low vocalization of
>>>disappointment without doubt.
>>
>>Bull****.
>
>
> She is quite likely to be a good and decent person

That's lovely. She still said some bull****, though.


>>You are projecting. It's called
>>anthropomorphization: the projection of human
>>characteristics onto non-human things.
>
>
> LOL!!! For one thing Goo

****wit, we have been through this before: YOU are
the goober. "Goober" is an insult and slur against
stupid ****witted southern rednecks, and YOU are the
stupid ****witted southern redneck. YOU are the
Goober. Don't make this mistake again.


> you are the LAST person who
> could possibly have a clue about something like that

No, ****wit. I am the one who knows about this. You
didn't even know the word "anthropomorphization" until
I told it to you, and it's doubtful you even really
know what it means now.

Rudy Canoza
May 8th 05, 06:54 PM
[email protected] wrote:

> On Sat, 7 May 2005 11:08:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message ...
>>
>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Yes they can.
>>>>>I did write that, and it's true.
>>>>
>>>>You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
>>>>****ing bonehead.
>>>
>>> Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any
>>>child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean
>>>that all animals can, but it does mean some of them
>>>can. Sad you're not able to understand that.
>>>
>>> One absurd "reason" you feel that life isn't worthy
>>>of consideration for any animals, is because you don't
>>>feel that they are capable of experiencing positive
>>>emotions
>>
>>It's irrelevant. Farming an animal for food disqualifies you
>>from claiming a moral bonus from the fact that the animal
>>"experiences life".
>
>
> No it doesn't.

Yes, Goober****wit, it does.


>>You don't get to kill and eat them and
>>also feel smug that you 'allowed them the privilege of life'.
>
>
> I can feel good that animals get to experience a decent
> life because humans raise them for food. Even the cls.

You can feel better that they experience a decent life
rather than a ****ty life, but you may not legitimately
feel better that they experienced life rather than
never living.


>>This kind of "double-dipping" is intuitively distasteful to anyone
>>with a moral compass, something you evidently lack.
>
>
> So do you apparently

No, he has a very well functioning moral compass. You
hvae none at all.

Rudy Canoza
May 8th 05, 06:55 PM
[email protected] wrote:

> On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:17:45 GMT, "Joanne" > wrote:
>
>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message ...
>>
>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>> Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any
>>>child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean
>>>that all animals can, but it does mean some of them
>>>can.
>>
>>Definitely true of parrots. Billy, my Severe Macaw makes a disappointed
>>vocal when he wants to come out to play and I have to walk away without him.
>>It's not a scream for attention; it's a quick, low vocalization of
>>disappointment without doubt.
>
>
> It's not too surprising, though I had wondered if birds experience it.

They don't. She is anthropomorphizing.

Rudy Canoza
May 8th 05, 07:00 PM
[email protected] wrote:

> On Sat, 07 May 2005 16:52:02 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Yes they can.
>>>>>I did write that, and it's true.
>>>>
>>>>You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
>>>>****ing bonehead.
>>>
>>>
>>> Animals experience disappointment
>>
>>No, they don't.
>
> __________________________________________________ _______
> The writings of Charles Darwin on the web
> by John van Wyhe Ph.D.
> [...]
> I formerly possessed a large dog, who, like every other dog, was much
> pleased to go out walking. He showed his pleasure by trotting gravely
> before me with high steps, head much raised, moderately erected ears,
> and tail carried aloft but not stiffly. Not far from my house a path branches
> off to the right, leading to the hot-house, which I used often to visit for a
> few moments, to look at my experimental plants. This was always a great
> disappointment to the dog,

Projection, pure and simple.

May 8th 05, 07:47 PM
On Sun, 08 May 2005 17:52:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:31:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Joanne wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>><[email protected]> wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>> Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any
>>>>>child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean
>>>>>that all animals can, but it does mean some of them
>>>>>can.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Definitely true of parrots. Billy, my Severe Macaw makes a disappointed
>>>>vocal when he wants to come out to play and I have to walk away without him.
>>>>It's not a scream for attention; it's a quick, low vocalization of
>>>>disappointment without doubt.
>>>
>>>Bull****.
>>
>>
>> She is quite likely to be a good and decent person
>
>That's lovely. She still said some bull****, though.
>
>
>>>You are projecting. It's called
>>>anthropomorphization: the projection of human
>>>characteristics onto non-human things.
>>
>>
>> LOL!!! For one thing Goo
>
>****wit, we have been through this before: YOU are
>the goober. "Goober" is an insult and slur against
>stupid ****witted southern rednecks, and YOU are the
>stupid ****witted southern redneck. YOU are the
>Goober. Don't make this mistake again.

Goo is short for Goober. Goober is short for Goobernicus.
You are Goobernicus Gonad. You "think" you are a genius
and know everthing, so you don't try to learn, so you're really
ignorant, and ignorant because you're too stupid to know it.

>> you are the LAST person who
>> could possibly have a clue about something like that
>
>No, ****wit. I am the one who knows about this.

You don't even know what the hell we're talking about.
Goobernicus.

>You
>didn't even know the word "anthropomorphization" until
>I told it to you, and it's doubtful you even really
>know what it means now.

Some animals experience disappointment, and you are
too stupid to realise it. Recognition of the fact is not
anthropomorphism. This fantasy however, is:

"it were unseemly for me, who am to-day a pig, and to-morrow
but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of ethics, yet
to my porcine intellect..."

I should have been keeping a list of your lies that I have
exposed over the years. It would be huge. Here again I'll
expose you as a liar, with this example of me pointing out
that your "AR" fantasy is an incredible example of
anthropomorphism:
__________________________________________________ _______
From:
Subject: exposing Jonathan Ball & Dutch as "ARAs"
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:23:05 GMT

we now have
absolute proof that both Dutch and the Gonad are "ARAs" who accept
the beliefs of one of the earliest fathers of the "AR" concept, and one
of the earliest promoters of vegetarianism. That early father of "AR" was
Henry S. Salt. Here is absolute proof that they both accept Salt's beliefs
....this particular incredibly anthropomorphic example is from a fantasy that
they consider to be the position of pigs:
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
It would appear that you learned the term from me, and are
now trying to apply it to a situation that is not anthropomorphic.
I certainly hope no one who reads your lies is stupid enough
to believe them Goo.

May 8th 05, 07:48 PM
On Sun, 08 May 2005 18:00:26 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 May 2005 16:52:02 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes they can.
>>>>>>I did write that, and it's true.
>>>>>
>>>>>You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
>>>>>****ing bonehead.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Animals experience disappointment
>>>
>>>No, they don't.
>>
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> The writings of Charles Darwin on the web
>> by John van Wyhe Ph.D.
>> [...]
>> I formerly possessed a large dog, who, like every other dog, was much
>> pleased to go out walking. He showed his pleasure by trotting gravely
>> before me with high steps, head much raised, moderately erected ears,
>> and tail carried aloft but not stiffly. Not far from my house a path branches
>> off to the right, leading to the hot-house, which I used often to visit for a
>> few moments, to look at my experimental plants. This was always a great
>> disappointment to the dog,
>
>Projection, pure and simple.

LOL!!! Goobernicus Gonad says that Darwin was projecting. This is classic!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....!

Dutch
May 8th 05, 08:07 PM
<[email protected]> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 7 May 2005 11:08:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>It's irrelevant. Farming an animal for food disqualifies you
>>from claiming a moral bonus from the fact that the animal
>>"experiences life".
>
> No it doesn't.

Yes it does. The only feeling akin to morality you are
permitted to experience is gratitude towards that animal
for losing it's life for you .
>
>>You don't get to kill and eat them and
>>also feel smug that you 'allowed them the privilege of life'.
>
> I can feel good that animals get to experience a decent
> life

Yes, you can be happy that they have a decent life
rather than a indecent life, not that they "get to experience life".

>>This kind of "double-dipping" is intuitively distateful to anyone
>>with a moral compass, something you evidently lack.
>
> So do you apparently, because you think you get a moral
> bonus for being beyond inconsiderate, to the point that
> you OPPOSE consideration of what the billions of animals
> get out of the arrangement.

I vehemently oppose consideration of what animals
"get out of the arrangement". What a disgusting turn
of phrase, "the arrangement.."

> And you do it for the purely
> selfish reason that it disturbs you that people raise animals
> for food.

No, it disturbs me that there are people that are
not satisfied to simply exploit animals for food
and other products, but demand a moral gold
star for it as well.

Rudy Canoza
May 8th 05, 09:15 PM
[email protected] wrote:

> On Sun, 08 May 2005 17:52:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:31:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Joanne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote in message ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any
>>>>>>child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean
>>>>>>that all animals can, but it does mean some of them
>>>>>>can.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Definitely true of parrots. Billy, my Severe Macaw makes a disappointed
>>>>>vocal when he wants to come out to play and I have to walk away without him.
>>>>>It's not a scream for attention; it's a quick, low vocalization of
>>>>>disappointment without doubt.
>>>>
>>>>Bull****.
>>>
>>>
>>> She is quite likely to be a good and decent person
>>
>>That's lovely. She still said some bull****, though.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>You are projecting. It's called
>>>>anthropomorphization: the projection of human
>>>>characteristics onto non-human things.
>>>
>>>
>>> LOL!!! For one thing Goo
>>
>>****wit, we have been through this before: YOU are
>>the goober. "Goober" is an insult and slur against
>>stupid ****witted southern rednecks, and YOU are the
>>stupid ****witted southern redneck. YOU are the
>>Goober. Don't make this mistake again.
>
>
> Goo is short for Goober.

And YOU are the only Goober here, ****wit. It is an
insult aimed at stupid, ****witted rednecks: aimed at
YOU, in other words.

You are the Goober.

>>>you are the LAST person who
>>>could possibly have a clue about something like that
>>
>>No, ****wit. I am the one who knows about this.
>
>
> You don't even know what the hell we're talking about.

I know EXACTLY what we're discussing, Goober****wit.


>>You didn't even know the word "anthropomorphization"
>>until I told it to you, and it's doubtful you even
>>really know what it means now.
>
>
> Some animals experience disappointment

NO animals except for humans experience disappointment.

Rudy Canoza
May 8th 05, 09:16 PM
[email protected] wrote:

> On Sun, 08 May 2005 18:00:26 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 07 May 2005 16:52:02 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes they can.
>>>>>>>I did write that, and it's true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
>>>>>>****ing bonehead.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Animals experience disappointment
>>>>
>>>>No, they don't.
>>>
>>>__________________________________________________ _______
>>>The writings of Charles Darwin on the web
>>>by John van Wyhe Ph.D.
>>>[...]
>>> I formerly possessed a large dog, who, like every other dog, was much
>>>pleased to go out walking. He showed his pleasure by trotting gravely
>>>before me with high steps, head much raised, moderately erected ears,
>>>and tail carried aloft but not stiffly. Not far from my house a path branches
>>>off to the right, leading to the hot-house, which I used often to visit for a
>>>few moments, to look at my experimental plants. This was always a great
>>>disappointment to the dog,
>>
>>Projection, pure and simple.
>
>
> LOL!!!

What's funny, Goober****wit?

May 8th 05, 09:29 PM
On Sun, 8 May 2005 12:07:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 7 May 2005 11:08:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>>It's irrelevant. Farming an animal for food disqualifies you
>>>from claiming a moral bonus from the fact that the animal
>>>"experiences life".
>>
>> No it doesn't.
>
>Yes it does. The only feeling akin to morality you are
>permitted to experience

LOL! That is hilarious coming from a purely selfish ass
like yours.

>is gratitude towards that animal
>for losing it's life for you .
>>
>>>You don't get to kill and eat them and
>>>also feel smug that you 'allowed them the privilege of life'.
>>
>> I can feel good that animals get to experience a decent
>> life
>
>Yes, you can be happy that they have a decent life
>rather than a indecent life, not that they "get to experience life".
>
>>>This kind of "double-dipping" is intuitively distateful to anyone
>>>with a moral compass, something you evidently lack.
>>
>> So do you apparently, because you think you get a moral
>> bonus for being beyond inconsiderate, to the point that
>> you OPPOSE consideration of what the billions of animals
>> get out of the arrangement.
>
>I vehemently oppose consideration of what animals
>"get out of the arrangement". What a disgusting turn
>of phrase, "the arrangement.."
>
>> And you do it for the purely
>> selfish reason that it disturbs you that people raise animals
>> for food.
>
>No, it disturbs me that there are people that are
>not satisfied to simply exploit animals for food
>and other products, but demand a moral gold
>star for it as well.

It disturbs the hell out of you when someone considers
the animals, because you only care about yourself.

May 8th 05, 09:29 PM
On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:15:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>NO animals except for humans experience disappointment.

We've been here before Goo. If animals can experience
disappointment, then you have no clue about reality. Some
animals do experience disappointment, so you have no clue
about reality.

Rudy Canoza
May 8th 05, 09:39 PM
[email protected] wrote:

> On Sun, 8 May 2005 12:07:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>No, it disturbs me that there are people that are
>>not satisfied to simply exploit animals for food
>>and other products, but demand a moral gold
>>star for it as well.
>
>
> It disturbs the hell out of you when someone considers
> the animals

No, Goober****wit. It bothers him that you only
pretend to consider the animals while desperately
trying to rationalize something you do purely for your
own self interest.

Rudy Canoza
May 8th 05, 09:41 PM
[email protected] wrote:

> On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:15:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>NO animals except for humans experience disappointment.
>
>
> We've been here before Goo.

Yes, we have, Goober****wit. First of all,
Goober****wit, we have been here to establishe that
YOU, and you alone, are the only goober. Stop
misapplying that term to others. It applies only to you.

Second, Goober****wit, we have been here to establish
that your beliefs about animals are purely your
projection of your emotions onto animals. That is
called anthropomorphization, and it is philosophically
wrong.

Dutch
May 9th 05, 02:13 AM
<[email protected]> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 8 May 2005 12:07:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sat, 7 May 2005 11:08:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>>It's irrelevant. Farming an animal for food disqualifies you
>>>>from claiming a moral bonus from the fact that the animal
>>>>"experiences life".
>>>
>>> No it doesn't.
>>
>>Yes it does. The only feeling akin to morality you are
>>permitted to experience
>
> LOL! That is hilarious coming from a purely selfish ass
> like yours.

Oh yeah, I know, I'm a laugh a minute...

You are not entititled to any moral credit because the animals
you eat "experienced life." I don't understand why you think
you even need it. What does it do for you, pretending that this
moral credit exists?

>
>>is gratitude towards that animal
>>for losing it's life for you .
>>>
>>>>You don't get to kill and eat them and
>>>>also feel smug that you 'allowed them the privilege of life'.
>>>
>>> I can feel good that animals get to experience a decent
>>> life
>>
>>Yes, you can be happy that they have a decent life
>>rather than a indecent life, not that they "get to experience life".
>>
>>>>This kind of "double-dipping" is intuitively distateful to anyone
>>>>with a moral compass, something you evidently lack.
>>>
>>> So do you apparently, because you think you get a moral
>>> bonus for being beyond inconsiderate, to the point that
>>> you OPPOSE consideration of what the billions of animals
>>> get out of the arrangement.
>>
>>I vehemently oppose consideration of what animals
>>"get out of the arrangement". What a disgusting turn
>>of phrase, "the arrangement.."
>>
>>> And you do it for the purely
>>> selfish reason that it disturbs you that people raise animals
>>> for food.
>>
>>No, it disturbs me that there are people that are
>>not satisfied to simply exploit animals for food
>>and other products, but demand a moral gold
>>star for it as well.
>
> It disturbs the hell out of you when someone considers
> the animals, because you only care about yourself.

Quit pretending that you "consider the animals" in some
unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't. You want those
chicken fingers to keep comin', that all.

Rudy Canoza
May 9th 05, 06:58 PM
Dutch wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
...
> > On Sun, 8 May 2005 12:07:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >><[email protected]> wrote in message
...
> >>> On Sat, 7 May 2005 11:08:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>>It's irrelevant. Farming an animal for food disqualifies you
> >>>>from claiming a moral bonus from the fact that the animal
> >>>>"experiences life".
> >>>
> >>> No it doesn't.
> >>
> >>Yes it does. The only feeling akin to morality you are
> >>permitted to experience
> >
> > LOL! That is hilarious coming from a purely selfish ass
> > like yours.
>
> Oh yeah, I know, I'm a laugh a minute...
>
> You are not entititled to any moral credit because the animals
> you eat "experienced life." I don't understand why you think
> you even need it.

Because when the "vegans" criticize him, it stings him for some reason.
He is incapable of seeing the real flaw in their argument, so instead,
he gets defensive, then tries to turn their criticism back at them. He
fails, of course.

> What does it do for you, pretending that this
> moral credit exists?
>
> >
> >>is gratitude towards that animal
> >>for losing it's life for you .
> >>>
> >>>>You don't get to kill and eat them and
> >>>>also feel smug that you 'allowed them the privilege of life'.
> >>>
> >>> I can feel good that animals get to experience a decent
> >>> life
> >>
> >>Yes, you can be happy that they have a decent life
> >>rather than a indecent life, not that they "get to experience
life".
> >>
> >>>>This kind of "double-dipping" is intuitively distateful to anyone
> >>>>with a moral compass, something you evidently lack.
> >>>
> >>> So do you apparently, because you think you get a moral
> >>> bonus for being beyond inconsiderate, to the point that
> >>> you OPPOSE consideration of what the billions of animals
> >>> get out of the arrangement.
> >>
> >>I vehemently oppose consideration of what animals
> >>"get out of the arrangement". What a disgusting turn
> >>of phrase, "the arrangement.."
> >>
> >>> And you do it for the purely
> >>> selfish reason that it disturbs you that people raise animals
> >>> for food.
> >>
> >>No, it disturbs me that there are people that are
> >>not satisfied to simply exploit animals for food
> >>and other products, but demand a moral gold
> >>star for it as well.
> >
> > It disturbs the hell out of you when someone considers
> > the animals, because you only care about yourself.
>
> Quit pretending that you "consider the animals" in some
> unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't. You want those
> chicken fingers to keep comin', that all.

May 9th 05, 09:38 PM
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> ...
> > > On Sun, 8 May 2005 12:07:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >><[email protected]> wrote in message
> ...
> > >>> On Sat, 7 May 2005 11:08:24 -0700, "Dutch" >
wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>It's irrelevant. Farming an animal for food disqualifies you
> > >>>>from claiming a moral bonus from the fact that the animal
> > >>>>"experiences life".
> > >>>
> > >>> No it doesn't.
> > >>
> > >>Yes it does. The only feeling akin to morality you are
> > >>permitted to experience
> > >
> > > LOL! That is hilarious coming from a purely selfish ass
> > > like yours.
> >
> > Oh yeah, I know, I'm a laugh a minute...
> >
> > You are not entititled to any moral credit because the animals
> > you eat "experienced life." I don't understand why you think
> > you even need it.
>

Goober Canoza wrote:
> Because when the "vegans" criticize him, it stings him for some
reason.
> He is incapable of seeing the real flaw in their argument, so
instead,
> he gets defensive, then tries to turn their criticism back at them.
He
> fails, of course.


Goober Canoza must have been looking in a mirror while writing that
last little bit of self criticism.
When he realizes what he's done he'll throw a fit and go catatonic for
a few days.



>
> > What does it do for you, pretending that this
> > moral credit exists?
> >
> > >
> > >>is gratitude towards that animal
> > >>for losing it's life for you .
> > >>>
> > >>>>You don't get to kill and eat them and
> > >>>>also feel smug that you 'allowed them the privilege of life'.
> > >>>
> > >>> I can feel good that animals get to experience a decent
> > >>> life
> > >>
> > >>Yes, you can be happy that they have a decent life
> > >>rather than a indecent life, not that they "get to experience
> life".
> > >>
> > >>>>This kind of "double-dipping" is intuitively distateful to
anyone
> > >>>>with a moral compass, something you evidently lack.
> > >>>
> > >>> So do you apparently, because you think you get a moral
> > >>> bonus for being beyond inconsiderate, to the point that
> > >>> you OPPOSE consideration of what the billions of animals
> > >>> get out of the arrangement.
> > >>
> > >>I vehemently oppose consideration of what animals
> > >>"get out of the arrangement". What a disgusting turn
> > >>of phrase, "the arrangement.."
> > >>
> > >>> And you do it for the purely
> > >>> selfish reason that it disturbs you that people raise animals
> > >>> for food.
> > >>
> > >>No, it disturbs me that there are people that are
> > >>not satisfied to simply exploit animals for food
> > >>and other products, but demand a moral gold
> > >>star for it as well.
> > >
> > > It disturbs the hell out of you when someone considers
> > > the animals, because you only care about yourself.
> >
> > Quit pretending that you "consider the animals" in some
> > unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't. You want those
> > chicken fingers to keep comin', that all.

May 12th 05, 04:38 PM
On 9 May 2005 10:58:09 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> He is incapable of seeing the real flaw in their argument

What is then Goo?

May 12th 05, 04:41 PM
On Sun, 8 May 2005 18:13:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>Quit pretending that you "consider the animals" in some
>unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't.

Do you? If so, explain how

May 12th 05, 04:42 PM
On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>we have been here to establish
>that your beliefs about animals are purely your
>projection of your emotions onto animals. That is
>called anthropomorphization, and it is philosophically
>wrong.

We have also been here and found that you have no
idea whether my beliefs are correct or not Goobernicus,
because you don't have a clue which emotions they are
and are not capable of. So as always, you are pretending
to know all about something you have absolutely no
clue about. But I invite you to prove me wrong Goo
(because it's so funny to see you fail completely and
miserably at it), and invite you to explain exactly which
emotions animals are and are not capable of.

Dutch
May 12th 05, 05:02 PM
<[email protected]> wrote
> On Sun, 8 May 2005 18:13:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >Quit pretending that you "consider the animals" in some
> >unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't.
>
> Do you? If so, explain how

I'm not the one claiming I do. When I attack your position you criticize me
for
not "considering the animals". That implies that you DO consider them in
some
unselfish way. That is a lie, your "consideration" is nothing more than a
belief
that the fact that we indirectly cause animals to be born bestows a kind a
moral
credit onto meat consumers. That belief (called "the logic of the larder")
is a mistake.

Rudy Canoza
May 12th 05, 06:18 PM
[email protected] wrote:
> On 9 May 2005 10:58:09 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" >
wrote:
>
> > He is incapable of seeing the real flaw in their argument
>
> What is then Goo?

Your question doesn't make any sense.

****wit, I'm getting tired of reminding you: YOU are the only goober
here. Stop making this mistake. "Goober" refers to a dimwitted
southern redneck: YOU, in other words. Stop using your mother's pet
name for you on other people.

Rudy Canoza
May 12th 05, 06:19 PM
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> >we have been here to establish
> >that your beliefs about animals are purely your
> >projection of your emotions onto animals. That is
> >called anthropomorphization, and it is philosophically
> >wrong.
>
> We have also been here and found that you have no
> idea whether my beliefs are correct or not,

We DO know that your beliefs are completely incorrect.


> because you don't have a clue which emotions they are
> and are not capable of.

We do know certain ones that they do not experience. Disappointment is
one they do not experience. Period.

Rudy Canoza
May 12th 05, 06:21 PM
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 8 May 2005 18:13:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >Quit pretending that you "consider the animals" in some
> >unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't.
>
> Do you?

Irrelevant. YOU stop pretending that you do. You do not. Your
pretense is a joke, and fools no one. You are merely considering
yourself, and for obvious reasons you need to dress it up as
consideration for animals. Stop it.

May 13th 05, 04:40 PM
On 12 May 2005 10:19:48 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>
>> >we have been here to establish
>> >that your beliefs about animals are purely your
>> >projection of your emotions onto animals. That is
>> >called anthropomorphization, and it is philosophically
>> >wrong.
>>
>> We have also been here and found that you have no
>> idea whether my beliefs are correct or not,
>
>We DO know that your beliefs are completely incorrect.
>
>
>> because you don't have a clue which emotions they are
>> and are not capable of.
>
>We do know certain ones that they do not experience. Disappointment is
>one they do not experience.

That's a lie.

>Period.

May 13th 05, 04:40 PM
On 12 May 2005 10:18:32 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On 9 May 2005 10:58:09 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" >
>wrote:
>>
>> > He is incapable of seeing the real flaw in their argument
>>
>> What is then Goo?
>
>Your question doesn't make any sense.

That's because you don't believe there is any "real flaw in their argument".

May 13th 05, 04:41 PM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:02:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

><[email protected]> wrote
>> On Sun, 8 May 2005 18:13:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >Quit pretending that you "consider the animals" in some
>> >unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't.
>>
>> Do you? If so, explain how
>
>I'm not the one claiming I do.

Good, because you "ARAs" certainly should never claim to care about
the animals that you want to eliminate.

>When I attack your position you criticize me
>for
>not "considering the animals". That implies that you DO consider them in
>some
>unselfish way. That is a lie, your "consideration" is nothing more than a
>belief
>that the fact that we indirectly cause animals to be born bestows a kind a
>moral
>credit onto meat consumers. That belief (called "the logic of the larder")
>is a mistake.

Some farm animals' lives are of positive value and some are not. Before
you took so many gonadal stupid pills you used to understand that:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Message-ID: >

The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or
negative value to the animal.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
You are the only person I know for a fact has gotten more stupid over the
past several years, but you have obviously done it. I haven't done it with you
though, so I can still understand that the method of husbandry determines
whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal. Your
childish "AR" fantasy about a talking pig in no way refutes it either, nor
does anything else.

Dutch
May 13th 05, 05:19 PM
<[email protected]> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:02:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> ><[email protected]> wrote
> >> On Sun, 8 May 2005 18:13:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Quit pretending that you "consider the animals" in some
> >> >unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't.
> >>
> >> Do you? If so, explain how
> >
> >I'm not the one claiming I do.
>
> Good, because you "ARAs" certainly should never claim to care about
> the animals that you want to eliminate.

People who eat meat should never claim to be doing those animals a favour.

QUIT PRETENDING THAT YOU *CONSIDER* ANIMALS IN SOME UNSELFISH WAY.

> >When I attack your position you criticize me
> >for
> >not "considering the animals". That implies that you DO consider them in
> >some
> >unselfish way. That is a lie, your "consideration" is nothing more than a
> >belief
> >that the fact that we indirectly cause animals to be born bestows a kind
a
> >moral
> >credit onto meat consumers. That belief (called "the logic of the
larder")
> >is a mistake.
>
> Some farm animals' lives are of positive value and some are not.
Before
> you took so many gonadal stupid pills you used to understand that:

People who eat meat should never claim to be doing those animals a favour.

QUIT PRETENDING THAT YOU *CONSIDER* ANIMALS IN SOME UNSELFISH WAY.

Rudy Canoza
May 13th 05, 05:58 PM
[email protected] wrote:
> On 12 May 2005 10:18:32 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" >
wrote:
>
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> On 9 May 2005 10:58:09 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" >
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > He is incapable of seeing the real flaw in their argument
> >>
> >> What is then Goo?
> >
> >Your question doesn't make any sense.
>
> That's because you don't believe there is any "real flaw in their
argument".

"What is then" was an absurd question, ****wit.

There are several serious flaws, and I have correctly identified them.
You have not. You have come up with a goofy idea because you feel the
need to justify that you kill animals.

Rudy Canoza
May 13th 05, 06:03 PM
[email protected] wrote:
> On 12 May 2005 10:19:48 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" >
wrote:
>
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
wrote:
> >>
> >> >we have been here to establish
> >> >that your beliefs about animals are purely your
> >> >projection of your emotions onto animals. That is
> >> >called anthropomorphization, and it is philosophically
> >> >wrong.
> >>
> >> We have also been here and found that you have no
> >> idea whether my beliefs are correct or not,
> >
> >We DO know that your beliefs are completely incorrect.
> >
> >
> >> because you don't have a clue which emotions they are
> >> and are not capable of.
> >
> >We do know certain ones that they do not experience. Disappointment
is
> >one they do not experience.
>
> That's a lie.

No, ****wit. It isn't a lie. Your belief that they can experience
disappointment is purely your anthropomorphic projection. There is no
credible evidence non-human animals can experience disappointment. All
we have are unreliable anecdotes from credulous dopes like you.

Rudy Canoza
May 13th 05, 06:09 PM
[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:02:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> ><[email protected]> wrote
> >> On Sun, 8 May 2005 18:13:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Quit pretending that you "consider the animals" in some
> >> >unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't.
> >>
> >> Do you? If so, explain how
> >
> >I'm not the one claiming I do.
>
> Good, because you "ARAs" certainly should never claim to care
about
> the animals that you want to eliminate.

You do not "consider the animals" in some selfless way, ****wit. What
a joke. You are desperately trying to foster the illusion that you do,
but your "consideration" is entirely self-serving. No one is fooled.


> >When I attack your position you criticize me for not
> >"considering the animals". That implies that you DO consider them in
some
> >unselfish way. That is a lie, your "consideration" is nothing more
than a belief
> >that the fact that we indirectly cause animals to be born bestows a
kind a moral
> >credit onto meat consumers. That belief (called "the logic of the
larder")
> >is a mistake.
>
> Some farm animals' lives are of positive value and some are not.

non sequitur - utterly non responsive to what Dutch wrote.

No animals "benefit" from coming into existence, ****wit. This is
established as fact.

STOP pretending that you give some selfless consideration to "the farm
animals", ****wit. You do not, and everyone knows you do not.
Everyone knows that all you are doing is trying to foster the illusion
that you do; that what you actually are doing is clumsily trying to
justify your killing of animals.

> You are the only person I know for a fact has gotten more stupid

YOU are the only person who has gotten more stupid, ****wit. It begins
with your adoption of a discredited philosophy, the Illogic of the
Larder, and it extends to your labeling established opponents of "ar"
as "aras".

May 14th 05, 05:25 PM
On 13 May 2005 10:03:59 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On 12 May 2005 10:19:48 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" >
>wrote:
>>
>> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
>wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >we have been here to establish
>> >> >that your beliefs about animals are purely your
>> >> >projection of your emotions onto animals. That is
>> >> >called anthropomorphization, and it is philosophically
>> >> >wrong.
>> >>
>> >> We have also been here and found that you have no
>> >> idea whether my beliefs are correct or not,
>> >
>> >We DO know that your beliefs are completely incorrect.
>> >
>> >
>> >> because you don't have a clue which emotions they are
>> >> and are not capable of.
>> >
>> >We do know certain ones that they do not experience. Disappointment
>is
>> >one they do not experience.
>>
>> That's a lie.
>
>No, ****wit. It isn't a lie. Your belief that they can experience
>disappointment is purely your anthropomorphic projection. There is no
>credible evidence non-human animals can experience disappointment. All
>we have are unreliable anecdotes from credulous dopes like you.

You're too stupid for this Goo.

May 14th 05, 05:25 PM
On 13 May 2005 09:58:06 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On 12 May 2005 10:18:32 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" >
>wrote:
>>
>> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> On 9 May 2005 10:58:09 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" >
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > He is incapable of seeing the real flaw in their argument
>> >>
>> >> What is then Goo?
>> >
>> >Your question doesn't make any sense.
>>
>> That's because you don't believe there is any "real flaw in their
>argument".
>
>"What is then" was an absurd question, ****wit.
>
>There are several serious flaws,

There sure are, and you don't have a clue about any of them.

>and I have correctly identified them.
>You have not. You have come up with a goofy idea because you feel the
>need to justify that you kill animals.

May 14th 05, 05:25 PM
On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:19:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:02:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> ><[email protected]> wrote
>> >> On Sun, 8 May 2005 18:13:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Quit pretending that you "consider the animals" in some
>> >> >unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't.
>> >>
>> >> Do you? If so, explain how
>> >
>> >I'm not the one claiming I do.
>>
>> Good, because you "ARAs" certainly should never claim to care about
>> the animals that you want to eliminate.
>
>People who eat meat should never claim to be doing those animals a favour.
>
>QUIT PRETENDING THAT YOU *CONSIDER* ANIMALS IN SOME UNSELFISH WAY.

I can. You can't.

Rudy Canoza
May 14th 05, 06:10 PM
[email protected] wrote:

> On 13 May 2005 10:03:59 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On 12 May 2005 10:19:48 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" >
>>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
>>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>we have been here to establish
>>>>>>that your beliefs about animals are purely your
>>>>>>projection of your emotions onto animals. That is
>>>>>>called anthropomorphization, and it is philosophically
>>>>>>wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have also been here and found that you have no
>>>>>idea whether my beliefs are correct or not,
>>>>
>>>>We DO know that your beliefs are completely incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>because you don't have a clue which emotions they are
>>>>>and are not capable of.
>>>>
>>>>We do know certain ones that they do not experience. Disappointment
>>
>>is
>>
>>>>one they do not experience.
>>>
>>> That's a lie.
>>
>>No, ****wit. It isn't a lie. Your belief that they can experience
>>disappointment is purely your anthropomorphic projection. There is no
>>credible evidence non-human animals can experience disappointment. All
>>we have are unreliable anecdotes from credulous dopes like you.
>
>
> You're too stupid for this Goo.

****wit: YOU are the Goober. Stop repeating this
fundamental error. There is one Goober, and you are it.

I am both smarter and more intelligent than you,
****wit - you know it, I know it, everyone who has ever
read these exchanges knows it. It isn't even close.

Rudy Canoza
May 14th 05, 06:11 PM
[email protected] wrote:

> On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:19:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message ...
>>
>>>On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:02:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>><[email protected]> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 8 May 2005 18:13:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Quit pretending that you "consider the animals" in some
>>>>>>unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you? If so, explain how
>>>>
>>>>I'm not the one claiming I do.
>>>
>>> Good, because you "ARAs" certainly should never claim to care about
>>>the animals that you want to eliminate.
>>
>>People who eat meat should never claim to be doing those animals a favour.
>>
>>QUIT PRETENDING THAT YOU *CONSIDER* ANIMALS IN SOME UNSELFISH WAY.
>
>
> I can.

You do not. Stop lying about it.

May 15th 05, 12:22 AM
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
wrote:
> >
> > >we have been here to establish
> > >that your beliefs about animals are purely your
> > >projection of your emotions onto animals. That is
> > >called anthropomorphization, and it is philosophically
> > >wrong.
> >
> > We have also been here and found that you have no
> > idea whether my beliefs are correct or not,
>
> We DO know that your beliefs are completely incorrect.
>
>
> > because you don't have a clue which emotions they are
> > and are not capable of.
>
> We do know certain ones that they do not experience. Disappointment
is
> one they do not experience. Period.


You've got to be kidding me!! Seriously, I am very disappointed that
this discussion is even happening! WTF!

Let's start with definition:
dis=B7ap=B7point

1. To fail to satisfy the hope, desire, or expectation of.


Rudy, are you saying animals have no hopes or desires? Or are you
saying their hopes and desires are always satisfied?

Here's another one for you, have you ever admitted to an error? You
should try it every day, it makes you a better person.

Rudy Canoza
May 15th 05, 12:34 AM
wrote:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
>
> wrote:
>
>>>>we have been here to establish
>>>>that your beliefs about animals are purely your
>>>>projection of your emotions onto animals. That is
>>>>called anthropomorphization, and it is philosophically
>>>>wrong.
>>>
>>> We have also been here and found that you have no
>>>idea whether my beliefs are correct or not,
>>
>>We DO know that your beliefs are completely incorrect.
>>
>>
>>
>>>because you don't have a clue which emotions they are
>>>and are not capable of.
>>
>>We do know certain ones that they do not experience. Disappointment
>
> is
>
>>one they do not experience. Period.
>
>
>
> You've got to be kidding me!! Seriously, I am very disappointed that
> this discussion is even happening! WTF!
>
> Let's start with definition:
> dis·ap·point
>
> 1. To fail to satisfy the hope, desire, or expectation of.

You IDIOT! That's what someone can do TO another. It
is an ACTIVE verb: you disappoint me.

TO BE disappointed is passive. The disappointed one
doesn't DO anything. You've given an active verb to
try to support an overly sentimental,
anthropomorphizing view that animals can PASSIVELY be
disappointed.

You ****ing moron.

For starters, animals do not have "hopes". They have
primitive desires and expectations, but they are not
"disappointed" when they are not satisfied.


> Rudy, are you saying animals have no hopes or desires?

They absolutely do not have hopes. They have primitive
desires, and when the desires aren't met, the animals
do not mope the way humans might.

May 15th 05, 07:15 PM
On Sat, 14 May 2005 17:10:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> On 13 May 2005 10:03:59 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 12 May 2005 10:19:48 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" >
>>>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
>>>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>we have been here to establish
>>>>>>>that your beliefs about animals are purely your
>>>>>>>projection of your emotions onto animals. That is
>>>>>>>called anthropomorphization, and it is philosophically
>>>>>>>wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have also been here and found that you have no
>>>>>>idea whether my beliefs are correct or not,
>>>>>
>>>>>We DO know that your beliefs are completely incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>because you don't have a clue which emotions they are
>>>>>>and are not capable of.
>>>>>
>>>>>We do know certain ones that they do not experience. Disappointment
>>>
>>>is
>>>
>>>>>one they do not experience.
>>>>
>>>> That's a lie.
>>>
>>>No, ****wit. It isn't a lie. Your belief that they can experience
>>>disappointment is purely your anthropomorphic projection. There is no
>>>credible evidence non-human animals can experience disappointment. All
>>>we have are unreliable anecdotes from credulous dopes like you.
>>
>>
>> You're too stupid for this Goo.
>
>****wit: YOU are the Goober. Stop repeating this
>fundamental error. There is one Goober, and you are it.
>
>I am both smarter and more intelligent than you,

You are Goobernicus Gonad. You are a moron. You are an "ARA".

>****wit - you know it, I know it, everyone who has ever
>read these exchanges knows it.

LOL! Even if every single person on the planet read your stupid
lies and believed them, it would only prove that they're stupid enough
to believe your lies Goober. Maybe they are, but that wouldn't mean
you're smart, it would only mean that they're stupid.

>It isn't even close.

Rudy Canoza
May 15th 05, 07:25 PM
[email protected] wrote:

> On Sat, 14 May 2005 17:10:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 13 May 2005 10:03:59 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 12 May 2005 10:19:48 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" >
>>>>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
>>>>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>we have been here to establish
>>>>>>>>that your beliefs about animals are purely your
>>>>>>>>projection of your emotions onto animals. That is
>>>>>>>>called anthropomorphization, and it is philosophically
>>>>>>>>wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have also been here and found that you have no
>>>>>>>idea whether my beliefs are correct or not,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We DO know that your beliefs are completely incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>because you don't have a clue which emotions they are
>>>>>>>and are not capable of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We do know certain ones that they do not experience. Disappointment
>>>>
>>>>is
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>one they do not experience.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a lie.
>>>>
>>>>No, ****wit. It isn't a lie. Your belief that they can experience
>>>>disappointment is purely your anthropomorphic projection. There is no
>>>>credible evidence non-human animals can experience disappointment. All
>>>>we have are unreliable anecdotes from credulous dopes like you.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're too stupid for this Goo.
>>
>>****wit: YOU are the Goober. Stop repeating this
>>fundamental error. There is one Goober, and you are it.
>>
>>I am both smarter and more intelligent than you,
>
>
> You are Goobernicus Gonad.

You are a ****witted, stupid-beyond-belief 46-YEAR-OLD
pseudo-"man" who still makes up silly sounding names.
You are a punk, ****wit. You are not a real man.

You didn't address the statement, ****wit. You are
stupid, and I am not.


>>****wit - you know it, I know it, everyone who has ever
>>read these exchanges knows it.
>
>
> LOL!

You think it's funny that everyone correctly regards
you as stupid?

May 15th 05, 07:38 PM
On 14 May 2005 16:22:13 -0700, wrote:

>
>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> > On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
>wrote:
>> >
>> > >we have been here to establish
>> > >that your beliefs about animals are purely your
>> > >projection of your emotions onto animals. That is
>> > >called anthropomorphization, and it is philosophically
>> > >wrong.
>> >
>> > We have also been here and found that you have no
>> > idea whether my beliefs are correct or not,
>>
>> We DO know that your beliefs are completely incorrect.
>>
>>
>> > because you don't have a clue which emotions they are
>> > and are not capable of.
>>
>> We do know certain ones that they do not experience. Disappointment
>is
>> one they do not experience. Period.
>
>
>You've got to be kidding me!! Seriously, I am very disappointed that
>this discussion is even happening! WTF!

You are dealing with a moron who "thinks" he's a genius. Since he
believes he knows everything, and has believed it since grade school,
he has learned very little if anything about reality since then. Don't forget
that you're dealing with someone who thinks a fantasy about a talking
pig which was written by one of his fellow "ARAs", somehow refutes the
fact that some farm animals benefit from farming. And this same stupid
moron believes that a fantasy about a talking is of some great value,
but calls recognition of emotions in animals anthropomorphic.

>Let's start with definition:
>dis·ap·point
>
> 1. To fail to satisfy the hope, desire, or expectation of.
>
>
>Rudy, are you saying animals have no hopes or desires? Or are you
>saying their hopes and desires are always satisfied?

He is desperately trying to prevent people from recognizing that
some farm animals benefit from farming, and will tell any lie he thinks
will help with that.

>Here's another one for you, have you ever admitted to an error?

He is dedicated to his cause, and that dedication doesn't allow for
admition of lies or errors.

>You
>should try it every day, it makes you a better person.

He is an "ARA" pretending pitifully to be an "AR" opponent, trying
to use the example of his character to portray true "AR" opponents
as stupid, childish, above all dishonest, inconsiderate of humans and
other animals, etc, so the last thing Goo wants to do is portray himself
as a better person.

May 15th 05, 07:38 PM
On Sat, 14 May 2005 23:34:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>we have been here to establish
>>>>>that your beliefs about animals are purely your
>>>>>projection of your emotions onto animals. That is
>>>>>called anthropomorphization, and it is philosophically
>>>>>wrong.
>>>>
>>>> We have also been here and found that you have no
>>>>idea whether my beliefs are correct or not,
>>>
>>>We DO know that your beliefs are completely incorrect.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>because you don't have a clue which emotions they are
>>>>and are not capable of.
>>>
>>>We do know certain ones that they do not experience. Disappointment
>>
>> is
>>
>>>one they do not experience. Period.
>>
>>
>>
>> You've got to be kidding me!! Seriously, I am very disappointed that
>> this discussion is even happening! WTF!
>>
>> Let's start with definition:
>> dis·ap·point
>>
>> 1. To fail to satisfy the hope, desire, or expectation of.
>
>You IDIOT! That's what someone can do TO another. It
>is an ACTIVE verb: you disappoint me.
>
>TO BE disappointed is passive. The disappointed one
>doesn't DO anything. You've given an active verb to
>try to support an overly sentimental,
>anthropomorphizing view that animals can PASSIVELY be
>disappointed.
>
>You ****ing moron.
>
>For starters, animals do not have "hopes". They have
>primitive desires and expectations,

They are all related and some animals experience them.
Most people are not too stupid to understand that Goober.

>but they are not
>"disappointed" when they are not satisfied.
>
>
>> Rudy, are you saying animals have no hopes or desires?
>
>They absolutely do not have hopes.

You are too stupid to understand.

>They have primitive
>desires, and when the desires aren't met, the animals
>do not mope the way humans might.

How the hell could you know?

Rudy Canoza
May 15th 05, 08:29 PM
[email protected] wrote:

> On Sat, 14 May 2005 23:34:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
>>>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>we have been here to establish
>>>>>>that your beliefs about animals are purely your
>>>>>>projection of your emotions onto animals. That is
>>>>>>called anthropomorphization, and it is philosophically
>>>>>>wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have also been here and found that you have no
>>>>>idea whether my beliefs are correct or not,
>>>>
>>>>We DO know that your beliefs are completely incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>because you don't have a clue which emotions they are
>>>>>and are not capable of.
>>>>
>>>>We do know certain ones that they do not experience. Disappointment
>>>>is one they do not experience. Period.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You've got to be kidding me!! Seriously, I am very disappointed that
>>>this discussion is even happening! WTF!
>>>
>>>Let's start with definition:
>>>dis·ap·point
>>>
>>> 1. To fail to satisfy the hope, desire, or expectation of.
>>
>>You IDIOT! That's what someone can do TO another. It
>>is an ACTIVE verb: you disappoint me.
>>
>>TO BE disappointed is passive. The disappointed one
>>doesn't DO anything. You've given an active verb to
>>try to support an overly sentimental,
>>anthropomorphizing view that animals can PASSIVELY be
>>disappointed.
>>
>>You ****ing moron.
>>
>>For starters, animals do not have "hopes". They have
>>primitive desires and expectations,
>
>
> They are all related

They are not. You're too stupid and UNEDUCATED to know.


>>but they are not
>>"disappointed" when they are not satisfied.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Rudy, are you saying animals have no hopes or desires?
>>
>>They absolutely do not have hopes.
>
>
> You are too stupid to understand.

You are the stupid uneducated dope in all this,
Goober****wit. I am smart; more to the point, I am
vastly smarter and better educated and more thoughtful
than you.


>>They have primitive
>>desires, and when the desires aren't met, the animals
>>do not mope the way humans might.

gay merrington
May 18th 05, 12:32 PM
Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in a way we
as humans understand.Same goes for humans as people experience the same
emotion in different ways,same as any other animal.....No matter how ya
slice it,any emotional animal,human or not,still makes a great meal under
the right circumstance.
Glen (not Gay)

--
I was an only child.....eventually!
<[email protected]> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:03:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >> Yes they can.
> >> I did write that, and it's true.
> >
> >You write lots of ****, virtually all of it false. You
> >****ing bonehead.
>
> Animals experience disappointment Goo. Almost any
> child with a dog could tell you about it. It doesn't mean
> that all animals can, but it does mean some of them
> can. Sad you're not able to understand that.
>
> One absurd "reason" you feel that life isn't worthy
> of consideration for any animals, is because you don't
> feel that they are capable of experiencing positive
> emotions to the degree that their lives could be worthy
> of consideration. But even though your prize argument
> --that imaginary nonexistent entities can not benefit--is
> true, there is much evidence that humans are capable
> of experiencing positive emotions to the degree that
> their lives are a benefit to them. And Goobernad, even
> though you can't understand it, the same is true for
> some animals too.

Rudy Canoza
May 18th 05, 03:35 PM
gay merrington wrote:

> Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in a way we
> as humans understand.

Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do
NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy,
Schadenfreude, exultance, pride. Humans *project*
those emotions onto animals, because those are the
emotions humans might feel if they had been in some
situation in which they see animals.


> Same goes for humans as people experience the same
> emotion in different ways,same as any other animal.....No matter how ya
> slice it,any emotional animal,human or not,still makes a great meal under
> the right circumstance.
> Glen (not Gay)
>

May 18th 05, 06:48 PM
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> gay merrington wrote:
>
> > Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in
a way we
> > as humans understand.
>
> Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do
> NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy,
> Schadenfreude, exultance, pride. Humans *project*
> those emotions onto animals, because those are the
> emotions humans might feel if they had been in some
> situation in which they see animals.
>
>

In fact no other humans experience those emotions either, only Rudy.
Humans *project* Rudy's emotions onto each other, because those are the
emotions Rudy might feel if he had been in some situation in which we
see each other.

Rudy Canoza
May 18th 05, 08:01 PM
wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > gay merrington wrote:
> >
> > > Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not
in
> a way we
> > > as humans understand.
> >
> > Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do
> > NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy,
> > Schadenfreude, exultance, pride. Humans *project*
> > those emotions onto animals, because those are the
> > emotions humans might feel if they had been in some
> > situation in which they see animals.
> >
> >
>
> In fact no other humans experience those emotions either, only Rudy.
> Humans *project* Rudy's emotions onto each other, because those are
the
> emotions Rudy might feel if he had been in some situation in which we
> see each other.

Not an adult response.

May 20th 05, 06:45 PM
On 18 May 2005 12:01:13 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> > gay merrington wrote:
>> >
>> > > Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not
>in
>> a way we
>> > > as humans understand.
>> >
>> > Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do
>> > NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy,
>> > Schadenfreude, exultance, pride. Humans *project*
>> > those emotions onto animals, because those are the
>> > emotions humans might feel if they had been in some
>> > situation in which they see animals.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> In fact no other humans experience those emotions either, only Rudy.
>> Humans *project* Rudy's emotions onto each other, because those are
>the
>> emotions Rudy might feel if he had been in some situation in which we
>> see each other.
>
>Not an adult response.

That's the point Goo. Yours was stupid, ignorant, and childish, so
he mimicked you. It's pretty funny, but you don't get it.

May 20th 05, 06:46 PM
On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:35:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>gay merrington wrote:
>
>> Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in a way we
>> as humans understand.
>
>Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do
>NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy,
>Schadenfreude, exultance, pride.

What do you think prevents them from experiencing
simple things like that Goo? As yet we have no reason
to believe they can't experience pride just as well as anger,
or envy, or fear. So it is up to YOU to explain what causes
the limitation, or we will have proof once again you don't
have the slightest clue what you're trying to discuss.

Rudy Canoza
May 20th 05, 07:16 PM
[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:35:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> >gay merrington wrote:
> >
> >> Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in
a way we
> >> as humans understand.
> >
> >Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do
> >NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy,
> >Schadenfreude, exultance, pride.
>
> What do you think prevents them from experiencing
> simple things like that?

I suspect the same thing that keeps them from doing differential
calculus or studying philosophy, ****wit: the lack of human capacity.


> As yet we have no reason
> to believe they can't experience pride just as well as anger,
> or envy, or fear.

Yes, we have ample reason to believe they can't experience pride,
****wit - they give no evidence of it. I think you also can't
experience it, ****wit, because you have nothing in your life of which
to be proud.

May 20th 05, 08:32 PM
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:35:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
wrote:
> >
> > >gay merrington wrote:
> > >
> > >> Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not
in
> a way we
> > >> as humans understand.
> > >
> > >Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do
> > >NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy,
> > >Schadenfreude, exultance, pride.
> >
> > What do you think prevents them from experiencing
> > simple things like that?
>
> I suspect the same thing that keeps them from doing differential
> calculus or studying philosophy, ****wit: the lack of human
capacity.
>

So any human can do those things? I know some people who can't even
take simple derivatives, is that due to lack of human capacity?

>
> > As yet we have no reason
> > to believe they can't experience pride just as well as anger,
> > or envy, or fear.
>
> Yes, we have ample reason to believe they can't experience pride,
> ****wit - they give no evidence of it. I think you also can't
> experience it, ****wit, because you have nothing in your life of
which
> to be proud.

Perhaps you have never experienced pride if you cannot recognize it in
others.

A mother is proud of her offspring, proud of her abilitiy to care for
them. A young hunter is proud of its first kill. A male is proud of
his sexual prowess. A lion is proud of its pride (duh).
A pet is proud when it pleases its master. Some pets are proud to have
escaped their masters.

I'm proud of you for recogninzing that "pride" refers to an emotional
behavior observed in animals.

Rudy Canoza
May 20th 05, 11:19 PM
wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:35:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >gay merrington wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly
not
> in
> > a way we
> > > >> as humans understand.
> > > >
> > > >Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do
> > > >NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy,
> > > >Schadenfreude, exultance, pride.
> > >
> > > What do you think prevents them from experiencing
> > > simple things like that?
> >
> > I suspect the same thing that keeps them from doing differential
> > calculus or studying philosophy, ****wit: the lack of human
> > capacity.
> >
>
> So any human can do those things?

No, but ONLY humans can.

> I know some people who can't even
> take simple derivatives, is that due to lack of human capacity?
>
> >
> > > As yet we have no reason
> > > to believe they can't experience pride just as well as anger,
> > > or envy, or fear.
> >
> > Yes, we have ample reason to believe they can't experience pride,
> > ****wit - they give no evidence of it. I think you also can't
> > experience it, ****wit, because you have nothing in your life of
> > which to be proud.
>
> Perhaps you have never experienced pride if you cannot recognize it
in
> others.

I've experienced it myself and recognized it in others.


>
> A mother is proud of her offspring, proud of her abilitiy to care for
> them.

Non human animal mothers are not. Their only connection to their
offspring is feeding them and protecting them.

> A young hunter is proud of its first kill.

Non human hunting animals are not.


> A male is proud of his sexual prowess.

Not something to be proud of, but whatever. Non human males are not
proud of it; they just do it.


> A lion is proud of its pride (duh).

No.


> A pet is proud when it pleases its master.

No.


> Some pets are proud to have escaped their masters.

No.

Those last three were pure projection; pure anthropomorphism. Pure
nonsense, too.


>
> I'm proud of you for recogninzing that "pride" refers to an emotional
> behavior observed in animals.

Not in non human animals; not ever.

May 21st 05, 03:43 PM
On 20 May 2005 11:16:44 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:35:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>
>> >gay merrington wrote:
>> >
>> >> Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in
>a way we
>> >> as humans understand.
>> >
>> >Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do
>> >NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy,
>> >Schadenfreude, exultance, pride.
>>
>> What do you think prevents them from experiencing
>> simple things like that?
>
>I suspect the same thing that keeps them from doing differential
>calculus or studying philosophy,

How stupid of you.

>****wit: the lack of human capacity.
>
>> As yet we have no reason
>> to believe they can't experience pride just as well as anger,
>> or envy, or fear.
>
>Yes, we have ample reason to believe they can't experience pride,

We have none. We have absolutely no reason, and the proof of
that is that you can provide absolutely no reason.

>****wit - they give no evidence of it.

Some of them give plenty of evidence of it. You're just too ignorant
to know it, and would be too stupid to recognize it if you saw it. That
doesn't mean they're not capable of it, just that you're not capable of
recognizing it. But you have never been in a situation where you could
recognize it anyway, most likely. So, you have never been in a situation
where an animal displayed pride, and if you ever were to be in one you
would be unable to recognize it, but still hilariously you are insisting that
they aren't capable of it. Not any of them! Gonad, you are a retard.

>I think you also can't
>experience it, ****wit, because you have nothing in your life of which
>to be proud.

I can be proud that I have defined you Goo. And a Google search
will prove it. I can consider my definition of you to be a part of history.
Do a Google search for you:

Results 1 - 2 of 2 for goobernicus. (0.44 seconds)

and the number one result is me defining you:

Animals cannot be disappointed.
.... Goobernicus Gonad says that Darwin was projecting. This is classic! ...
You are Goobernicus Gonad. You "think" you are a genius ...
www.pet-manual.co.uk/showthread/t-36756.html - 83k -

May 21st 05, 03:55 PM
On 20 May 2005 15:19:28 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> > [email protected] wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:35:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >gay merrington wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly
>not
>> in
>> > a way we
>> > > >> as humans understand.
>> > > >
>> > > >Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do
>> > > >NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy,
>> > > >Schadenfreude, exultance, pride.
>> > >
>> > > What do you think prevents them from experiencing
>> > > simple things like that?
>> >
>> > I suspect the same thing that keeps them from doing differential
>> > calculus or studying philosophy, ****wit: the lack of human
>> > capacity.
>> >
>>
>> So any human can do those things?
>
>No, but ONLY humans can.
>
>> I know some people who can't even
>> take simple derivatives, is that due to lack of human capacity?
>>
>> >
>> > > As yet we have no reason
>> > > to believe they can't experience pride just as well as anger,
>> > > or envy, or fear.
>> >
>> > Yes, we have ample reason to believe they can't experience pride,
>> > ****wit - they give no evidence of it. I think you also can't
>> > experience it, ****wit, because you have nothing in your life of
>> > which to be proud.
>>
>> Perhaps you have never experienced pride if you cannot recognize it
>in
>> others.
>
>I've experienced it myself and recognized it in others.
>
>
>>
>> A mother is proud of her offspring, proud of her abilitiy to care for
>> them.
>
>Non human animal mothers are not. Their only connection to their
>offspring is feeding them and protecting them.

You're just too stupid to recognize anything else Goo. There are
lots of other connections. Even birds teach things to their young.
You are so out of touch you don't have any clue at all what the
hell you're trying to discuss. Pride is no harder to experience than
anger, but for some stupid retarded reason you believe it is. That
is only one of many examples of how stupid you are Goober. You
are a moronic clown who "thinks" he's a genius. Your only humor
is in your own stupidity, which is often pathetic but hilarious. In this
particular case so far it's just pathetic, because you're not able to
think enough about it to explain what what you believe restricts all
nonhuman animals from experiencing simple basic emotions.

Rudy Canoza
May 21st 05, 06:42 PM
[email protected] wrote:

> On 18 May 2005 12:01:13 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>>gay merrington wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not
>>
>>in
>>
>>>a way we
>>>
>>>>>as humans understand.
>>>>
>>>>Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do
>>>>NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy,
>>>>Schadenfreude, exultance, pride. Humans *project*
>>>>those emotions onto animals, because those are the
>>>>emotions humans might feel if they had been in some
>>>>situation in which they see animals.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>In fact no other humans experience those emotions either, only Rudy.
>>>Humans *project* Rudy's emotions onto each other, because those are the
>>>emotions Rudy might feel if he had been in some situation in which we
>>>see each other.
>>
>>Not an adult response.
>
>
> That's the point

Yes. Shevvie did not make an adult response. Neither
did you.

Rudy Canoza
May 21st 05, 09:30 PM
[email protected] wrote:

> On 20 May 2005 11:16:44 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:35:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>gay merrington wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in
>>
>>a way we
>>
>>>>>as humans understand.
>>>>
>>>>Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do
>>>>NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy,
>>>>Schadenfreude, exultance, pride.
>>>
>>> What do you think prevents them from experiencing
>>>simple things like that?
>>
>>I suspect the same thing that keeps them from doing differential
>>calculus or studying philosophy,
>
>
> How stupid of you.

No, stupid ****wit.


>>****wit: the lack of human capacity.
>>
>>
>>>As yet we have no reason
>>>to believe they can't experience pride just as well as anger,
>>>or envy, or fear.
>>
>>Yes, we have ample reason to believe they can't experience pride,
>
>
> We have none.

We have ample reason, ****wit: they give no evidence
of it.


>>****wit - they give no evidence of it.
>
>
> Some of them give plenty of evidence of it.

None of them give ANY evidence of it.


>>I think you also can't
>>experience it, ****wit, because you have nothing in your life of which
>>to be proud.
>
>
> I can be proud that I have defined you

You haven't defined me, ****wit. I have defined you.
Completely.

Rudy Canoza
May 21st 05, 09:31 PM
[email protected] wrote:

> On 20 May 2005 15:19:28 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:35:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
>>>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>gay merrington wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly
>>
>>not
>>
>>>in
>>>
>>>>a way we
>>>>
>>>>>>>as humans understand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do
>>>>>>NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy,
>>>>>>Schadenfreude, exultance, pride.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think prevents them from experiencing
>>>>>simple things like that?
>>>>
>>>>I suspect the same thing that keeps them from doing differential
>>>>calculus or studying philosophy, ****wit: the lack of human
>>>>capacity.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So any human can do those things?
>>
>>No, but ONLY humans can.
>>
>>
>>>I know some people who can't even
>>>take simple derivatives, is that due to lack of human capacity?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>As yet we have no reason
>>>>>to believe they can't experience pride just as well as anger,
>>>>>or envy, or fear.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, we have ample reason to believe they can't experience pride,
>>>>****wit - they give no evidence of it. I think you also can't
>>>>experience it, ****wit, because you have nothing in your life of
>>>>which to be proud.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you have never experienced pride if you cannot recognize it
>>
>>in
>>
>>>others.
>>
>>I've experienced it myself and recognized it in others.
>>
>>
>>
>>>A mother is proud of her offspring, proud of her abilitiy to care for
>>>them.
>>
>>Non human animal mothers are not. Their only connection to their
>>offspring is feeding them and protecting them.
>
>
> You're just too stupid

I'm not stupid about anything, ****wit, and you know
it. YOU are stupid, though: you barely finished high
school, you didn't attend university, and you make your
living doing menial bull**** work. That's the picture
of southern redneck stupidity.

May 22nd 05, 09:11 PM
On Sat, 21 May 2005 20:31:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> On 20 May 2005 15:19:28 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:35:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
>>>>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>gay merrington wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly
>>>
>>>not
>>>
>>>>in
>>>>
>>>>>a way we
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>as humans understand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do
>>>>>>>NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy,
>>>>>>>Schadenfreude, exultance, pride.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think prevents them from experiencing
>>>>>>simple things like that?
>>>>>
>>>>>I suspect the same thing that keeps them from doing differential
>>>>>calculus or studying philosophy, ****wit: the lack of human
>>>>>capacity.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So any human can do those things?
>>>
>>>No, but ONLY humans can.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I know some people who can't even
>>>>take simple derivatives, is that due to lack of human capacity?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>As yet we have no reason
>>>>>>to believe they can't experience pride just as well as anger,
>>>>>>or envy, or fear.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, we have ample reason to believe they can't experience pride,
>>>>>****wit - they give no evidence of it. I think you also can't
>>>>>experience it, ****wit, because you have nothing in your life of
>>>>>which to be proud.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps you have never experienced pride if you cannot recognize it
>>>
>>>in
>>>
>>>>others.
>>>
>>>I've experienced it myself and recognized it in others.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>A mother is proud of her offspring, proud of her abilitiy to care for
>>>>them.
>>>
>>>Non human animal mothers are not. Their only connection to their
>>>offspring is feeding them and protecting them.
>>
>>
>> You're just too stupid
>
>I'm not stupid about anything

You lost that one too.

May 22nd 05, 09:11 PM
On Sat, 21 May 2005 17:42:41 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> On 18 May 2005 12:01:13 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>gay merrington wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not
>>>
>>>in
>>>
>>>>a way we
>>>>
>>>>>>as humans understand.
>>>>>
>>>>>Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do
>>>>>NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy,
>>>>>Schadenfreude, exultance, pride. Humans *project*
>>>>>those emotions onto animals, because those are the
>>>>>emotions humans might feel if they had been in some
>>>>>situation in which they see animals.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In fact no other humans experience those emotions either, only Rudy.
>>>>Humans *project* Rudy's emotions onto each other, because those are the
>>>>emotions Rudy might feel if he had been in some situation in which we
>>>>see each other.
>>>
>>>Not an adult response.
>>
>>
>> That's the point
>
>Yes. Shevvie did not make an adult response. Neither
>did you.

You lost that one Goo.

May 22nd 05, 09:11 PM
On Sat, 21 May 2005 20:30:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> On 20 May 2005 11:16:44 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:35:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>gay merrington wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in
>>>
>>>a way we
>>>
>>>>>>as humans understand.
>>>>>
>>>>>Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do
>>>>>NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy,
>>>>>Schadenfreude, exultance, pride.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think prevents them from experiencing
>>>>simple things like that?
>>>
>>>I suspect the same thing that keeps them from doing differential
>>>calculus or studying philosophy,
>>
>>
>> How stupid of you.
>
>No, stupid ****wit.
>
>
>>>****wit: the lack of human capacity.
>>>
>>>
>>>>As yet we have no reason
>>>>to believe they can't experience pride just as well as anger,
>>>>or envy, or fear.
>>>
>>>Yes, we have ample reason to believe they can't experience pride,
>>
>>
>> We have none.
>
>We have ample reason, ****wit: they give no evidence
>of it.
>
>
>>>****wit - they give no evidence of it.
>>
>>
>> Some of them give plenty of evidence of it.
>
>None of them give ANY evidence of it.

And you lose again.

>>>I think you also can't
>>>experience it, ****wit, because you have nothing in your life of which
>>>to be proud.
>>
>>
>> I can be proud that I have defined you
>
>You haven't defined me, ****wit.

That's a lie Goober.

>I have defined you.
>Completely.

Rudy Canoza
May 22nd 05, 10:30 PM
[email protected] wrote:

> On Sat, 21 May 2005 17:42:41 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 18 May 2005 12:01:13 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>gay merrington wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not
>>>>
>>>>in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>a way we
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>as humans understand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do
>>>>>>NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy,
>>>>>>Schadenfreude, exultance, pride. Humans *project*
>>>>>>those emotions onto animals, because those are the
>>>>>>emotions humans might feel if they had been in some
>>>>>>situation in which they see animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In fact no other humans experience those emotions either, only Rudy.
>>>>>Humans *project* Rudy's emotions onto each other, because those are the
>>>>>emotions Rudy might feel if he had been in some situation in which we
>>>>>see each other.
>>>>
>>>>Not an adult response.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's the point
>>
>>Yes. Shevvie did not make an adult response. Neither
>>did you.
>
>
> You lost

I won. You and Shevvie did not make adult responses.
You never do.

Rudy Canoza
May 22nd 05, 10:31 PM
[email protected] wrote:

> On Sat, 21 May 2005 20:30:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 20 May 2005 11:16:44 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:35:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>gay merrington wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in
>>>>
>>>>a way we
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>as humans understand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do
>>>>>>NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy,
>>>>>>Schadenfreude, exultance, pride.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think prevents them from experiencing
>>>>>simple things like that?
>>>>
>>>>I suspect the same thing that keeps them from doing differential
>>>>calculus or studying philosophy,
>>>
>>>
>>> How stupid of you.
>>
>>No, stupid ****wit.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>****wit: the lack of human capacity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>As yet we have no reason
>>>>>to believe they can't experience pride just as well as anger,
>>>>>or envy, or fear.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, we have ample reason to believe they can't experience pride,
>>>
>>>
>>> We have none.
>>
>>We have ample reason, ****wit: they give no evidence
>>of it.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>****wit - they give no evidence of it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Some of them give plenty of evidence of it.
>>
>>None of them give ANY evidence of it.
>
>
> And you lose again.
>
>
>>>>I think you also can't
>>>>experience it, ****wit, because you have nothing in your life of which
>>>>to be proud.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can be proud that I have defined you
>>
>>You haven't defined me, ****wit.
>
>
> That's a lie

Nope. It's the truth. I have defined you. You are
****wit, and everyone thinks of you as ****wit, and in
exactly the way I have fashioned.


>
>>I have defined you.
>>Completely.
>
>

Rudy Canoza
May 23rd 05, 03:26 PM
[email protected] wrote:

> On Sat, 21 May 2005 20:30:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 20 May 2005 11:16:44 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:35:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>gay merrington wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in
>>>>
>>>>a way we
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>as humans understand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do
>>>>>>NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy,
>>>>>>Schadenfreude, exultance, pride.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think prevents them from experiencing
>>>>>simple things like that?
>>>>
>>>>I suspect the same thing that keeps them from doing differential
>>>>calculus or studying philosophy,
>>>
>>>
>>> How stupid of you.
>>
>>No, stupid ****wit.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>****wit: the lack of human capacity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>As yet we have no reason
>>>>>to believe they can't experience pride just as well as anger,
>>>>>or envy, or fear.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, we have ample reason to believe they can't experience pride,
>>>
>>>
>>> We have none.
>>
>>We have ample reason, ****wit: they give no evidence
>>of it.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>****wit - they give no evidence of it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Some of them give plenty of evidence of it.
>>
>>None of them give ANY evidence of it.
>
>
> And you lose again.

No, ****wit. NO non-human animals give ANY evidence of
experiencing pride. ZERO. Just like you, ****wit - a
ZERO.

May 28th 05, 05:00 PM
On Sun, 22 May 2005 21:31:30 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 May 2005 20:30:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>>>You haven't defined me, ****wit.
>>
>>
>> That's a lie
>
>Nope.

Yup. You are Goobernicus Gonad. If you are truly as stupid as you claim
to be, then you are exactly as I have defined you Goo.

May 28th 05, 05:07 PM
On Mon, 23 May 2005 14:26:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 May 2005 20:30:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 20 May 2005 11:16:44 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:35:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>gay merrington wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in
>>>>>
>>>>>a way we
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>as humans understand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do
>>>>>>>NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy,
>>>>>>>Schadenfreude, exultance, pride.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think prevents them from experiencing
>>>>>>simple things like that?
>>>>>
>>>>>I suspect the same thing that keeps them from doing differential
>>>>>calculus or studying philosophy,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How stupid of you.
>>>
>>>No, stupid ****wit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>****wit: the lack of human capacity.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>As yet we have no reason
>>>>>>to believe they can't experience pride just as well as anger,
>>>>>>or envy, or fear.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, we have ample reason to believe they can't experience pride,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We have none.
>>>
>>>We have ample reason, ****wit: they give no evidence
>>>of it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>****wit - they give no evidence of it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some of them give plenty of evidence of it.
>>>
>>>None of them give ANY evidence of it.
>>
>>
>> And you lose again.
>
>No, ****wit. NO non-human animals give ANY evidence of
>experiencing pride.

Yes they do Goo. You're just too stupid to recognise it.
Pride is no more impossible to experience than anger or fear,
and you moronically display incredible stupidity by flaunting
the fact that you "think" it is.

Rudy Canoza
May 31st 05, 05:17 AM
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2005 21:31:30 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 21 May 2005 20:30:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>>>You haven't defined me, ****wit.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's a lie
>>
>>Nope.
>
>
> Yup.

No.

Why are you using childish speak, ****wit?

Rudy Canoza
May 31st 05, 05:18 AM
[email protected] wrote:

> On Mon, 23 May 2005 14:26:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 21 May 2005 20:30:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 20 May 2005 11:16:44 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:35:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>gay merrington wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Animals,most if not all,DO experience emotion but certainly not in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>a way we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>as humans understand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Primitive emotions: fear, aggression, anger. They do
>>>>>>>>NOT experience disappointment, dashed hope, envy,
>>>>>>>>Schadenfreude, exultance, pride.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you think prevents them from experiencing
>>>>>>>simple things like that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I suspect the same thing that keeps them from doing differential
>>>>>>calculus or studying philosophy,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How stupid of you.
>>>>
>>>>No, stupid ****wit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>****wit: the lack of human capacity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As yet we have no reason
>>>>>>>to believe they can't experience pride just as well as anger,
>>>>>>>or envy, or fear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, we have ample reason to believe they can't experience pride,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We have none.
>>>>
>>>>We have ample reason, ****wit: they give no evidence
>>>>of it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>****wit - they give no evidence of it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some of them give plenty of evidence of it.
>>>>
>>>>None of them give ANY evidence of it.
>>>
>>>
>>> And you lose again.
>>
>>No, ****wit. NO non-human animals give ANY evidence of
>>experiencing pride.
>
>
> Yes they do

No, they don't, ****wit. You're just too soppily
sentimental not to realize it.