Animals cannot be disappointed.
 

Animals cannot be disappointed.
I did write that, and it's true.

Yes they can.
I did write that, and it's true.

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.

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.

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.

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.

dh@. 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.

dh@. 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

Joanne wrote:

dh@. 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.

dh@. 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.

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!

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.

On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:31:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Joanne wrote:

dh@. 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.

On Sat, 7 May 2005 11:08:24 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


dh@. 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.

Joanne wrote:
dh@. 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.

On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:17:45 GMT, "Joanne" wrote:


dh@. 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/char...pression02.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".

On Sat, 07 May 2005 16:52:02 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

dh@. 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/char...pression02.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

dh@. wrote:

On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:31:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Joanne wrote:


dh@. 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 befo 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.

dh@. wrote:

On Sat, 7 May 2005 11:08:24 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


dh@. 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.

dh@. wrote:

On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:17:45 GMT, "Joanne" wrote:


dh@. 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.

dh@. wrote:

On Sat, 07 May 2005 16:52:02 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


dh@. 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.

On Sun, 08 May 2005 17:52:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

dh@. wrote:

On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:31:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Joanne wrote:


dh@. 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 befo 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:
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
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.

On Sun, 08 May 2005 18:00:26 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

dh@. wrote:

On Sat, 07 May 2005 16:52:02 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


dh@. 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....!

dh@. 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.

dh@. wrote:

On Sun, 08 May 2005 17:52:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


dh@. wrote:


On Sat, 07 May 2005 17:31:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:



Joanne wrote:



dh@. 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 befo 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.

dh@. wrote:

On Sun, 08 May 2005 18:00:26 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


dh@. wrote:


On Sat, 07 May 2005 16:52:02 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:



dh@. 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?

On Sun, 8 May 2005 12:07:29 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


dh@. 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.

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.

dh@. 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.

dh@. 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.

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Sun, 8 May 2005 12:07:29 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


dh@. 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.

Dutch wrote:
dh@. wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 May 2005 12:07:29 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


dh@. 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.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
dh@. wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 May 2005 12:07:29 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


dh@. 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.

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?

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

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.

dh@. 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.

dh@. 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.

dh@. 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.