Animals do not "anticipate"

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 14:02:40 GMT, Jack Crenshaw wrote:

dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:40:36 GMT, Jack Crenshaw wrote:


dh@. pointed out:


He's been exposed to it, but can't comprehend. And most
amusingly he considers himself to be very intelligent, hence
his title as Goobernicus: the moron who thinks he's a genius.
That's our Goo :-)

Wait a minute ... is this about AR?


Well, it began about the stupidity of Goobernicus and what he
wants people to believe for some unexplainable reason(s), but....


If so, a plague on both your houses.


And likewise, thanks.


I have been here before, and encountered the AR and anti-AR
types before. IMO the only behavior more offensive and more hateful than
that of the AR, PETA types,


snip carefully compiled but utterly irrelevant list

It's quite relevant to the claim you made.

-- compiled by
someone else, no doubt -- of reasons why he's right and his opponents
are wrong

It's not my fault you're wrong. All I did was draw attention to the fact,
so don't pretend I'm the bad guy.

So far I believe you're being extremely dishonest. But! If you can
show some example(s) of anti-"aras" engaging in "behavior more offensive
and more hateful than that of the AR, PETA types", then we'll see that
you're not being dishonest. But again!!! When you can't, we will have
learned that for some unexplained reason you are being dishonest. Do
you want to explain why, or must we try to guess?


Never thought
I'd catch myself saying that there are people more stupid and hateful
than PETA, but there you are.


Let's you educate us then. To begin with why don't you start by
explaining which rights you believe "aras" would provide for which
animals if any, and why we should believe you/them, if you can.

You don't understand. This is personal.

The next decision I have to make is whether I give a rat's ass whether
you get "educated" or not.

As yet there's no reason to believe you have any worthwhile "education"
to offer...

Let me see ..

Nope, I don't. _BUT_ I will offer an explanation to the other folks
reading this,

Do you think there are any?

with the understanding that this is no invitation to debate.

No surprise there.

This reply is the end of the conversation, with you or anyone else.

LOL...the cop-out before you even begin. This is classic :-)

[...]
Now, it's one thing to want to save animals being hurt for no reason
except greed. I can understand the motives of the PETA folks,

In case anyone is reading this who doesn't understand what
those motives are, I'd like to point out that the objective of "ar"
is not to provide domestic animals with better lives, longer lives,
rights, or anything at all. The objective of "ar" is to *eliminate*
domestic animals, and people who have any interest in animals
should always keep that fact in mind:
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University

"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)

http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of
animal well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease
prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when
necessary, humane euthanasia.

Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized by
statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and animal rights
are not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly endorses and adopts
promotion of animal welfare as official policy; however, the AVMA cannot
endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights advocates
when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals for human
purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, and research conducted for the
benefit of both humans and animals.

http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
As two recent issues of Alternatives in Philanthropy discussed
("Animal Welfare vs. Animal Rights: The Case of PETA," July 1997,
and "The Humane Society of the U.S.: It’s Not about Animal
Shelters," October 1997), animal rights organizations seek to end
traditional uses of animals. By contrast, animal welfare organizations
seek to improve the treatment of animals. Animal lovers who wish
to support animal-interest organizations should keep this distinction in
mind.
[...]
http://www.responsiblewildlifemanage...mal_rights.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.

"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
February 1991, p. 20.

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
[...]

"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.

"Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment
of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of
animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only
serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are
achieved." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means
Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992,
pp. 40-42.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla...ights/pets.txt
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
while I
am completely outraged by their methods and acts. Nobody is a more
vociferous enemy of those who would harm people's property or their
bodies, under the guise of "saving the whales."

But I can't even _BEGIN_ to understand the mentality of people who are
so irrationally opposed to PETA and the other AR groups, that they see
the death of innocent orphaned and injured animals as a victory.

It's hard to believe anyone would feel that way, but if they do it's
almost certainly because they are both stupid and ignorant.

The
wild animals in question weren't soldiers in the AR/anti-AR war. They
were "collateral damage."

Opposing PETA is one thing. Actively helping to kill innocent wildlife
is quite another. Because of the actions of the "brave" anti-AR people
in this very newsgroup, many thousands more seabirds, songbirds,
squirrels, raccoons, opossums, and the like -- often, members of
endangered species -- died.

I don't believe you.

These animals weren't part of any medical
experiments; they weren't involved in efforts to cure cancer or develop
the latest brand of lipstick. They weren't animals in a barnyard or
slaugtherhouse. Their only offense was to have the temerity to be
orphaned or injured within the sphere of influence of a greedy and
utterly heartless man.

There is no list of grievances you can show me -- no amount of
justification for your position -- that can redeem you from such hateful
and inhuman behavior. You, sir, are part of the Culture of Death. You
have allowed whatever sense of decency you might have once had, to be so
corrupted that you see a dead eagle as a victory for your side.

No. That much I know is a lie, so I imagine you made up all of
the above absurd and unlikely bull**** as well.

We are done.

Jack

Too bad. It appears that we'll never learn why Jack lied, but must
continue to wonder: Why would anyone make up a bunch of absurd
and unlikely crap like that?

On Sat, 06 May 2006, a crazed and desperate Goober wrote:

dh asked AGAIN:

Then what do YOU think it was you inept Goober?

What do YOU think it was, ****WIT? Don't
"anticipation", because that's wrong: first, dogs
don't experience it; second, anticipation in humans is
a conscious state triggered by chemical reactions in
the brain; it doesn't trigger the chemical reactions.

You are getting it backward, you ****ing ignorant
****-eating cracker. The mental state doesn't trigger
the chemical reaction, you ****ing goddamned UNEDUCATED
IGNORANT moron.

LOL!!! Oops. I'm laughing at your mental illness again Goo.
It is pretty damn hilarious that you don't have any idea what
YOU think was the cause though, you poor inept Goober.

wrote:

"Many times, a human *anticipates* something without
even being told. That's because the human has an
understanding of the passage of time and the repetition
of intermediate events.

Dogs and other animals ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE this kind
of understanding, and THEREFORE do not "anticipate"
anything. If the dog's owner tells the dog "I'm going
to take you for a walk next Saturday", that is
MEANINGLESS to the dog - he does not anticipate going
for the walk. If the owner picks up the leash, as he
always does before taking the dog for a walk, the dog
may react to that *signal* and get excited. It is not
"anticipating" the walk; it is merely giving a
CONDITIONED RESPONSE to a signal.

This difference is *elementary* to people who really
understand the issue"


This is all true.

On Sun, 07 May 2006 05:27:33 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:

wrote:

"Many times, a human *anticipates* something without
even being told. That's because the human has an
understanding of the passage of time and the repetition
of intermediate events.

Dogs and other animals ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE this kind
of understanding, and THEREFORE do not "anticipate"
anything. If the dog's owner tells the dog "I'm going
to take you for a walk next Saturday", that is
MEANINGLESS to the dog - he does not anticipate going
for the walk. If the owner picks up the leash, as he
always does before taking the dog for a walk, the dog
may react to that *signal* and get excited. It is not
"anticipating" the walk; it is merely giving a
CONDITIONED RESPONSE to a signal.

This difference is *elementary* to people who really
understand the issue"


This is all true.

Odd that you're the only one who agrees with yourself.

****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker, lied:

On Sun, 07 May 2006 05:27:33 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:


wrote:


"Many times, a human *anticipates* something without
even being told. That's because the human has an
understanding of the passage of time and the repetition
of intermediate events.

Dogs and other animals ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE this kind
of understanding, and THEREFORE do not "anticipate"
anything. If the dog's owner tells the dog "I'm going
to take you for a walk next Saturday", that is
MEANINGLESS to the dog - he does not anticipate going
for the walk. If the owner picks up the leash, as he
always does before taking the dog for a walk, the dog
may react to that *signal* and get excited. It is not
"anticipating" the walk; it is merely giving a
CONDITIONED RESPONSE to a signal.

This difference is *elementary* to people who really
understand the issue"


This is all true.


Odd that

No, not that odd, ****wit. It's all very reasonable,
and apparent to anyone who looks at intelligently.

Leif Erikson wrote:
****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker, lied:

On Sun, 07 May 2006 05:27:33 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:


wrote:


"Many times, a human *anticipates* something without
even being told. That's because the human has an
understanding of the passage of time and the repetition
of intermediate events.

Dogs and other animals ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE this kind
of understanding, and THEREFORE do not "anticipate"
anything. If the dog's owner tells the dog "I'm going
to take you for a walk next Saturday", that is
MEANINGLESS to the dog - he does not anticipate going
for the walk. If the owner picks up the leash, as he
always does before taking the dog for a walk, the dog
may react to that *signal* and get excited. It is not
"anticipating" the walk; it is merely giving a
CONDITIONED RESPONSE to a signal.

This difference is *elementary* to people who really
understand the issue"


This is all true.


Odd that

No, not that odd, ****wit. It's all very reasonable,
and apparent to anyone who looks at intelligently.



Yes Goo. We can all see why YOU are the only one to agree with
yourself.

It's not odd at all that no one agrees with you. It is very reasonable.
It is apparent to anyone who looks at it intelligently that NO ONE
agrees with you.


At last Goo! You finally got it right.

Stupid little bugger.

On 9 May 2006 21:28:40 -0700, " wrote:

I've been quietly reading posts for a few days now and some of the
stuff is quite disturbing,

From a confused and disturbed mind...

anyway I dont remember who said dogs do not anticipate (sorry)

That would be one of the many absurd claims made by the Goober.

but this doesn't make sense.

LOL. No, it makes none at all.

My dog knows when I'm
getting ready to go out she will soon be going to lay down and is calm
about that. she knows when she comes in from outside she gets two small
doggy cookies, (not one) and so on......... If this is just conditioned
behavior what makes it different from anticipation?

The Goober will boldly proclaim idiocies like:

"Anticipation requires language." - Goo

"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
disappointment. They don't have the mental ability to
feel either." - Goo

"Animals do not experience pride or disappointment. Period.
[...]
No animals anticipate." - Goo

"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo

"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle,
or any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo

"They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo

"They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo

But when we ask Goob to explain what he believes causes
animals to give the clear appearance that they are experiencing
anticipation etc, as a result of conditions which could easily
bring about such feelings, the Goober begins to maunder about
even more absurd things like humans somehow project their
emotions into the animals causing the change in their behavior
(possibly via a sort of voodoo), and other times his desperate
maunderings become so inept that all Goo can do is ask the
other person what he/she thinks causes it.

The absurdity of this Goober is hilarious!

On 10 May 2006 03:53:11 -0700,
wrote:

wrote:

anyway I dont remember who said dogs do not anticipate

That was the first poster to this thread, .

Actually is was a fool known as Goobernicus (the moron who thinks
he's a genius, which a Google search can confirm) who made the
absurd claim to begin with, and then it was re-posted so that people
could:

a) learn about a great mystery apparently only "recognised" by Goo.

or

b) be amused by some of the absurd claims made by our inept Goober.

"Leif Erikson" wrote

If you telephone the veterinarian and make an appointment to take your dog
in, and the dog is sitting in the room with you as you make the call, the
dog does not anticipate the trip to the vet; but if you do the same thing
with a child age 5 or more, there's a very good chance the child will know
he is going to be seeing the doctor. That's anticipation.

Bad example because it depends on language ability. Here's an example that
doesn't.

Our 1-year old German Shepherd/Dobe mix hated getting wet in any way
whatsoever. On one occasion when it was raining he had to *go* so he went to
the door and indicated he wanted to be let out. Knowing that it was raining
and wondering what he'd do, I opened the door. He took a couple of steps out
the door and immediately retreated back inside. I shut the door.

After a few moments he must have had a canine "aha" moment because he went
to the *back* door and indicated he wanted to be let out. Amused, I opened
that door, he took a couple of steps, etc etc.

Now I call this anticipation. Why? Because he was anticipating that *it
wasn't raining outside the back door*. He was wrong of course. But
anticipations often are.

I don't see how this behavior can possibly have been "conditioned". At no
time did this animal ever go to one door and fail to be let outside only to
go to the other and succeed.

By the way, he never did this again. Was that "conditioning"? Or was it
"learning"?

--
Bob
http://www.kanyak.com

Opinicus wrote:

"Leif Erikson" wrote


If you telephone the veterinarian and make an appointment to take your dog
in, and the dog is sitting in the room with you as you make the call, the
dog does not anticipate the trip to the vet; but if you do the same thing
with a child age 5 or more, there's a very good chance the child will know
he is going to be seeing the doctor. That's anticipation.


Bad example because it depends on language ability.

That's part of what makes it a GOOD example. The kind
of anticipation you and ****wit David Harrison are
trying to attribute to dogs and other animals
*absolutely* depends on language - that's why animals
don't experience it.


Here's an example that doesn't.

Our 1-year old German Shepherd/Dobe mix hated getting wet in any way
whatsoever. On one occasion when it was raining he had to *go* so he went to
the door and indicated he wanted to be let out. Knowing that it was raining
and wondering what he'd do, I opened the door. He took a couple of steps out
the door and immediately retreated back inside. I shut the door.

After a few moments he must have had a canine "aha" moment because he went
to the *back* door and indicated he wanted to be let out. Amused, I opened
that door, he took a couple of steps, etc etc.

Now I call this anticipation. Why? Because he was anticipating

So you need to use the word "anticipation" in order to
explain why what he was doing was "anticipation". Nice
trick; also completely invalid.

The dog was not "anticipating" anything. YOU are
trying to imagine how he was thinking, based on how YOU
might think. That's the whole problem he human
projection, or anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism has
been philosophically derided and discredited for centures.


that *it
wasn't raining outside the back door*. He was wrong of course. But
anticipations often are.

You have projected your interpretation of what was
going on onto the dog. He wasn't anticipating anything.



I don't see how this behavior can possibly have been "conditioned".

He still had to ****, that's all.

At no
time did this animal ever go to one door and fail to be let outside only to
go to the other and succeed.

He didn't "fail to be let outside" this time, either.
The discomfort of getting wet exceeded the discomfort
of "holding it", so he didn't go out.



By the way, he never did this again. Was that "conditioning"? Or was it
"learning"?