Animals cannot be disappointed.

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.