If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Distressing Article | Phil P. | Cat health & behaviour | 2 | December 15th 04 12:51 AM |
Animals are not currency | Michael | Cat anecdotes | 18 | September 14th 04 01:20 PM |
Friend in Oshkosh Wisconsin needs help! | Batson | Cat health & behaviour | 10 | May 26th 04 08:47 PM |
NEW PET ANIMALS BULLETIN BOARD SERVICE! | Animalsrus1 | Cat rescue | 1 | August 1st 03 12:19 AM |