Re: Boobs; Goofy and Clownish.................

dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:01:07 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 20, 8:00 pm, Dutch <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> Mr. Smartypants wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 21, 7:39 am, Dutch <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>>>>>> Could Dutch advise Boobs to post scanned evidence of his supposed
>>>>>>> academic credentials?
>>>>>> No advice for him, but I've got some for you, find something more
>>>>>> constructive to do, following Ball around like a little dog is
pitiful.
>>>>> You hold centre stage Dutch like some superbly coiffed young thing
on
>>>>> the catwalk modelling an evening gown with poise and grace and
running
>>>>> around trying to protect Boobs from well deserved ass-kickings just
>>>>> detracts from that........in spite of your style and wit.
>>>> None of you is kicking anything.
>>> You don't feel that Ball made himself look just a trifle foolish here?
>>>
>>>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/msg/d772b5b7aef68e29?dmode=source
>> A trifle, maybe, big deal.
>>
>>> Ah, well. I laughed long and hard; no doubt that's because I lack a
>>> sense of humour.
>> Everybody finds it amusing to think they've one-upped somebody. 
> 
>     Goo often outstupids his own self, which is also quite amusing.
> 
>> That's not a measure of a sense of humour. 
> 
>     It's funny when the Goober does it none the less.

The point is that it does not take a sense of humour to laugh when 
someone else makes a mistake. It takes a sense of humour to laugh when 
*you* make a mistake.

>> Say something genuinely witty or 
>> funny, laugh at yourself, acknowledge when an "opponent" says something

>> funny, 
> 
>     I believe it's generally agreed that when Goo tries to be funny
> it turns out being pathetic and stupid, but when he tries to be
> intelligent it's often hilarious.

That is the consensus of a small circle of people with a vested interest 
in the belief. The wider consensus is that he is extremely crude and 
insulting, however highly intelligent and articulate.

> 
>> that would show a sense of humour. The fact that you are riding 
>> this "trifle" so hard reveals nothing interesting about you.
> 
>     It's all Goo's fault. The Goober has been challenged to do 
> a number of things he claims to be able to do, but can't. If he
> would try then we'd have some new things to ride for a while,
> but he's too inept. Some of the things Goo is afraid to even 
> attempt include:
> 
> 1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and
>     can not experience.

That's a matter of defining the cognitive limitations of the species.

> 2. explaining how anything could have inherent rights.

He doesn't believe in inherent rights.

> 3. providing any opposition at all to "AR".

He's debating Rupert right now, he argues with pearl, and with every ARA 
who stumbles into aaev. Your insistence on this point destroys whatever 
slight credibility you may have.

> 4. explaining why nothing has ever benefitted from living.

That's a matter of clearly defining the word "benefit".


> 5. explaining why we should only consider killing but not life.

The act of killing raises a legitimate moral consideration. The act of 
living doesn't.

> 
> 6. explaining what or whom--other than those who are
>     disturbed by the fact that humans eat meat--would benefit
>     from their elimination objective.

Whew.. the elimination of livestock would eliminate whatever perceived 
injustice and/or suffering the raising of livestock entails.

> 7. describing any emotion(s) through language.

Is there another way to describe something?


> 8. explaining any way(s) in which people could contribute to
>     better lives for food animals.

That's easy, buy "freedom" certified foods.

> 
> 9. explaining why one emotion is more difficult to experience 
>     than another.

Some emotions entail complex abstract cognitive capacities which most 
animals do not possess.

> 10. explaining how any difference between the ability of humans and
>       other animals to experience emotions, is a moral issue.

Needs rewording

> 
> 11. explaining the qualitative differences between anger and
>       disappointment, if there are any.

You should check a dictionary, they are not synonyms.

> 
> 12. demonstrating an ethically equivalent or superior alternative
>       to the elimination of domestic animals.

That would depend on the ethical bases for the decision


> 13. explaining what it is that makes animals appear to be experiencing
>       certain emotions, under conditions which could easily trigger
those
>       particular emotions, if it is not those particular emotions.

Anthropomorphism

> 
> 14. explaining how any emotions could be dependant on language.

If I call you an asshole you may be upset. If I call my cat an asshole, 
he will never be upset.


> 15. explaining the kind of stimulus-response "anticipation" you can get 
>       from a dog.

Doge have memories, they become excited when they receive a cue that a 
good experience is about to be repeated.

> 
> 16. explaining what--if anything at all--he has learned from experience
>       with animals.

Don't know

> 
> 17. explaining what could be more im****tant to animals raised for food
>       than the experiencing of their lives.

Good treatment.

> 
> 18. describing any tests which have been done to test for self-awareness

>       in dogs.

Not sure, Google it.

> 
> 19. explaining why dogs jump up above tall grass so they can see, if
>     "They are not aware that they can see."

They have seen above the grass before and it is a remembered success. 
Seeing and "being aware one can see" are totally different levels of 
abstraction. Animals generally are spontaneous, they lack the 
abstract/verbal brain centre that humans have.