On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:45:14 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:12:27 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:31:34 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> You don't have to laugh at your own mistakes in order to have
>>>> a sense of humor.
>>> Yes, you must be capable of it. It's a prerequisite.
>>
>> There is absolutely no reason to believe that. None.
>
>Yes there is, watch a good comedian.
You have still given no reason to believe your claim.
>>>>>>> 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,
>>>> That too.
>>>>
>>>>> however highly intelligent
>>>> His stupidity is equal or greater to any intelligence.
>>>>
>>>>> and articulate.
>>>> I'll give him that, but people were being warned about
>>>> stupid influence from the likes of Goo years ago:
>>>>
>>>> "Wisdom without eloquence has been of little help to the states,
>>>> but eloquence without wisdom has often been a great obstcle
>>>> and never an advantage." - Cicero
>>>>
>>>> That nails the Goober.
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>> Goo can't describe any emotions using words and
>>>> neither can you.
>>> Of course I can.
>>
>> We have absolutely no reason to believe that either.
>> I'd certainly love to see you try doing it though, so try.
>> Go:
>>
>>>> All you can do is refer to similar emotions
>>>> or describe an event which would trigger such emotion.
>>> Emotions produce physiological effects in the body and certain types
of
>>> thoughts in the mind, those can be described in great detail. Use your
>>> imagination.
>>
>> You try describing some emotion(s). GO:
>
>A feeling of agitation, raised heart rate, imagining negative (or
>positive) outcomes.
That doesn't explain it to the point that anyone could imagine
the feeling from the description.
>>>>>> 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.
>>>> You have nothing to sup****t that claim, nor can you give
>>>> examples to which it might apply.
>>> Feeling insulted, being in awe at the beauty of a sunset, those are
>>> emotions animals don't have.
>>
>> You have no idea if they can, and that is all we've seen proven
>> by you. Roosters make sounds when they are coming onto a hen,
>> and they "cut their wing" around her. They do the same to other
>> cocks sometimes as an insult. All such examples are wasted on you
>> however, since you can't even appreciate the overall concept.
>
>What concept?
The concept that animals can feel insulted. It's obviously beyond
you.
>>>>>> 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
>>>> How do you think that changes the behavior of animals?
>>> Animals have a more basic set of triggers for their emotional
reactions
>>> than humans.
>>
>> There's certainly no reason to believe that. Not a single one.
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>> That explained nothing. It would be fun to see you try, but
>>>> you can't. Why don't you and Goo get together on it and see
>>>> if between both of you you can come up with something?
>>> It explained how an emotion is dependent on language,
>>
>> No you did not. Not even close. All you did was point out
>> that it can be triggered by language, which is completely
>> different than proving that it's in any way dependant on
>> language which it is not. It may be dependant on
>> communication, but not on language.
>
>Do you know what emotions are?
Explain what you think they are.
>>> I thought that was your question.
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>> "Anticipation requires language." - Goo
>>>>
>>>> "No animals anticipate." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>> Most of the replys were just you helping Goo get out of
>>>> needing to try to answer. Why did you want to help him out
>>>> of defending his own absurdity, do you know? Goo is still a
>>>> complete failure, still afraid to try meeting the challenges,
>>>> still totally inept, still goofy, and still clownish...
>>> Get on with your life. Your happiness is not dependent of him agreeing
>>> with you.
>>
>> If he would just stop lying about me it would be refre****ng.
>> If he would acknowledge my beliefs and then try to refute
>> them it would be a lot better than just lying about what they
>> are, but he could never do all that. Goo has place himself
>> in the postition that he must always be a liar, and therefore
>> must necessarily always be a loser.
>
>He's correct in everything he says about your position.
That's a lie. If he were, I would have no reason to point
out that he's lying. DUUUUUUUH! Why you sup****t his
lies could of course be a huge question for me, except that
you are probably the same Goober which would explain
that and a few other things as well.
|
