On Thu, 03 Jul 2008, Goo wrote:
>Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied
>and presented no challenge:
>> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:49:05 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker -
lied and presented no challenge:
>>>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:03:08 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker -
lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 02:37:38 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jun 24, 5:16 pm, Dutch <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 6:31 am, Dutch <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>> This wasn't a very good reply, that wasn't what Harrison was
talking
>>>>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>>>> Explain please, I thought this was the best of the lot. What was
he
>>>>>>>>> talking about?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, you didn't establish that the capacity to be upset requires
>>>>>>>> language. Actually, on reflection I decided you might have
something
>>>>>>>> here because maybe certain cognitively sophisticated emotions,
such as
>>>>>>>> a sense of being insulted, might be plausibly held to require
>>>>>>>> language. That's assuming that the sense of being insulted is
>>>>>>>> correctly called an emotion. So perhaps I should revise what I
said.
>>>>>>> Being insulted has an intellectual component, but it may or may
not
>>>>>>> result in the stimulation of an emotion. That's the human element.
I may
>>>>>>> perceive that someone is trying insult me, but I may choose not to
let
>>>>>>> it upset me, perhaps because I am secure in myself, and I don't
give
>>>>>>> that person much credibility. If I take it personally, or feel
>>>>>>> diminished then I might end up with a "fight-or-flight" reaction
and
>>>>>>> become defensive.
>>>>>> If the insult is true, it produces a stronger reaction because
>>>>>> it produces our old friend cognitive dissonance.
>>>>> Without language the animal neither knows nor cares if the insult is
>>>>> true or not. In fact an animal can not be insulted even using the
>>>>> language it does respond to, because animals do not have egos.
>>>> Animals can and do insult each other.
>
>No, they do not.
>
>
>
>>>> Roosters insult each other,
>
>No, they do not.
They do in several ways Goo. Making a big display of crowing is
one way of course. They also do it by treating another cock as they
would treat a hen. A cock will sometimes offer and share food with a
hen, and some cocks will sometimes do it to chicks. A hen will do it
to her chicks, but not to a different hen's chicks. A hen won't do it
to another hen, nor will a cock to another cock. They will call attention
to food they find, like a bug, by making a particular high pitched
staccato
vocal sound, and also by bobbing their head up and down over it,
sometimes picking up the morsel and dropping it as they do so, Goob.
When they make that sort of action toward another cock, it is as an
insult to him trying to goad him into a fight.
>>>> so I've no doubt that many other birds do too. Dogs insult each other
>
>No, they do not.
>
>
>>>> by pissing in each other's supposed territory,
>
>The dog does not take that as an insult, Goo. They do not have a sense
>of insult.
Goober, all you're telling me is that this is another of the many
many things you are completely clueless about.
>You are projecting, just like the stupid Southern Baptist
>pig-****ing cracker you are.
>
>Animals do not have a sense of insult.
That naivety is certainly one for the notes, Goo.
>>>> and I believe lions and
>>>> hyenas do so as well.
>
>You do not know anything about lions and hyenas except what you got out
>of The Lion King. You are not knowledgeable about animals at all.
I learned it from National Geographic's do***entary about lions and
hyenas being eternal enemies, Goo. It's pretty rough. Female hyenas
have a mock ***** Goob, so you should love them for that. Dicks
on the males and females both...what more could a Goober want.
>>> Territorial behaviours are based on dominance, not "insults".
>>
>> That particular topic is obviously beyond you.
>
>No.
>
>You are full of ****.
It's beyond you Goober, so it can only be **** to you. But then,
that huge aspect of your life is also beyond you, so it's **** to you
too Goo.
>You know nothing about territoriality among
>animals. You don't know anything about animal behavior.
If I remember right, panda bears insult each other by rubbing
their asshole as high up on the trunk of a tree as they can
get it.
>>>>>>>> But my thought at the time was, a cat or a baby are clearly
capable of
>>>>>>>> being upset despite lacking language, and the fact that the cat
can't
>>>>>>>> understand English isn't really the point.
>>>>>>> Obviously animals can be "upset", so that is not what we're
debating,
>>>>>>> they can be stimulated in a negative way by any number of cues,
body
>>>>>>> language, tone, loud noises, or subtle clues that humans may miss
due to
>>>>>>> being so verbally focused.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you read what he said though, "explain how any emotions could
be
>>>>>>> dependent on language", "could be" is the key phrase. My example
>>>>>>> demonstrates that emotions "can be" triggered by or dependent on
>>>>>>> language in humans, not in animals.
>>>>>> You haven't explained how any emotion is dependant on
>>>>>> language.
>>>>> Yes, I did right above. The emotion caused by being insulted is
>>>>> dependent on language.
>>>> The emotion is not. The ability to trigger the emotion using
language
>>>> certainly is, but the ability to trigger it using vocalisation is
not.
>>> You cannot trigger "insult" in an animal.
>>
>> Animals can be insulted,
>
>No, they cannot be insulted. They have no sense of insult. Only an
>idiot - a Southern Baptist projecting idiot - would think they do.
>
>
>>>>> Just because language can tigger it that doesn't
>>>>>> make it dependant on language. Goo's insistence that
>>>>>> anticipation is dependant on language is just plain asinine.
>>>>> That's a different argument.
>>>> It's just a different example of the same asininity.
>>>>
>>>>> An animal can be anticipating dinner or its
>>>>> walk time without language simply out of routine. Some kinds of
>>>>> anticipation are based in language, that's probably what he means.
>>>> None are, and Rudy insisted that anticipation in
>>>> particular, is.
>>> Many are.
>>
>> None that any of us can think of are.
>
>All are.
All what are what, Goo?
>But it's beyond your ability to comprehend.
Let's see if it's within your ability to try to explain Goob. Go:
|
