Animal emotions - II

<dh@.> wrote in message news:03gb825trqh052qk26eosc9534pkad17fd@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 23:30:14 -0700, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:vjn982pd0obm7pv8go5j6dbn2hthnjvr1q@4ax.com...
>>> "Dutch" lied:
>>>
>>>>No it's not.
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>you believe that not raising them at all denies them life
>>
>>Wow, that's weak even by your standards.
>
> It's the first time I've simply pointed out some of your lies without
> responding to them, but it may not be the last.

Maybe the beginning of the end of your stupidity I'd say.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On 6 Jun 2006 Goo wrote:

>dh wrote:

>> No. You just re-pasted a mistake I made in terminology
>> a number of years ago, Goo.
>
>No, Fuckwit, it was not a "mistake in terminology".

Okay Goo, I was correct in using that word. You/"aras"
do want to deny life to animals who could have it.

>By the way,
>FUCKWIT, that's what you used to say about your notorious "Yes, it is
>the unborn animals...who will experience the loss" debacle, too. Just
>how many "mistakes in terminology" do you feel you're entitled to
>claim,

As many as I make Goober, but in this case I believe you're
correct in pointing out that you/"aras" DO want to deny life to
potential animals who could have it:

"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
animals." - Goo

because of your insistence that:

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 12:21:01 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:03gb825trqh052qk26eosc9534pkad17fd@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 23:30:14 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:vjn982pd0obm7pv8go5j6dbn2hthnjvr1q@4ax.com...
>>>> "Dutch" lied:
>>>>
>>>>>No it's not.
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>you believe that not raising them at all denies them life
>>>
>>>Wow, that's weak even by your standards.
>>
>> It's the first time I've simply pointed out some of your lies without
>> responding to them, but it may not be the last.
>
>Maybe the beginning of the end of your stupidity I'd say.

Goo has corrected me, and we now agree that you/"aras"
actually DO want to deny life to potential future animals. I'm glad he
made a point of insisting that I was correct.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

<dh@.> wrote
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 12:21:01 -0700, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:03gb825trqh052qk26eosc9534pkad17fd@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 23:30:14 -0700, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>news:vjn982pd0obm7pv8go5j6dbn2hthnjvr1q@4ax.com...
>>>>> "Dutch" lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>>No it's not.
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>you believe that not raising them at all denies them life
>>>>
>>>>Wow, that's weak even by your standards.
>>>
>>> It's the first time I've simply pointed out some of your lies without
>>> responding to them, but it may not be the last.
>>
>>Maybe the beginning of the end of your stupidity I'd say.
>
> Goo has corrected me, and we now agree that you/"aras"
> actually DO want to deny life to potential future animals. I'm glad he
> made a point of insisting that I was correct.

The next step for you is to realize that to "deny life to potential future
animals" has no importance, it's nonsense.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

starrkssd.DeleteThis@aol.com wrote:

>
>>>
>>>Then HOWE COME Lucy keeps checkin The Simply Amazing
>>>Puppy Wizard's desktop for her PROMISED TREAT, leif?
>>
>>She doesn't, Jerry.
>
>
>
> just a thought but, could it be that the way we treat out dogs and cats
> determines how "smart" or "advanced" they become emotionally?

No.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

bill.reich.RemoveThis@taylorandfrancis.com wrote:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>
>>>On Sat, 20 May 2006 22:20:12 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 19 May 2006 18:29:17 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:23:54 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:48:08 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:21:27 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
>>>>>>>>>>>suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans. Duh!
>>>>>>>>>>>It didn't work with me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That was not the point
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL...I mean: I can't believe that,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's not a case of what you believe, the notion that pigs know they will
>>>>>>>>be
>>>>>>>>killed does not appear in the piece
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How can someone speak for pig about something the pig could not
>>>>>>>have a clue about, without creating a fantasy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>When he has the pig say, "spare me thy sophistry" he is not implying that
>>>>>>pigs talk or know what sophistry means,
>>>>>
>>>>> He is creating a fantasy,
>>>>
>>>>No, he is not, get a clue. There is NO fantasy in the essay
>>>
>>> Then where did he get a pig
>>
>>He didn't "get" any pig, Fuckwit. He wrote an essay, and as a matter
>>of literary style, he chose to write it as an allegory.
>>
>>Salt thoroughly demolishes the idea that you are doing livestock
>>animals any "favor" or "good deed" or "benefit" by causing them to
>>live, Fuckwit. You are not doing any of that.
>
>
> What he does is demolish the idea that you, or the pig, can have any
> idea of whether you have done the aniimal a favor by causing it to
> live. It is "a question unamenable to discourse." It is certainly left
> as a possibility that you have done the animal a favor but there is no
> basis for any claim that you have done so and even less for the claim
> that you intended to do so.

The only possibility is if the animal "pre-existed".
Rational people don't believe in that.


>
> So many of your Cartesian assumptions are similarly neither provable
> nor knowable with any certainty. You criticize, rather bitterly, people
> who make unwarranted assumptions by making unwaranted assumptions in
> the opposite direction.
>
> No human knows whether a dog anticiipates sunrise or whether a cat
> knows this or that. But you arrogantly tell people that you know for
> certain. You know nothing.

There's no reason to believe they anticipate sunrise or
anything else. One shouldn't believe in things that
aren't supported by evidence or sound theory.


>
> Is there some utility for you in your fervent belief that animals don't
> experience this or that, some episode of animal torture that you must
> convince yourself caused no harm?

No. I'm just out to crush David Harrison, bka Fuckwit,
who wants to argue with "animal rights activists" while
clinging to his own bizarre mutant form of "ar"
himself. Fuckwit doesn't realize that he's actually
giving weight to the "aras'" arguments by trying to
impute human qualities to animals.

Please take rec.pets.cats.community out of the headers
when you foolishly respond to one of Fuckwit's posts.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 Goo wrote:

>dh conceded:

>> but in this case I believe you're
>> correct in pointing out that you/"aras" DO want to deny life to
>> potential animals who could have it
>
>NO, Fuckwit - they want to prevent livestock from
>existing in the future. That is not "denying life" to
>any entity

No Goo, it's denying life to potential entities.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 09:38:57 -0700, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 12:21:01 -0700, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:03gb825trqh052qk26eosc9534pkad17fd@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 23:30:14 -0700, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>news:vjn982pd0obm7pv8go5j6dbn2hthnjvr1q@4ax.com...
>>>>>> "Dutch" lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No it's not.
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>you believe that not raising them at all denies them life
>>>>>
>>>>>Wow, that's weak even by your standards.
>>>>
>>>> It's the first time I've simply pointed out some of your lies without
>>>> responding to them, but it may not be the last.
>>>
>>>Maybe the beginning of the end of your stupidity I'd say.
>>
>> Goo has corrected me, and we now agree that you/"aras"
>> actually DO want to deny life to potential future animals. I'm glad he
>> made a point of insisting that I was correct.
>
>The next step for you is to realize that to "deny life to potential future
>animals" has no importance, it's nonsense.

It's what they want.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 Goo wrote:

>bill.reich@taylorandfrancis.com wrote:
>
>> Goo wrote:
>>
>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 20 May 2006 22:20:12 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 19 May 2006 18:29:17 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:23:54 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:48:08 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:21:27 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
>>>>>>>>>>>>suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans. Duh!
>>>>>>>>>>>>It didn't work with me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>That was not the point
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LOL...I mean: I can't believe that,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It's not a case of what you believe, the notion that pigs know they will
>>>>>>>>>be
>>>>>>>>>killed does not appear in the piece
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How can someone speak for pig about something the pig could not
>>>>>>>>have a clue about, without creating a fantasy?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>When he has the pig say, "spare me thy sophistry" he is not implying that
>>>>>>>pigs talk or know what sophistry means,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He is creating a fantasy,
>>>>>
>>>>>No, he is not, get a clue. There is NO fantasy in the essay
>>>>
>>>> Then where did he get a pig
>>>
>>>He didn't "get" any pig, Fuckwit. He wrote an essay, and as a matter
>>>of literary style, he chose to write it as an allegory.
>>>
>>>Salt thoroughly demolishes the idea that you are doing livestock
>>>animals any "favor" or "good deed" or "benefit" by causing them to
>>>live, Fuckwit. You are not doing any of that.
>>
>>
>> What he does is demolish the idea that you, or the pig, can have any
>> idea of whether you have done the aniimal a favor by causing it to
>> live. It is "a question unamenable to discourse." It is certainly left
>> as a possibility that you have done the animal a favor but there is no
>> basis for any claim that you have done so and even less for the claim
>> that you intended to do so.
>
>The only possibility is if the animal "pre-existed".
>Rational people don't believe in that.
_________________________________________________________
"Either farm animals "exist" in some kind of pre-conceived,
pre-born state, or they do not." - Goo

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged.
Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare
improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
life we can detect, we cannot conclude that life is a
benefit to it." - Goo

"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was for the animals; one simply
cannot know." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Goober! How do you claim to now know, that which
you previously claimed "one simply cannot know"?
_________________________________________________________
"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo

"I *know* animals don't "benefit" from "getting to experience
life". . . They don't because they can't conceive of the idea
of "benefit"" - Goo

"Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit" to
them" - Goo

""Life" is not a benefit" - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 a confused Goober wrote:

>starrkssd@aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Then HOWE COME Lucy keeps checkin The Simply Amazing
>>>>Puppy Wizard's desktop for her PROMISED TREAT, leif?
>>>
>>>She doesn't, Jerry.
>>
>>
>>
>> just a thought but, could it be that the way we treat out dogs and cats
>> determines how "smart" or "advanced" they become emotionally?
>
>No.

Yes Goo. You just can't understand how that could happen.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

bill.reich.TakeThisOut@taylorandfrancis.com wrote:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>bill.reich@taylorandfrancis.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 20 May 2006 22:20:12 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 19 May 2006 18:29:17 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:23:54 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:48:08 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:21:27 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans. Duh!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>It didn't work with me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>That was not the point
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LOL...I mean: I can't believe that,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It's not a case of what you believe, the notion that pigs know they will
>>>>>>>>>>be
>>>>>>>>>>killed does not appear in the piece
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How can someone speak for pig about something the pig could not
>>>>>>>>>have a clue about, without creating a fantasy?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>When he has the pig say, "spare me thy sophistry" he is not implying that
>>>>>>>>pigs talk or know what sophistry means,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He is creating a fantasy,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, he is not, get a clue. There is NO fantasy in the essay
>>>>>
>>>>> Then where did he get a pig
>>>>
>>>>He didn't "get" any pig, Fuckwit. He wrote an essay, and as a matter
>>>>of literary style, he chose to write it as an allegory.
>>>>
>>>>Salt thoroughly demolishes the idea that you are doing livestock
>>>>animals any "favor" or "good deed" or "benefit" by causing them to
>>>>live, Fuckwit. You are not doing any of that.
>>>
>>>
>>>What he does is demolish the idea that you, or the pig, can have any
>>>idea of whether you have done the aniimal a favor by causing it to
>>>live. It is "a question unamenable to discourse." It is certainly left
>>>as a possibility that you have done the animal a favor but there is no
>>>basis for any claim that you have done so and even less for the claim
>>>that you intended to do so.
>>
>>The only possibility is if the animal "pre-existed".
>>Rational people don't believe in that.
>
>
> The only way we would no whether we were doing the animal a favor by
> causing it to exist, although I would bet against it, is to know what
> non-existance is like.

Non-existence isn't "like" anything. There is no basis
for comparison. One can only compare states of existence.

The only way you could know if you're doing the animal
a favor is if a) there is some state of "pre-existence"
that occurs before material existence in our world, and
b) you had some knowledge of what that "pre-existence"
state was like. Salt's point is that since you don't
know if such a state exists, let alone what it is like,
you can never logically say that causing the animal to
exist is conferring a "benefit" on it.

Rational people don't believe in "pre-existence":
there's no evidence for it, and there's no theoretical
basis for believing in it. One might probabilistically
believe in something for which there is no (as yet)
evidence, but only if there's a well-developed theory
that predicts such a phenomenon.


> Since none of us do, it cannot be carried to a
> yes or no answer, only to an indeterminate answer.

Probabilistically, one can say there is no such thing
as the "pre-existence" state that would have to be, in
order for a hypothetical comparison.



> Of course, this
> negates the use of letting the animals exist as an excuse or mitigation
> for killing them but it can't be stated as positively as you do without
> knowledge that you cannot have.

In the absence of evidence or theory, I conclude there
is no such thing as a "pre-existence" existence; I
conclude that the entity we think of as "an animal"
does not exist until it is conceived. The sperm and
the egg exist as individual entities before the
conception of (what will become) an animal, but the
sperm and the egg are not experiential entities, and so
causing the animal to be conceived does not confer a
benefit either on it (because it didn't exist), nor on
the sperm or egg (because they're not experiential
entities.) I am on solid footing with this...and you
know it.


>>>So many of your Cartesian assumptions are similarly neither provable
>>>nor knowable with any certainty. You criticize, rather bitterly, people
>>>who make unwarranted assumptions by making unwaranted assumptions in
>>>the opposite direction.
>>>
>>>No human knows whether a dog anticiipates sunrise or whether a cat
>>>knows this or that. But you arrogantly tell people that you know for
>>>certain. You know nothing.
>>
>>There's no reason to believe they anticipate sunrise or
>>anything else. One shouldn't believe in things that
>>aren't supported by evidence or sound theory.
>
>
> So, believing that they DON'T anticipate the sunrise is also believing
> in something not supported by evidence.

No, it isn't. Go study some epistemology, then get
back to us, billy.


>>>Is there some utility for you in your fervent belief that animals don't
>>>experience this or that, some episode of animal torture that you must
>>>convince yourself caused no harm?
>>
>>No. I'm just out to crush David Harrison, bka Fuckwit,
>>who wants to argue with "animal rights activists" while
>>clinging to his own bizarre mutant form of "ar"
>>himself. Fuckwit doesn't realize that he's actually
>>giving weight to the "aras'" arguments by trying to
>>impute human qualities to animals.
>>
>>Please take rec.pets.cats.community out of the headers
>>when you foolishly respond to one of Fuckwit's posts.
>
>
> I think that I will stay out of your private arguments from now on.
> Anyone capable of the amount of absolute certaintly that you both
> possess, while neither of you knows anything at all,

Fuckwit doesn't know anything. I know quite a lot,
based on good education and solid critical thinking
skills. Fuckwit is an uneducated goober cracker.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:

> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:
>
>
>>>but in this case I believe you're
>>>correct in pointing out that you/"aras" DO want to deny life to
>>>potential animals who could have it
>>
>>NO, Fuckwit - they want to prevent livestock from
>>existing in the future. That is not "denying life" to
>>any entity
>
>
> No Leif, it's denying life to potential entities.

NO, Fuckwit - you cannot "deny" anything to an entity
that doesn't exist. PERIOD, Fuckwit.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:

> On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 09:38:57 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:
>>
>>>On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 12:21:01 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 23:30:14 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Dutch" lied:

Dutch did not lie, Fuckwit - YOU lied.


>>>>>>>>No it's not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>you believe that not raising them at all denies them life
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wow, that's weak even by your standards.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the first time I've simply pointed out some of your lies without
>>>>>responding to them, but it may not be the last.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe the beginning of the end of your stupidity I'd say.
>>>
>>> Leif has corrected me, and we now agree that you/"aras"
>>>actually DO want to deny life to potential future animals. I'm glad he
>>>made a point of insisting that I was correct.
>>
>>The next step for you is to realize that to "deny life to potential future
>>animals" has no importance, it's nonsense.
>
>
> It's what they want.

It's NONSENSE, Fuckwit - you cannot "deny" anything to
an entity that doesn't exist.

Admit your error in *thinking*, Fuckwit. Not a
"mistake in terminology", Fuckwit - a *CONCEPTUAL* error.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II