Animal emotions - II

Leif Erikson wrote:

....

>>>>>>> The conscious state that an entity expects something to occur in an
>>>>>>> indefinite future, with or without - but mostly without - some
>>>>>>> triggering signal.

....

>>> Anticipation is about symbolic communication.

.....

>> That's not the definition you gave earlier,

> It's implied.

No, it is not. You cannot claim something is "implied" in a definition
if you do not state it specifically.

....

>> Anticipation requires the ability to extrapolate from a past
>> event to a probable future event.

> NO. It does *not* require any past event.

.....

Certainly it does. In the case of your own example, you would need
a past event to connect the words "ice cream" with the physical
object, ice cream. I could say, "I'm taking you out for some
feeblefetzer," but there would be no anticipation involved if
you did not know what feeblefetzer was, or if I said the sentence in
a language you did not know. Similarly, without a past event as a
referent, anyone, human or animal, would not know how to respond
to a signal, verbal or non-verbal -- the signal would simply
be meaningless.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

Leif Erikson wrote:

....

> The anticipation is of an event, "going out for ice cream on Saturday",
> that need never have happened before.


The event need not have happened, but some past event is necessary
to provide a referent for ice cream. Without a past event as
referent, the signal is meaningless and anticipation cannot occur,
because there is no meaningful thing to anticipate.

This is what I was talking about with a dog using the "treat"
signal for some other desired result. The "going out to bark
at the cat" or "cross the road to see other dog" may never have
happened, but the dog sits, by analogy that sitting brought about
X and may bring about Y, which is also desired.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

Leif Erikson wrote:

.....
>>>The anticipation is of an event, "going out for ice cream on Saturday",
>>>that need never have happened before.

>>The event need not have happened,

> For a dog, or any other non-human animal, the exact event MUST have
> happened in order for the animal to "anticipate" it. For humans, that
> isn't so.

No, I don't agree, for the reasons I have given.

Even if it were so, that would not prove that animals do not
anticipate, which was your original claim. You are now
moving the goal posts.

> Concede. It's over.

You are far too eager to claim to have made your point without
any evidence. Simply stating you have done so does not make
it so.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

"Glorfindel" <
> wrote in message

>
> Even if it were so, that would not prove that animals do not
> anticipate, which was your original claim. You are now
> moving the goal posts.

At the moment, my dogs are anticipating the arrival home of my wife, and the
nice things that happen when she gets home, such as supper.
I can tell this by the noises emanating from near the back door.

Anyone who claims dogs don't anticipate things has never owned a live dog.

--

William Robb
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

William Robb wrote:
> "Glorfindel" <
> > wrote in message
>
> >
> > Even if it were so, that would not prove that animals do not
> > anticipate, which was your original claim. You are now
> > moving the goal posts.
>
> At the moment, my dogs are anticipating the arrival home of my wife, and the
> nice things that happen when she gets home, such as supper.
> I can tell this by the noises emanating from near the back door.
>
> Anyone who claims dogs don't anticipate things has never owned a live dog.
>
> --
>
> William Robb



Goo is an idiot who can't anticipate anything himself therefore he
transfers that inability to all living things.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On Tue, 16 May 2006, Goo wrote:

>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing
>cracker, lied:
>
>> On Sun, 14 May 2006, Gooboy "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 11 May 2006 a stupid Goober wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>pet owners mistakenly believe their
>>>>>animals have all sorts of capabilities the animals
>>>>>don't really have.
>>>>
>>>> That's a more popular but somewhat less moronic brand
>>>>of idiocy than you're displaying Goober. But you fall for that
>>>>one yourself too Goo...let's not forget how you hug all over
>>>>Henry "ar" Salt's talking pig...
>>>
>>>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.
>
>No, it absolutely was not that, Fuckwit, and you know
>it.

Why did your hero pretend to speak for a pig about an issue
that a pig could never be aware of--much less opine on--if not
in an attempt to create the dishonest impression that pigs are
aware of such things and suffer from the knowledge, Goo?

>We have explained in simple language that even a
>dropout like you can understand what Salt's essay is
>about. It is ONLY about the invalidity and logical
>absurdity of the belief that causing animals to "get to
>experience life" somehow offsets any moral harm that is
>done in killing them.

What exactly is the moral harm in killing them Goo?

>That is what it is about,
>Fuckwit, and you know it, because Dutch and I have
>patiently explained it to you. Stop lying.

LOL!!! Oh Goo. The fantasy isn't "about" something simply
because a couple of freaks like you want everyone to believe
it is. It was about creating the false impression that livestock
somehow suffer from the knowledge that they will be killed
by humans--which none of them do--but obviously "ar" Salt
wanted to create the impression that some if not all of them do.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:48:08 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:

><testicling.RemoveThis@testus.dot> wrote
>> 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, especially coming from you
or Goo. No. Since it doesn't apply to any reality, as yet I can only
believe it was intended to encourage a false impression, and you
and Goo lying about the dishonesty behind it is just something else
to laugh at.

>of it at all, that idea does not appear in the essay
>or is it ever implied. When the pig says "If, then, thou art firm set on
>pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou hast not spared my life, at
>least spare me thy sophistry"

Pigs do only live because we raise them for food. It's more like
sophistry when "aras" dishonestly and disgustingly want to claim
credit for promoting rights or anything else for potential future
animals they want to prevent from having any type of life at all.

>it is the author speaking by means of a
>literary device, and he is saying, 'If you feel you have the right to kill
>and eat a pig, then there's nothing I can say that will change your mind,
>but in the name of human decency don't try to claim that you're doing the
>pig a favor.'

That wouldn't apply to any situations in which the pigs don't know
they will be killed and eaten, which is ALL situations. So, it's still only
a fantasy about a talking pig who knows that he's pork...etc...ect...ect...
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

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

> On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:48:08 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant pig-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

It wasn't the point of it AT ALL, Fuckwit. Salt
ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT say, or imply, that livestock know
they will be killed. You are LYING, Fuckwit.


>
>>of it at all, that idea does not appear in the essay
>>or is it ever implied. When the pig says "If, then, thou art firm set on
>>pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou hast not spared my life, at
>>least spare me thy sophistry", it is the author speaking by means of a
>>literary device,
>
>
> Pigs do only live because we raise them for food.

Irrelevant. You CANNOT claim moral credit for their
"getting to experience life", as a means of mitigating
the moral harm, if any, of killing them.

ANSWER the question, Fuckwit: why do you feel you need
to mitigate moral harm from killing livestock?


>>it is the author speaking by means of a
>>literary device, and he is saying, 'If you feel you have the right to kill
>>and eat a pig, then there's nothing I can say that will change your mind,
>>but in the name of human decency don't try to claim that you're doing the
>>pig a favor.'
>
>
> That wouldn't apply to any situations in which the pigs don't know
> they will be killed and eaten,

Yes, it certainly DOES apply, Fuckwit. The knowledge
of the pigs is *IRRELEVANT*. Claiming that you're
"doing the pig a favor" by causing him to "get to
experience life" is *invalid*, Fuckwit, *irrespective*
of the knowledge of the pig.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:48:08 -0700, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>
>><testicling.DeleteThis@testus.dot> wrote
>>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:21:27 -0700, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@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, you introduced it as a strawman. The
essay is about human integrity as expressed through our attitude towards
animals. Salt believes it to be a moral violation to raise animals for food,
but a crime against human decency to also claim a moral victory in it. I
disagree with the first part but agree wholeheartedly with the second.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

<dh@.> wrote in message news:aulm62hcren0p644fp21alvqjp5ivs7fh5@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 May 2006, Goo wrote:
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing
>>cracker, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 May 2006, Gooboy "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 11 May 2006 a stupid Goober wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>pet owners mistakenly believe their
>>>>>>animals have all sorts of capabilities the animals
>>>>>>don't really have.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a more popular but somewhat less moronic brand
>>>>>of idiocy than you're displaying Goober. But you fall for that
>>>>>one yourself too Goo...let's not forget how you hug all over
>>>>>Henry "ar" Salt's talking pig...
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>No, it absolutely was not that, Fuckwit, and you know
>>it.
>
> Why did your hero pretend to speak for a pig about an issue
> that a pig could never be aware of--much less opine on--if not
> in an attempt to create the dishonest impression that pigs are
> aware of such things and suffer from the knowledge, Goo?

Salt assumes his readers have the basic intelligence to know that pigs can't
talk, and that they are not capable of the kind of abstract thinking you are
inferring. The use of the allegorical is a literary device, to make an essay
more entertaining and readable, more memorable. Besides being an animal
rights advocate, he also happens to be a skilled writer.

>>We have explained in simple language that even a
>>dropout like you can understand what Salt's essay is
>>about. It is ONLY about the invalidity and logical
>>absurdity of the belief that causing animals to "get to
>>experience life" somehow offsets any moral harm that is
>>done in killing them.
>
> What exactly is the moral harm in killing them Goo?

There isn't any, which is why your campaign to make people take into
consideration that they "experience life" is evidence that you are a kind of
a bizarro ARA.

>>That is what it is about,
>>Fuckwit, and you know it, because Dutch and I have
>>patiently explained it to you. Stop lying.
>
> LOL!!! Oh Goo. The fantasy isn't "about" something simply
> because a couple of freaks like you want everyone to believe
> it is. It was about creating the false impression that livestock
> somehow suffer from the knowledge that they will be killed
> by humans--which none of them do

Don't you think animals on a slaughter line might get a clue about it? You
assume a lot of intelligence in animals, why would they be totally unaware
of the meaning of the moans and squeals of members of their own species
being killed?

--but obviously "ar" Salt
> wanted to create the impression that some if not all of them do.

It's notable that you assume a very dismal level of intelligence of the
readers, as people often see the world as refelections of themselves.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

Dutch wrote:

> Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant pig-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>
>>On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:48:08 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant pig-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:21:27 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @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, you introduced it as a strawman.

Exactly right. Salt doesn't say it, doesn't imply it,
and his conclusion doesn't depend on it. It's entirely
Fuckwit's phony straw man.


> The essay is about human integrity as expressed through our attitude towards
> animals. Salt believes it to be a moral violation to raise animals for food,
> but a crime against human decency to also claim a moral victory in it. I
> disagree with the first part but agree wholeheartedly with the second.

Right again.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On Sat, 13 May 2006 14:35:18 -0500, "Finola" <Finola RemoveThis @peoplepc.com> wrote:

>See I anticipated that you would have an ignorant response.

A safe bet whenever dealing with this Goober. It's part of what makes
him Goobernicus. The other part is that the poor fool thinks he's a genius,
and the fun and often hilarious part of that is he sometimes/often boasts
of his intelligence. Evidence is always coming in, but it suggests that our
Goo may well be the stupidest Goober doing that.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On Sat, 13 May 2006, a debunked Goober desperately howled:

>you didn't anticipate anything of the kind

LOL!!! Your ignorance and stupidity are both in grand display,
you poor inept Goober. Everyone learns to anticipate ineptitude
and absurdity from you, Goo, and you rarely disappoint:

"Anticipation requires language." - Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing benefits from
coming into existence. No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo

"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo

"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or any
other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo

"I can explain myself in logical and coherent terms" - Goo
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
Message-ID: <cJ9Kf.1332$5M6.879@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>

Ron asked:

>So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into existance
>and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the lowest price in
>the beef industry......and all that done with the singular purpose of
>supplying the pet food industry?

Yes.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"I educated the public" - Goo

"I haven't made any absurd claims" - Goo
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II