Animal emotions - II

On 17 May 2006, an awed Goober boasted of his hero:

>Salt demonstrates, conclusively, that causing animals to "get to
>experience life" does *not* mitigate the moral harm, if any, of killing
>them.

Post exactly what you believe accomplished that Goo, or it
will be known that you're just lying again. He didn't do it Goobernicus,
and *that* is exactly why you can't post any example(s) of him doing
it. Neither can you, Goo, which is why you won't be doing it yourself
either. But you want to be able to Goober, and you want it so bad!
Why Goo? Why do you want to prove that none of their lives are
worth living? What makes you feel better by clinging to that false
and nasty belief? I'd really like to know what you like about it Goo.
You could at least tell me that since you've been such an ass about
it for all these years.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

<dh@.> wrote
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:23:54 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><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
>
> 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, hell, you don't even know what it
means. That is Salt speaking via a rhetorical device to *you* about human
attitudes. You're too much of a redneck for this topic David.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On Fri, 19 May 2006 00:33:54 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:aulm62hcren0p644fp21alvqjp5ivs7fh5@4ax.com...

>> 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?

Not yet. If you could explain how they could figure it out, maybe
then. But you can't, because they can't, so I'll never think they can.

>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?

They never learn about death. When do you think they could possibly
learn? How???

>--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,

I didn't say anything about how many people would be stupid enough
to believe it like you did, I just pointed out that he wants us to.

>as people often see the world as refelections of themselves.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On 19 May 2006, the Goober claimed:

>Salt is not "speak[ing] for pig"
_________________________________________________________
From: "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com>
Message-ID: <108m9omges99fff.RemoveThis@news.supernews.com>

Henry S. Salt speaks for the pig here, you ought to listen.
....

The pig says . . .
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On 19 May 2006, a dependably inept Goober maundered:

>dh suggested:
>
>>On 17 May 2006, an awed Goober boasted of his hero:
>
>>>Salt demonstrates, conclusively, that causing animals to "get to
>>>experience life" does *not* mitigate the moral harm, if any, of killing
>>>them.
>
> Post exactly what you believe accomplished that Goo, or it
>will be known that you're just lying again. He didn't do it Goobernicus,
>and *that* is exactly why you can't post any example(s) of him doing
>it.

>He

Goo, unless you can present something to consider, there is just
nothing to consider. No one else is going to pretend along with you
that it exists, you poor moron. You can't even say what it is you
think you're trying to talk about Goober...lol...oh what a Goo....
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On 19 May 2006, a debunked Goober hilariously wept:

>dh laughed:
>
>> LOL!!!
>
>The sappy bitch didn't anticipate anything of the kind

We all do when we think of you, Goo. The good lady correctly anticipated
your ineptness you sappy ass. Maybe you really can't understand Goober
--if your cognitive dissonance prevents it--but people do become aware that
you're reliably inept. And inconsiderate. Childish. Absurd. And then there's
that *stupid* thing you've got going on... What happened to the "Leif"
bullshit btw Goo? Did you forget who you think you are this week?
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

<dh@.> wrote
> On Fri, 19 May 2006 00:33:54 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>
>>> 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?
>
> Not yet. If you could explain how they could figure it out, maybe
> then. But you can't, because they can't, so I'll never think they can.

They see, hear and smell the fear of others of their kind.

>>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?
>
> They never learn about death.

Nobody learns about death, we only make assumptions about it.

> When do you think they could possibly
> learn? How???

Animals are not aware of the concept of "mortality", nobody is saying that,
but they certainly understand threats and clues about being harmed and have
severe aversions to those things.

>>--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,
>
> I didn't say anything about how many people would be stupid enough
> to believe it like you did, I just pointed out that he wants us to.

You assume that people are as dull and literal-minded as you, they aren't.

>>as people often see the world as reflections of themselves.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

<dh@.> wrote in message news:d13v62pc04dkdmgj22t3kpl9cft6mama36@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 May 2006 18:29:17 -0700, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:23:54 -0700, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> 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,
>>>>
>>>>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, it is an
allegory. Learn the difference.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

<dh@.> wrote
> On 17 May 2006, it was correctly stated that:
>
>>Salt demonstrates, conclusively, that causing animals to "get to
>>experience life" does *not* mitigate the moral harm, if any, of killing
>>them.
>
> Post exactly what you believe accomplished that

Here it is, although you are obviously mentally incompetent to grasp it.

"The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to compare
existence with non-existence. A person who is already in existence may feel
that he would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra
firma of existence to argue from; the moment he begins to argue as if from
the abyss of the non-existent, he talks nonsense, by predicating good or
evil, happiness or unhappiness, of that of which we can predicate nothing.
When, therefore, we talk of "bringing a being," as we vaguely express it,
into the world," we cannot claim from that being any gratitude for our
action, or drive a bargain with him, and a very shabby one, on that account;
nor can our duties to him be evaded by any such quibble, in which the wish
is so obviously father to the thought. Nor, in this connection, is it
necessary to enter on the question of ante-natal existence, because, if such
existence there be, we have no reason for assuming that it is less happy
than the present existence; and thus equally the argument falls to the
ground. It is absurd to compare a supposed preexistence, or nonexistence,
with actual individual life as known to us here. All reasoning based on such
comparison must necessarily be false, and will lead to grotesque
conclusions."
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

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

> On 19 May 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant pig-sodomizing cracker, blabbered:
>>
>>
>>>On 17 May 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>>>>Salt demonstrates, conclusively, that causing animals to "get to
>>>>experience life" does *not* mitigate the moral harm, if any, of killing
>>>>them.
>>
>> Post exactly what you believe accomplished that Goo, or it
>>will be known that you're just lying again. He didn't do it Goobernicus,
>>and *that* is exactly why you can't post any example(s) of him doing
>>it.
>
>
>>He did, Fuckwit. He showed, in a superb and concise essay, that
>>causing the pig to exist is not doing the pig any "favor" or "benefit";
>>it is done *only* for the benefit of those who consume the pig.
>
>
> Leif, unless you can present something to consider

That *IS* the thing for you to consider, Fuckwit: your
story about existence being a "benefit" for farm
animals is simply wrong.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

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

> On 19 May 2006, Leif Erikson won again:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant pig-sodomizing cracker, blabbered:
>>
>>
>>> LOL!!!
>>
>>The sappy bitch didn't anticipate anything of the kind
>
>
> We all do

You never do, Fuckwit.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

<dh@.> wrote in message news:t23v62930cvl9rhfi4m713n1fcrr4o4dtn@4ax.com...
> On 19 May 2006, the Goober claimed:
>
>>Salt is not "speak[ing] for pig"
> _________________________________________________________
> From: "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com>
> Message-ID: <108m9omges99fff.RemoveThis@news.supernews.com>
>
> Henry S. Salt speaks for the pig here, you ought to listen.

I was extending the allegory, but since you don't understand what that means
it was wasted on you.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

<dh@.> wrote
> unless you can present something to consider

Consider this... is a pig "better off" after being born than it was before?
The question is unanswerable, either there_was no before, or if there was,
we don't know if it was better or worse. Salt makes this point crystal clear
using the talking pig as an allegorical device. By pretending to know the
answer to this condundrum, one builds a philosophy on a false premiss. You
may look at an animal and say something like "I'm happy that animal is
alive" but as much as you may wish, you can't go further by saying that the
pig is better off for having been born, that is sophistry for the reason
stated above. To make matters even worse, killing the animal and consuming
it reveals an obvious conflict of interest. From a existential standpoint
the notion that we are doing animals a favor by bringing them into existence
is smoke and mirrors.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II