Animal emotions - II

On Sat, 20 May 2006 22:17:58 -0700, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:

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

Explain how you think animals raised for food could possibly learn that
death exists.

>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.

They don't fear for their lives.

>>>--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.

I recognise that the ONLY way your hero's fantasy--regardless of what
you call it in your amusing attempts to make it seem a step above "Chicken
Run"--could have anything to do with reality, would be if pigs really are
aware that they will be killed and eaten. But! They are not, so it--like
"Chicken Run''--is simply a children's story type of fantasy, and they are
both of equal value...that being none for me of course.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

<dh@.> wrote in message news:ajt372lcljsou7jve6a5mu6g5van4ngbe2@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 May 2006 22:17:58 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><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,
>
> Explain how you think animals raised for food could possibly learn that
> death exists.

I never said they did.

>>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.
>
> They don't fear for their lives.

Animals experience extreme instinctive fear, when there are clues that they
will be harmed.

>>>>--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.
>
> I recognise that the ONLY way your hero's fantasy--regardless of what
> you call it in your amusing attempts to make it seem a step above "Chicken
> Run"--could have anything to do with reality, would be if pigs really are
> aware that they will be killed and eaten. But! They are not, so it--like
> "Chicken Run''--is simply a children's story type of fantasy, and they are
> both of equal value...that being none for me of course.

Of course, because you're a literal-minded doofus.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On 22 May 2006 Goo wrote:

>dh pointed out:

>> I recognise that the ONLY way your hero's fantasy
>
>You're wrong, Fuckwit. There is no fantasy.

Then where's the pig Goo?

>There is ONLY Salt's complete demolition

Then where's the demolition Goo? It's certainly not in any of
these news groups, and you obviously can't get it here, so where
is it Goo?
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On Mon, 22 May 2006 15:16:50 -0700, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:ajt372lcljsou7jve6a5mu6g5van4ngbe2@4ax.com...

>> They don't fear for their lives.
>
>Animals experience extreme instinctive fear, when there are clues that they
>will be harmed.

And you believe that fear makes their entire lives not worth living?
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On 22 May 2006, Goo wrote:

>dh of course wanted to know:
>> On Sat, 20 May 2006 22:20:12 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:

>> >There is NO fantasy in the essay
>>
>> Then where did he get a pig who knew he would specifically become
>>ham and sausages, and how did the pig find out. How did the pig convey
>>its knowledge to Salt?

>He didn't "get" any pig

So not only the talking, etc, etc, was fantasy, but the pig itself Goo?
How can a pig that doesn't even exist, bitch about a person's feelings
in regards to its existence, Goo? Why would anyone other than
you/"aras" even consider something that a non-existent talking pig has
to say to them, Goo? As yet there is no reason. And tomorrow, there will
still be no reason. Years ago, Goo, there was no reason. Years from now
there will still be no reason. Goober, much as you/"aras" desperately
wish that there were, there is no reason to pay any attention to imaginary
non-existent talking pigs, even when they're dreamed up by people like
your hero Henry "ar" Salt.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 22 May 2006 15:16:50 -0700, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>
>>> They don't fear for their lives.
>>
>>Animals experience extreme instinctive fear, when there are clues that
>>they
>>will be harmed.
>
> And you believe that fear makes their entire lives not worth living?

Giving livestock animals decent lives is our *obligation* if we decide to
breed them and use them. The closer we can come to making their lives
idyllic, the closer we come to breaking even with them. We can NEVER claim
that we have done something admirable for them by bringing them into
existence to use them. That is an inherent parameter of the act of
exploiting animals as product.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

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

> On Mon, 22 May 2006 15:16:50 -0700, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>
>
>>> They don't fear for their lives.
>>
>>Animals experience extreme instinctive fear, when there are clues that they
>>will be harmed.
>
>
> And you believe that fear makes their entire lives not worth living?

Animals do not benefit by coming into existence,
Fuckwit. If no more livestock are bred into existence,
no injustice has been done. I hope that helps.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

Fuckwit David Harrison, dog-sodomizing cracker, blabbered:

> On Mon, 22 May 2006 15:16:50 -0700, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, dog-sodomizing cracker, blabbered:
>
>
>>> They don't fear for their lives.
>>
>>Animals experience extreme instinctive fear, when there are clues that they
>>will be harmed.
>
>
> And you believe that fear makes their entire lives not worth living?

You're still trying to do it, Fuckwit. You're still
trying to say that the livestock animals' "getting to
experience life" somehow mitigates the moral harm of
killing livestock. You're trying to say that if their
lives are "worth living" - in your opinion only - then
there is some net "benefit" to the animals' coming into
existence that *ought* to be realized.

That's illogical. There is NO "benefit" at all to the
animals' coming into existence. No moral
considerability attaches to the animals' "getting to
experience life"; it does not mitigate the moral harm
of raising them and killing them, if there is any such
harm - which you clearly believe there is.

I hope that helps.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On Wed, 24 May 2006 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Mon, 22 May 2006 15:16:50 -0700, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>>> They don't fear for their lives.
>>>
>>>Animals experience extreme instinctive fear, when there are clues that
>>>they
>>>will be harmed.
>>
>> And you believe that fear makes their entire lives not worth living?
>
>Giving livestock

You believe that fear makes their entire lives not worth living?

>animals decent lives is our *obligation* if we decide to
>breed them and use them. The closer we can come to making their lives
>idyllic, the closer we come to breaking even with them. We can NEVER claim
>that we have done something admirable for them by bringing them into
>existence to use them.

You have made that proclamation, but never backed it up. You need
to explain how and/or why you think you disagree with yourself:

"The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal."
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On Wed, 24 May 2006, an inept, maundering Goober absurdly wrote:

>Fuckwit David Harrison, dog-sodomizing cracker, blabbered:
>
>> On Mon, 22 May 2006 15:16:50 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, dog-sodomizing cracker, blabbered:
>>
>>
>>>> They don't fear for their lives.
>>>
>>>Animals experience extreme instinctive fear, when there are clues that they
>>>will be harmed.
>>
>>
>> And you believe that fear makes their entire lives not worth living?
>
>You're

You believe that fear makes their entire lives not worth living?
....

>There is NO "benefit" at all to the
>animals' coming into existence. No moral
>considerability attaches to the animals' "getting to
>experience life"; it does not mitigate the moral harm
>of raising them and killing them

Then how and/or why do you hilariously claim to disagree with
yourself that:

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

Goo???
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

<dh@.> wrote in message news:l71m72hi991p2kd5n0ckpj3gb4su6b5h1i@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 May 2006 11:57:58 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Mon, 22 May 2006 15:12:57 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>news:g9t372t6hueg6ih3qrf4ppgo3vsdfnul68@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 20 May 2006 22:20:12 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:d13v62pc04dkdmgj22t3kpl9cft6mama36@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 May 2006 18:29:17 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:23:54 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:48:08 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>><testicling.TakeThisOut@testus.dot> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 who knew he would specifically become
>>>>> ham and sausages, and how did the pig find out. How did the pig convey
>>>>> its knowledge to Salt?
>>>>
>>>>The pig doesn't know any of those things,
>>>
>>> I know. That's why it's a fantasy. "The" pig doesn't even exist,
>>> which
>>> is another reason it's just a fantasy.
>>
>>It's a rhetorical device.
>
> Whether or no, it's doubtless a fantasy.

It's a commentary on human morality, not a fantasy in the sense you are
implying.

>>>>Salt is not implying that it does, that would be absurd.
>>>
>>> So is insisting that Salt's fantasy somehow prevents any farm animals
>>> from benefitting from farming, but you do it even so.
>>
>>Animals "benefitting from farming" is an oxymoron.
>
> It's a fact that you/"aras" detest, but AW people like it very much
> of course.

It's a notion shared by very few people. One very small group, probably one
in 10 million, believe in The Logic of the Larder, as you do, the others are
utiliarian animal liberationists like Singer. Animal welfare advocates
believe that *if* we raise animals we owe them a decent existence, NOT that
we have some moral obligation to raise them so they can exist. I'm going to
keep telling you this until it sinks in.

[..]
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

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

> On Wed, 24 May 2006 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying dog-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 May 2006 15:16:50 -0700, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying dog-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:
>>>
>>>>> They don't fear for their lives.
>>>>
>>>>Animals experience extreme instinctive fear, when there are clues that
>>>>they
>>>>will be harmed.
>>>
>>> And you believe that fear makes their entire lives not worth living?
>>
>>Giving livestock animals decent lives is our *obligation* if we decide to
>>breed them and use them. The closer we can come to making their lives
>>idyllic, the closer we come to breaking even with them. We can NEVER claim
>>that we have done something admirable for them by bringing them into
>>existence to use them. That is an inherent parameter of the act of
>>exploiting animals as product.
>
>
> You believe that fear makes their entire lives not worth living?

Nothing he wrote in the paragraph suggests that,
Fuckwit. Pay attention to what he wrote, not what you
stupidly wish to see.


>>animals decent lives is our *obligation* if we decide to
>>breed them and use them. The closer we can come to making their lives
>>idyllic, the closer we come to breaking even with them. We can NEVER claim
>>that we have done something admirable for them by bringing them into
>>existence to use them.
>
>
> You have made that proclamation, but never backed it up.

He has, Fuckwit. Stop lying.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leif Erikson"
Subject: Re: Animal emotions - II



>>
>> You have made that proclamation, but never backed it up.
>
> He has, Fuckwit. Stop lying.


Lets see, we have a "you have" in sentence one, and a "he has" in sentence
two.
Somewhere between the two sentences, which are seperated by a single period,
Mr. Erikson managed to lose track of sentence one.
That's quite a feat.
Mr. Erikson, do you actually proof read for coherence prior to hitting send?

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