Animal emotions - II

Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying dog-sodomizing goober cracker,
lied:
> On Wed, 31 May 2006 Leif Erikson helpfully wrote:
>
> >William Robb wrote:
> >> "Leif Erikson"
> >> wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>>Dogs do not anticipate,
> >>
> >>
> >> This statement is just plain wrong.
> >
> >No, it isn't.
> >
> >But you're getting ahead of yourself, billie. Go back
> >to the "existence is not a benefit" part of the thread,
> >okay? You still have some work to do there.
> >
> >> Have you ever actually met a dog?
> >
> >Had a few myself, and have friends with dogs today.
> >Dogs do not anticipate.
>
> Do your friends agree with you

Yes.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On Wed, 31 May 2006 Goo wrote:

>William Robb wrote:
>> "Leif Erikson"
>> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>Dogs do not anticipate,
>>
>>
>> This statement is just plain wrong.
>
>No, it isn't.
>
>But you're getting ahead of yourself, billie. Go back
>to the "existence is not a benefit" part of the thread,
>okay? You still have some work to do there.
>
>> Have you ever actually met a dog?
>
>Had a few myself, and have friends with dogs today.
>Dogs do not anticipate.

Do your friends agree with your retarded beliefs, Goo?
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On Wed, 31 May 2006 12:08:59 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:nbcr72p728jq6o0ht35svb042siuo420bm@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 21 May 2006 16:49:24 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><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 DeleteThis @email.com>
>>>> Message-ID: <108m9omges99fff DeleteThis @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.
>>
>> So far you haven't explained why you're so desperate that this
>> fantasy of Salt's, not be considered a fantasy.
>
>Because that term dosn't describe it adequately.

Just because your hero injected a dishonest belief into it doesn't
make it any better. It is no better at all than Chicken Run, that's
for sure. In fact for what it was intended, Chicken Run kicked its
ass. I didn't watch all of Chicken Run because it disgusted me,
and Salt's pig is even worse. For one thing, pigs are now kept in
CLEAN environments, and the filth seems to be Salt's fantasy
pig's main complaint. Salt's fantasy doesn't even apply today,
as well as being garbage to begin with.

>> For some absurd
>> reason you want people to think that Salt's fantasy somehow
>> prevents any actual farm animals from having lives of positive
>> value. Why don't you just explain WHY you want people to
>> think it somehow does that?
>
>I never said or implied anything of the sort. Whether or not farm animals'
>lives are decent is immaterial to your position.

That's a lie.

>If we are doing them some
>kind of service by creating the conditions under which they are born, then
>we should just do it as much as possible, good treatment would be considered
>superfluous, just icing on the cake.
>
>>And while you're failing to do that
>> as always, you can also fail to explain *exactly!* which part of
>> the speech by an imaginary talking "ar" pig you think somehow
>> prevents....anything.
>
>"prevents" huh?? You're babbling as usual.

LOL. I correctly pointed out your failure in advance...lol...

>>You can't. You fail. Salt fails. Goo fails. And
>> as you fail to overcome the truth with lies and fantasy, many
>> animals back at reality continue to benefit from farming. Many
>> don't, but you/"aras" are completely and necessarily incapable
>> of even considering--much less distinguishing between--when
>> they do, and when they don't.
>
>No animal benefits by being born, they benefit from good treatment.

What I said remains true.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

<dh@.> wrote in message news:p9vt721d7itk0bl2ajb0gpm1h6i74crb3q@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 31 May 2006 12:08:59 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:nbcr72p728jq6o0ht35svb042siuo420bm@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 21 May 2006 16:49:24 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><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.
>>>
>>> So far you haven't explained why you're so desperate that this
>>> fantasy of Salt's, not be considered a fantasy.
>>
>>Because that term dosn't describe it adequately.
>
> Just because your hero injected a dishonest belief into it doesn't
> make it any better. It is no better at all than Chicken Run, that's
> for sure. In fact for what it was intended, Chicken Run kicked its
> ass. I didn't watch all of Chicken Run because it disgusted me,
> and Salt's pig is even worse. For one thing, pigs are now kept in
> CLEAN environments, and the filth seems to be Salt's fantasy
> pig's main complaint. Salt's fantasy doesn't even apply today,
> as well as being garbage to begin with.

Salt's allegory holds today. No moral consequence derives from causing
livestock to be born, none.

>>> For some absurd
>>> reason you want people to think that Salt's fantasy somehow
>>> prevents any actual farm animals from having lives of positive
>>> value. Why don't you just explain WHY you want people to
>>> think it somehow does that?
>>
>>I never said or implied anything of the sort. Whether or not farm animals'
>>lives are decent is immaterial to your position.
>
> That's a lie.

No it's not. Your position is different than pure animal welfare in that it
says essentially that we do animals a service by allowing them to be born.
This is not dependent upon decent treatment, which is completely contingent
on them being born in the first place.

>>If we are doing them some
>>kind of service by creating the conditions under which they are born, then
>>we should just do it as much as possible, good treatment would be
>>considered
>>superfluous, just icing on the cake.
>>
>>>And while you're failing to do that
>>> as always, you can also fail to explain *exactly!* which part of
>>> the speech by an imaginary talking "ar" pig you think somehow
>>> prevents....anything.
>>
>>"prevents" huh?? You're babbling as usual.
>
> LOL. I correctly pointed out your failure in advance...lol...

My failure to get through to you is hardly a failure. I may as well be
trying to waken a corpse.

>
>>>You can't. You fail. Salt fails. Goo fails. And
>>> as you fail to overcome the truth with lies and fantasy, many
>>> animals back at reality continue to benefit from farming. Many
>>> don't, but you/"aras" are completely and necessarily incapable
>>> of even considering--much less distinguishing between--when
>>> they do, and when they don't.
>>
>>No animal benefits by being born, they benefit from good treatment.
>
> What I said remains true.

It remains false and a transparent deception on your part. Animal welfare
is contingent on animals being born, causing them to be conceived is not a
moral issue.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On 1 Jun 2006, Clueless Goo wrote:

>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying dog-sodomizing goober cracker,
>lied:
>> On Wed, 31 May 2006 12:02:43 -0700, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying dog-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:

>> >> even though you obviously
>> >> don't want people to take that into consideration. The obvious
>> >> reason for that of course remains that you don't want people to
>> >> consider that anything could be ethically equivalent or superior
>> >> to the elimination of domestic animals, ie, "ar".
>> >
>> >Wrong conclusion.
>>
>> It will have to suffice
>
>It is wrong

It's all we've got, Goo.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

<dh@.> wrote
> On 1 Jun 2006, Clueless Goo wrote:
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying dog-sodomizing goober cracker,
>>lied:
>>> On Wed, 31 May 2006 12:02:43 -0700, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> ><Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying dog-sodomizing goober cracker,
>>> >lied:
>
>>> >> even though you obviously
>>> >> don't want people to take that into consideration. The obvious
>>> >> reason for that of course remains that you don't want people to
>>> >> consider that anything could be ethically equivalent or superior
>>> >> to the elimination of domestic animals, ie, "ar".
>>> >
>>> >Wrong conclusion.
>>>
>>> It will have to suffice
>>
>>It is wrong
>
> It's all we've got, Goo.

It's all we've got to serve what purpose? It's not an argument against
vegetarianism. What you are saying essentially is "Meat-eaters cause all
these animals to be born, vegetarians don't, therefore meat-eaters are
better." It's a stupid argument, causing a lot of livestock animals to be
born is not an advantage, if anything it's a disadavantage.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying dog-sodomizing goober cracker,
lied:
> On 1 Jun 2006, Leif Erikson helpfully wrote:
>
> >Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying dog-sodomizing goober cracker,
> >lied:
> >> On Wed, 31 May 2006 12:02:43 -0700, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> ><Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying dog-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:
>
> >> >> even though you obviously
> >> >> don't want people to take that into consideration. The obvious
> >> >> reason for that of course remains that you don't want people to
> >> >> consider that anything could be ethically equivalent or superior
> >> >> to the elimination of domestic animals, ie, "ar".
> >> >
> >> >Wrong conclusion.
> >>
> >> It will have to suffice
> >
> >It is wrong
>
> It's all we've got,

It's all YOU have, Fuckwit, and it's wrong. Your entire life has been
dedicated to clinging to false beliefs.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

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

> On 1 Jun 2006, Leif Erikson helpfully wrote:
>
>
>>You don't care about the quality of their lives; we have
the quotes to prove it.
>
>
> · Again you have shown that

I have shown that you are a LIAR and don't care about
the quality of animal lives, Fuckwit:

It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005


I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999


Dave:
I am suggesting that we have no reason to
promote life for farm animals ahead of life for
wild animals

Fuckwit:
LOL!!!. We have at least two reasons. Can you
think of either?

Dave:
Enlighten me.

Fuckwit:
Meat. Gravy.

Fuckwit David Harrison - Mar 20, 2006



You don't care about the quality of animal lives,
Fuckwit, and you NEVER DID.

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

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 19:52:10 -0700, TheSimplyAmazingPuppyWizard wrote:

> HOWEDY leif,
>
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>> Animals do not feel "disappointment".
>
> That's SHEER IDIOCY, leif <{) : ~ ( >
>
>> They don't have an emotional state of "hopefulness",
>
> Of curse they do.
>
Please end this thread.
--
Fred.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

TheSimplyAmazingPuppyWizard.DeleteThis@HotMail.Com wrote:
> HOWEDY leif,

Howdy yerself, wiz.


>
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>Animals do not feel "disappointment".
>
>
> That's SHEER IDIOCY, leif <{) : ~ ( >

No, it isn't. Animals just don't have the ability for it.


>
>>They don't have an emotional state of "hopefulness",
>
>
> Of curse they do.

No, they don't.


>
>
>> so they can't experience "disappointment".
>
>
> That's ABSURD. What are you, some kinda Nazi?

It's not absurd. What does your question have to do
with any of it? It sounds like just an attempt to be
insulting.



>> If a mountain lion doesn't catch the deer, it doesn't mope
>> or do *anything* that would indicate "disappointment". It
>>just starts hunting again.
>
>
> Don't bet your life on it, leif.

Guaranteed, wiz.



>>If you tell your dog you're going to take it out for a
>>walk, and actually get the leash out and the dog gets
>>excited, but then you sit down and drink a beer and
>>watch the ballgame instead, the dog is not
>>"disappointed".
>
>
> Of curse not. Dogs are VERY patient, leif.

No, that's not why, wiz. It's because they don't have
the sense of anticipation required to have a sense of
disappointment.



>
>> It may appear a little confused,
>
>
> You mean, on accHOWENT of you broke your word?

No, that's not it. They don't have a sense of "giving
one's word". They don't understand anything about
that. It's just not a feature of their reality.


>>because the usual outcome (of actually going for the
>>walk) did not follow the auditory signal "walk" or the
>>visual/auditory signal of "pick up leash", but it
>>doesn't feel "sad" or "disappointed".
>
>
> You mean no more than if you offered him a cookie
> and then forgot, leif?

Yeah, that would be about right, wiz.



>>In a matter of seconds, it has forgotten all about the walk.
>
>
> Right. But he'll remember latter that you promised.

No, he won't. That's absurd.


>> If instead, a few minutes later, you engage the dog
>>with some other enjoyable behavior,
>
>
> Yeah, but he'll still miss the walk.

No. Sorry.


>>the dog will participate with exactly the same enthusiasm as
>>it would have done if this secondary activity had been the initial
>>stimulus instead of "walk".
>
>
> Right. But then he'll be EXXXPECTIN to do the walk he was PROMISED.

Nope.

Sorry, wiz - you're just projecting. I downloaded and
read your dog training guide several years ago, and it
looks pretty good (and I told you so at the time, in
one of the dog groups), but you're out of your depth in
terms of any serious philosophical understanding of
animal psychology.

Later, wiz...
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

Human_And_Animal_Behavior_Forensic_Sciences_Research_Laboratory.RemoveThis@HotMail.Com
wrote:

There is no such research laboratory



> HOWEDY leif,
>
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>TheSimplyAmazingPuppyWizard@HotMail.Com wrote:
>>
>>>HOWEDY leif,
>>
>>Howdy yerself, wiz.
>
>
> You mean 'HOWEDY The Simply Amazing Puppy Wizard,' leif <{): ~ ) >

Well, yes, I do, but I abbreviated it. Howdy.


>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Animals do not feel "disappointment".
>>
>>>That's SHEER IDIOCY, leif <{) : ~ ( >
>>
>>No, it isn't. Animals just don't have the ability for it.
>
>
> Tell that to B.F. Skinner and Azrin et al:
>
> "Despite Skinner's clear denunciation of "negative
> reinforcement" (1958) NEARLY EVER LEARNING THEORY
> model involves the USE OF PUNISHMENT.

This, of course, does not in any way demonstrate the
presence of a sense of "disappointment".


>>>>They don't have an emotional state of "hopefulness",
>>
>>>Of curse they do.
>>
>>No, they don't.
>
>
> Tell that to Ivan Pavlov:
>
>
>
> "Dr. Ian Pavlov discovered conditional reflex

Nor does that.


>>>>so they can't experience "disappointment".
>>
>>>That's ABSURD. What are you, some kinda Nazi?
>>
>>It's not absurd.
>
>
> Don't tell THAT to The Simply Amazing Puppy Wizard, leif <{)' ~ ) >

I'm sorry, Jerry, there's just no way around it.


>
>>What does your question have to do with any of it?
>
>
> On accHOWENT of only a descarte or Nazi would think like that, leif.

Descartes wasn't a Nazi, Jerry.



>>It sounds like just an attempt to be insulting.
>
>
> The Simply Amazing Puppy Wizard sincerely apologizes
> leif, HE got no right to attack you personally for
> your ignorameHOWES opinion <{); ~ ) >
>
>>>>If a mountain lion doesn't catch the deer, it doesn't mope
>>>>or do *anything* that would indicate "disappointment". It
>>>>just starts hunting again.
>>
>>
>>>Don't bet your life on it, leif.
>>
>>Guaranteed,
>
>
> Ever heard of displaced aggression, leif?

Mountain lions don't experience that either, Jerry.


>>wiz.
>
>
> You mean The Simply Amazing Puppy Wizard, don't you, leif <{); ~ ) >
>
> Animals DO feel EMBARRASSMENT at FAILURE

No, they don't. That's what you project on them,
because YOU have the ability to imagine yourself in
their place, and YOU can feel embarrassment. Animals
cannot.


> and often take it HOWET on whomever observed them
> in their failure, JUST LIKE HOWE people do, leif.

No, Jerry.


>>>>If you tell your dog you're going to take it out for a
>>>>walk, and actually get the leash out and the dog gets
>>>>excited, but then you sit down and drink a beer and
>>>>watch the ballgame instead, the dog is not "disappointed".
>
>
> That's preposterHOWES, leif. Last week The Simply Amazing
> Puppy Wizard took his dinner plate from the night pryor
> from HIS desk with a little leftover in it an sez to HIS
> Mrs.: "here's some leftovers that's still good for the
> dogs. I'd eat it but dinner's almost ready an I hate to
> waste it, it's pretty good."
>
> The Simply Amazing Puppy Wizard's puppy Lucy heard the
> conversation from the other room and came runnin to get
> her scraps.

That story simply isn't credible, Jerry.


>
>>>Of curse not. Dogs are VERY patient, leif.
>>
>>No, that's not why, wiz.
>
>
> You mean 'that AIN'T HOWE COME, The Simply Amazing
> Puppy Wizard,' leif <{); ~ ) >
>
>>It's because they don't have the sense of anticipation
>>required to have a sense of disappointment.
>
>
> Tell that to The Simply Amazing Puppy Wizard's dog Lucy, leif <{): ~) >

"Lucy" didn't do what you said, Jerry - certainly not
without some other recognizable verbal signal from you.
The conversation as you reported it would be
unintelligble to any dog, Jerry.



>>>You mean, on accHOWENT of you broke your word?
>>
>>No, that's not it. They don't have a sense of "giving
>>one's word". They don't understand anything about
>>that. It's just not a feature of their reality.
>
>
> Well perhaps THAT'S on accHOWENT Of critters DON'T LIE
> maliciHOWESLY as people do, leif.

They don't have a concept of lying at all, Jerry.


> Critters FEEL and THINK
> all the same same emotions as do people, on their own level,
> of curse.

No, they don't, Jerry. They feel a few primitive ones
like fear, rage, affection, contentment. They don't
feel more complex ones like pride, ambition,
disappointment, Schadenfreude, and many others.


>
> They worry and grieve and anticipate and feel disappointment

No, Jerry - none of those.


> JUST LIKE HOWE The Simply Amazing Puppy Wizard does when folks
> demean and insult animals and their intelligence just like HOWE
> they do with children <{); ~ ) >
>
>>>>because the usual outcome (of actually going for the
>>>>walk) did not follow the auditory signal "walk" or the
>>>>visual/auditory signal of "pick up leash", but it
>>>>doesn't feel "sad" or "disappointed".
>
>
> Tell THAT to Lucy, leif <{); ~ ) >
>
> She's STILL LOOKIN for her PROMISED leftover scraps, leif <{): ~ ( >

No.


>>>>If instead, a few minutes later, you engage
>>>>the dog with some other enjoyable behavior,
>
>
> Yeah. AND THEN do as was PROMISED.

No, Jerry. The dog forgets ALL ABOUT the "promised"
walk, if instead you throw her a ball or pat her head
and say "good doggie".



>>>Yeah, but he'll still miss the walk.
>>
>>No. Sorry.
>
>
> Tell it to Pavlov Azrin Skinner an Lucy, leif <{); ~ ) >

None of what they worked on demonstrates
"disappointment", Jerry. Sorry - I don't mean to
disappoint you.


>>>>the dog will participate with exactly the same enthusiasm
>>>>as it would have done if this secondary activity had been
>>>>the initial stimulus instead of "walk".
>
>
> AND THEN he'll EXXXPECT the PROMISED REWARD, leif.
>
> ASK The Simply Amazing Puppy Wizard's dog Lucy, leif <{); ~ ) >
>
>>>Right. But then he'll be EXXXPECTIN to do the walk he was PROMISED.
>>
>>Nope.
>
>
> Then HOWE COME Lucy keeps checkin The Simply Amazing
> Puppy Wizard's desktop for her PROMISED TREAT, leif?

She doesn't, Jerry.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

"Dutch" lied:

>No it's not.
....

>you believe that not raising them at all denies them life
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

Goo lied:

>your position is *NOT* dependent on decent
>treatment for animals:
....

>Dutch is not an "ara"
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II