Ignoring Rudy

Goo Fuckwit, THE one and only Goo, wrote:

> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:11:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>
>
>>> You have learned nothing at all from animals Goo.
>>
>>That's a lie.
>
>
> What have

Go waste someone else's time, Goo.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:09:02 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy RemoveThis @ph.con> wrote:

>Goo Fuckwit, THE one and only Goo, wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:11:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> You have learned nothing at all from animals Goo.
>>>
>>>That's a lie.
>>
>>
>> What have
>
>Go waste someone else's time

You have learned nothing from them Goober. This is just another
example for "The cowardice...".
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Goo Fuckwit, THE one and only Goo, wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:09:02 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy RemoveThis @ph.con> wrote:
>
> >Goo Fuckwit, THE one and only Goo, wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:11:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>dh@. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> You have learned nothing at all from animals Goo.
> >>>
> >>>That's a lie.
> >>
> >>
> >> What have
> >
> >Go waste someone else's time, Goo Fuckwit.
>
> You have

Go waste someone else's time, Goo Fuckwit.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:43:56 -1000, "Laurie" <no.DeleteThis@spam.com> wrote:
>"Derek" <usenet.email.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message news:03ene19hu0g8ac3o4dkbbveibpn5v7nm7g@4ax.com...
>>
>> I'm a vegan and have been for nigh on 15
>> years for ethical reasons.
>
> Nonsense, since there are no objective ethical standards to measure
>against, no one can claim they are more "ethical" than another.

Then rapists are every bit as ethical as non-rapists, since,
according to you, there are no objective ethical standards
to measure against, and no one can claim to be more
ethical than another. Way to go Laurie.

>People just
>make up their own "ethics" for their convenience at the time.

You can only speak for yourself, of course, because my
code of conduct, for example, is based on unbending
principles rather than convenience or expedience.

>Ethics are irrelevant to diet and lifestyle choices.

I don't agree.

>> I see animals as rights-holders ...
>
> Is there some objective issuer of these "rights"?

No. They are inherent.

>Humans do not have "rights", animal certainly do not.

Then, conversely, according to your logic, if humans do
have rights, then animals certainly have them as well.
Humans don't have four legs. Must we now conclude
that animals certainly don't have four legs because of
that fact? Really, Laurie, I'm shocked at your lack of
critical thinking and poor logic.

1) If humans hold rights, then animals hold rights.
2) Humans don't hold rights (denial of the antecedent)
therefore
3) animals don't hold rights.

>> ...but don't believe they can experience emotions.
>
> You have no idea what is occurring in the consciousness of another
>being; no one does.

Nevertheless, despite that lack of knowledge, I've
no reason to believe animals experience emotion.
Like you say, I have no idea what occurs in the
mind of another being, so when I declare that I
don't believe animals can experience emotion, it's
a true statement and a valid belief.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

"Derek" <usenet.email.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote

[..]

> Nevertheless, despite that lack of knowledge, I've
> no reason to believe animals experience emotion.

Of course you do, animals display many of the same
clues that they are experiencing similiar emotions in
similiar circumstances to humans.

> Like you say, I have no idea what occurs in the
> mind of another being,

You should have, it's not difficult.

> so when I declare that I
> don't believe animals can experience emotion, it's
> a true statement and a valid belief.

It was a mistake to say it, it's not true and you
know it. It contradicts your position regarding
animals and rights.

For starters you must be aware that animals can
experience the emotion of fear. It's commonly
accompanied by a release of chemicals into the
body and referred to as the "flight or fight syndrome".
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

David Wright Sr. wrote:
> Derek <usenet.email.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:8hkme11kps451ch178sfimnb43iedrq5ou@4ax.com:
>
> (snip)
>
> >
> > It was either that or some hard work on your
> > part to make your case, so you opted for the
> > easy way out and destroyed what credibility
> > you thought you had at the same time.
> >
> >
> Well, I see we have another Rudy clone.
>
> I made my case. You, 'usual suspect' and Rudy apparently have the same
> mindset, ignore anything which has been presented to you which contradicts
> your claims.
>
> Another one in the kill-file.
>

Usual is right about some of the misguided "ad hominem attack"
allegations around here.

This last post, I believe is a difficult case. If you are saying that
-because of- the ignorance tactic of rudy and clone you have made your
case -- then yes it's an ad hominem attack. Otherwise, it's a non
sequitur.

Ad hominem, or non sequitur?
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 11:32:16 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>"Derek" <usenet.email.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote
>
>[..]
>
>> Nevertheless, despite that lack of knowledge, I've
>> no reason to believe animals experience emotion.
>
>Of course you do,

I've told you that I don't, and you've given no reason
to make me change my mind.

>animals display many of the same
>clues that they are experiencing similiar emotions in
>similiar circumstances to humans.

To paraphrase Jon's comment to Harrison, "You are
deluding yourself into seeing what you want to see.
It isn't there.", and that's no surprise when we look at
your history and the way you admittedly intentionally
delude yourself on these issues.

>> Like you say, I have no idea what occurs in the
>> mind of another being,
>
>You should have, it's not difficult.

Only a wacko like yourself would declare that he
knows what occurs in the mind of another. You're
right on time.

>> so when I declare that I
>> don't believe animals can experience emotion, it's
>> a true statement and a valid belief.
>
>It was a mistake to say it

According to you, maybe, but then you're a self-
confessed delusional who finds deluding himself
comfortable, so what else could I expect from
you anyway?

>it's not true and you
>know it. It contradicts your position regarding
>animals and rights.

Not at all. You don't know anything about rights
or what qualifies a rights bearer.

>For starters you must be aware that animals can
>experience the emotion of fear.

Though it's commonly said that animals experience
fear, I disagree and content that they behave in a
way devoid of that human emotion.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

"Derek" <usenet.email RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote

[..]

>>you must be aware that animals can
>>experience the emotion of fear.
>
> Though it's commonly said that animals experience
> fear, I disagree and content that they behave in a
> way devoid of that human emotion.

Why would you adopt such a counter-intuitive
idea? What evidence do you have to make you
believe that what appear to be emotive states,
accompanied by familiar physiological and
behavioural changes, are in fact actually... nothing?
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Dutch wrote:
> "Derek" <usenet.email DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote
>
> [..]
>
>
>>>you must be aware that animals can
>>>experience the emotion of fear.
>>
>>Though it's commonly said that animals experience
>>fear, I disagree and content that they behave in a
>>way devoid of that human emotion.
>
>
> Why would you adopt such a counter-intuitive
> idea? What evidence do you have to make you
> believe that what appear to be emotive states,
> accompanied by familiar physiological and
> behavioural changes, are in fact actually... nothing?
>
>

There are all kinds of stuides of animal emotions, from a behavioral
objective, a biochecmical standpoint,
and mri views. IF you chose to ignore them because you don't want to is
ignoring objective evidence.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

"Beach Runner" <bob DeleteThis @nospam.com> wrote in message
news:kIdIe.48669$t43.47785@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Derek" <usenet.email DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>
>>>>you must be aware that animals can
>>>>experience the emotion of fear.
>>>
>>>Though it's commonly said that animals experience
>>>fear, I disagree and content that they behave in a
>>>way devoid of that human emotion.
>>
>>
>> Why would you adopt such a counter-intuitive
>> idea? What evidence do you have to make you
>> believe that what appear to be emotive states,
>> accompanied by familiar physiological and
>> behavioural changes, are in fact actually... nothing?
>>
>>
>
> There are all kinds of stuides of animal emotions, from a behavioral
> objective, a biochecmical standpoint,
> and mri views. IF you chose to ignore them because you don't want to is
> ignoring objective evidence.

The only real debate is related to *complex* emotions,
such as jealousy, which are arguably anthropomorphic,
not basic emotions per se.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Dutch wrote:
> "Beach Runner" <bob.DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:kIdIe.48669$t43.47785@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>>
>>Dutch wrote:
>>
>>>"Derek" <usenet.email.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>[..]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>you must be aware that animals can
>>>>>experience the emotion of fear.
>>>>
>>>>Though it's commonly said that animals experience
>>>>fear, I disagree and content that they behave in a
>>>>way devoid of that human emotion.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why would you adopt such a counter-intuitive
>>>idea? What evidence do you have to make you
>>>believe that what appear to be emotive states,
>>>accompanied by familiar physiological and
>>>behavioural changes, are in fact actually... nothing?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>There are all kinds of stuides of animal emotions, from a behavioral
>>objective, a biochecmical standpoint,
>>and mri views. IF you chose to ignore them because you don't want to is
>>ignoring objective evidence.
>
>
> The only real debate is related to *complex* emotions,
> such as jealousy, which are arguably anthropomorphic,
> not basic emotions per se.
>
>

With all due respect, I don't want to get into any argument,
Jealousy is one of the most obvious emotions. Try having two animals
and give affection or food to one
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

"Beach Runner" <bob.DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mzjIe.60112$mC.17292@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Beach Runner" <bob.DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:kIdIe.48669$t43.47785@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>>>
>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Derek" <usenet.email.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>you must be aware that animals can
>>>>>>experience the emotion of fear.
>>>>>
>>>>>Though it's commonly said that animals experience
>>>>>fear, I disagree and content that they behave in a
>>>>>way devoid of that human emotion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why would you adopt such a counter-intuitive
>>>>idea? What evidence do you have to make you
>>>>believe that what appear to be emotive states,
>>>>accompanied by familiar physiological and
>>>>behavioural changes, are in fact actually... nothing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>There are all kinds of stuides of animal emotions, from a behavioral
>>>objective, a biochecmical standpoint,
>>>and mri views. IF you chose to ignore them because you don't want to is
>>>ignoring objective evidence.
>>
>>
>> The only real debate is related to *complex* emotions,
>> such as jealousy, which are arguably anthropomorphic,
>> not basic emotions per se.
>
> With all due respect, I don't want to get into any argument,

That's fine.

> Jealousy is one of the most obvious emotions. Try having two animals and
> give affection or food to one.

That's not necessarily jealousy. The animal sees, hears
or smells something that triggers a positive reaction, that
doesn't mean they are thinking anything like, "I am jealous
of Skippy", they are more likely being attracted to the
positive stimulus than thinking about their feelings towards
the other animal.

Yes, I agree it's debatable, that was my point. What is NOT
debatable is that animals experience basic emotions, like fear.
This Derek person seems to adopt positions randomly then
attempts to defend them.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

usual suspect wrote:



> shevek4.RemoveThis@yahoo.com wrote:
> "meadowlark" is Karen Winter.

I am not this person
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy