Animal emotions - II

External Since: Jan 29, 2006 Posts: 20

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

> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 Leif Erikson helpfully wrote:
>
>
>>bill.reich@taylorandfrancis.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson helpfully wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 20 May 2006 22:20:12 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 19 May 2006 18:29:17 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:23:54 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:48:08 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-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...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
>>>>
>>>>He didn't "get" any pig, Fuckwit. He wrote an essay, and as a matter
>>>>of literary style, he chose to write it as an allegory.
>>>>
>>>>Salt thoroughly demolishes the idea that you are doing livestock
>>>>animals any "favor" or "good deed" or "benefit" by causing them to
>>>>live, Fuckwit. You are not doing any of that.
>>>
>>>
>>>What he does is demolish the idea that you, or the pig, can have any
>>>idea of whether you have done the aniimal a favor by causing it to
>>>live. It is "a question unamenable to discourse." It is certainly left
>>>as a possibility that you have done the animal a favor but there is no
>>>basis for any claim that you have done so and even less for the claim
>>>that you intended to do so.
>>
>>The only possibility is if the animal "pre-existed".
>>Rational people don't believe in that.
>
> [snip goober cracker Fuckwit's absurd spew, except]
>
> ""Life" is not a benefit" - Goo
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

That's a true statement, Fuckwit.

External Since: Jul 02, 2003 Posts: 1110

<dh@.> wrote in message news:ifce8250ngi0vv2e14buva8804l53l066b@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 09:38:57 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 12:21:01 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>news:03gb825trqh052qk26eosc9534pkad17fd@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 23:30:14 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:vjn982pd0obm7pv8go5j6dbn2hthnjvr1q@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> "Dutch" lied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No it's not.
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>you believe that not raising them at all denies them life
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wow, that's weak even by your standards.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the first time I've simply pointed out some of your lies
>>>>> without
>>>>> responding to them, but it may not be the last.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe the beginning of the end of your stupidity I'd say.
>>>
>>> Goo has corrected me, and we now agree that you/"aras"
>>> actually DO want to deny life to potential future animals. I'm glad he
>>> made a point of insisting that I was correct.
>>
>>The next step for you is to realize that to "deny life to potential future
>>animals" has no importance, it's nonsense.
>
> It's what they want.

Who cares? Where's the harm? What's wrong with it?