If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2005 18:13:34 -0700, "Dutch" wrote: Quit pretending that you "consider the animals" in some unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't. Do you? Irrelevant. YOU stop pretending that you do. You do not. Your pretense is a joke, and fools no one. You are merely considering yourself, and for obvious reasons you need to dress it up as consideration for animals. Stop it. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
On 12 May 2005 10:19:48 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" wrote:
dh@. wrote: On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: we have been here to establish that your beliefs about animals are purely your projection of your emotions onto animals. That is called anthropomorphization, and it is philosophically wrong. We have also been here and found that you have no idea whether my beliefs are correct or not, We DO know that your beliefs are completely incorrect. because you don't have a clue which emotions they are and are not capable of. We do know certain ones that they do not experience. Disappointment is one they do not experience. That's a lie. Period. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
On 12 May 2005 10:18:32 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" wrote:
dh@. wrote: On 9 May 2005 10:58:09 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" wrote: He is incapable of seeing the real flaw in their argument What is then Goo? Your question doesn't make any sense. That's because you don't believe there is any "real flaw in their argument". |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:02:10 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
dh@. wrote On Sun, 8 May 2005 18:13:34 -0700, "Dutch" wrote: Quit pretending that you "consider the animals" in some unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't. Do you? If so, explain how I'm not the one claiming I do. Good, because you "ARAs" certainly should never claim to care about the animals that you want to eliminate. When I attack your position you criticize me for not "considering the animals". That implies that you DO consider them in some unselfish way. That is a lie, your "consideration" is nothing more than a belief that the fact that we indirectly cause animals to be born bestows a kind a moral credit onto meat consumers. That belief (called "the logic of the larder") is a mistake. Some farm animals' lives are of positive value and some are not. Before you took so many gonadal stupid pills you used to understand that: __________________________________________________ _______ From: "Dutch" Message-ID: The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ You are the only person I know for a fact has gotten more stupid over the past several years, but you have obviously done it. I haven't done it with you though, so I can still understand that the method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal. Your childish "AR" fantasy about a talking pig in no way refutes it either, nor does anything else. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
dh@. wrote in message news On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:02:10 -0700, "Dutch" wrote: dh@. wrote On Sun, 8 May 2005 18:13:34 -0700, "Dutch" wrote: Quit pretending that you "consider the animals" in some unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't. Do you? If so, explain how I'm not the one claiming I do. Good, because you "ARAs" certainly should never claim to care about the animals that you want to eliminate. People who eat meat should never claim to be doing those animals a favour. QUIT PRETENDING THAT YOU *CONSIDER* ANIMALS IN SOME UNSELFISH WAY. When I attack your position you criticize me for not "considering the animals". That implies that you DO consider them in some unselfish way. That is a lie, your "consideration" is nothing more than a belief that the fact that we indirectly cause animals to be born bestows a kind a moral credit onto meat consumers. That belief (called "the logic of the larder") is a mistake. Some farm animals' lives are of positive value and some are not. Before you took so many gonadal stupid pills you used to understand that: People who eat meat should never claim to be doing those animals a favour. QUIT PRETENDING THAT YOU *CONSIDER* ANIMALS IN SOME UNSELFISH WAY. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
dh@. wrote:
On 12 May 2005 10:18:32 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" wrote: dh@. wrote: On 9 May 2005 10:58:09 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" wrote: He is incapable of seeing the real flaw in their argument What is then Goo? Your question doesn't make any sense. That's because you don't believe there is any "real flaw in their argument". "What is then" was an absurd question, ****wit. There are several serious flaws, and I have correctly identified them. You have not. You have come up with a goofy idea because you feel the need to justify that you kill animals. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
dh@. wrote:
On 12 May 2005 10:19:48 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" wrote: dh@. wrote: On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: we have been here to establish that your beliefs about animals are purely your projection of your emotions onto animals. That is called anthropomorphization, and it is philosophically wrong. We have also been here and found that you have no idea whether my beliefs are correct or not, We DO know that your beliefs are completely incorrect. because you don't have a clue which emotions they are and are not capable of. We do know certain ones that they do not experience. Disappointment is one they do not experience. That's a lie. No, ****wit. It isn't a lie. Your belief that they can experience disappointment is purely your anthropomorphic projection. There is no credible evidence non-human animals can experience disappointment. All we have are unreliable anecdotes from credulous dopes like you. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
dh@. wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:02:10 -0700, "Dutch" wrote: dh@. wrote On Sun, 8 May 2005 18:13:34 -0700, "Dutch" wrote: Quit pretending that you "consider the animals" in some unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't. Do you? If so, explain how I'm not the one claiming I do. Good, because you "ARAs" certainly should never claim to care about the animals that you want to eliminate. You do not "consider the animals" in some selfless way, ****wit. What a joke. You are desperately trying to foster the illusion that you do, but your "consideration" is entirely self-serving. No one is fooled. When I attack your position you criticize me for not "considering the animals". That implies that you DO consider them in some unselfish way. That is a lie, your "consideration" is nothing more than a belief that the fact that we indirectly cause animals to be born bestows a kind a moral credit onto meat consumers. That belief (called "the logic of the larder") is a mistake. Some farm animals' lives are of positive value and some are not. non sequitur - utterly non responsive to what Dutch wrote. No animals "benefit" from coming into existence, ****wit. This is established as fact. STOP pretending that you give some selfless consideration to "the farm animals", ****wit. You do not, and everyone knows you do not. Everyone knows that all you are doing is trying to foster the illusion that you do; that what you actually are doing is clumsily trying to justify your killing of animals. You are the only person I know for a fact has gotten more stupid YOU are the only person who has gotten more stupid, ****wit. It begins with your adoption of a discredited philosophy, the Illogic of the Larder, and it extends to your labeling established opponents of "ar" as "aras". |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
On 13 May 2005 10:03:59 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" wrote:
dh@. wrote: On 12 May 2005 10:19:48 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" wrote: dh@. wrote: On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: we have been here to establish that your beliefs about animals are purely your projection of your emotions onto animals. That is called anthropomorphization, and it is philosophically wrong. We have also been here and found that you have no idea whether my beliefs are correct or not, We DO know that your beliefs are completely incorrect. because you don't have a clue which emotions they are and are not capable of. We do know certain ones that they do not experience. Disappointment is one they do not experience. That's a lie. No, ****wit. It isn't a lie. Your belief that they can experience disappointment is purely your anthropomorphic projection. There is no credible evidence non-human animals can experience disappointment. All we have are unreliable anecdotes from credulous dopes like you. You're too stupid for this Goo. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
On 13 May 2005 09:58:06 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" wrote:
dh@. wrote: On 12 May 2005 10:18:32 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" wrote: dh@. wrote: On 9 May 2005 10:58:09 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" wrote: He is incapable of seeing the real flaw in their argument What is then Goo? Your question doesn't make any sense. That's because you don't believe there is any "real flaw in their argument". "What is then" was an absurd question, ****wit. There are several serious flaws, There sure are, and you don't have a clue about any of them. and I have correctly identified them. You have not. You have come up with a goofy idea because you feel the need to justify that you kill animals. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Distressing Article | Phil P. | Cat health & behaviour | 2 | December 15th 04 12:51 AM |
Animals are not currency | Michael | Cat anecdotes | 18 | September 14th 04 01:20 PM |
Friend in Oshkosh Wisconsin needs help! | Batson | Cat health & behaviour | 10 | May 26th 04 08:47 PM |
NEW PET ANIMALS BULLETIN BOARD SERVICE! | Animalsrus1 | Cat rescue | 1 | August 1st 03 12:19 AM |