Dogs and other animals don't experience disappointment.
That's purely a human emotion.
too stupid to comprehend that animals experience emotions, but
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:38:11 -0700, Rudy Canoza ><LaLaLaLaLaLa@philhendrie.con> wrote:
<snipped anecdotal garbage presented as evidence to base a nonsense claim>
Dogs and other animals don't experience disappointment.
Take a look at the faces on the dogs in the pictures in this link >http://bit.ly/1NKoKDz and try deluding yourself again that those tormented >animals aren't suffering disappointment and a great many other emotions
human experience. Don't look away. Go down the page and look at all of them.
That's purely a human emotion.
Ipse dixit. You'd say anything to trivialise the suffering you and your type >inflict on animals to head off criticism.
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:22:49 +0100, Derek <dereknash@groupmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:38:11 -0700, Rudy Canoza >><LaLaLaLaLaLa@philhendrie.con> wrote:
<snipped anecdotal garbage presented as evidence to base a nonsense claim>
Dogs and other animals don't experience disappointment.
Take a look at the faces on the dogs in the pictures in this link >>http://bit.ly/1NKoKDz and try deluding yourself again that those tormented >>animals aren't suffering disappointment and a great many other emotions >>human experience. Don't look away. Go down the page and look at all of them.
Goo MAY BE too stupid to comprehend that animals experience emotions,
but
more likely he lies about that like all the other things he lies about. The only
question about his lies is why he tells them,
but it still seems clear that he
tells them to support the eliminationist position.
That's purely a human emotion.
Ipse dixit. You'd say anything to trivialise the suffering you and your type >>inflict on animals to head off criticism.
All of you eliminationists agree with Goo about his following claims:
"Causing the animals to exist is not "contributing to their lives."" - Goo
"Coming into existence - that is, "getting to experience life" - is not a >benefit for livestock animals. It is a benefit only for those who wish
to consume products made from those animals." - Goo
"The chickens "getting to experience life" is not *ANY* kind of good thing, >for them, versus never existing." - Goo
"The "experiencing" of life is morally meaningless." - Goo
"they do not "benefit" in any way from coming into existence, versus never >existing." - Goo
"The emotion of expectation is *much* more than mere expectation" - Goo
"It is not to my son's advantage to have been born versus never existing" - Goo
"coming into existence didn't make me better off than I was before." - Goo
"Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Goo
"Animals do not "benefit" in any way from coming into existence, versus
never existing." - Goo
"...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit compared >with never existing." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
"It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to experience life" >instead of
never existing" - Goo
"A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus >never existing" - Goo
"Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with never existing - proved."
- Goo
"Existence doesn't improve welfare versus never existing" - Goo
"according to me, existence is not a benefit - ever." - Goo
"animals' "getting to experience life" is nonsense." - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo
"It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life than
never to live at all." - Goo
""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
"Rights are not given. Rights exist." - Goo
"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before they existed." - Goo
"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
to humans . . . "getting to experience life" is not
a benefit." - Goo
"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
"I have examined the question at length, and feel
there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
is not a benefit." - Goo
"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo
"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo
"Life "justifying" death is the
stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo
"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo
"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo
"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:38:11 -0700, Rudy Canoza <LaLaLaLaLaLa@philhendrie.con> wrote:
<snipped anecdotal garbage presented as evidence to base a nonsense claim>
Dogs and other animals don't experience disappointment.
Take a look at the faces on the dogs in the pictures in this link http://bit.ly/1NKoKDz and
On 8/21/2015 11:22 AM, Derek wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:38:11 -0700, Rudy Canoza
<LaLaLaLaLaLa@philhendrie.con> wrote:
<snipped anecdotal garbage presented as evidence to base a nonsense claim> >>
Dogs and other animals don't experience disappointment.
Take a look at the faces on the dogs in the pictures in this link
http://bit.ly/1NKoKDz and
No disappointment - most of those dogs pictured are already dead
I just confirmed again that dogs don't suffer disappointment.
Dogs and other animals do not experience disappointment.
That's purely a human emotion.
On 9/2/2015 6:19 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison lied:
too stupid to comprehend that animals experience emotions, but
Animals experience only the most simple and basic emotions: fear, >aggression, contentment.
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:15:41 -0700, james g. keegan jr. wrote:
On 9/2/2015 6:19 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison lied:
too stupid to comprehend that animals experience emotions, but
Animals experience only the most simple and basic emotions: fear,
aggression, contentment.
Try backing up that claim
On Wed, 02 Sep 2015 21:19:28 -0400, mur wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:22:49 +0100, Derek <dereknash@groupmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:38:11 -0700, Goo wrote:Goo MAY BE too stupid to comprehend that animals experience emotions,
<snipped anecdotal garbage presented as evidence to base a nonsense claim> >>>
Dogs and other animals don't experience disappointment.
Take a look at the faces on the dogs in the pictures in this link >>>http://bit.ly/1NKoKDz and try deluding yourself again that those tormented >>>animals aren't suffering disappointment and a great many other emotions >>>human experience. Don't look away. Go down the page and look at all of them. >>
I'm certain that dogs do share some of our emotions but unsure whether they >share some of the more complex ones. Something worth mentioning here is >something I read in wiki;
[Psychology research has shown that when humans gaze at the face of another
human, the gaze is not symmetrical; the gaze instinctively moves to the
right side of the face to obtain information about their emotions and state. >Research at the University of Lincoln shows that dogs share this instinct >when meeting a human, and only when meeting a human (i.e., not other animals >or other dogs). They are the only non-primate species known to share this >instinct.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in_animals
but
more likely he lies about that like all the other things he lies about. The only
question about his lies is why he tells them,
He tells them to escape responsibility, guilt and criticism.
Take the below
exchange between him and a police officer who recently pulled him over for >speeding, for example, and see how cleverly he escapes all three.
Officer: May I see your driver's license?
Jon: I don't have one. I had it suspended when I got my 5th DUI.
Officer: May I see the owner's card for this vehicle?
Jon: It's not my car. I stole it.
Officer: The car is stolen?
Jon: That's right. But come to think of it, I think I saw the owner's card
in the glove box when I was putting my gun in there.
Officer: There's a gun in the glove box?
Jon: Yes sir. That's where I put it after I shot and killed the woman who >owns this car and stuffed her in the trunk.
Officer: There's a BODY in the TRUNK?!?!?
Jon: Yes, sir.
Hearing this, the officer immediately called his captain. The car was
quickly surrounded by police, and the captain approached Jon to handle the >tense situation:
Captain: Sir, can I see your license?
Jon: Sure. Here it is.
It was valid.
Captain: Who's car is this?
Jon: It's mine, officer. Here's the owner' card.
Jon did own the car.
Captain: Could you slowly open your glove box so I can see if there's a gun >in it?
Jon: Yes, sir, but there's no gun in it.
Sure enough, there was nothing in the glove box.
Captain: Would you mind opening your trunk? I was told you said there's a >body in it.
Jon: No problem.
Trunk is opened; no body.
Captain: I don't understand it. The officer who stopped you said you told
him you didn't have a license, stole the car, had a gun in the glovebox, and >that there was a dead body in the trunk.
Jon: Yeah, I'll bet the liar told you I was speeding, too.
but it still seems clear that he
tells them to support the eliminationist position.
That's purely a human emotion.
Ipse dixit. You'd say anything to trivialise the suffering you and your type >>>inflict on animals to head off criticism.
All of you eliminationists agree with Goo about his following claims:
"Causing the animals to exist is not "contributing to their lives."" - Goo
"Coming into existence - that is, "getting to experience life" - is not a >>benefit for livestock animals. It is a benefit only for those who wish
to consume products made from those animals." - Goo
"The chickens "getting to experience life" is not *ANY* kind of good thing, >>for them, versus never existing." - Goo
"The "experiencing" of life is morally meaningless." - Goo
"they do not "benefit" in any way from coming into existence, versus never >>existing." - Goo
"The emotion of expectation is *much* more than mere expectation" - Goo
"It is not to my son's advantage to have been born versus never existing" - Goo
"coming into existence didn't make me better off than I was before." - Goo
"Not existing is not equivalent to "being nothing."" - Goo
"Animals do not "benefit" in any way from coming into existence, versus >>never existing." - Goo
"...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit compared >>with never existing." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
"It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to experience life" >>instead of
never existing" - Goo
"A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus
never existing" - Goo
"Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with never existing - proved."
- Goo
"Existence doesn't improve welfare versus never existing" - Goo
"according to me, existence is not a benefit - ever." - Goo
"animals' "getting to experience life" is nonsense." - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo
"It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life than
never to live at all." - Goo
""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
"Rights are not given. Rights exist." - Goo
"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before they existed." - Goo
"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
to humans . . . "getting to experience life" is not
a benefit." - Goo
"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
"I have examined the question at length, and feel
there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
is not a benefit." - Goo
"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo
"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo
"Life "justifying" death is the
stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo
"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo
"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo
"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I've seen those quotes more times than I can remember.
They don't achieve anything.
Try looking at your argument, that coming into
existence is a benefit, in the following way. Think of the term benefit in >its proper forward tense and you'll be home and dry. Examples? Eating is a >benefit because it stops me from feeling hungry later. Learning to swim is a >benefit because it allows me to exercise and may save my life. Coming into
my inheritance is a benefit because it allows me to pay off my debtors. >Coming into class is a benefit because it allows me to learn. Coming into >existence is a benefit because it allows me to continue existing. Everything >I benefit from now is because of an earlier event. Coming into existence
must be one of those events.
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 15:51:05 -0400, mur@. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:15:41 -0700, Goo claimed:
On 9/2/2015 6:19 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison lied:
too stupid to comprehend that animals experience emotions, but
Animals experience only the most simple and basic emotions: fear, >>>aggression, contentment.
Try backing up that claim, Goo.
Done, ages ago.
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 14:31:56 -0700, james g keegan jr. wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 15:51:05 -0400, Fuckwit David Harrison lied:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:15:41 -0700, james g keegan jr. wrote:
On 9/2/2015 6:19 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison lied:
too stupid to comprehend that animals experience emotions, but
Animals experience only the most simple and basic emotions: fear,
aggression, contentment.
Try backing up that claim, Goo.
Done, ages ago.
Now try backing up both of those claims
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 18:54:26 -0800, james g keegan jr. wrote:
On 11/5/2015 9:51 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison lied:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 14:31:56 -0700, james g keegan jr. wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 15:51:05 -0400, Fuckwit David Harrison lied:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:15:41 -0700, james g keegan jr. wrote:
On 9/2/2015 6:19 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison lied:
too stupid to comprehend that animals experience emotions, but
Animals experience only the most simple and basic emotions: fear, >>>>>> aggression, contentment.
Try backing up that claim, Goo.
Done, ages ago.
Now try backing up both of those claims
Done, ages ago.
You
On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:51:46 -0500, mur@. wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 14:31:56 -0700, Goo desperately lied:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 15:51:05 -0400, mur@. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:15:41 -0700, Goo claimed:
On 9/2/2015 6:19 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison lied:
too stupid to comprehend that animals experience emotions, but
Animals experience only the most simple and basic emotions: fear, >>>>>aggression, contentment.
Try backing up that claim, Goo.
Done, ages ago.
Now try backing up both of those claims, Goo.
D
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 86:40:16 |
| Calls: | 6,658 |
| Files: | 12,203 |
| Messages: | 5,333,788 |