Why should the onus fall on animals, whatever their species, to prove
that they are sentient if a broad-ranging review of both the
scientific and philosophic literature shows that animals think and
feel and are sentient and show morality?

Philosophers have routinely dismissed animals as unthinking, unfeeling
beasts-Descartes grouped non-human animals with machines, a line of
logic that has been used to justify callous treatment of laboratory
animals.

But recent research creates a compelling case for blurring the line
between animal and human perception, thereby questioning the
prevailing scientific orthodoxy that humans alone possess the ability
to reason.

Over the years, studies have shown that animals have intelligence
(dolphins have been known to teach themselves to delay gratification
to get extra treats), emotions (like humans, baboon mothers show
elevated levels of glucocorticoids after losing an infant), cunning
(gorillas divert the attention of rivals from food, often by
grooming); that they can communicate (nuthatches can translate
chickadee chirps), can be altruistic (chimps who know how to unlatch a
door help those who can't).

If this is true should we continue treating animals cruelly and
carelessly?

http://www.amazon.com/Second-Nature-.../dp/0230613624

On May 21, 7:59*pm, Immortalist > wrote:
>
> If this is true should we continue treating animals cruelly and
> carelessly?

For the same reasons that we treat humans with cruelty and
carelessness? For example, as you sit up in your ivory white tower,
why don't you get your lazy ass to work in reducing the cruelty and
carelessness towards anything with your every waking hour? WHY DONT
YOU!!! ;-)

On May 21, 6:59*pm, Immortalist > wrote:
> Why should the onus fall on animals, whatever their species, to prove
> that they are sentient if a broad-ranging review of both the
> scientific and philosophic literature shows that animals think and
> feel and are sentient and show morality?
>
> Philosophers have routinely dismissed animals as unthinking, unfeeling
> beasts-Descartes grouped non-human animals with machines, a line of
> logic that has been used to justify callous treatment of laboratory
> animals.

Just because I think therefore I am doesn't mean that anybody else
does... Callous and cruel treatment towards *me* is the only important
consideration.

On May 21, 11:05*pm, Monsieur Turtoni > wrote:
> On May 21, 7:59*pm, Immortalist > wrote:
>
>
>
> > If this is true should we continue treating animals cruelly and
> > carelessly?
>
> For the same reasons that we treat humans with cruelty and
> carelessness? For example, as you sit up in your ivory white tower,
> why don't you get your lazy ass to work in reducing the cruelty and
> carelessness towards anything with your every waking hour? WHY DONT
> YOU!!! ;-)


Quitting eating animal "food" products would be a start which everyone
can do.

On May 22, 12:59*am, Immortalist > wrote:
> Why should the onus fall on animals, whatever their species, to prove
> that they are sentient if a broad-ranging review of both the
> scientific and philosophic literature shows that animals think and
> feel and are sentient and show morality?
>
> Philosophers have routinely dismissed animals as unthinking, unfeeling
> beasts-Descartes grouped non-human animals with machines, a line of
> logic that has been used to justify callous treatment of laboratory
> animals.
>
> But recent research creates a compelling case for blurring the line
> between animal and human perception, thereby questioning the
> prevailing scientific orthodoxy that humans alone possess the ability
> to reason.
>
> Over the years, studies have shown that animals have intelligence
> (dolphins have been known to teach themselves to delay gratification
> to get extra treats), emotions (like humans, baboon mothers show
> elevated levels of glucocorticoids after losing an infant), cunning
> (gorillas divert the attention of rivals from food, often by
> grooming); that they can communicate (nuthatches can translate
> chickadee chirps), can be altruistic (chimps who know how to unlatch a
> door help those who can't).
>
> If this is true should we continue treating animals cruelly and
> carelessly?
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Second-Nature-.../dp/0230613624

................................and this has exactly what to do with
global warming? Go post it elsewhere.

"Mr.Smartypants" > wrote in message
...
On May 21, 11:05 pm, Monsieur Turtoni > wrote:
> On May 21, 7:59 pm, Immortalist > wrote:
>
>
>
> > If this is true should we continue treating animals cruelly and
> > carelessly?
>
> For the same reasons that we treat humans with cruelty and
> carelessness? For example, as you sit up in your ivory white tower,
> why don't you get your lazy ass to work in reducing the cruelty and
> carelessness towards anything with your every waking hour? WHY DONT
> YOU!!! ;-)


Quitting eating animal "food" products would be a start which everyone
can do.
--->

So what? You can stop eating rice or bananas. Just because something *can*
be done does not make it morally obligatory or even beneficial.

Simple, we should stop treating animals with cruelty and carelessness, that
does not necessarily mean they stop being food.

On 5/22/2010 11:51 AM, Mr.Shit4braincell bullshitted pointlessly and
with zero substance:
> On May 21, 11:05 pm, Monsieur > wrote:
>> On May 21, 7:59 pm, > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> If this is true should we continue treating animals cruelly and
>>> carelessly?
>>
>> For the same reasons that we treat humans with cruelty and
>> carelessness? For example, as you sit up in your ivory white tower,
>> why don't you get your lazy ass to work in reducing the cruelty and
>> carelessness towards anything with your every waking hour? WHY DONT
>> YOU!!! ;-)
>
>
> Quitting eating animal "food" products

Many livestock animals are good and nutritious food.


> would be a start which everyone
> can do.

No reason to do it.

On May 21, 10:05*pm, Monsieur Turtoni > wrote:
> On May 21, 7:59*pm, Immortalist > wrote:
>
>
>
> > If this is true should we continue treating animals cruelly and
> > carelessly?
>
> For the same reasons that we treat humans with cruelty and
> carelessness? For example, as you sit up in your ivory white tower,
> why don't you get your lazy ass to work in reducing the cruelty and
> carelessness towards anything with your every waking hour? WHY DONT
> YOU!!! ;-)

Maybe I do.

On May 22, 3:10*pm, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> On 5/22/2010 11:51 AM, Mr.Shit4braincell bullshitted pointlessly and
> with zero substance:
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 11:05 pm, Monsieur > *wrote:
> >> On May 21, 7:59 pm, > *wrote:
>
> >>> If this is true should we continue treating animals cruelly and
> >>> carelessly?
>
> >> For the same reasons that we treat humans with cruelty and
> >> carelessness? For example, as you sit up in your ivory white tower,
> >> why don't you get your lazy ass to work in reducing the cruelty and
> >> carelessness towards anything with your every waking hour? WHY DONT
> >> YOU!!! ;-)
>
> > Quitting eating animal "food" products
>
> Many livestock animals are good and nutritious food.
>

So the moral standard is that if it is good and nutritious it is
ethically correct to consume it? If so then whats right or wrong about
cannibalism since humans are good and nutritious?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q7kUFS-0XQ

> > would be a start which everyone
> > can do.
>
> No reason to do it.

On May 22, 8:49*am, Kevin > wrote:
> On May 21, 6:59*pm, Immortalist > wrote:
>
> > Why should the onus fall on animals, whatever their species, to prove
> > that they are sentient if a broad-ranging review of both the
> > scientific and philosophic literature shows that animals think and
> > feel and are sentient and show morality?
>
> > Philosophers have routinely dismissed animals as unthinking, unfeeling
> > beasts-Descartes grouped non-human animals with machines, a line of
> > logic that has been used to justify callous treatment of laboratory
> > animals.
>
> Just because I think therefore I am doesn't mean that anybody else
> does... Callous and cruel treatment towards *me* is the only important
> consideration.

What if your right conflicts with my right to not be cruelly treated?

On May 22, 12:32*pm, Dawlish > wrote:
> On May 22, 12:59*am, Immortalist > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why should the onus fall on animals, whatever their species, to prove
> > that they are sentient if a broad-ranging review of both the
> > scientific and philosophic literature shows that animals think and
> > feel and are sentient and show morality?
>
> > Philosophers have routinely dismissed animals as unthinking, unfeeling
> > beasts-Descartes grouped non-human animals with machines, a line of
> > logic that has been used to justify callous treatment of laboratory
> > animals.
>
> > But recent research creates a compelling case for blurring the line
> > between animal and human perception, thereby questioning the
> > prevailing scientific orthodoxy that humans alone possess the ability
> > to reason.
>
> > Over the years, studies have shown that animals have intelligence
> > (dolphins have been known to teach themselves to delay gratification
> > to get extra treats), emotions (like humans, baboon mothers show
> > elevated levels of glucocorticoids after losing an infant), cunning
> > (gorillas divert the attention of rivals from food, often by
> > grooming); that they can communicate (nuthatches can translate
> > chickadee chirps), can be altruistic (chimps who know how to unlatch a
> > door help those who can't).
>
> > If this is true should we continue treating animals cruelly and
> > carelessly?
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/Second-Nature-.../dp/0230613624
>
> ...............................and this has exactly what to do with
> global warming? Go post it elsewhere.

The word "carelessly" which may include methane gas build up from cow
shit.

On May 21, 7:59*pm, Immortalist > wrote:
> [retarded goo flushed]
> But recent research creates a compelling case for blurring the line
> between animal and human perception, thereby questioning the
> prevailing scientific orthodoxy that humans alone possess the ability
> to reason.

Demonkrap-left-turd-retards recruiting new voters.

>[yawn]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:28:07 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
> wrote:

>On May 22, 3:10*pm, Goo wrote:
>
>> On 5/22/2010 11:51 AM, Mr.Shit4braincell bullshitted pointlessly and
>> with zero substance:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 21, 11:05 pm, Monsieur > *wrote:
>> >> On May 21, 7:59 pm, > *wrote:
>>
>> >>> If this is true should we continue treating animals cruelly and
>> >>> carelessly?
>>
>> >> For the same reasons that we treat humans with cruelty and
>> >> carelessness? For example, as you sit up in your ivory white tower,
>> >> why don't you get your lazy ass to work in reducing the cruelty and
>> >> carelessness towards anything with your every waking hour? WHY DONT
>> >> YOU!!! ;-)
>>
>> > Quitting eating animal "food" products
>>
>> Many livestock animals are good and nutritious food.
>>
>
>So the moral standard is that if it is good and nutritious it is
>ethically correct to consume it?

That Goober agrees with you about practically everything. If
you think he doesn't, then see if you can get him to explain how
he wants people to think he disagrees with himself about any of
these claims he has made:

"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

"animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." -
Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals
benefit from farming." - 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

"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo

"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was before." - Goo

"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo

"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
breeding of livestock" - 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

"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - Goo

""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo

"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo

""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - 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

"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them." - Goo

"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is
the ethically superior choice." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate
killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - 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

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." -
Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not
to exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:59:19 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
> wrote:

>Why should the onus fall on animals, whatever their species, to prove
>that they are sentient if a broad-ranging review of both the
>scientific and philosophic literature shows that animals think and
>feel and are sentient and show morality?
>
>Philosophers have routinely dismissed animals as unthinking, unfeeling
>beasts-Descartes grouped non-human animals with machines, a line of
>logic that has been used to justify callous treatment of laboratory
>animals.
>
>But recent research creates a compelling case for blurring the line
>between animal and human perception, thereby questioning the
>prevailing scientific orthodoxy that humans alone possess the ability
>to reason.
>
>Over the years, studies have shown that animals have intelligence
>(dolphins have been known to teach themselves to delay gratification
>to get extra treats), emotions (like humans, baboon mothers show
>elevated levels of glucocorticoids after losing an infant), cunning
>(gorillas divert the attention of rivals from food, often by
>grooming); that they can communicate (nuthatches can translate
>chickadee chirps), can be altruistic (chimps who know how to unlatch a
>door help those who can't).
>
>If this is true should we continue treating animals cruelly and
>carelessly?

No. We should provide them with decent lives of positive
value before using them for food. Millions of them are already,
btw.

On Sat, 22 May 2010 14:21:54 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>we should stop treating animals with cruelty and carelessness

First you would have to get people to consider the animals
themselves, which you are all opposed to. Why would people try to
make a point of treating animals better if they don't care
anything at all about the animals' lives? They would not. That
fact is one of the ways I know you're a misnomer addict. LOL!
Another of course is the fact that you do such a terrible job of
trying to pretend to be in favor of AW. You're not even close.
What do you think you could gain if you could persuade anyone to
believe you're in favor of it anyway? Do you think if you can
convince somebody you're in favor of AW, it would help you
persuade them to become vegan?

Goo ****wit David Harrison, serial incest commiter, lied:
> On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:28:07 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
> > wrote:
>
>> On May 22, 3:10 pm, Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/22/2010 11:51 AM, Mr.Shit4braincell bullshitted pointlessly and
>>> with zero substance:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On May 21, 11:05 pm, Monsieur > wrote:
>>>>> On May 21, 7:59 pm, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> If this is true should we continue treating animals cruelly and
>>>>>> carelessly?
>>>
>>>>> For the same reasons that we treat humans with cruelty and
>>>>> carelessness? For example, as you sit up in your ivory white tower,
>>>>> why don't you get your lazy ass to work in reducing the cruelty and
>>>>> carelessness towards anything with your every waking hour? WHY DONT
>>>>> YOU!!! ;-)
>>>
>>>> Quitting eating animal "food" products
>>>
>>> Many livestock animals are good and nutritious food.
>>>
>>
>> So the moral standard is that if it is good and nutritious it is
>> ethically correct to consume it?
>
> agrees with you about practically everything.

Prove it.


> If you think he doesn't,

If you think I do, Goo - Goo - then prove it.

Goo ****wit David Harrison, serial incest commiter, lied

> On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:59:19 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
> > wrote:
>
>> Why should the onus fall on animals, whatever their species, to prove
>> that they are sentient if a broad-ranging review of both the
>> scientific and philosophic literature shows that animals think and
>> feel and are sentient and show morality?
>>
>> Philosophers have routinely dismissed animals as unthinking, unfeeling
>> beasts-Descartes grouped non-human animals with machines, a line of
>> logic that has been used to justify callous treatment of laboratory
>> animals.
>>
>> But recent research creates a compelling case for blurring the line
>> between animal and human perception, thereby questioning the
>> prevailing scientific orthodoxy that humans alone possess the ability
>> to reason.
>>
>> Over the years, studies have shown that animals have intelligence
>> (dolphins have been known to teach themselves to delay gratification
>> to get extra treats), emotions (like humans, baboon mothers show
>> elevated levels of glucocorticoids after losing an infant), cunning
>> (gorillas divert the attention of rivals from food, often by
>> grooming); that they can communicate (nuthatches can translate
>> chickadee chirps), can be altruistic (chimps who know how to unlatch a
>> door help those who can't).
>>
>> If this is true should we continue treating animals cruelly and
>> carelessly?
>
> No. We should provide them with decent lives of positive
> value before using them for food.

There is no "benefit" conferred upon animals by breeding them into
existence.

Goo ****wit David Harrison, serial incest commiter, lied:
> On Sat, 22 May 2010 14:21:54 -0700, > wrote:
>
>> we should stop treating animals with cruelty and carelessness
>
> First you would have to get people to consider the animals
> themselves,

First *you* need to give the animals real consideration, ****wit, before
hypocritically urging others to do so.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 22 May 2010 14:21:54 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>we should stop treating animals with cruelty and carelessness
>
> First you would have to get people to consider the animals
> themselves

Why? What prevents us from simply stopping treating animals with cruelty and
carelessness?

What purpose does *more* consideration than that serve? I'll tell you, it
allows you gloat that you *did good* by encouraging an animal to be born.

> which you are all opposed to.

Because it's ****wit code for The Logic if the Larder, self serving
bullshit.

> Why would people try to
> make a point of treating animals better if they don't care
> anything at all about the animals' lives?

So that animals don't suffer?

> They would not.

Why not? Why is not wanting animals to suffer not enough?

That
> fact is one of the ways I know you're a misnomer addict. LOL!
> Another of course is the fact that you do such a terrible job of
> trying to pretend to be in favor of AW. You're not even close.
> What do you think you could gain if you could persuade anyone to
> believe you're in favor of it anyway? Do you think if you can
> convince somebody you're in favor of AW, it would help you
> persuade them to become vegan?

Maybe if you examine your own confusion it might lead you to the answer..

Nahh ain't gonna happen.

On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:59:19 -0700, Immortalist wrote:

> If this is true should we continue treating animals cruelly and
> carelessly?

First let 'we' recognize that a Society to Prevent Animal Cruelty served
as a model for >Later< child welfare agencies. Still to this day humans
can be depicted being slaughtered in great number as entertainment but
animals will not be.

Secondly there is no 'if this is true' of course it is true. The only
thing recent about this is the evidence has become more dramatic. It is
just plain silly to still wonder if animals possess what we call
intelligence. Bird feeder vs squirrels anyone? The term Horse Sense did
not just come from wacky weed and bad trail mix.

What we have too carelessly done is to be cut off from our own process of
action. Glossy glam Pictures of cow gutting do not grace the MacDonald
Happy Meal menu items. There is a very deep and important question here,
as there is in our now too easy Wars, of why we do not want it shown.

This is not a either/or choice. A sameness exists in human nature.

On 22 Maj, 01:59, Immortalist > wrote:
> Why should the onus fall on animals, whatever their species, to prove
> that they are sentient if a broad-ranging review of both the
> scientific and philosophic literature shows that animals think and
> feel and are sentient and show morality?
>
> Philosophers have routinely dismissed animals as unthinking, unfeeling
> beasts-Descartes grouped non-human animals with machines, a line of
> logic that has been used to justify callous treatment of laboratory
> animals.
>
> But recent research creates a compelling case for blurring the line
> between animal and human perception, thereby questioning the
> prevailing scientific orthodoxy that humans alone possess the ability
> to reason.
>
> Over the years, studies have shown that animals have intelligence
> (dolphins have been known to teach themselves to delay gratification
> to get extra treats), emotions (like humans, baboon mothers show
> elevated levels of glucocorticoids after losing an infant), cunning
> (gorillas divert the attention of rivals from food, often by
> grooming); that they can communicate (nuthatches can translate
> chickadee chirps), can be altruistic (chimps who know how to unlatch a
> door help those who can't).
>
> If this is true should we continue treating animals cruelly and
> carelessly?
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Second-Nature-.../dp/0230613624

I know that Descartes was an ass in relation to animals. But I did
not know it was Philosopohers in general or as the main source. I
think the idea comes primarily out of the JudaoChristian tradition.
Humans have souls, animals don't. And this idea got passed on to
philosophers - who, in the WEstern History of philosophy have
generally been Christians or Jews or atheist rebels against theism,
not noticing how much other BS they may have swallowed. Oddly
scientists picked up this bias and kept it for a long time. It is
only in recent decades one can really get into the emotional,
intentional and cognitive aspects of animals without being accused of
anthropomorphism. When Elephants Weep, by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson
details this pattern and its recent erosion in the Science community.

On 22 Maj, 17:49, Kevin > wrote:
> On May 21, 6:59*pm, Immortalist > wrote:
>
> > Why should the onus fall on animals, whatever their species, to prove
> > that they are sentient if a broad-ranging review of both the
> > scientific and philosophic literature shows that animals think and
> > feel and are sentient and show morality?
>
> > Philosophers have routinely dismissed animals as unthinking, unfeeling
> > beasts-Descartes grouped non-human animals with machines, a line of
> > logic that has been used to justify callous treatment of laboratory
> > animals.
>
> Just because I think therefore I am doesn't mean that anybody else
> does... Callous and cruel treatment towards *me* is the only important
> consideration.

Not to us, now that you have given us a way to reason our way into
treating you cruelly.

On May 23, 7:35*pm, sarge > wrote:
> On 22 Maj, 17:49, Kevin > wrote:
>
> > On May 21, 6:59*pm, Immortalist > wrote:
>
> > > Why should the onus fall on animals, whatever their species, to prove
> > > that they are sentient if a broad-ranging review of both the
> > > scientific and philosophic literature shows that animals think and
> > > feel and are sentient and show morality?
>
> > > Philosophers have routinely dismissed animals as unthinking, unfeeling
> > > beasts-Descartes grouped non-human animals with machines, a line of
> > > logic that has been used to justify callous treatment of laboratory
> > > animals.
>
> > Just because I think therefore I am doesn't mean that anybody else
> > does... Callous and cruel treatment towards *me* is the only important
> > consideration.
>
> Not to us, now that you have given us a way to reason our way into
> treating you cruelly.

Animals may think, but they are oblivious to callous or cruel
treatment towards them by man or nature.They simply know that they
are, in the same way as we humans know that we are.
The difference is that we recognise that 'being' differs from 'not-
being' and are apalled by the horror of our transition from one to the
other state; apalled not just by the possible physical agony of the
transition but also by the loss of the identify of a 'self'' .
A free-roaming animal has a no comprehension that it may be eaten
'half alive 'by its natural predator so how does one differentiate
between the value of lifeof wild or domestic life, when the latter
are dispatched hunanely ? Both are 'destined' to die (the fate of
being born) one way or another.
Free or domestic life? Is there an intrinsic difference? Which is
better, to be born or not born ? Nature answers by proliferating
and diversifying life forms. IMO one should not argue with what
comes naturally!

Whether or not one likes it, Nature will continue to tear its
products from limb to limb (despite the objections of its human
products) and subject the life forms it has developed to 'cruel'
treatments for no "reason" other than that 'natural' treatment is the
one that results in survival/or not of present life forms that will /
or not ensure development of future life forms.
zinnic

On May 24, 12:50*am, Zinnic > wrote:
> On May 23, 7:35*pm, sarge > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 22 Maj, 17:49, Kevin > wrote:
>
> > > On May 21, 6:59*pm, Immortalist > wrote:
>
> > > > Why should the onus fall on animals, whatever their species, to prove
> > > > that they are sentient if a broad-ranging review of both the
> > > > scientific and philosophic literature shows that animals think and
> > > > feel and are sentient and show morality?
>
> > > > Philosophers have routinely dismissed animals as unthinking, unfeeling
> > > > beasts-Descartes grouped non-human animals with machines, a line of
> > > > logic that has been used to justify callous treatment of laboratory
> > > > animals.
>
> > > Just because I think therefore I am doesn't mean that anybody else
> > > does... Callous and cruel treatment towards *me* is the only important
> > > consideration.
>
> > Not to us, now that you have given us a way to reason our way into
> > treating you cruelly.
>
> Animals may think, but they are oblivious to callous or cruel
> treatment towards them by man or nature.They simply know that they
> are, *in the same way as we humans know that we are.
> The difference *is that we recognise that 'being' differs from 'not-
> being' and are apalled by the horror of our transition from one to the
> other state; apalled *not just by the possible physical agony of the
> transition *but also by the loss of *the identify of a 'self'' .
> A free-roaming animal has a *no comprehension that it may be eaten
> 'half alive 'by its natural predator so how does one differentiate
> between the value of *lifeof wild or domestic life, when the latter
> are *dispatched hunanely ? *Both are 'destined' to die (the fate of
> being born) one way or another.
> Free or domestic life? Is there an intrinsic difference? Which is
> better, to be born or not born ? *Nature answers by proliferating
> and diversifying life forms. IMO one should *not *argue with what
> comes naturally!
>
> Whether or not one *likes it, Nature will continue to tear its
> products from limb to limb (despite the objections of its human
> products) and subject the life forms it has developed to 'cruel'
> treatments for no "reason" other *than that 'natural' treatment is the
> one that results in survival/or not of present life forms that *will /
> or not ensure *development of future life forms.
> zinnic

It's also worth noting that unless you actually step outside of the
western culture, all the businesses are pretty much interconnected.
You might not eat meat but do you shop at a store that sells meat? Do
you bank with a company that serves the meat industry. The list, goes
on and on. So while you might feel good about not eating meat, in
reality, you invariably support the industry by being a part of the
broader culture.

On 5/23/2010 9:50 PM, Zinnic wrote:
> On May 23, 7:35 pm, > wrote:
>> On 22 Maj, 17:49, > wrote:
>>
>>> On May 21, 6:59 pm, > wrote:
>>
>>>> Why should the onus fall on animals, whatever their species, to prove
>>>> that they are sentient if a broad-ranging review of both the
>>>> scientific and philosophic literature shows that animals think and
>>>> feel and are sentient and show morality?
>>
>>>> Philosophers have routinely dismissed animals as unthinking, unfeeling
>>>> beasts-Descartes grouped non-human animals with machines, a line of
>>>> logic that has been used to justify callous treatment of laboratory
>>>> animals.
>>
>>> Just because I think therefore I am doesn't mean that anybody else
>>> does... Callous and cruel treatment towards *me* is the only important
>>> consideration.
>>
>> Not to us, now that you have given us a way to reason our way into
>> treating you cruelly.
>
> Animals may think, but they are oblivious to callous or cruel
> treatment towards them by man or nature.They simply know that they
> are, in the same way as we humans know that we are.

It is not at all clear that most, or even any, non-human animals know this.

On May 24, 1:13*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> On 5/23/2010 9:50 PM, Zinnic wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 7:35 pm, > *wrote:
> >> On 22 Maj, 17:49, > *wrote:
>
> >>> On May 21, 6:59 pm, > *wrote:
>
> >>>> Why should the onus fall on animals, whatever their species, to prove
> >>>> that they are sentient if a broad-ranging review of both the
> >>>> scientific and philosophic literature shows that animals think and
> >>>> feel and are sentient and show morality?
>
> >>>> Philosophers have routinely dismissed animals as unthinking, unfeeling
> >>>> beasts-Descartes grouped non-human animals with machines, a line of
> >>>> logic that has been used to justify callous treatment of laboratory
> >>>> animals.
>
> >>> Just because I think therefore I am doesn't mean that anybody else
> >>> does... Callous and cruel treatment towards *me* is the only important
> >>> consideration.
>
> >> Not to us, now that you have given us a way to reason our way into
> >> treating you cruelly.
>
> > Animals may think, but they are oblivious to callous or cruel
> > treatment towards them by man or nature.They simply know that they
> > are, *in the same way as we humans know that we are.
>
> It is not at all clear that most, or even any, non-human animals know this.

What, that they'll be eaten alive by their predators or die a slow
painful death from disease or starvation?

On 5/23/2010 10:20 PM, Monsieur Turtoni wrote:
> On May 24, 1:13 am, "Fred C. >
> wrote:
>> On 5/23/2010 9:50 PM, Zinnic wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 23, 7:35 pm, > wrote:
>>>> On 22 Maj, 17:49, > wrote:
>>
>>>>> On May 21, 6:59 pm, > wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Why should the onus fall on animals, whatever their species, to prove
>>>>>> that they are sentient if a broad-ranging review of both the
>>>>>> scientific and philosophic literature shows that animals think and
>>>>>> feel and are sentient and show morality?
>>
>>>>>> Philosophers have routinely dismissed animals as unthinking, unfeeling
>>>>>> beasts-Descartes grouped non-human animals with machines, a line of
>>>>>> logic that has been used to justify callous treatment of laboratory
>>>>>> animals.
>>
>>>>> Just because I think therefore I am doesn't mean that anybody else
>>>>> does... Callous and cruel treatment towards *me* is the only important
>>>>> consideration.
>>
>>>> Not to us, now that you have given us a way to reason our way into
>>>> treating you cruelly.
>>
>>> Animals may think, but they are oblivious to callous or cruel
>>> treatment towards them by man or nature.They simply know that they
>>> are, in the same way as we humans know that we are.
>>
>> It is not at all clear that most, or even any, non-human animals know this.
>
> What, that they'll be eaten alive by their predators or die a slow
> painful death from disease or starvation?

No. What it not at all clear, and in fact is doubtful, is that animals
even know they exist. They are not capable of understanding the
abstraction of existence.

On May 24, 12:13*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> On 5/23/2010 9:50 PM, Zinnic wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 7:35 pm, > *wrote:
> >> On 22 Maj, 17:49, > *wrote:
>
> >>> On May 21, 6:59 pm, > *wrote:
>
> >>>> Why should the onus fall on animals, whatever their species, to prove
> >>>> that they are sentient if a broad-ranging review of both the
> >>>> scientific and philosophic literature shows that animals think and
> >>>> feel and are sentient and show morality?
>
> >>>> Philosophers have routinely dismissed animals as unthinking, unfeeling
> >>>> beasts-Descartes grouped non-human animals with machines, a line of
> >>>> logic that has been used to justify callous treatment of laboratory
> >>>> animals.
>
> >>> Just because I think therefore I am doesn't mean that anybody else
> >>> does... Callous and cruel treatment towards *me* is the only important
> >>> consideration.
>
> >> Not to us, now that you have given us a way to reason our way into
> >> treating you cruelly.
>
> > Animals may think, but they are oblivious to callous or cruel
> > treatment towards them by man or nature.They simply know that they
> > are, *in the same way as we humans know that we are.
>
> It is not at all clear that most, or even any, non-human animals know this.- Hide quoted text -

We probably need to strictly define what we mean by "know". In my
context , I trust that most will 'know' what I meant. :-)

On Sun, 23 May 2010 Goo wrote:

>On Sun, 23 May 2010 12:34:30 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:28:07 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
> wrote:
>>
>>>On May 22, 3:10*pm, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/22/2010 11:51 AM, Mr.Shit4braincell bullshitted pointlessly and
>>>> with zero substance:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On May 21, 11:05 pm, Monsieur > *wrote:
>>>> >> On May 21, 7:59 pm, > *wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>> If this is true should we continue treating animals cruelly and
>>>> >>> carelessly?
>>>>
>>>> >> For the same reasons that we treat humans with cruelty and
>>>> >> carelessness? For example, as you sit up in your ivory white tower,
>>>> >> why don't you get your lazy ass to work in reducing the cruelty and
>>>> >> carelessness towards anything with your every waking hour? WHY DONT
>>>> >> YOU!!! ;-)
>>>>
>>>> > Quitting eating animal "food" products
>>>>
>>>> Many livestock animals are good and nutritious food.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So the moral standard is that if it is good and nutritious it is
>>>ethically correct to consume it?
>>
>> That Goober agrees with you about practically everything. If
>>you think he doesn't, then see if you can get him to explain how
>>he wants people to think he disagrees with himself about any of
>>these claims he has made:
>>
>>"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
>>
>>"animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Goo
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>>"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." -
>>Goo
>>
>>"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>>benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals
>>benefit from farming." - 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
>>
>>"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>
>>"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
>>I was before." - Goo
>>
>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>
>>"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>>experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>>whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
>>breeding of livestock" - 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
>>
>>"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>>of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
>>ZERO importance to it." - Goo
>>
>>""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>
>>"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>
>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>live in bad conditions." - 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
>>
>>"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>results from killing them." - Goo
>>
>>"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is
>>the ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate
>>killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - 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
>>
>>"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." -
>>Goo
>>
>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not
>>to exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>
>Prove it.

LOL! Your quotes above show it Goober. Of course if you now
think you disagree with yourself about some of those claims, then
try explaining which of them you think you disagree with and WHY.
When you can't explain how or why you think you disagree with
yourself about any of them Goo, it will be proof that you agree
with all of them as I pointed out to begin with. Then the only
question remaining will be if the rest of your eliminationist
brethren disagree with you on any of them or not. At this point
of course we shall take it for granted that all of you agree with
all of your claims, Goob.

On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:24:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> asked an eliminationist:
>
>> Why would people try to
>> make a point of treating animals better if they don't care
>> anything at all about the animals' lives?
>
>So that animals don't suffer?
>
>> They would not.
>
>Why not?

LOL! Because they would not care. Duh. Fortunately for the
animals some people DO care even though you eliminationists
insist that no one should.

On 5/24/2010 2:02 PM, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, pig-****er -
bullshitted :
> On Sun, 23 May 2010 22:41:00 +0000, > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:59:19 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>> If this is true should we continue treating animals cruelly and
>>> carelessly?
>>
>> First let 'we' recognize that a Society to Prevent Animal Cruelty served
>> as a model for>Later< child welfare agencies. Still to this day humans
>> can be depicted being slaughtered in great number as entertainment but
>> animals will not be.
>
> True, but misnomer advocates

No such thing.


> are opposed to considering
> anything in regards to livestock that does not involve suffering
> and horror.

You give no consideration to their lives, Goo - none at all.


>> Secondly there is no 'if this is true' of course it is true. The only
>> thing recent about this is the evidence has become more dramatic. It is
>> just plain silly to still wonder if animals possess what we call
>> intelligence.
>
> True, but misnomer addicts

No such thing.


> are opposed to considering things
> like that.

Nothing to consider, Goo.

On 5/24/2010 2:03 PM, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, pig-****er -
bullshitted :
> On Sun, 23 May 2010 Fred C. Dobbs pointed out:
>
>> On Sun, 23 May 2010 12:34:30 -0400, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, pig-****er - bullshitted :
>>
>>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:28:07 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 22, 3:10 pm, Fred C. Dobbs pointed out:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/22/2010 11:51 AM, Mr.Shit4braincell bullshitted pointlessly and
>>>>> with zero substance:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 21, 11:05 pm, Monsieur > wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 21, 7:59 pm, > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If this is true should we continue treating animals cruelly and
>>>>>>>> carelessly?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the same reasons that we treat humans with cruelty and
>>>>>>> carelessness? For example, as you sit up in your ivory white tower,
>>>>>>> why don't you get your lazy ass to work in reducing the cruelty and
>>>>>>> carelessness towards anything with your every waking hour? WHY DONT
>>>>>>> YOU!!! ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>> Quitting eating animal "food" products
>>>>>
>>>>> Many livestock animals are good and nutritious food.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So the moral standard is that if it is good and nutritious it is
>>>> ethically correct to consume it?
>>>
>>> agrees with you about practically everything.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> LOL!

No proof - as expected.

You lose again, Goo. What a pig-****er!

On 5/24/2010 2:04 PM, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, pig-****er -
bullshitted :
> On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:24:14 -0700, > wrote:
>
>> <dh@.> asked an eliminationist:

No such thing.


>>
>>> Why would people try to
>>> make a point of treating animals better if they don't care
>>> anything at all about the animals' lives?
>>
>> So that animals don't suffer?
>>
>>> They would not.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> LOL! Because they would not care.

You're the one who doesn't care, Goo. You do not care about the lives
of animals, Goo; all you care about is the products: "Meat. Gravy."
Ha ha ha ha ha!

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:24:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> asked an eliminationist:
>>
>>> Why would people try to
>>> make a point of treating animals better if they don't care
>>> anything at all about the animals' lives?
>>
>>So that animals don't suffer?
>>
>>> They would not.
>>
>>Why not?
>
> LOL! Because they would not care. Duh. Fortunately for the
> animals some people DO care even though you eliminationists
> insist that no one should.

Answer the question instead of snipping and hiding like a scared punk. Why
is not wanting animals to suffer not enough?

On Mon, 24 May 2010 19:15:11 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:24:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> asked an eliminationist:
>>>
>>>> Why would people try to
>>>> make a point of treating animals better if they don't care
>>>> anything at all about the animals' lives?
>>>
>>>So that animals don't suffer?
>>>
>>>> They would not.
>>>
>>>Why not?
>>
>> LOL! Because they would not care. Duh. Fortunately for the
>> animals some people DO care even though you eliminationists
>> insist that no one should.
>
>Answer the question instead of snipping and hiding like a scared punk. Why
>is not wanting animals to suffer not enough?

If they don't care as you insist they should not, then they
would not care. Do you want people to believe you are so stupid
you can't comprehend that not caring means not caring? LOL!!! You
eliminationists do that, that much is for sure. You also pretend
to be too stupid to understand that having consideration for
animals' lives means having consideration for their lives, and
Rupert claims to be too stupid to comprehend what it means to
have a life of positive value. You probably want people to think
you're too stupid to understand it too, though in the past you
have claimed to have had some clue.

On Mon, 24 May 2010 Goo lied:

>You're the one who doesn't care

"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo

On Mon, 24 May 2010 Goo lied:

>You give no consideration to their lives

"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo

"Nothing to consider." - Goo

On 5/25/2010 9:10 AM, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, incestuous cracker -
lied:

> On Mon, 24 May 2010 19:15:11 -0700, > wrote:
>
>>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, incestuous cracker - lied:
>>> On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:24:14 -0700, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, incestuous cracker - lied:
>>>>
>>>>> Why would people try to
>>>>> make a point of treating animals better if they don't care
>>>>> anything at all about the animals' lives?
>>>>
>>>> So that animals don't suffer?
>>>>
>>>>> They would not.
>>>>
>>>> Why not?
>>>
>>> LOL! Because they would not care. Duh. Fortunately for the
>>> animals some people DO care even though you eliminationists
>>> insist that no one should.
>>
>> Answer the question instead of snipping and hiding like a scared punk. Why
>> is not wanting animals to suffer not enough?
>
> If they don't care as you insist they should not,

He never said they don't care about animal suffering, Goo, you stupid ****.


> then they would not care.

They do care about animal suffering if animals exist. What they don't
care about is whether the animals "get to experience life" in the first
place.

You can't do it, Goo - you just can't make this stupid trick happen! It
failed over 11 years ago when you first started trying it. You're so
stupid and so stubborn and *SUCH* a stupid cracker, you "think" you can
still pull of this idiotic trick, but you can't. "Caring about animals"
means caring about their welfare *IF* they exist; it does not, cannot
and will not mean wanting them to exist in the first place.

You can't do it, pig-****er. You don't have 1/1000th of the talent
necessary to succeed.

On 5/25/2010 9:10 AM, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, incestuous cracker -
lied:
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 Fred C. Dobbs *again* got under Goo's skin and caused him to lose his mind:
>
>> You're the one who doesn't care, Goo. You do not care about the lives of animals, Goo; all you care about is the products: "Meat. Gravy." Ha ha ha ha ha!
>
> "There is no 'consideration' to be given."

That's correct, Goo. The bullshit "consideration" you mean is whether
or not the animals exist in the first place. There is no consideration
to be given for that, Goo - it is not "good" for any livestock to come
into existence. The *proper* consideration I give, Goo - Goo, you
stupid pig-****ing incestuous shitbag - is to the quality of their lives
*if* they exist.

Repeat after me, Goo: consideration is due for the quality of life of
livestock animals *if* they exist. *No* consideration is due as to
whether or not they exist in the first place.

You just can't do it, Goo - you can't make the shabby ****witted cracker
cocksucker trick work. Give it up, Goo. You've wasted 11 years of
effort on this, and it has been 100% a failure.

On 5/25/2010 9:10 AM, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, incestuous cracker -
lied:
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 Fred C. Dobbs *again* got under Goo's skin and caused him to lose his mind:
>
>> You give no consideration to their lives, Goo - none at all.
>
> "There is no "consideration" to be given."

That's correct, Goo. The bullshit "consideration" you mean is wanting
the animals exist in the first place. There is no consideration to be
given for that, Goo - it is not "good" for any livestock to come into
existence. The *proper* consideration I give, Goo - Goo, you stupid
pig-****ing incestuous shitbag - is to the quality of their lives *if*
they exist.

Repeat after me, Goo: consideration is due for the quality of life of
livestock animals *if* they exist. *No* consideration is due as to
whether or not they exist in the first place.

You just can't do it, Goo - you can't make the shabby ****witted cracker
cocksucker trick work. Give it up, Goo. You've wasted 11 years of
effort on this, and it has been 100% a failure.

Once again, Goo, I get under your skin and cause you to go berserk.
It's funny.