Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
Meadowlark > wrote in news:dceli0$81q$1
@reader2.nmix.net: (snip) > > Would you care to give some background on your own approach to > animal rights? You sound educated and intelligent, and capable of > real discussion. > I don't wish to mislead anyone. The fact that I believe that animals have emotions and some degree of cognitive ability doesn't mean that I have any approach to animal rights. I have very mixed ideas about that subject that I don't really care to discuss in this, or any online, forum. I am not a vegetarian or vegan. I came into this discussion because of cross-posting to another group and felt that I had an obligation to try to offset at least some of the nonsense being posted by Rudy. Thank you. Please forgive me if I have unwittingly mislead you. David Wright Sr. |
|
|||
|
|||
David Wright Sr. wrote:
> Meadowlark > wrote in news:dceli0$81q$1 > @reader2.nmix.net: > (snip) >>Would you care to give some background on your own approach to >>animal rights? You sound educated and intelligent, and capable of >>real discussion. > I don't wish to mislead anyone. The fact that I believe that animals have > emotions and some degree of cognitive ability doesn't mean that I have any > approach to animal rights. I have very mixed ideas about that subject that > I don't really care to discuss in this, or any online, forum. I am not a > vegetarian or vegan. I came into this discussion because of cross-posting > to another group and felt that I had an obligation to try to offset at > least some of the nonsense being posted by Rudy. > Thank you. Please forgive me if I have unwittingly mislead you. Oh, no problem. I can understand your unwillingness to discuss *anything* in a forum where Rudy (Jon) and Usual also post -- I am in the same situation myself. It's hard to imagine that anyone can still deny animals emotions and cognitive ability, after all the scientific and empirical material which has been published in the last twenty years or so. The argument that some animals have what might be regarded as rudimentary ethical/ moral capacity is newer, but is moving into the mainstream with recent articles in the popular press (_Newsweek_, IIRC). This undercuts one of the foundations of Regan's theories, which makes for an interesting controversy. Quite outside animals rights _per se_, what is your opinion on animals as (possible) moral agents in a limited sense? What about the newer evidence that some parrots probably have the cognitive ability of a four or five year old human child? That chimpanzees may have some kind of an aesthetic sense? So much new information is showing up that the old categories into which this group has degenerated in recent years have become more and more irrelevant. I'd like to see some more useful discussion. However, if you are uncomfortable posting publicly on this newsgroup, I can certainly understand. If so, I'll return to Lurk mode. > David Wright Sr. |
|
|||
|
|||
"David Wright Sr." > wrote in message ... > "Dutch" > wrote in : > >> >> "David Wright Sr." > wrote >>> You have earned your place alongside Rudy in my kill-file. >> >> What's the point in filtering out everyone you disagree with? >> >> >> > > I don't kill-file everyone who disagrees with me. I kill-file those who > have > shown that they are not open to evidence when it is presented to them. They may draw different conclusions or give less weight to the same evidence which you find convincing. They may have an entire other body of experience which belies your conclusions. In any case, bottom line, they disagree with your conclusions and you get frustrated at that too quickly. > I was > willing to try for a while with Rudy, but eventually, I could no longer > ignore him.'usual suspect' got the axe very quickly when he attempted to > use > the results of his *own* reputable source to support his argument while > ignoring that same source when it contradicted his viewpoint. Perhaps that source contains conflicting bits of information. I doubt that you have adequate or reasonable cause to killfile either of them. People who disagree with you are the gold of usenet. |
|
|||
|
|||
David Wright Sr. wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in : > > >>"David Wright Sr." > wrote >> >>>You have earned your place alongside Rudy in my kill-file. >> >>What's the point in filtering out everyone you disagree with? >> >> >> > > > I don't kill-file everyone who disagrees with me. I kill-file those who have > shown that they are not open to evidence when it is presented to them. "I know it when I see it" isn't evidence. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Meadowlark" > wrote [..] > I am very interested by Sapontzis because he is one of the new > "second generation" animal rights theorists who works with the > pioneering philosophical ideas of people like Regan and Singer > but without a dogmatic commitment to any rigid system. He's a > professor of philosophy at CalState University, and reminds me of > Rollin in his common-sense approach. He's familiar with the standard > arguments against animal rights and refutes them in a refreshingly > pragmatic way; he's principled, but not an absolutist. From a pragmatist's point of view how does one justify viewing raising animals to kill humanely for food as immoral while living a comfortable life based on large scale industrial agriculture, where millions of animals such as rodents, birds, lizards and others are routinely and systematically brutally killed? In my experience debating with ARAs, a "common-sense approach" is shorthand for 'I judge the lifestyles of others harshly but cut myself all sorts of slack.' |
|
|||
|
|||
"Meadowlark" > wrote
(snip) > >>>Would you care to give some background on your own approach to >>>animal rights? You sound educated and intelligent, and capable of >>>real discussion. > >> I don't wish to mislead anyone. The fact that I believe that animals have >> emotions and some degree of cognitive ability doesn't mean that I have >> any approach to animal rights. I have very mixed ideas about that subject >> that I don't really care to discuss in this, or any online, forum. I am >> not a vegetarian or vegan. I came into this discussion because of >> cross-posting to another group and felt that I had an obligation to try >> to offset at least some of the nonsense being posted by Rudy. > >> Thank you. Please forgive me if I have unwittingly mislead you. > > Oh, no problem. I can understand your unwillingness to discuss > *anything* in a forum where Rudy (Jon) and Usual also post -- I > am in the same situation myself. It's hard to imagine that > anyone can still deny animals emotions and cognitive ability, > after all the scientific and empirical material which has > been published in the last twenty years or so. The argument that > some animals have what might be regarded as rudimentary ethical/ > moral capacity is newer, but is moving into the mainstream with > recent articles in the popular press (_Newsweek_, IIRC). This > undercuts one of the foundations of Regan's theories, which makes > for an interesting controversy. > > Quite outside animals rights _per se_, what is your opinion on > animals as (possible) moral agents in a limited sense? What > about the newer evidence that some parrots probably have the > cognitive ability of a four or five year old human child? That > chimpanzees may have some kind of an aesthetic sense? So much > new information is showing up that the old categories into which > this group has degenerated in recent years have become more and > more irrelevant. I'd like to see some more useful discussion. > However, if you are uncomfortable posting publicly on this > newsgroup, I can certainly understand. If so, I'll return to > Lurk mode. I don't find that debate particularly compelling. I happen to believe that (non-human) animals possess many advanced cognitive abilities, nonetheless the fact remains that we are predators towards or deadly competitors with most of them, whether or not we "consume animal products". |
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:17:41 -0600, Meadowlark > wrote:
Hello Karen. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 20:26:28 -0400, "David Wright Sr." > wrote:
>dh@. wrote in : > >(snip) > >> There are a couple of other things I've considered as possibilities. >> One is that he really is as stupid, etc, as he claims to be, and is >> likely screwed up to the point that he can't function well enough to >> care for himself and never has a job, but is under the care of a >> facility or a family member. > >He certainly does appear to be out of touch with any reality, responding >only to those things which fit his fantasy and ignoring any which don't. > >For example, I presented a listing of 4 prominent behavioral scientists >who refute his notion of "animals can't feel emotions" and, in addition, >mentioned in passing my own 50-60 years of observations with animals of >varying sorts. He totally ignored the references to the scientists, other >than to say that he doubted that I had even read them, and constantly >harped *only* about *my* opinions. > >Another reference was made to an article which originated in "Scientific >American" and which also supported the work of the other scientists and RC >lambasted it by attacking the person who had posted it. To top it all off, >he had earlier claimed that 'science' is not even applicable to the >subject, And so do you. Read on. >so it is obvious that, even when we had provided such, that no >amount of 'scientific' evidence will ever mean anything to him, even though >he persisted on demanding that I and other people provide scientific >evidence. Yet you've claimed that you don't need science to KNOW that animals can experience emotions; you base your claim that they can on something you see in them yourself rather than science. "I don't need to 'find in science' that animals can experience disappointment as well as other emotions. I have seen it myself." David Wright Sr. 12 Jul 2005 http://tinyurl.com/ct7ms But now you're trying to rest your claim ON science. You can't have it both ways, and ignoring those who disagree with your anthropomorphism by kill filing them is just a pathetic dodge. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:07:45 +0000 (UTC), "David Wright Sr." > wrote:
>Well, I've put him in my killfile, 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. >so that any post I make will be *about >him* in response to other's posts as is this one and that won't be often. No. You've pretended to kill file him because you can't support your claims or deal with his counter arguments against them, nebbish. >He, simply, isn't worth the effort. Rather, you don't have that effort within you to begin with, so you're hoping others will do all your work for you while you sit back and relax. >I have found on occasion that ignoring the rantings of trolls and simply >talking about them rather than to them can get the message across. See what I mean, nebbish? Make your case or admit you haven't anything other than your demeaning anthropomorphism to go on. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 06:23:59 -0400, "David Wright Sr." > wrote:
>I wouldn't worry too much about what he 'perpetuates'. It's YOUR claim that animals can experience emotions, so make your case or shut up. |
|
|||
|
|||
usual suspect wrote: > David Wright Sr. wrote: > >>>> You have earned your place alongside Rudy in my kill-file. >>> >>> >>> What's the point in filtering out everyone you disagree with? >> >> >> I don't kill-file everyone who disagrees with me. > > > You sure seem to. > >> I kill-file those who have shown that they are not open to evidence >> when it is presented to them. > > > You presented no evidence, moron. I will point out he has made references. I willl defend my enemies rights when they are trampled on. However, he does insult people and ignore science that doesn't fit into his point of view. For example a 3rd year medical student defended Dr. Kessler. He owes Dr. Kessler an apology. > >> I was willing to try for a while with Rudy, but eventually, I could no >> longer ignore him.'usual suspect' got the axe very quickly when he > > > I asked you what about the chicken study at issue makes you believe they > think. You whiffed and changed the subject, and now you want to avoid > discussing it. See the RECENT released videos, not 39 year old ones. |
|
|||
|
|||
How do you anticipate the future without grain activity. It as also
been shown Parents understand the abstract concept of zero. usual suspect wrote: > shrubkiller wrote: > >>>>>> YOU are the one who claimed animals can't anticipate >>>> >>>> >>>> Recent research showed that even Chickens can predict the future based >>>> on testing. >>> >>> >>> That's inaccurate. The study only suggests chickens "anticipate the >>> future and demonstrate self-control." After reading the methodology, I'm >>> unconvinced by such claims: >> >> >> Now Usual is saying chickens anticiptate. > > > That's what the article about the study says, dumb ass, not what I say. > I disagreed with it. You're too stupid to comprehend that. |
|
|||
|
|||
Derek > wrote in
: (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. David Wright Sr. |
|
|||
|
|||
Meadowlark > wrote in news:dceupm$ek5$1
@reader2.nmix.net: (snip) >> Thank you. Please forgive me if I have unwittingly mislead you. > > Oh, no problem. I can understand your unwillingness to discuss > *anything* in a forum where Rudy (Jon) and Usual also post -- I > am in the same situation myself. It's hard to imagine that > anyone can still deny animals emotions and cognitive ability, > after all the scientific and empirical material which has > been published in the last twenty years or so. Yes, and as I have pointed out, the only 'proof' that we have that another 'human' has these abilities lies in exactly the same kind of 'study of behavior' of others, even though such 'studies' were done on an informal basis thousands of years ago and 'language' created which allows us to continue to 'assume' that other's feelings and motivations are the same as our own. So to claim that our 'observing behavior' of animals is simply 'projecting' our own feelings onto animals is ludicrous. >The argument that > some animals have what might be regarded as rudimentary ethical/ > moral capacity is newer, but is moving into the mainstream with > recent articles in the popular press (_Newsweek_, IIRC). This > undercuts one of the foundations of Regan's theories, which makes > for an interesting controversy. > > Quite outside animals rights _per se_, what is your opinion on > animals as (possible) moral agents in a limited sense? What > about the newer evidence that some parrots probably have the > cognitive ability of a four or five year old human child? That > chimpanzees may have some kind of an aesthetic sense? So much > new information is showing up that the old categories into which > this group has degenerated in recent years have become more and > more irrelevant. I'd like to see some more useful discussion. > However, if you are uncomfortable posting publicly on this > newsgroup, I can certainly understand. If so, I'll return to > Lurk mode. > > Until I have had a chance to get familiar with this, I really can't comment on it and at the present time, I probably won't be able to do anything more than a cursory look at it because I am already heavily involved in researching for a couple of articles on other subjects. Thanks for your comments. David Wright Sr. -- There are different kinds of interpretations of history and different schools of philosophy. All of them have contributed something to human progress, but none of them has been able to give the world a basic philosophy embracing the whole progress of science and establishing the life of man upon the abiding foundation of Fact. Alfred Korzybski, _Manhood of Humanity_(1921) |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 07:28:08 -0400, "David Wright Sr." > wrote:
>Derek > wrote in : > >(snip) <unsnip> >Well, I've put him in my killfile, <endsnip> >> >> 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. Hardly. >I made my case. Rather, you asserted a claim without providing any evidence to support it, and then ran for the door when asked for that support. THAT is not making a case for anything. >Another one in the kill-file. Another enquirer after support for your claims that you simply cannot deal with, more like. |
|
|||
|
|||
David Wright Sr. wrote:
<snip> > Until I have had a chance to get familiar with this, I really can't comment > on it and at the present time, I probably won't be able to do anything more > than a cursory look at it because I am already heavily involved in > researching for a couple of articles on other subjects. I'd like to know where I could read some of your published work, if you don't mind giving out that information. |
|
|||
|
|||
Dutch wrote:
<snip> > In my experience debating with ARAs, a "common-sense approach" > is shorthand for 'I judge the lifestyles of others harshly but cut myself > all sorts of slack.' As usual, instant ad hominem. |
|
|||
|
|||
Meadowlark > wrote in news:dcg1da$oah$1
@reader2.nmix.net: > I'd like to know where I could read some of your published work, > if you don't mind giving out that information. > My articles are strictly done for fun and my own enlightenment. I, primarily, am a computer programmer/analyst/network engineer, although I also have a degree in Linguistics. I am nearing retirement, and what I have written so far is very limited. I have a few of these, (very primitive), on my website at: http://home.alltel.net/dwrighsr/heinlein_articles.html As you can see, these all deal with the science fiction writer Robert Heinlein. I only have one actual published article at this time. It's called "Time Enough For Everything" and is about time travel in science-fiction, especially in the works of Robert Heinlein. It was published as part one, "Linear Time Travel", and part 2, "Multi-Dimensional Time Travel", in Volume 11, number 1 and 2, of The Heinlein Journal[1], but it's unlikely that you can find it, although I do understand that it is is subscribed to by a number of libraries. One of these days, I'll get around to putting a version of my article up on the website also. Presently, I am working on one, possibly two other papers. The first of these deals with the Influences of Alfred Korzybski and General Semantics in Heinlein's works and the second, if I do it, will deal with Lakoff & Johnson's Metaphor Theories and its place, (if any), in General Semantics. I don't know if either will be publishable, but as I said, I am doing it for fun and for the learning experience. [1] Bill Patterson is the publisher. He can be reached at David Wright Sr. -- http://home.alltel.net/dwrighsr/index.html |
|
|||
|
|||
"David Wright Sr." > wrote in
: > http://home.alltel.net/dwrighsr/heinlein_articles.html > > As you can see, these all deal with the science fiction writer Robert > Heinlein. > I should have mentioned that some of the articles here were the nucleus, in part, of the published article. David |
|
|||
|
|||
I recommend the non vegan, carnivores who post here. They are trollers.
Dutch wrote: > "Meadowlark" > wrote > (snip) > >>>>Would you care to give some background on your own approach to >>>>animal rights? You sound educated and intelligent, and capable of >>>>real discussion. >> >>>I don't wish to mislead anyone. The fact that I believe that animals have >>>emotions and some degree of cognitive ability doesn't mean that I have >>>any approach to animal rights. I have very mixed ideas about that subject >>>that I don't really care to discuss in this, or any online, forum. I am >>>not a vegetarian or vegan. I came into this discussion because of >>>cross-posting to another group and felt that I had an obligation to try >>>to offset at least some of the nonsense being posted by Rudy. >> >>>Thank you. Please forgive me if I have unwittingly mislead you. >> >>Oh, no problem. I can understand your unwillingness to discuss >>*anything* in a forum where Rudy (Jon) and Usual also post -- I >>am in the same situation myself. It's hard to imagine that >>anyone can still deny animals emotions and cognitive ability, >>after all the scientific and empirical material which has >>been published in the last twenty years or so. The argument that >>some animals have what might be regarded as rudimentary ethical/ >>moral capacity is newer, but is moving into the mainstream with >>recent articles in the popular press (_Newsweek_, IIRC). This >>undercuts one of the foundations of Regan's theories, which makes >>for an interesting controversy. >> >>Quite outside animals rights _per se_, what is your opinion on >>animals as (possible) moral agents in a limited sense? What >>about the newer evidence that some parrots probably have the >>cognitive ability of a four or five year old human child? That >>chimpanzees may have some kind of an aesthetic sense? So much >>new information is showing up that the old categories into which >>this group has degenerated in recent years have become more and >>more irrelevant. I'd like to see some more useful discussion. >>However, if you are uncomfortable posting publicly on this >>newsgroup, I can certainly understand. If so, I'll return to >>Lurk mode. > > > I don't find that debate particularly compelling. I happen to > believe that (non-human) animals possess many advanced > cognitive abilities, nonetheless the fact remains that we are > predators towards or deadly competitors with most of them, > whether or not we "consume animal products". > > |
|
|||
|
|||
this is a vegan group, a google search under animals and learning will
show lots of great info. Derek is obviously anti-vgan. Derek wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 06:23:59 -0400, "David Wright Sr." > wrote: > > >>I wouldn't worry too much about what he 'perpetuates'. > > > It's YOUR claim that animals can experience emotions, > so make your case or shut up. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:51:29 GMT, Beach Runner > wrote:
>this is a vegan group, a google search under animals and learning will >show lots of great info. Derek is obviously anti-vgan. Nope. I'm a vegan and have been for nigh on 15 years for ethical reasons. I see animals as rights- holders but don't believe they can experience emotions. I make the same mistake that we all do by projecting my own onto animals from time to time when talking about them idly with friends and family, but I don't make that mistake when discussing them seriously. It's always a mistake to ascribe human-like emotions onto non-human animals or objects. Claiming dogs can feel emotions is as illogical as claiming; 1) rubber tyres *like* to be warm and dry. 2) roses *hate* greenfly. 3) flowers *love* sunlight. 4) moving objects *like* to keep moving. 5) petrol engines *hate* cold, damp weather. 6) dogs *hate* to be *disappointed*. 7) God *loves* a *repentant* heart. 8) fried bread *likes* a bit of Worcester sauce. 9) teeth *hate* sugar 10) a heart *yearns* While those claims seem to be true statements, they aren't, obviously, and those who use this anthropomorphism when trying to win an assertion in any real debate will always lose. |
|
|||
|
|||
Derek wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:17:41 -0600, Meadowlark > wrote: > > Hello Karen. NNTP-Posting-Host: qwest124-dsl8.cybermesa.com Good catch! |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, posting through
qwest124-dsl8.cybermesa.com, wrote: > Dutch wrote: > > <snip> > >> In my experience debating with ARAs, a "common-sense approach" >> is shorthand for 'I judge the lifestyles of others harshly but cut myself >> all sorts of slack.' > > > As usual, instant ad hominem. As usual, Karen, you _fundamentally_ do not understand what _ad hominem_ means, and you get it wrong. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Meadowlark" > wrote > Dutch wrote: > > <snip> >> In my experience debating with ARAs, a "common-sense approach" >> is shorthand for 'I judge the lifestyles of others harshly but cut myself >> all sorts of slack.' > > As usual, instant ad hominem. No, it's just an observation. Give me an example of one of these "common-sense approach" positions and let's see if it fits the mold. And why did you snip the substantial part of my reply without comment? |
|
|||
|
|||
"Beach Runner" > wrote >I recommend the non vegan, carnivores who post here. They are trollers. What does that mean? Post where? Recommend them for what? Why make an obscure non-responsive, top-posted comment? Are you running from something? > Dutch wrote: >> "Meadowlark" > wrote >> (snip) >> >>>>>Would you care to give some background on your own approach to >>>>>animal rights? You sound educated and intelligent, and capable of >>>>>real discussion. >>> >>>>I don't wish to mislead anyone. The fact that I believe that animals >>>>have emotions and some degree of cognitive ability doesn't mean that I >>>>have any approach to animal rights. I have very mixed ideas about that >>>>subject that I don't really care to discuss in this, or any online, >>>>forum. I am not a vegetarian or vegan. I came into this discussion >>>>because of cross-posting to another group and felt that I had an >>>>obligation to try to offset at least some of the nonsense being posted >>>>by Rudy. >>> >>>>Thank you. Please forgive me if I have unwittingly mislead you. >>> >>>Oh, no problem. I can understand your unwillingness to discuss >>>*anything* in a forum where Rudy (Jon) and Usual also post -- I >>>am in the same situation myself. It's hard to imagine that >>>anyone can still deny animals emotions and cognitive ability, >>>after all the scientific and empirical material which has >>>been published in the last twenty years or so. The argument that >>>some animals have what might be regarded as rudimentary ethical/ >>>moral capacity is newer, but is moving into the mainstream with >>>recent articles in the popular press (_Newsweek_, IIRC). This >>>undercuts one of the foundations of Regan's theories, which makes >>>for an interesting controversy. >>> >>>Quite outside animals rights _per se_, what is your opinion on >>>animals as (possible) moral agents in a limited sense? What >>>about the newer evidence that some parrots probably have the >>>cognitive ability of a four or five year old human child? That >>>chimpanzees may have some kind of an aesthetic sense? So much >>>new information is showing up that the old categories into which >>>this group has degenerated in recent years have become more and >>>more irrelevant. I'd like to see some more useful discussion. >>>However, if you are uncomfortable posting publicly on this >>>newsgroup, I can certainly understand. If so, I'll return to >>>Lurk mode. >> >> >> I don't find that debate particularly compelling. I happen to >> believe that (non-human) animals possess many advanced >> cognitive abilities, nonetheless the fact remains that we are >> predators towards or deadly competitors with most of them, >> whether or not we "consume animal products". >> |
|
|||
|
|||
"Beach Runner" > wrote in message . .. > this is a vegan group, a google search under animals and learning will > show lots of great info. Derek is obviously anti-vgan. The mind closes in, shutting out all non-conforming data... > > Derek wrote: > >> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 06:23:59 -0400, "David Wright Sr." >> > wrote: >> >> >>>I wouldn't worry too much about what he 'perpetuates'. >> >> >> It's YOUR claim that animals can experience emotions, >> so make your case or shut up. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 18:02:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:17:41 -0600, Meadowlark > wrote: >> >> Hello Karen. > > >NNTP-Posting-Host: qwest124-dsl8.cybermesa.com Cynomis: 65.19.25.252 Meadowlark: 65.19.25.124 >Good catch! As soon as I read Regan, Singer, Rollin and Sapontzis in one paragraph, I knew what to do next. |
|
|||
|
|||
Derek wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 18:02:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:17:41 -0600, Meadowlark > wrote: >>> >>>Hello Karen. >> >> >>NNTP-Posting-Host: qwest124-dsl8.cybermesa.com > > > Cynomis: 65.19.25.252 > Meadowlark: 65.19.25.124 > > >>Good catch! > > > As soon as I read Regan, Singer, Rollin and Sapontzis > in one paragraph, I knew what to do next. Of course. I didn't read the post, so I missed it. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote > On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:51:29 GMT, Beach Runner > wrote: > >>this is a vegan group, a google search under animals and learning will >>show lots of great info. Derek is obviously anti-vgan. > > Nope. I'm a vegan and have been for nigh on 15 > years for ethical reasons. I see animals as rights- > holders but don't believe they can experience > emotions. How do you define an emotion? What is happening in a dog who is shown his favorite play-toy when his head and tail become erect and and he pants and dances around in circles by the door? If that is not anticipation of a familiar desirable activity AND an expression of emotion then what is it? |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:51:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote >> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:51:29 GMT, Beach Runner > wrote: >> >>>this is a vegan group, a google search under animals and learning will >>>show lots of great info. Derek is obviously anti-vgan. >> >> Nope. I'm a vegan and have been for nigh on 15 >> years for ethical reasons. I see animals as rights- >> holders but don't believe they can experience >> emotions. > >How do you define an emotion? A human experience. >What is happening in a dog who is shown his >favorite play-toy when his head and tail become erect and and he pants and >dances around in circles by the door? Something unemotional. >If that is not anticipation of a >familiar desirable activity AND an expression of emotion then what is it? Conditioning. |
|
|||
|
|||
David Wright Sr. wrote:
> Meadowlark > wrote in news:dcg1da$oah$1 > @reader2.nmix.net: >>I'd like to know where I could read some of your published work, >>if you don't mind giving out that information. > My articles are strictly done for fun and my own enlightenment. I, > primarily, am a computer programmer/analyst/network engineer, although I > also have a degree in Linguistics. I am nearing retirement, and what I have > written so far is very limited. I have a few of these, (very primitive), on > my website at: > http://home.alltel.net/dwrighsr/heinlein_articles.html > As you can see, these all deal with the science fiction writer Robert > Heinlein. Outstanding! I started reading Heinlein back in the late 1950's, and once had the great pleasure of meeting him at a gathering of LASFAS -- the L.A. SF organization. I must admit he rather lost me -- or I lost him -- after _Stranger_, but I love his early novels and stories. He was a great gentleman. I will check out the above right away. > I only have one actual published article at this time. It's called "Time > Enough For Everything" and is about time travel in science-fiction, > especially in the works of Robert Heinlein. It was published as part one, > "Linear Time Travel", and part 2, "Multi-Dimensional Time Travel", in > Volume 11, number 1 and 2, of The Heinlein Journal[1], but it's unlikely > that you can find it, although I do understand that it is is subscribed to > by a number of libraries. One of these days, I'll get around to putting a > version of my article up on the website also. I'd like to read it. Love time travel and alternate universe stories. > Presently, I am working on one, possibly two other papers. The first of > these deals with the Influences of Alfred Korzybski and General Semantics > in Heinlein's works and the second, if I do it, will deal with Lakoff & > Johnson's Metaphor Theories and its place, (if any), in General Semantics. > I don't know if either will be publishable, but as I said, I am doing it > for fun and for the learning experience. That's what fandom is all about. I spent six years and a bunch of money researching to write a completely non-saleable fan novel about the possible SF developments after the end of "Escape From L.A." -- which is a cheesy movie, but has a really interesting classic SF premise at the end: what would happen if all electricity-based power were suddenly cut off worldwide? One thing about SF -- it does encourage fen to develop an empathy for others. Animals in our world are indeed a kind of aliens, other beings with different senses, different minds, different languages, different realities, which still touch ours in places. Things being what they are, many of the aliens in SF are based on terrestrial non-human animals, and some of them are very good. I'm thinking of C.J Cherryh's feline aliens as one example. I'll look at your website. Thanks. > [1] Bill Patterson is the publisher. He can be reached at > |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 18:50:55 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 18:02:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:17:41 -0600, Meadowlark > wrote: >>>> >>>>Hello Karen. >>> >>>NNTP-Posting-Host: qwest124-dsl8.cybermesa.com >> >> Cynomis: 65.19.25.252 >> Meadowlark: 65.19.25.124 >> >>>Good catch! >> >> As soon as I read Regan, Singer, Rollin and Sapontzis >> in one paragraph, I knew what to do next. > >Of course. I didn't read the post, so I missed it. I had some catching up to do, so as usual I left nothing out. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote > On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:51:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: [..] >>>>this is a vegan group, a google search under animals and learning will >>>>show lots of great info. Derek is obviously anti-vgan. >>> >>> Nope. I'm a vegan and have been for nigh on 15 >>> years for ethical reasons. I see animals as rights- >>> holders but don't believe they can experience >>> emotions. >> >>How do you define an emotion? > > A human experience. Which dictionary does that come from? You appear to be inventing a limitation to support your conclusion. >>What is happening in a dog who is shown his >>favorite play-toy when his head and tail become erect and and he pants and >>dances around in circles by the door? > > Something unemotional. If emotion is an expression of spontaneous, without conscious thought, mental and physiological excitement, and it is, then the dog is exhibiting emotion. >>If that is not anticipation of a >>familiar desirable activity AND an expression of emotion then what is it? > > Conditioning. Conditioning explains why animals react the way they do to certain stimuli, not a description of a specific mental and physiological state. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:05:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote >> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:51:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >[..] > >>>>>this is a vegan group, a google search under animals and learning will >>>>>show lots of great info. Derek is obviously anti-vgan. >>>> >>>> Nope. I'm a vegan and have been for nigh on 15 >>>> years for ethical reasons. I see animals as rights- >>>> holders but don't believe they can experience >>>> emotions. >>> >>>How do you define an emotion? >> >> A human experience. > >Which dictionary does that come from? You appear to be inventing a >limitation to support your conclusion. Rather, you appear to be widening something you don't fully understand to support yours. >>>What is happening in a dog who is shown his >>>favorite play-toy when his head and tail become erect and and he pants and >>>dances around in circles by the door? >> >> Something unemotional. > >If emotion is an expression of spontaneous, without conscious thought, >mental and physiological excitement, and it is, then the dog is exhibiting >emotion. The key word there is "exhibiting", which is something solely dependent on your sentiment rather than logic. Unless you can find a way of extracting meaningful information from the dog without resorting to sloppy sentiment, any statement about that dog will be an ipse dixit. >>>If that is not anticipation of a >>>familiar desirable activity AND an expression of emotion then what is it? >> >> Conditioning. > >Conditioning explains why animals react the way they do to certain stimuli, >not a description of a specific mental and physiological state. Bullseye! |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:05:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote >>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:51:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>[..] >> >>>>>>this is a vegan group, a google search under animals and learning will >>>>>>show lots of great info. Derek is obviously anti-vgan. >>>>> >>>>> Nope. I'm a vegan and have been for nigh on 15 >>>>> years for ethical reasons. I see animals as rights- >>>>> holders but don't believe they can experience >>>>> emotions. >>>> >>>>How do you define an emotion? >>> >>> A human experience. >> >>Which dictionary does that come from? You appear to be inventing a >>limitation to support your conclusion. > > Rather, you appear to be widening something you don't > fully understand to support yours. Support that. Where is any documentation that proposes that emotion is uniquely human? >>>>What is happening in a dog who is shown his >>>>favorite play-toy when his head and tail become erect and and he pants >>>>and >>>>dances around in circles by the door? >>> >>> Something unemotional. >> >>If emotion is an expression of spontaneous, without conscious thought, >>mental and physiological excitement, and it is, then the dog is exhibiting >>emotion. > > The key word there is "exhibiting", which is something > solely dependent on your sentiment rather than logic. No it's not, it's based on observation, the soul of reason. There's an old saying, "If it walks like a duck..." > Unless you can find a way of extracting meaningful > information from the dog without resorting to sloppy > sentiment, any statement about that dog will be an > ipse dixit. You did not and cannot describe the exhibited behaviour of the animal in any other way except that it is emotion. >>>>If that is not anticipation of a >>>>familiar desirable activity AND an expression of emotion then what is >>>>it? >>> >>> Conditioning. >> >>Conditioning explains why animals react the way they do to certain >>stimuli, >>not a description of a specific mental and physiological state. > > Bullseye! Then you are reversing your position? You seem to have come back mindlessly trying to engratiate yourself to your hero Jonathan Ball, in the process you have taken a position that even he would not take. Emotions are not uniquely human, *some complex* emotions are uniquely human. |
|
|||
|
|||
Meadowlark > wrote in
: (snip) >> As you can see, these all deal with the science fiction writer Robert >> Heinlein. > > Outstanding! I started reading Heinlein back in the late 1950's, > and once had the great pleasure of meeting him at a gathering of > LASFAS -- the L.A. SF organization. I must admit he rather lost me -- > or I lost him -- after _Stranger_, but I love his early novels and > stories. He was a great gentleman. I will check out the above right > away. Sadly, I never got the chance to meet him. I did, fortunately, have the honor of corresponding with Virginia Heinlein, the last two years of her life via the internet. I had hoped to get down to Florida to meet her personally, but she died just prior to the planned time for the trip. She was a very gracious and intelligent lady. One of my most prized possessions is a leather-bound edition from Easton Publishers of _The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag_, and a mimeographed copy of an article which wound up in _Tramp Royale_ about their trip to antarctica. She also sent me a couple of other including a German edition of _The Past Through Tomorrow_. I am always happy to come across a Heinlein fan. I have noticed that there are basically three sets of fans, those who only like his earlier works, (pre-Stranger or pre-StarShip Troopers), those who only like the later stuff and the rest who are like me. I like it all, even though I have a great fondness for the earlier stuff, especially the 'juveniles'. I started reading in the early 50's. Heinlein is beginning to be appreciated more and more as a genuine literary figure rather than just a genre writer. Since you are a fan, I should have given you my main Heinlein site URL: http://home.alltel.net/dwrighsr/heinlein.html Also check out http://heinleinsociety.org David -- If you haven't joined The Heinlein Society, Why Not? http://heinleinsociety.org/join.html The Heinlein Estate is again matching new member registrations and fund raising up to $15,000 Make your new membership count twice! |
|
|||
|
|||
Animals love,
they crave affection in wild or as pests. They have personalities. Emotions are probably among the oldest part of the brain. I'm glad to hear your a vegan and apogees for my incorrect assumption. Derek wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:51:29 GMT, Beach Runner > wrote: > > >>this is a vegan group, a google search under animals and learning will >>show lots of great info. Derek is obviously anti-vgan. > > > Nope. I'm a vegan and have been for nigh on 15 > years for ethical reasons. I see animals as rights- > holders but don't believe they can experience > emotions. I make the same mistake that we all > do by projecting my own onto animals from time > to time when talking about them idly with friends > and family, but I don't make that mistake when > discussing them seriously. > > It's always a mistake to ascribe human-like > emotions onto non-human animals or objects. > Claiming dogs can feel emotions is as illogical > as claiming; > > 1) rubber tyres *like* to be warm and dry. > 2) roses *hate* greenfly. > 3) flowers *love* sunlight. > 4) moving objects *like* to keep moving. > 5) petrol engines *hate* cold, damp weather. > 6) dogs *hate* to be *disappointed*. > 7) God *loves* a *repentant* heart. > 8) fried bread *likes* a bit of Worcester sauce. > 9) teeth *hate* sugar > 10) a heart *yearns* > > While those claims seem to be true statements, > they aren't, obviously, and those who use this > anthropomorphism when trying to win an assertion > in any real debate will always lose. |
|
|||
|
|||
Derek wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:51:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >>"Derek" > wrote >> >>>On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:51:29 GMT, Beach Runner > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>this is a vegan group, a google search under animals and learning will >>>>show lots of great info. Derek is obviously anti-vgan. >>> >>>Nope. I'm a vegan and have been for nigh on 15 >>>years for ethical reasons. I see animals as rights- >>>holders but don't believe they can experience >>>emotions. >> >>How do you define an emotion? > > > A human experience. > Humans are animals. > >>What is happening in a dog who is shown his >>favorite play-toy when his head and tail become erect and and he pants and >>dances around in circles by the door? > > > Something unemotional. > > >>If that is not anticipation of a >>familiar desirable activity AND an expression of emotion then what is it? > > > Conditioning. |
|
|||
|
|||
Very interesting, David. I liked your article on "rational anarchy" in Heinlein -- his writing certainly did have an effect on my political views. I do wish when they made _Starship Troopers_ into a movie they had paid more attention to the political ideas and less to the wonders of SFX. You'd think computer generated stuff would be perfect for SF -- and it can be -- but it often takes over and absolutely mangles the original. For example, that _I, Robot_ abortion. I'm trying to decide if I have the heart to go see the new _War of the Worlds_. I think I'll wait until it comes on cable. I think I should go elsewhere to discuss Heinlein and SF with you. Opening question: for 50 points, compare and contrast the idea of an anarchist community in Heinlein, Ursala LeGuin's _The Dispossessed_ and Greg Bear's _Moving Mars_. Any interest? Where would you like to talk about it, if so? David Wright Sr. wrote: > Meadowlark > wrote in > : > > (snip) > > >>>As you can see, these all deal with the science fiction writer Robert >>>Heinlein. >> >>Outstanding! I started reading Heinlein back in the late 1950's, >>and once had the great pleasure of meeting him at a gathering of >>LASFAS -- the L.A. SF organization. I must admit he rather lost me -- >>or I lost him -- after _Stranger_, but I love his early novels and >>stories. He was a great gentleman. I will check out the above right >>away. > > > Sadly, I never got the chance to meet him. I did, fortunately, have the honor > of corresponding with Virginia Heinlein, the last two years of her life via > the internet. I had hoped to get down to Florida to meet her personally, but > she died just prior to the planned time for the trip. She was a very gracious > and intelligent lady. One of my most prized possessions is a leather-bound > edition from Easton Publishers of _The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan > Hoag_, and a mimeographed copy of an article which wound up in _Tramp Royale_ > about their trip to antarctica. She also sent me a couple of other including > a German edition of _The Past Through Tomorrow_. > > I am always happy to come across a Heinlein fan. I have noticed that there > are basically three sets of fans, those who only like his earlier works, > (pre-Stranger or pre-StarShip Troopers), those who only like the later stuff > and the rest who are like me. I like it all, even though I have a great > fondness for the earlier stuff, especially the 'juveniles'. I started reading > in the early 50's. > > Heinlein is beginning to be appreciated more and more as a genuine literary > figure rather than just a genre writer. > > Since you are a fan, I should have given you my main Heinlein site URL: > > http://home.alltel.net/dwrighsr/heinlein.html Also check out > http://heinleinsociety.org > > David > |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ignoring the anchovy recipe, or ignoring the anchovy | General Cooking | |||
Rudy's Turkey rub | Barbecue | |||
Rudy Conoza | Vegan | |||
Rudy's Brisket Rub | Barbecue | |||
Ignoring the Disrupters | Barbecue |