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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
David Wright Sr.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Meadowlark
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Douchebag Ron Hamilton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.





  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.'







  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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".


  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:17:41 -0600, Meadowlark > wrote:

Hello Karen.
  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Beach Runner
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.
  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Beach Runner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
David Wright Sr.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
David Wright Sr.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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)
  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Meadowlark
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Meadowlark
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
David Wright Sr.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
David Wright Sr.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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
  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Beach Runner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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".
>
>



  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Beach Runner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:17:41 -0600, Meadowlark > wrote:
>
> Hello Karen.



NNTP-Posting-Host: qwest124-dsl8.cybermesa.com

Good catch!
  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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?





  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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".
>>


  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.



  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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?




  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Meadowlark
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
>

  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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!


  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #77 (permalink)   Report Post  
David Wright Sr.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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!



  #78 (permalink)   Report Post  
Beach Runner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #79 (permalink)   Report Post  
Beach Runner
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.

  #80 (permalink)   Report Post  
Meadowlark
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ignoring the anchovy recipe, or ignoring the anchovy Dee Randall General Cooking 33 22-09-2005 04:50 PM
Rudy's Turkey rub 2kewl-AlamoCityGypsyMC Barbecue 0 04-08-2005 09:34 PM
Rudy Conoza Chemical eX Vegan 3 05-05-2005 03:59 PM
Rudy's Brisket Rub Creamy Goodness Barbecue 6 08-07-2004 01:23 AM
Ignoring the Disrupters [email protected] Barbecue 40 24-11-2003 11:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"