Dutch wrote:
> "Beach Runner" > wrote
>
>
>>I recommend the non vegan, carnivores who post here. They are trollers.

I was tired, and obviously left out the word, ignore.

>
>
> 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.
>>>>
http://www.messybeast.com/emoticat.html
http://www.psy.plym.ac.uk/year3/psy3...ychobiolog.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/...246index.shtml

All examples from conservative, non vegetarian sources.

>>>>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".
>>>
>
>

Clearly, much animal emotion has been demonstrated. Recently a person
entered a ape zoo exhbition, got hurt. The ape protected the human and
brought it to a zoo keeper. We all know the story of lucy who learned
sign language.

If anything emotion is part of the limbic system, the oldest part of the
brain. Dinasaurs "arguably birds" demonstrate much emotion. They will
pine for a lost one, care and fight to the death for children. Many
animals clearly love their off spring. In fact, often taking in animals
outside their species.

See
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s215887.htm
http://search.eb.com/dinosaurs/dinos...udy/teach2.htm

"Beach Runner" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> 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.

That doesn't refute his claim. All humans are animals,
but all animals are not 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 that is not anticipation of a familiar desirable activity AND an
>>>expression of emotion then what is it?
>>
>>
>> Conditioning.

Meadowlark > wrote in
:

>
>
> 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.

There haven't been many movies made from good sf that I have enjoyed,
especially that abomination from Verhoaxer.

>
> 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?
>
Send me an e-mail at and I'll make some suggestions.
There are some compelling reasons why I don't want to mention the channels
here.

The only thing that I remember that I have read of Le Guin's was _The Left
Hand of Darkness_ and that was years ago. I have one book of Bear's and I
can't recall whether or not I have read it.

David

David Wrong Sr wrote:
>>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.

Then why do you keep trying to do it?

Karen Winter wrote:
<...>
>> Thank you. Please forgive me if I have unwittingly mislead you.
>
> Oh, no problem.

Karen has a history of misleading others herself. That includes her son
and his family about her wishes for her grandson, as well as her church
about what misanthropes she and her evil FAS-defective sidekick are.
Karen (a) says she doesn't like her own son as a person, (b) says she
would've had no hesitation introducing her son to any of her pedophile
friends from NAMBLA, and (c) says she hopes her grandson will rebel
against his own father and develop into a flaming homosexual.

I would have had no hesitation in letting my son associate
with the responsible pedophiles I met.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," http://tinyurl.com/6gxmp

No, I don't like him as a person. If he weren't my son, I
wouldn't want anything to do with him.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," http://snipurl.com/4aea

Maybe in the classic way of things, his son will
rebel against his father's values, and turn out to
be a sensitive, loving, fannish, imaginative,
socially-conscious and artistic type -- if I'm
really lucky, maybe even *** -- and my grandson and
I will bond eventually.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 01/22/04

Do I hate kids? Yes!
-- Sylvia Stevens as "Swan," http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx

Hate the very social structure that created me? Oh,
Fertilla, you don't KNOW the homicidal fury that writhes within
my form like a rotting pestilential tumor crying for its
freedom! When I think back... when I ALLOW myself to think back
to the pastel stucco houses, each with a tricycle or a swingset
in the yard and a Cocker Spaniel or maybe a kitty named Mister
Fluff, I want to scream. No, I want to do worse than that... I
want to tear down those prim little houses, each festering in
its own self-assured vileness! I want to firebomb the Chevy
Suburbans, and **** a swastika into every dichondra infested
lawn! I want to grab Ward Cleaver by his ****ing GONADS and rip
his belly oepn to expose the wretched vomiting hypocrisy that
fills him like gas fills a dead wildebeest in the African sun.
I want to smash the windows to let in the wind and maybe
dissipate the stench of June Cleaver's rotting viviparous
snatch! Then I want to visit their neighbors, Ozzie and
Harriet. Maybe I'll catch JUne and Harriet in a squirming
******* love-fest, if either of them can stand the stretched-out
stench of their babyslots! Maybe we'll get lucky and see Ricky
buggering the Beav with eight inches of steel hard social
frustration screaming "I'll SHOW you whay they call you 'Beaver'
you little faggot!"

....You want bitter ****s, Smurfetta, you GOT 'em! Bitter? Try
so ****ing disgusted at a society that worships people in exact
inverse ratio to their age! The egg os holier than the soaked
Kotex, the zygote is better than the egg, but after that, it's
ALL DOWNHILL, Baby! Praise the sacred ****ing FETUS, worry about
the CHILLLLdrunnnn, but **** the adult, and SHITSCREW the poor
senior citizen worthless pile of flesh that he is! **** Granny,
but SAVE the bayyyybeeeee!

Consider me the retroactive ABORTION rotting in you living room!
You'll NEVER get me out of your carpet, no matter HOW hard you
try! I ****ing BATHE in PetFresh and Febreeze and my rage STILL
stinks to the high heavens, because when you get a whiff of ME
you're smelling YOU! I AM YOUR BOIL lanced and splattered over
your Sunday picnic!

Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE CHILDREN. I hate YOUR

children, I hate THEIR children, I hate every shitstain, every
whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the little maggotty
flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR ON THAT?!
-- Sylvia Stevens as "Swan," http://snipurl.com/4ae8

And just think, until quite recently, these two were the WELCOMING
COMMITTEE at St Bede's Episcopal in Santa Fe.

David Wrong Sr. wrote:
>>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.

No, you didn't.

> You, 'usual suspect'

How dare you compare that self-crippled, dole-scrounging ex-grease
monkey to me.

Karen Winter wrote:
<...>
> 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."

Meanwhile, you were shuffling your child from relative to relative to
avoid being a responsible parent.

usual suspect wrote:
> Karen Winter wrote:

I have no idea why you have some compulsion to post this trash
repeatedly, but it does not say anything positive about you.

I am not Rat, I am not Swan, and I'm not posting here except when
someone new rises above your level occasionally. I will continue my
conversation with David ( I hope) elsewhere. I notice he had the
good sense to killfile you and Rudy already.

Beach Runner wrote:
> Animals love,
> they crave affection in wild

I enjoy watching lions give zebras the "affection" they crave on Discovery.

> or as pests.

Bumbling twit.

> They have personalities.

More so, perhaps, than you do, but that's not a high hurdle to jump.

<...>

Karen Winter wrote:
> I have no idea

You also have no clue, Karen.

> I am not Rat, I am not Swan,

We know. You are Karen.

Meadowlark > wrote in :

(snip)

> I will continue my
> conversation with David ( I hope) elsewhere. I notice he had the
> good sense to killfile you and Rudy already.
>

I am assuming that your public e-mail address above is phoney for avoiding
spam, so get in touch with me at . Note that my public e-
mail address as an extra 't' in it, so you can't use it.

I don't worry about spam, as I have an excellent spam-catcher.

David

David Wright Sr. wrote:
> Meadowlark > wrote in :

> (snip)
>>I will continue my
>>conversation with David ( I hope) elsewhere. I notice he had the
>>good sense to killfile you and Rudy already.

> I am assuming that your public e-mail address above is phoney for avoiding
> spam, so get in touch with me at . Note that my public e-
> mail address as an extra 't' in it, so you can't use it.

> I don't worry about spam, as I have an excellent spam-catcher.

Sent you an E-mail this morning, and am looking forward to conversation
with you. My real E-mail address is in the message I sent you.
Rudy and Usual stalk me if they can, so I have to avoid giving them
opportunity, if possible. They are both truly mean-spirited and
vindictive, with the judgment and temperament, but not the intelligence,
of rabid wolverines.

Karen Winter wrote:
> Sent you an E-mail this morning, and am looking forward to conversation
> with you. My real E-mail address is in the message I sent you.

It's also in the messages you sent back when you were still "rat."

> Rudy and Usual stalk me if they can,

That's a goddamned lie, Karen, and you know it. I tried carrying on a
substantive dialogue with you about issues you've raised, and you always
end up running away from civil discussion.

> so I have to avoid giving them
> opportunity, if possible.

One of your cybermesa addresses is still widely available online, just
as it is for your now-defunct pacbell address. The opportunity has
always been there. Note that I've never taken advantage of it.

> They are both truly mean-spirited

Not nearly as mean-spirited as you and your evil FAS-defective sidekick
Sylvia. Tell us, did you step down from Bede's Backers on your own or
are you now at another congregation where your real views aren't well-known?

I would have had no hesitation in letting my son associate
with the responsible pedophiles I met.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," http://tinyurl.com/6gxmp

No, I don't like him as a person. If he weren't my son, I
wouldn't want anything to do with him.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," http://snipurl.com/4aea

Maybe in the classic way of things, his son will
rebel against his father's values, and turn out to
be a sensitive, loving, fannish, imaginative,
socially-conscious and artistic type -- if I'm
really lucky, maybe even *** -- and my grandson and
I will bond eventually.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 01/22/04

Do I hate kids? Yes!
-- Sylvia Stevens as "Swan," http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx

Hate the very social structure that created me? Oh,
Fertilla, you don't KNOW the homicidal fury that writhes within
my form like a rotting pestilential tumor crying for its
freedom! When I think back... when I ALLOW myself to think back
to the pastel stucco houses, each with a tricycle or a swingset
in the yard and a Cocker Spaniel or maybe a kitty named Mister
Fluff, I want to scream. No, I want to do worse than that... I
want to tear down those prim little houses, each festering in
its own self-assured vileness! I want to firebomb the Chevy
Suburbans, and **** a swastika into every dichondra infested
lawn! I want to grab Ward Cleaver by his ****ing GONADS and rip
his belly oepn to expose the wretched vomiting hypocrisy that
fills him like gas fills a dead wildebeest in the African sun.
I want to smash the windows to let in the wind and maybe
dissipate the stench of June Cleaver's rotting viviparous
snatch! Then I want to visit their neighbors, Ozzie and
Harriet. Maybe I'll catch JUne and Harriet in a squirming
******* love-fest, if either of them can stand the stretched-out
stench of their babyslots! Maybe we'll get lucky and see Ricky
buggering the Beav with eight inches of steel hard social
frustration screaming "I'll SHOW you whay they call you 'Beaver'
you little faggot!"

....You want bitter ****s, Smurfetta, you GOT 'em! Bitter? Try
so ****ing disgusted at a society that worships people in exact
inverse ratio to their age! The egg os holier than the soaked
Kotex, the zygote is better than the egg, but after that, it's
ALL DOWNHILL, Baby! Praise the sacred ****ing FETUS, worry about
the CHILLLLdrunnnn, but **** the adult, and SHITSCREW the poor
senior citizen worthless pile of flesh that he is! **** Granny,
but SAVE the bayyyybeeeee!

Consider me the retroactive ABORTION rotting in you living room!
You'll NEVER get me out of your carpet, no matter HOW hard you
try! I ****ing BATHE in PetFresh and Febreeze and my rage STILL
stinks to the high heavens, because when you get a whiff of ME
you're smelling YOU! I AM YOUR BOIL lanced and splattered over
your Sunday picnic!

Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE CHILDREN. I hate YOUR

children, I hate THEIR children, I hate every shitstain, every
whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the little maggotty
flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR ON THAT?!
-- Sylvia Stevens as "Swan," http://snipurl.com/4ae8

Karen Winter, paranoid OCD patient, lied:
> David Wright Sr. wrote:
>
>> Meadowlark > wrote in
>> :
>
>
>> (snip)
>>
>>> I will continue my
>>> conversation with David ( I hope) elsewhere. I notice he had the
>>> good sense to killfile you and Rudy already.
>
>
>> I am assuming that your public e-mail address above is phoney for
>> avoiding spam, so get in touch with me at . Note
>> that my public e-
>> mail address as an extra 't' in it, so you can't use it.
>
>
>> I don't worry about spam, as I have an excellent spam-catcher.
>
>
> Sent you an E-mail this morning, and am looking forward to conversation
> with you. My real E-mail address is in the message I sent you.
> Rudy and Usual stalk me if they can, so I have to avoid giving them
> opportunity, if possible. They are both truly mean-spirited and
> vindictive, with the judgment and temperament, but not the intelligence,
> of rabid wolverines.

Karen, you had your hat handed to you. You couldn't
make a rational defense of "animal rights", and then
you got caught with your knickers down, so to speak,
over absolutely inappropriate behavior, both past and
present, toward your son.

You have the judgment and temperament, but not *even*
the intelligence, of a mule.

Meadowlark wrote:
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>> Karen Winter wrote:
>
>
> I have no idea why you have some compulsion to post this trash

LEAVE IT IN, you uethical shitbag!

Karen has a history of misleading others herself. That
includes her son and his family about her wishes for
her grandson, as well as her church about what
misanthropes she and her evil FAS-defective sidekick
are. Karen (a) says she doesn't like her own son as a
person, (b) says she would've had no hesitation
introducing her son to any of her pedophile friends
from NAMBLA, and (c) says she hopes her grandson will
rebel against his own father and develop into a flaming
homosexual.

I would have had no hesitation in letting my
son associate
with the responsible pedophiles I met.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," http://tinyurl.com/6gxmp

No, I don't like him as a person. If he
weren't my son, I
wouldn't want anything to do with him.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," http://snipurl.com/4aea

Maybe in the classic way of things, his son will
rebel against his father's values, and turn out to
be a sensitive, loving, fannish, imaginative,
socially-conscious and artistic type -- if I'm
really lucky, maybe even *** -- and my
grandson and
I will bond eventually.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 01/22/04

Do I hate kids? Yes!
-- Sylvia Stevens as "Swan,"
http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx

Hate the very social structure that created
me? Oh,
Fertilla, you don't KNOW the homicidal fury
that writhes within
my form like a rotting pestilential tumor
crying for its
freedom! When I think back... when I ALLOW
myself to think back
to the pastel stucco houses, each with a
tricycle or a swingset
in the yard and a Cocker Spaniel or maybe a
kitty named Mister
Fluff, I want to scream. No, I want to do
worse than that... I
want to tear down those prim little houses,
each festering in
its own self-assured vileness! I want to
firebomb the Chevy
Suburbans, and **** a swastika into every
dichondra infested
lawn! I want to grab Ward Cleaver by his
****ing GONADS and rip
his belly oepn to expose the wretched
vomiting hypocrisy that
fills him like gas fills a dead wildebeest in
the African sun.
I want to smash the windows to let in the
wind and maybe
dissipate the stench of June Cleaver's
rotting viviparous
snatch! Then I want to visit their
neighbors, Ozzie and
Harriet. Maybe I'll catch JUne and Harriet in
a squirming
******* love-fest, if either of them can
stand the stretched-out
stench of their babyslots! Maybe we'll get
lucky and see Ricky
buggering the Beav with eight inches of steel
hard social
frustration screaming "I'll SHOW you whay
they call you 'Beaver'
you little faggot!"

....You want bitter ****s, Smurfetta, you GOT
'em! Bitter? Try
so ****ing disgusted at a society that
worships people in exact
inverse ratio to their age! The egg os holier
than the soaked
Kotex, the zygote is better than the egg, but
after that, it's
ALL DOWNHILL, Baby! Praise the sacred ****ing
FETUS, worry about
the CHILLLLdrunnnn, but **** the adult, and
SHITSCREW the poor
senior citizen worthless pile of flesh that
he is! **** Granny,
but SAVE the bayyyybeeeee!

Consider me the retroactive ABORTION rotting
in you living room!
You'll NEVER get me out of your carpet, no
matter HOW hard you
try! I ****ing BATHE in PetFresh and Febreeze
and my rage STILL
stinks to the high heavens, because when you
get a whiff of ME
you're smelling YOU! I AM YOUR BOIL lanced
and splattered over
your Sunday picnic!

Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE
CHILDREN. I hate YOUR

children, I hate THEIR children, I hate
every shitstain, every
whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of
the little maggotty
flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR ON THAT?!
-- Sylvia Stevens as "Swan,"
http://snipurl.com/4ae8



> repeatedly, but it does not say anything positive about you.

Oh, and I suppose it says something positive about YOU?

>
> I am not Rat, I am not Swan,

But you ARE Karen Winter, the nasty lying CHILD
ABANDONING ******* who used to post as "Rat".


> and I'm not posting here except when
> someone new rises above your level occasionally. I will continue my
> conversation with David ( I hope) elsewhere. I notice he had the
> good sense to killfile you and Rudy already.

Senile Davey Wright killfiled me because he couldn't
handle being challenged. Davey tried the Potter
Stewart approach to trying to "prove" that non-human
animals can experience disappointment - "I know they
can because I've seen it".

Have fun, you doddering twit. Senile Davey is in his
seventies, and ever farther down the path to unhinged
neverland than you are.

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 has no experience with animals that he feels qualify him for holding
a respectable opinion, and must be extremely little by anyone's standards.
Any person who has ever cared for animals to any extent at all very
quickly notices that they anticipate things. Even a cat going to take a shit
in a litter box anticipates that the box will be where it is kept. We are
discussing a person who is too stupid to understand something even
that simple and obvious.

>He totally ignored the references to the scientists, other
>than to say that he doubted that I had even read them,

He lied about that too. He does believe you read them, and I imagine
we are all aware that he does.

>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

RC? Oh: Goo.

>lambasted it by attacking the person who had posted it.

That's the Goobal way.

>To top it all off,
>he had earlier claimed that 'science' is not even applicable to the
>subject,

That's very much the Goobal way. Have you often pointed out to him
that if he didn't lie, he would have extremely little if anything to write?
I've pointed it out to him a number of times, and of course keep it in
mind every time I read any of his posts.

>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.

That's what makes me wonder if Goo and co. are deliberately trying
to see how dishonest they can be and still get people to believe some
of their crap. Goo is dishonest in more ways than one, and the sort of
trick you described is just one of his techniques. They all reveal him to
be stupid and dishonest in the long run.

>Whether or not he can hold down a job, I wouldn't venture to speculate. I
>know that I would fire him after about 10 minutes, if I were his employer
>and he acted the way he does here. However, he certainly appears to have
>no life.
>
>David Wright Sr.

dh@. wrote:

> 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 has no experience with animals

I have experience with animals.

You have no meaningful experience with animals. You're
also uneducated, and you're a convicted felon.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
>
> > 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 has no experience with animals
>
> I have experience with animals.

Sex doesn't count Goober.

>
> You have no meaningful experience with animals. You're
> also uneducated, and you're a convicted felon.


And you are a self admitted cucumber so what's your point?

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> I'm a vegan and have been for nigh on 15
> years for ethical reasons.
Nonsense, since there are no objective ethical standards to measure
against, no one can claim they are more "ethical" than another. People just
make up their own "ethics" for their convenience at the time. Ethics are
irrelevant to diet and lifestyle choices.

> I see animals as rights-holders ...
Is there some objective issuer of these "rights"? Humans do not have
"rights", animal certainly do not.

> ...but don't believe they can experience emotions.
You have no idea what is occurring in the consciousness of another
being; no one does.

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible information on plant-based diets.
www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html news:alt.food.vegan.science

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Meadowlark wrote:
> > usual suspect wrote:
> >
> >> Karen Winter wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have no idea why you have some compulsion to post this trash
>
> LEAVE IT IN, you uethical shitbag!
>
> Karen has a history of misleading others herself. That
> includes her son and his family about her wishes for
> her grandson, as well as her church about what
> misanthropes she and her evil FAS-defective sidekick
> are. Karen (a) says she doesn't like her own son as a
> person, (b) says she would've had no hesitation
> introducing her son to any of her pedophile friends
> from NAMBLA, and (c) says she hopes her grandson will
> rebel against his own father and develop into a flaming
> homosexual.
>
> I would have had no hesitation in letting my
> son associate
> with the responsible pedophiles I met.
> -- Karen Winter as "Rat," http://tinyurl.com/6gxmp
>
> No, I don't like him as a person. If he
> weren't my son, I
> wouldn't want anything to do with him.
> -- Karen Winter as "Rat," http://snipurl.com/4aea
>
> Maybe in the classic way of things, his son will
> rebel against his father's values, and turn out to
> be a sensitive, loving, fannish, imaginative,
> socially-conscious and artistic type -- if I'm
> really lucky, maybe even *** -- and my
> grandson and
> I will bond eventually.
> -- Karen Winter as "Rat," 01/22/04
>
> Do I hate kids? Yes!
> -- Sylvia Stevens as "Swan,"
> http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx
>
> Hate the very social structure that created
> me? Oh,
> Fertilla, you don't KNOW the homicidal fury
> that writhes within
> my form like a rotting pestilential tumor
> crying for its
> freedom! When I think back... when I ALLOW
> myself to think back
> to the pastel stucco houses, each with a
> tricycle or a swingset
> in the yard and a Cocker Spaniel or maybe a
> kitty named Mister
> Fluff, I want to scream. No, I want to do
> worse than that... I
> want to tear down those prim little houses,
> each festering in
> its own self-assured vileness! I want to
> firebomb the Chevy
> Suburbans, and **** a swastika into every
> dichondra infested
> lawn! I want to grab Ward Cleaver by his
> ****ing GONADS and rip
> his belly oepn to expose the wretched
> vomiting hypocrisy that
> fills him like gas fills a dead wildebeest in
> the African sun.
> I want to smash the windows to let in the
> wind and maybe
> dissipate the stench of June Cleaver's
> rotting viviparous
> snatch! Then I want to visit their
> neighbors, Ozzie and
> Harriet. Maybe I'll catch JUne and Harriet in
> a squirming
> ******* love-fest, if either of them can
> stand the stretched-out
> stench of their babyslots! Maybe we'll get
> lucky and see Ricky
> buggering the Beav with eight inches of steel
> hard social
> frustration screaming "I'll SHOW you whay
> they call you 'Beaver'
> you little faggot!"
>
> ....You want bitter ****s, Smurfetta, you GOT
> 'em! Bitter? Try
> so ****ing disgusted at a society that
> worships people in exact
> inverse ratio to their age! The egg os holier
> than the soaked
> Kotex, the zygote is better than the egg, but
> after that, it's
> ALL DOWNHILL, Baby! Praise the sacred ****ing
> FETUS, worry about
> the CHILLLLdrunnnn, but **** the adult, and
> SHITSCREW the poor
> senior citizen worthless pile of flesh that
> he is! **** Granny,
> but SAVE the bayyyybeeeee!
>
> Consider me the retroactive ABORTION rotting
> in you living room!
> You'll NEVER get me out of your carpet, no
> matter HOW hard you
> try! I ****ing BATHE in PetFresh and Febreeze
> and my rage STILL
> stinks to the high heavens, because when you
> get a whiff of ME
> you're smelling YOU! I AM YOUR BOIL lanced
> and splattered over
> your Sunday picnic!
>
> Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE
> CHILDREN. I hate YOUR
>
> children, I hate THEIR children, I hate
> every shitstain, every
> whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of
> the little maggotty
> flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR ON THAT?!
> -- Sylvia Stevens as "Swan,"
> http://snipurl.com/4ae8
>
>
>
> > repeatedly, but it does not say anything positive about you.
>
> Oh, and I suppose it says something positive about YOU?
>
> >
> > I am not Rat, I am not Swan,
>
> But you ARE Karen Winter, the nasty lying CHILD
> ABANDONING ******* who used to post as "Rat".
>
>
> > and I'm not posting here except when
> > someone new rises above your level occasionally. I will continue my
> > conversation with David ( I hope) elsewhere. I notice he had the
> > good sense to killfile you and Rudy already.
>
> Senile Davey Wright killfiled me because he couldn't
> handle being challenged. Davey tried the Potter
> Stewart approach to trying to "prove" that non-human
> animals can experience disappointment - "I know they
> can because I've seen it".
>
> Have fun, you doddering twit. Senile Davey is in his
> seventies, and ever farther down the path to unhinged
> neverland than you are.




and you claim to be a cucumber.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:04:02 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>> 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 has no experience with animals
>
>I have experience with animals.

You have learned nothing at all from animals Goo.

>You have no meaningful experience with animals.

That's a lie.

>You're
>also uneducated,

That's a lie. Experience is a form of education Goober,
but your lack of experience doesn't allow you to understand
how experience could educate someone. This you need to
understand Goo, in order to know anything about animals
at all:

Experience with animals can educate a person about animals.

You can't understand that fact, because you have not gotten
any sort of education at all from experience with animals. None.

>and you're a convicted felon.

That's a lie.

"Ron" > wrote in news:1122914374.822126.55010
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

(snip)

>> Have fun, you doddering twit. Senile Davey is in his
>> seventies, and ever farther down the path to unhinged neverland than
>> you are.
>

Better to be on the path than never having found it in the first place like
Rudy. The only reason he knows where his ass is that he has his head up it.

David

P.S. I still several years to go before I am in my seventies. When does Rudy
become old enough to call himself a pre-teen?

dh@. wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:04:02 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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 has no experience with animals
>>
>>I have experience with animals.
>
>
> You have learned nothing at all from animals Rudy.

That's a lie.


>
>
>>You have no meaningful experience with animals.
>
>
> That's a lie.

That's not a lie.


>
>
>>You're
>>also uneducated,
>
>
> That's a lie.

That's not a lie. You barely finished high school, and
you don't have any university education. You don't
have *anything* after high school


> Experience is a form of education

Swabbing out the vomit from the men's room in your
cracker beer bar is not relevant education for animal
issues.


>>and you're a convicted felon.
>
>
> That's a lie.

Not a lie.

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:17:47 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"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.

You are widening the concept of human emotions to
conclude animals have them. What other support do
I need?

>Where is any documentation that proposes
>that emotion is uniquely human?

Look for it yourself, but before you decide not to
bother, read something about Darwin's huge error
in using anthropomorphic language in his works,
and how this error in thinking has prevailed.

[This problem originated with Darwin himself, with
his persistent use of anthropomorphic language to
discuss his theory of adaptive natural biological
evolution. For example, in Chapter III of On the
Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
he says in the second paragraph, “Natural Selection
...is a power...ready for action...” Darwin was
well aware of the problems created by the
anthropomorphism of the phrase natural selection.

His publisher objected to it, and readers had difficulty
understanding what he meant by it. Wallace wrote
Darwin a letter asking him to stop using the term.
And Darwin admitted, in the third edition, that, “In
the literal sense of the word, no doubt natural
selection is a false term...”

Unfortunately, instead of making the correction, he
made excuses and rationalizations. One was the
claim that with familiarity the problem would end.
This has not happened because people new to the
study of natural biological evolution are not familiar
with what he actually meant by his misleading
metaphor. The term and its associated confusions
have been passed down through the literature and
educational institutions to the present, and excuses
are still being made.]
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/char...ion/expression...

Also, if those few paragraph didn't tire you out, read
the following which I believe gives good reason
for why animal behaviourists and those like
myself in favour of animal rights must abandon
anthropomorphism.

[Summary
Those who believe in anthropomorphism, those
who see it about them in the discourses of science
and culture, whether they are the Kennedys and
Budianskys who desire to eliminate it, or the
DeWaals and Burghardts who see a need to
preserve it, are, we might say, modern day
anthropomorphites. These anthropomorphites see
animals being transformed, being given human
form. They believe they see a transmutation, a
metamorphosis, taking place: the Animal cast in
the image of Man. With this belief, they maintain
a faith in an originary distinction between Human
and Animal. Like their medieval forebears, their
perspective on the world starts with the human.

Anthropomorphism breezes over the awkward
question concerning the nature of the human, or
rather, it implicitly takes this question to have
been answered. It dashes on to examine animals
afterward, in second place, as if humanity and
animality were not conceptualized and constituted
mutually and simultaneously. This first-and-foremost
anthropocentrism never should be our starting point.

If, by relying on the notion of anthropomorphism,
we preclude the possibility of recognizing or
discovering new kinds of human-animal continuity,
we are condemned to a particular kind of
anthropocentrism that restricts what we can think
both about human being and the being of other animals.

If, on the other hand, we suspend this assumption,
this implicit and uncritical prior belief in human
uniqueness, the very notion of anthropomorphism
fails to make sense. Budiansky (1998) a thorough-
bred anthropomorphite, suggests that anthropomorphism
betrays a “lack of imagination” on our part as we
struggle to imagine what it would be like to be
something else (p. xvii). Perhaps it is truer to say that
the very belief in anthropomorphism betrays a lack of
imagination on the part of those so thoroughly wedded
to the idea that they are, first-and-foremost, human.]
http://www.psyeta.org/sa/sa11.3/tyler.shtml

>>>>>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.

You couldn't be any further from the truth.

>There's an old saying, "If it walks like a duck..."

And that old saying is specious.

>> 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.

We can't even guarantee the exhibited behaviour of
humans, let alone animals, you simple fool. If I were
to tickle the belly of a new born baby and observed
what looked like a smile, would that expression be
associated with playful humour or just wind?

Besides, I can describe it exactly as you did further
down this page;

"Conditioning explains why animals react the way
they do to certain stimuli, not a description of a
specific mental and physiological state."

Although I would've worded it a lot better than that.

>>>>>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?

Not at all. See above.

>You seem to have come back mindlessly trying to
>engratiate yourself to your hero Jonathan Ball,

Why would I regard someone you says the things
he says about me and my family as a hero, and
why would I ever want to try ingratiating myself
with someone who says such things about them,
stupid?

Apart from a few issues between us there are
some key areas that cannot be denied, and logic
dictates that I must agree with him in those key
areas, whatever I might think about him personally.

> in
>the process you have taken a position that even he
>would not take. Emotions are not uniquely human,

Yes, they are.

>*some complex* emotions are uniquely human.

All emotions are uniquely human.

>>Meadowlark wrote:

>>>I have no idea why you have some compulsion to post this trash

>>LEAVE IT IN

It does not apply to me.

>>>repeatedly, but it does not say anything positive about you.

>>Oh, and I suppose it says something positive about YOU?

It has nothing to do with me.

>>>I am not Rat, I am not Swan,

>>But you ARE Karen Winter, the nasty lying CHILD
>>ABANDONING ******* who used to post as "Rat".

No, I am not. In fact, I doubt very much if any such person
ever existed.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:17:47 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"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.
>
> You are widening the concept of human emotions to
> conclude animals have them. What other support do
> I need?

That shows clearly that it is *you* who is moving the
goalposts here.

The topic is "emotion", not "human emotion". If we were
speaking of "human emotion" then you would be correct.

>>Where is any documentation that proposes
>>that emotion is uniquely human?
>
> Look for it yourself,

That's not how it works, your contention, your job
to support it.

[..]

>>>>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.
>
> You couldn't be any further from the truth.

You're wrong, observation is the foundation of science.

>>There's an old saying, "If it walks like a duck..."
>
> And that old saying is specious.

Like Occam's Razor?

>>> 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.
>
> We can't even guarantee

Irrelevant, science neither claims nor issues "guarantees".

> the exhibited behaviour of
> humans, let alone animals, you simple fool. If I were
> to tickle the belly of a new born baby and observed
> what looked like a smile, would that expression be
> associated with playful humour or just wind?

A smile is usually associated with some kind of emotion.

> Besides, I can describe it exactly as you did further
> down this page;
>
> "Conditioning explains why animals react the way
> they do to certain stimuli, not a description of a
> specific mental and physiological state."
>
> Although I would've worded it a lot better than that.

Oh yeah... right.

>>>>>>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?
>
> Not at all. See above.

Above is a lot of diversion.

>>You seem to have come back mindlessly trying to
>>engratiate yourself to your hero Jonathan Ball,
>
> Why would I regard someone you says the things
> he says about me and my family as a hero, and
> why would I ever want to try ingratiating myself
> with someone who says such things about them,
> stupid?

He's your hero because he has a talent at expressing
himself and insulting people that you admire. He also
has a firm grasp of logic that you envy. You want
to engratiate yourself to him because you don't want to
be a target.

> Apart from a few issues between us there are
> some key areas that cannot be denied, and logic
> dictates that I must agree with him in those key
> areas, whatever I might think about him personally.

You've chosen the wrong issue to agree with him on.
He's dead on 99% of the time, you picked the 1%.

>> in
>>the process you have taken a position that even he
>>would not take. Emotions are not uniquely human,
>
> Yes, they are.
>
>>*some complex* emotions are uniquely human.
>
> All emotions are uniquely human.

When you became enraged and raised the broomhandle
to your dog, was he not experiencing fear as he cringed,
****ing himself behind the sofa?

dh@. wrote:
<...>
> He has no experience with animals

Not of the sort you've had, you pig-****ing hillbilly.

<...>

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:11:50 GMT, Goo wrote:

>dh@. wrote:

>> You have learned nothing at all from animals Goo.
>
>That's a lie.

What have you learned from them, and how have you
learned it?

Goo ****wit, THE one and only Goo, wrote:

> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:11:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>
>
>>> You have learned nothing at all from animals Goo.
>>
>>That's a lie.
>
>
> What have

Go waste someone else's time, Goo.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:09:02 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>Goo ****wit, THE one and only Goo, wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:11:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> You have learned nothing at all from animals Goo.
>>>
>>>That's a lie.
>>
>>
>> What have
>
>Go waste someone else's time

You have learned nothing from them Goober. This is just another
example for "The cowardice...".

Goo ****wit, THE one and only Goo, wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:09:02 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> >Goo ****wit, THE one and only Goo, wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:11:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>dh@. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> You have learned nothing at all from animals Goo.
> >>>
> >>>That's a lie.
> >>
> >>
> >> What have
> >
> >Go waste someone else's time, Goo ****wit.
>
> You have

Go waste someone else's time, Goo ****wit.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:43:56 -1000, "Laurie" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> I'm a vegan and have been for nigh on 15
>> years for ethical reasons.
>
> Nonsense, since there are no objective ethical standards to measure
>against, no one can claim they are more "ethical" than another.

Then rapists are every bit as ethical as non-rapists, since,
according to you, there are no objective ethical standards
to measure against, and no one can claim to be more
ethical than another. Way to go Laurie.

>People just
>make up their own "ethics" for their convenience at the time.

You can only speak for yourself, of course, because my
code of conduct, for example, is based on unbending
principles rather than convenience or expedience.

>Ethics are irrelevant to diet and lifestyle choices.

I don't agree.

>> I see animals as rights-holders ...
>
> Is there some objective issuer of these "rights"?

No. They are inherent.

>Humans do not have "rights", animal certainly do not.

Then, conversely, according to your logic, if humans do
have rights, then animals certainly have them as well.
Humans don't have four legs. Must we now conclude
that animals certainly don't have four legs because of
that fact? Really, Laurie, I'm shocked at your lack of
critical thinking and poor logic.

1) If humans hold rights, then animals hold rights.
2) Humans don't hold rights (denial of the antecedent)
therefore
3) animals don't hold rights.

>> ...but don't believe they can experience emotions.
>
> You have no idea what is occurring in the consciousness of another
>being; no one does.

Nevertheless, despite that lack of knowledge, I've
no reason to believe animals experience emotion.
Like you say, I have no idea what occurs in the
mind of another being, so when I declare that I
don't believe animals can experience emotion, it's
a true statement and a valid belief.

Meadowlark wrote:
> David Wright Sr. wrote:
> > Meadowlark > wrote in news:dceli0$81q$1
> > @reader2.nmix.net:
>
> > (snip)
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> 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.


Personally, I like the forum, though I do feel a bit guilty that I'm
wasting my time sometimes as much as watching soap operas or family
feud.

> 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.


Though I do appreciate these efforts to make things stand on an
empirical basis, there should be a line somewhere where increasing the
statistical observations of an obvious fact is no longer useful.


Words like "emotions", "cognitive", and their ilk, were invented to
describe animal behavior. End of story.

Studies of how other animals experience emotions and make decisions on
how to behave only shed light on what drives our own behavior. The
words "Moral", coming from the concept of a "custom", implies
behavioral constraints that developed at least in part from experiences
earlier in our lives, i.e. we learned them. That animals learn things
that affect their behavior.., that certain outcomes or scenarios are
more preferred than others based on such experiences (i.e. there exists
a "right" and "wrong"), has never been under debate.


> 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.
>

One could easily argue that one animal with very little ethical/moral
behavioral control system is the human. They are most easily tricked
into performing any taboo that may have been somehow "forbidden" by
such a system.

> Quite outside animals rights _per se_, what is your opinion on
> animals as (possible) moral agents in a limited sense?

I'm not sure with what context to interpret "agents". Do these animals
work for an agency, or maybe your are considering some arbitrary
morality constraints as the agency employing these animals?


> What
> about the newer evidence that some parrots probably have the
> cognitive ability of a four or five year old human child?


How about a four or five year old human child who is severley retarded?
The way you put it, that sounds like quite a silly study. Parrots are
so much better at controlling wing shape in fluid flow for improved
stability than humans of any age. Their technique on a violin however
is laughable.

> That
> chimpanzees may have some kind of an aesthetic sense?

-Some- kind of aesthetic sense, of course. Not a very refined one for
human literary efforts I understand.


> 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.
>

More interesting to me is further continuation of these concepts to
objects outside the animal kingdom. Is phototropism a form of
intelligence and cognition? I would say yes. Bacteria have simple
memories and motion abilities allowing them to act on their
environment. Do they have a simple set of morals? Maybe not.

Bear in mind that none of this says anything about how we should or
should not interact with other animals - that is another debate
entirely.

Cheers - shevek

"Derek" > wrote

[..]

> Nevertheless, despite that lack of knowledge, I've
> no reason to believe animals experience emotion.

Of course you do, animals display many of the same
clues that they are experiencing similiar emotions in
similiar circumstances to humans.

> Like you say, I have no idea what occurs in the
> mind of another being,

You should have, it's not difficult.

> so when I declare that I
> don't believe animals can experience emotion, it's
> a true statement and a valid belief.

It was a mistake to say it, it's not true and you
know it. It contradicts your position regarding
animals and rights.

For starters you must be aware that animals can
experience the emotion of fear. It's commonly
accompanied by a release of chemicals into the
body and referred to as the "flight or fight syndrome".

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 11:32:16 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>
>[..]
>
>> Nevertheless, despite that lack of knowledge, I've
>> no reason to believe animals experience emotion.
>
>Of course you do,

I've told you that I don't, and you've given no reason
to make me change my mind.

>animals display many of the same
>clues that they are experiencing similiar emotions in
>similiar circumstances to humans.

To paraphrase Jon's comment to Harrison, "You are
deluding yourself into seeing what you want to see.
It isn't there.", and that's no surprise when we look at
your history and the way you admittedly intentionally
delude yourself on these issues.

>> Like you say, I have no idea what occurs in the
>> mind of another being,
>
>You should have, it's not difficult.

Only a wacko like yourself would declare that he
knows what occurs in the mind of another. You're
right on time.

>> so when I declare that I
>> don't believe animals can experience emotion, it's
>> a true statement and a valid belief.
>
>It was a mistake to say it

According to you, maybe, but then you're a self-
confessed delusional who finds deluding himself
comfortable, so what else could I expect from
you anyway?

>it's not true and you
>know it. It contradicts your position regarding
>animals and rights.

Not at all. You don't know anything about rights
or what qualifies a rights bearer.

>For starters you must be aware that animals can
>experience the emotion of fear.

Though it's commonly said that animals experience
fear, I disagree and content that they behave in a
way devoid of that human emotion.

"Derek" > wrote

[..]

>>you must be aware that animals can
>>experience the emotion of fear.
>
> Though it's commonly said that animals experience
> fear, I disagree and content that they behave in a
> way devoid of that human emotion.

Why would you adopt such a counter-intuitive
idea? What evidence do you have to make you
believe that what appear to be emotive states,
accompanied by familiar physiological and
behavioural changes, are in fact actually... nothing?

Dutch wrote:
> "Derek" > wrote
>
> [..]
>
>
>>>you must be aware that animals can
>>>experience the emotion of fear.
>>
>>Though it's commonly said that animals experience
>>fear, I disagree and content that they behave in a
>>way devoid of that human emotion.
>
>
> Why would you adopt such a counter-intuitive
> idea? What evidence do you have to make you
> believe that what appear to be emotive states,
> accompanied by familiar physiological and
> behavioural changes, are in fact actually... nothing?
>
>

There are all kinds of stuides of animal emotions, from a behavioral
objective, a biochecmical standpoint,
and mri views. IF you chose to ignore them because you don't want to is
ignoring objective evidence.

David Wright Sr. wrote:
> 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.
>

Usual is right about some of the misguided "ad hominem attack"
allegations around here.

This last post, I believe is a difficult case. If you are saying that
-because of- the ignorance tactic of rudy and clone you have made your
case -- then yes it's an ad hominem attack. Otherwise, it's a non
sequitur.

Ad hominem, or non sequitur?

"Beach Runner" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Derek" > wrote
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>
>>>>you must be aware that animals can
>>>>experience the emotion of fear.
>>>
>>>Though it's commonly said that animals experience
>>>fear, I disagree and content that they behave in a
>>>way devoid of that human emotion.
>>
>>
>> Why would you adopt such a counter-intuitive
>> idea? What evidence do you have to make you
>> believe that what appear to be emotive states,
>> accompanied by familiar physiological and
>> behavioural changes, are in fact actually... nothing?
>>
>>
>
> There are all kinds of stuides of animal emotions, from a behavioral
> objective, a biochecmical standpoint,
> and mri views. IF you chose to ignore them because you don't want to is
> ignoring objective evidence.

The only real debate is related to *complex* emotions,
such as jealousy, which are arguably anthropomorphic,
not basic emotions per se.

Dutch wrote:
> "Beach Runner" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Dutch wrote:
>>
>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>
>>>[..]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>you must be aware that animals can
>>>>>experience the emotion of fear.
>>>>
>>>>Though it's commonly said that animals experience
>>>>fear, I disagree and content that they behave in a
>>>>way devoid of that human emotion.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why would you adopt such a counter-intuitive
>>>idea? What evidence do you have to make you
>>>believe that what appear to be emotive states,
>>>accompanied by familiar physiological and
>>>behavioural changes, are in fact actually... nothing?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>There are all kinds of stuides of animal emotions, from a behavioral
>>objective, a biochecmical standpoint,
>>and mri views. IF you chose to ignore them because you don't want to is
>>ignoring objective evidence.
>
>
> The only real debate is related to *complex* emotions,
> such as jealousy, which are arguably anthropomorphic,
> not basic emotions per se.
>
>

With all due respect, I don't want to get into any argument,
Jealousy is one of the most obvious emotions. Try having two animals
and give affection or food to one