|
Ignoring Rudy
|
"David Wright Sr." > wrote in message
... > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in news:lZadnfPLM6pEGHvfRVn- > : > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > ups.com... > >> Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > Get a life > >> > >> You are unoriginal, trite, stale. > >> > >> You also are delusional: you cannot rationally believe that it is > >> "mostly" wrong to kill animals. > > > > I think I've explained it to you > > dozens of times, in dozens of > > ways. I give up. You wouldn't > > understand no matter how > > much I reword it, or how much > > I dumb it down. > > > > > > I am of the opinion that he is strictly trolling for effect. Nobody could > possibly be as stupid and ignorant as he presents himself to be. Sometimes I think that and sometimes I think he is trying to convince himself of the crazy things he says. It all makes me wonder how people who have to interact with him in real life put up with him. > Why anyone, in their right mind, would want to do such, I simply can't > imagine. > > Well, I've put him in my killfile, 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. > He, simply, isn't worth the effort. > > 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. Refusing > to give to them any of the direct attention that they obviously desire can > frustrate them to the point where they will leave. I'm not going to bet on > it, however, since he appears to be dumber than the average troll and, as > long as *anybody* responds to him, it will only encourage him. If > *everybody* would ignore him, it would allow for 'intelligent' > conversations to go on. The only trouble with that is the myths he perpetuates. It often makes me want to jump in and correct him. I'm going to go on ignore mode and join in on that for the most part, but I might not be able to help myself on some occasions. :) -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ |
Scented Nectar wrote: > "David Wright Sr." > wrote in message > ... > >>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in news:lZadnfPLM6pEGHvfRVn- : >> >> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message groups.com... >>> >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>> >>>>>Get a life >>>> >>>>You are unoriginal, trite, stale. >>>> >>>>You also are delusional: you cannot rationally believe that it is >>>>"mostly" wrong to kill animals. >>> >>>I think I've explained it to you >>>dozens of times, in dozens of >>>ways. I give up. You wouldn't >>>understand no matter how >>>much I reword it, or how much >>>I dumb it down. >>> >>> >> >>I am of the opinion that he is strictly trolling for effect. Nobody could >>possibly be as stupid and ignorant as he presents himself to be. > > > Sometimes I think that and > sometimes I think he is trying > to convince himself of the > crazy things he says. It all > makes me wonder how > people who have to interact > with him in real life put up > with him. > > >>Why anyone, in their right mind, would want to do such, I simply can't >>imagine. >> >>Well, I've put him in my killfile, 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. >>He, simply, isn't worth the effort. >> >>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. > > Refusing > >>to give to them any of the direct attention that they obviously desire can >>frustrate them to the point where they will leave. I'm not going to bet on >>it, however, since he appears to be dumber than the average troll and, as >>long as *anybody* responds to him, it will only encourage him. If >>*everybody* would ignore him, it would allow for 'intelligent' >>conversations to go on. > > > The only trouble with that is the > myths he perpetuates. It often > makes me want to jump in and > correct him. I'm going to go on > ignore mode and join in on that > for the most part, but I might not > be able to help myself on some > occasions. :) > > I haven't followed his postings to a great extent. I'll judege for myself. If he's anti-vegan, ("drink a glass of milk") he should leave. Bob |
"Beach Runner" > wrote in message . .. > > > Scented Nectar wrote: > >> "David Wright Sr." > wrote in message >> ... >> >>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in >>>news:lZadnfPLM6pEGHvfRVn- : >>> >>> >>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message egroups.com... >>>> >>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Get a life >>>>> >>>>>You are unoriginal, trite, stale. >>>>> >>>>>You also are delusional: you cannot rationally believe that it is >>>>>"mostly" wrong to kill animals. >>>> >>>>I think I've explained it to you >>>>dozens of times, in dozens of >>>>ways. I give up. You wouldn't >>>>understand no matter how >>>>much I reword it, or how much >>>>I dumb it down. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>I am of the opinion that he is strictly trolling for effect. Nobody could >>>possibly be as stupid and ignorant as he presents himself to be. >> >> >> Sometimes I think that and >> sometimes I think he is trying >> to convince himself of the >> crazy things he says. It all >> makes me wonder how >> people who have to interact >> with him in real life put up >> with him. >> >> >>>Why anyone, in their right mind, would want to do such, I simply can't >>>imagine. >>> >>>Well, I've put him in my killfile, 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. >>>He, simply, isn't worth the effort. >>> >>>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. >> >> Refusing >> >>>to give to them any of the direct attention that they obviously desire >>>can >>>frustrate them to the point where they will leave. I'm not going to bet >>>on >>>it, however, since he appears to be dumber than the average troll and, as >>>long as *anybody* responds to him, it will only encourage him. If >>>*everybody* would ignore him, it would allow for 'intelligent' >>>conversations to go on. >> >> >> The only trouble with that is the >> myths he perpetuates. It often >> makes me want to jump in and >> correct him. I'm going to go on >> ignore mode and join in on that >> for the most part, but I might not >> be able to help myself on some >> occasions. :) >> >> > > I haven't followed his postings to a great extent. I'll judege for > myself. If he's anti-vegan, ("drink a glass of milk") he should leave. > > Bob I swear you ****ing people are making me doubt the theory of evolution. |
|
"Dutch" > wrote in :
(snip) > I swear you ****ing people are making me doubt > the theory of evolution. > Well, in Rudy's case, you might actually be right. David W. -- The map is not the territory. A word is not the object that it refers to. A. Korzybski, _Science & Sanity_ (1933) |
David Wright Sr. wrote:
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in news:QOmdnZlYOaBrjnrfRVn- > : > > (snip) > > >>The only trouble with that is the >>myths he perpetuates. It often >>makes me want to jump in and >>correct him. > > > I wouldn't worry too much about what he 'perpetuates'. I should think by > now that anyone with any intelligence whatsoever should have seen that he > is totally incapable of any level of reasoning and is totally out of touch > with reality. > > >>I'm going to go on >>ignore mode and join in on that >>for the most part, but I might not >>be able to help myself on some >>occasions. :) >> > > > Yes, ignore him. You mean the way you're not, Davey? |
David Wright Sr. wrote: > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in news:lZadnfPLM6pEGHvfRVn- > : > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > ups.com... > >> Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > Get a life > >> > >> You are unoriginal, trite, stale. > >> > >> You also are delusional: you cannot rationally believe that it is > >> "mostly" wrong to kill animals. > > > > I think I've explained it to you > > dozens of times, in dozens of > > ways. I give up. You wouldn't > > understand no matter how > > much I reword it, or how much > > I dumb it down. > > > > > > I am of the opinion that he is strictly trolling for effect. Nobody could > possibly be as stupid and ignorant as he presents himself to be. Liars eventually come to believe their own lies after they've told them enough times. They will progress to the stage where the instant they think of a lie to tell it becomes truth to them. *Now* you know what makes ~jonnie~ tick. > > Why anyone, in their right mind, would want to do such, I simply can't > imagine. > > Well, I've put him in my killfile, 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. > He, simply, isn't worth the effort. > > 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. Refusing > to give to them any of the direct attention that they obviously desire can > frustrate them to the point where they will leave. I'm not going to bet on > it, however, since he appears to be dumber than the average troll and, as > long as *anybody* responds to him, it will only encourage him. If > *everybody* would ignore him, it would allow for 'intelligent' > conversations to go on. > > 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) |
Rudy Canoza wrote: > David Wright Sr. wrote: > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in news:lZadnfPLM6pEGHvfRVn- > > : > > > > > >>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > roups.com... > >> > >>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>> > >>>>Get a life > >>> > >>>You are unoriginal, trite, stale. > >>> > >>>You also are delusional: you cannot rationally believe that it is > >>>"mostly" wrong to kill animals. > >> > >>I think I've explained it to you > >>dozens of times, in dozens of > >>ways. I give up. You wouldn't > >>understand no matter how > >>much I reword it, or how much > >>I dumb it down. > >> > >> > > > > > > I am of the opinion that he is strictly trolling for effect. Nobody could > > possibly be as stupid and ignorant as he presents himself to be. > > > > Why anyone, in their right mind, would want to do such, I simply can't > > imagine. > > > > Well, I've put him in my killfile, 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. > > He, simply, isn't worth the effort. > > > > 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. Refusing > > to give to them any of the direct attention that they obviously desire can > > frustrate them to the point where they will leave. I'm not going to bet on > > it, however, since he appears to be dumber than the average troll and, as > > long as *anybody* responds to him, it will only encourage him. If > > *everybody* would ignore him, it would allow for 'intelligent' > > conversations to go on. > > Davey - you had your hat handeded to you. You affected > a great pretense of knowing something about the study > of cognition and emotion in animals, but when asked how > you know animals can experience disappointment, you > said in effect, "I know it because I know it." > > Now get out of here, you doddering fool. Go drink a > glass of warm milk and shut up. Stupid little bunghole sniffer. YOU are the one who claimed animals can't anticipate then turned right around and claim their anticipation is different. I guess if I'd let it slide and left you to your own devices for another couple of days you would have eventually ended up arguing in favor of animal capacity for anticipation. You were *that* close ~jonnie~. Poor little goob. |
Ron wrote:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote: > >>David Wright Sr. wrote: >> >>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in news:lZadnfPLM6pEGHvfRVn- : >>> >>> >>> >>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message egroups.com... >>>> >>>> >>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Get a life >>>>> >>>>>You are unoriginal, trite, stale. >>>>> >>>>>You also are delusional: you cannot rationally believe that it is >>>>>"mostly" wrong to kill animals. >>>> >>>>I think I've explained it to you >>>>dozens of times, in dozens of >>>>ways. I give up. You wouldn't >>>>understand no matter how >>>>much I reword it, or how much >>>>I dumb it down. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>I am of the opinion that he is strictly trolling for effect. Nobody could >>>possibly be as stupid and ignorant as he presents himself to be. >>> >>>Why anyone, in their right mind, would want to do such, I simply can't >>>imagine. >>> >>>Well, I've put him in my killfile, 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. >>>He, simply, isn't worth the effort. >>> >>>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. Refusing >>>to give to them any of the direct attention that they obviously desire can >>>frustrate them to the point where they will leave. I'm not going to bet on >>>it, however, since he appears to be dumber than the average troll and, as >>>long as *anybody* responds to him, it will only encourage him. If >>>*everybody* would ignore him, it would allow for 'intelligent' >>>conversations to go on. >> >>Davey - you had your hat handeded to you. You affected >>a great pretense of knowing something about the study >>of cognition and emotion in animals, but when asked how >>you know animals can experience disappointment, you >>said in effect, "I know it because I know it." >> >>Now get out of here, you doddering fool. Go drink a >>glass of warm milk and shut up. > > > > Stupid little bunghole sniffer. You're a ****, Ronnie. A gutless, skinny, limp-wristed ****. No punch in a little pederast like you at all. > YOU are the one who claimed animals can't anticipate They can't. |
"David Wright Sr." > wrote > "Dutch" > wrote > > (snip) > >> I swear you ****ing people are making me doubt >> the theory of evolution. >> > Well, in Rudy's case, you might actually be right. Instead of resorting to all this silly diversion why don't you attempt to support your contentions? I realize that requires more effort, but it would be a much more useful exercise. |
Dutch wrote:
> "David Wright Sr." > wrote > >>"Dutch" > wrote >> >>(snip) >> >> >>>I swear you ****ing people are making me doubt >>>the theory of evolution. >>> >> >>Well, in Rudy's case, you might actually be right. > > > Instead of resorting to all this silly diversion why don't you > attempt to support your contentions? I realize that requires > more effort, but it would be a much more useful exercise. He knows he *can't* support it, that's why. He says he knows that animals can experience disappointment because he claims to have seen it. That is an unsupportable claim, and the stupid fat **** knows it. |
Rudy Canoza wrote: > Ron wrote: > > > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > >>David Wright Sr. wrote: > >> > >>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in news:lZadnfPLM6pEGHvfRVn- > : > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > egroups.com... > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>Get a life > >>>>> > >>>>>You are unoriginal, trite, stale. > >>>>> > >>>>>You also are delusional: you cannot rationally believe that it is > >>>>>"mostly" wrong to kill animals. > >>>> > >>>>I think I've explained it to you > >>>>dozens of times, in dozens of > >>>>ways. I give up. You wouldn't > >>>>understand no matter how > >>>>much I reword it, or how much > >>>>I dumb it down. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>I am of the opinion that he is strictly trolling for effect. Nobody could > >>>possibly be as stupid and ignorant as he presents himself to be. > >>> > >>>Why anyone, in their right mind, would want to do such, I simply can't > >>>imagine. > >>> > >>>Well, I've put him in my killfile, 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. > >>>He, simply, isn't worth the effort. > >>> > >>>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. Refusing > >>>to give to them any of the direct attention that they obviously desire can > >>>frustrate them to the point where they will leave. I'm not going to bet on > >>>it, however, since he appears to be dumber than the average troll and, as > >>>long as *anybody* responds to him, it will only encourage him. If > >>>*everybody* would ignore him, it would allow for 'intelligent' > >>>conversations to go on. > >> > >>Davey - you had your hat handeded to you. You affected > >>a great pretense of knowing something about the study > >>of cognition and emotion in animals, but when asked how > >>you know animals can experience disappointment, you > >>said in effect, "I know it because I know it." > >> > >>Now get out of here, you doddering fool. Go drink a > >>glass of warm milk and shut up. > > > > > > > > Stupid little bunghole sniffer. > > You're a ****, Ronnie. A gutless, skinny, limp-wristed > ****. No punch in a little pederast like you at all. > <snicker> more than enough to make you foam at the mouth and fall off your chair in a fit. > > > YOU are the one who claimed animals can't anticipate > > They can't. Then why did you say their anticipation was different? |
Rudy Canoza wrote: > Dutch wrote: > > > "David Wright Sr." > wrote > > > >>"Dutch" > wrote > >> > >>(snip) > >> > >> > >>>I swear you ****ing people are making me doubt > >>>the theory of evolution. > >>> > >> > >>Well, in Rudy's case, you might actually be right. > > > > > > Instead of resorting to all this silly diversion why don't you > > attempt to support your contentions? I realize that requires > > more effort, but it would be a much more useful exercise. > > He knows he *can't* support it, that's why. He says he > knows that animals can experience disappointment > because he claims to have seen it. That is an > unsupportable claim, and the stupid fat **** knows it. why not bugger off back to misc.rural Goober? You seemed to be having a helluva good time swearing and screaming about DST and cows. To listen to you, DST is the worst thing that ever happened to cows. Worse than BSE, worse than hoof and mouth......just the worst ever. |
Rudy Canoza wrote: > Ron wrote: > >> >> Rudy Canoza wrote: >> >>> David Wright Sr. wrote: >>> >>>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in >>>> news:lZadnfPLM6pEGHvfRVn- >>>> : >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message >>>>> ups.com... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Get a life >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You are unoriginal, trite, stale. >>>>>> >>>>>> You also are delusional: you cannot rationally believe that it is >>>>>> "mostly" wrong to kill animals. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think I've explained it to you >>>>> dozens of times, in dozens of >>>>> ways. I give up. You wouldn't >>>>> understand no matter how >>>>> much I reword it, or how much >>>>> I dumb it down. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am of the opinion that he is strictly trolling for effect. Nobody >>>> could >>>> possibly be as stupid and ignorant as he presents himself to be. >>>> >>>> Why anyone, in their right mind, would want to do such, I simply can't >>>> imagine. >>>> >>>> Well, I've put him in my killfile, 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. >>>> He, simply, isn't worth the effort. >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> Refusing >>>> to give to them any of the direct attention that they obviously >>>> desire can >>>> frustrate them to the point where they will leave. I'm not going to >>>> bet on >>>> it, however, since he appears to be dumber than the average troll >>>> and, as >>>> long as *anybody* responds to him, it will only encourage him. If >>>> *everybody* would ignore him, it would allow for 'intelligent' >>>> conversations to go on. >>> >>> >>> Davey - you had your hat handeded to you. You affected >>> a great pretense of knowing something about the study >>> of cognition and emotion in animals, but when asked how >>> you know animals can experience disappointment, you >>> said in effect, "I know it because I know it." >>> >>> Now get out of here, you doddering fool. Go drink a >>> glass of warm milk and shut up. >> >> >> >> >> Stupid little bunghole sniffer. > > > You're a ****, Ronnie. A gutless, skinny, limp-wristed ****. No punch > in a little pederast like you at all. > > >> YOU are the one who claimed animals can't anticipate Recent research showed that even Chickens can predict the future based on testing. I also showed certains birds can understand the concept of zero, a very abstract thought. Animals can be much smarter, and not as different from people as some though. > > > They can't. |
Beach Runner 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: Abeyesinghe, a member of the Biophysics Group at the UK's Silsoe Research Institute, and her colleagues tested hens with coloured buttons. When the birds pecked on one of the buttons, they received a food reward. If the chicken waited 2 to 3 seconds, it received a small amount of food. If the bird held out for 22 seconds, it received a "jackpot" that paid out with much more to eat. http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1415178.htm This tells us a lot more about progressive conditioning than it does about what animals actually think (if they think of anything). As usual, you've distorted the truth. |
usual suspect wrote: > Beach Runner 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: > > Abeyesinghe, a member of the Biophysics Group at the UK's Silsoe > Research Institute, and her colleagues tested hens with coloured > buttons. > > When the birds pecked on one of the buttons, they received a > food reward. > > If the chicken waited 2 to 3 seconds, it received a small amount > of food. If the bird held out for 22 seconds, it received a > "jackpot" that paid out with much more to eat. > http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1415178.htm > > This tells us a lot more about progressive conditioning than it does > about what animals actually think (if they think of anything). > > As usual, you've distorted the truth. You feel a big difference between behavior based on future consequences (learning) and thinking? Where does that take place. You're just a troll. |
Found scrawled in the outhouse on Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:08:14 -0700, "Dutch" >
wrote: > >"David Wright Sr." > wrote >> "Dutch" > wrote >> >> (snip) >> >>> I swear you ****ing people are making me doubt >>> the theory of evolution. >>> >> Well, in Rudy's case, you might actually be right. > >Instead of resorting to all this silly diversion why don't you >attempt to support your contentions? I realize that requires >more effort, but it would be a much more useful exercise. > I agree. There has been a little too much rending of flesh here, and it seems to be coming from the vegans! Start a thread...or finish one. Cheers 2 U, Leslie "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the former.".... Albert Einstein |
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:07:45 +0000 (UTC), "David Wright Sr." > wrote:
>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in news:lZadnfPLM6pEGHvfRVn- : > >> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message >> ups.com... >>> Scented Nectar wrote: >>> > Get a life >>> >>> You are unoriginal, trite, stale. >>> >>> You also are delusional: you cannot rationally believe that it is >>> "mostly" wrong to kill animals. >> >> I think I've explained it to you >> dozens of times, in dozens of >> ways. I give up. You wouldn't >> understand no matter how >> much I reword it, or how much >> I dumb it down. >> >> > >I am of the opinion that he is strictly trolling for effect. Nobody could >possibly be as stupid and ignorant as he presents himself to be. It does seem to me that no one who can function in ngs could be as stupid as Goo claims to be. He proclaims his stupidity by what he claims to think, though he also claims to be intelligent as he spews his retarded crap. >Why That's what I've been asking for years. The only thing that makes sense to me, from the experience I've had with him, is that he's a dishonest "ARA" who is trying to present himself--though *extremely!!!* badly--as an "AR" opponent. By doing so, one of his objectives is to give the impression that "AR" opponents are stupid, dishonest, childish, completely inconsiderate of humans and other animals, and as un-observant as it's possible to be, by his own examples. >anyone, in their right mind, would want to do such, I simply can't >imagine. 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. Another is that Goo, Dutch, Derek and whoever else are trying to see how many lies they can tell, and how dishonest they can be, and still get people to believe them. |
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, 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. 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. |
usual suspect wrote: > Beach Runner 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 Useless is saying chickens anticiptate. What the hell is the argument about!!? Bumwad ~jonnie~ conceded that animals anticipate and now Useless agrees. > Abeyesinghe, a member of the Biophysics Group at the UK's Silsoe > Research Institute, and her colleagues tested hens with coloured > buttons. > > When the birds pecked on one of the buttons, they received a > food reward. > > If the chicken waited 2 to 3 seconds, it received a small amount > of food. If the bird held out for 22 seconds, it received a > "jackpot" that paid out with much more to eat. > http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1415178.htm > > This tells us a lot more about progressive conditioning than it does > about what animals actually think (if they think of anything). > > As usual, you've distorted the truth. |
Beach Runner 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: >> >> Abeyesinghe, a member of the Biophysics Group at the UK's Silsoe >> Research Institute, and her colleagues tested hens with coloured >> buttons. >> >> When the birds pecked on one of the buttons, they received a >> food reward. >> >> If the chicken waited 2 to 3 seconds, it received a small amount >> of food. If the bird held out for 22 seconds, it received a >> "jackpot" that paid out with much more to eat. >> http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1415178.htm >> >> This tells us a lot more about progressive conditioning than it does >> about what animals actually think (if they think of anything). >> >> As usual, you've distorted the truth. > > > You feel No, I *think*. That's the difference between us, Bobby. > a big difference between behavior based on future consequences > (learning) and thinking? First, I object that what the study saw measured "learning" at all. I think it measured conditioning. The fact that poultry eventually discriminate between hurrying for a little or waiting to get more tells me that they've been conditioned, not that they think. > You're just a troll. You're a fat, old buffoon. |
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. |
usual suspect > wrote in news:QvrGe.46270$gL1.3860
@tornado.texas.rr.com: (snip) > First, I object that what the study saw measured "learning" at all. I > think it measured conditioning. The fact that poultry eventually > discriminate between hurrying for a little or waiting to get more tells > me that they've been conditioned, not that they think. > Can you give us precise definitions for 'thinking' and 'conditioning' such they are clearly and indisputably mutually contradictory? Are you not arguing from the a priori viewpoint that 'animals can't think' therefore anything they do which appears to be 'thinking' is merely 'conditioning'. David Wright Sr. |
David Wright Sr. wrote:
> (snip) > >>First, I object that what the study saw measured "learning" at all. I >>think it measured conditioning. The fact that poultry eventually >>discriminate between hurrying for a little or waiting to get more tells >>me that they've been conditioned, not that they think. > > Can you give us precise definitions for 'thinking' and 'conditioning' such > they are clearly and indisputably mutually contradictory? Conditioning: http://www.animalbehavioronline.com/conditioning.html Thinking involves the capacity to *reason*. I'm not convinced from the reports about that particular study that a chicken or any other animal which knows it gets more food if it waits REASONS that it should wait for it rather than take less food sooner. <...> |
usual suspect > wrote in
: > David Wright Sr. wrote: >> (snip) >> >>>First, I object that what the study saw measured "learning" at all. I >>>think it measured conditioning. The fact that poultry eventually >>>discriminate between hurrying for a little or waiting to get more tells >>> me that they've been conditioned, not that they think. >> >> Can you give us precise definitions for 'thinking' and 'conditioning' >> such they are clearly and indisputably mutually contradictory? > > Conditioning: http://www.animalbehavioronline.com/conditioning.html I suggest that you read the rest of the papers on your reference website, before using this particular part to influence your thinking. > > Thinking involves the capacity to *reason*. I'm not convinced from the > reports about that particular study that a chicken or any other animal > which knows it gets more food if it waits REASONS that it should wait > for it rather than take less food sooner. > > <...> > First: see my comment above. Second: substituting 'reason' for 'thinking' is not a valid definition since 'reasoning' requires definition itself. David Wright Sr. |
"David Wright Sr." > wrote in
: (snip) > I suggest that you read the rest of the papers on your reference website, > before using this particular part to influence your thinking. > From: http://www.animalbehavioronline.com/14.html "Studies of animal behavior now make it clear that these barriers are artificial and that at least some animals display tool use, symbolic language, culture and cognition." David Wright Sr. |
David Wright Sr. wrote:
> (snip) > > >>I suggest that you read the rest of the papers on your reference website, >>before using this particular part to influence your thinking. > > From: http://www.animalbehavioronline.com/14.html > > "Studies of animal behavior now make it clear that these barriers are > artificial and that at least some animals display tool use, symbolic > language, culture and cognition." "At least some animals" meaning what? Chickens, as in the study we're discussing? When was the last time you saw a rooster using tools or symbolism? And how do you distinguish between "chicken culture" and anthropormorphic projections? > David Wright Sr. Shit, you reproduced. Is your offspring as slow as you are? |
usual suspect > wrote in news:hitGe.46340$gL1.32344
@tornado.texas.rr.com: (snip) >> "Studies of animal behavior now make it clear that these barriers are >> artificial and that at least some animals display tool use, symbolic >> language, culture and cognition." > > "At least some animals" meaning what? Chickens, as in the study we're > discussing? When was the last time you saw a rooster using tools or > symbolism? And how do you distinguish between "chicken culture" and > anthropormorphic projections? Hey, don't argue with me, it is *your* reference, the same website that you gave for your 'conditioning' reply. Like your clone, Rudy, you apparently refuse to pay any attention to anything which goes against your pre-conceived notions and pick and choose what you like. You have earned your place alongside Rudy in my kill-file. David Wright Sr. |
David Wright Sr. wrote:
> (snip) > > >>>"Studies of animal behavior now make it clear that these barriers are >>>artificial and that at least some animals display tool use, symbolic >>>language, culture and cognition." >> >>"At least some animals" meaning what? Chickens, as in the study we're >>discussing? When was the last time you saw a rooster using tools or >>symbolism? And how do you distinguish between "chicken culture" and >>anthropormorphic projections? > > > Hey, Answer the ****ing questions and stop changing the subject. |
usual suspect wrote: > David Wright Sr. wrote: > > (snip) > > > > > >>>"Studies of animal behavior now make it clear that these barriers are > >>>artificial and that at least some animals display tool use, symbolic > >>>language, culture and cognition." > >> > >>"At least some animals" meaning what? Chickens, as in the study we're > >>discussing? When was the last time you saw a rooster using tools or > >>symbolism? And how do you distinguish between "chicken culture" and > >>anthropormorphic projections? > > > > > > Hey, > > Answer the ****ing questions and stop changing the subject. Shut up ~jonnie~/Rudy/goober. |
"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? |
"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 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. 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) |
I agree that we often refuse to recognize evidence of the
sophistication of animal thought. S.F. Sapontzis in his _Morals, Reason, and Animals_ (1987) presents some very interesting discussion of the premise that some animals are even moral agents -- not at the level of normal, adult humans, but moral agents nonetheless in a more limited way. Have you seen his arguments, and/or do you have any comment? |
Meadowlark > wrote in :
> I agree that we often refuse to recognize evidence of the > sophistication of animal thought. S.F. Sapontzis in his > _Morals, Reason, and Animals_ (1987) presents some very > interesting discussion of the premise that some animals are > even moral agents -- not at the level of normal, adult humans, > but moral agents nonetheless in a more limited way. Have you > seen his arguments, and/or do you have any comment? > Sorry, I haven't seen them, but I will be looking to see what I can find. Thanks. David Wright Sr. -- http://home.alltel.net/dwrighsr/index.html |
Dutch wrote:
>>You have earned your place alongside Rudy in my kill-file. > > What's the point in filtering out everyone you disagree with? He's like at least two of the "see no evil, hear no evil..." monkeys: http://tinyurl.com/8vzav |
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 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. |
Meadowlark wrote:
> I agree that we often refuse to recognize evidence of the > sophistication of animal thought. S.F. Sapontzis in his > _Morals, Reason, and Animals_ (1987) presents some very > interesting discussion of the premise that some animals are > even moral agents -- not at the level of normal, adult humans, > but moral agents nonetheless in a more limited way. Have you > seen his arguments, and/or do you have any comment? Hello, Karen. How's Sylvia? |
David Wright Sr. wrote:
> Meadowlark > wrote in : >>I agree that we often refuse to recognize evidence of the >>sophistication of animal thought. S.F. Sapontzis in his >>_Morals, Reason, and Animals_ (1987) presents some very >>interesting discussion of the premise that some animals are >>even moral agents -- not at the level of normal, adult humans, >>but moral agents nonetheless in a more limited way. Have you >>seen his arguments, and/or do you have any comment? > Sorry, I haven't seen them, but I will be looking to see what I can find. > Thanks. 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. Would you care to give some background on your own approach to animal rights? You sound educated and intelligent, and capable of real discussion. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter