|
Food » alt.food.vegan » Ignoring Rudy
| Ignoring Rudy [message #112397] |
Di, 26 Juli 2005 21:07 |
|
"Scented Nectar" <me [at] scentednectar.com> wrote in news:lZadnfPLM6pEGHvfRVn-
jg [at] rogers.com:
> "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1122398399.733973.47500 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.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.
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)
|
|
|
| Re: Davey Trying Desperately to Ignore Rudy [message #112402 ] |
Di, 26 Juli 2005 21:45 |
|
David Wright Sr. wrote:
> "Scented Nectar" <me [at] scentednectar.com> wrote in news:lZadnfPLM6pEGHvfRVn-
> jg [at] rogers.com:
>
>
>>"Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1122398399.733973.47500 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.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.
|
|
|
| Re: Ignoring Rudy [message #112407 ] |
Mi, 27 Juli 2005 06:59 |
|
"David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr [at] alltel.net> wrote in message
news:Xns969F99E6EF023nokvamli [at] 213.155.197.138...
> "Scented Nectar" <me [at] scentednectar.com> wrote in news:lZadnfPLM6pEGHvfRVn-
> jg [at] rogers.com:
>
> > "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1122398399.733973.47500 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.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/
|
|
|
| Re: Ignoring Rudy [message #112408 ] |
Mi, 27 Juli 2005 08:23 |
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr [at] alltel.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns969F99E6EF023nokvamli [at] 213.155.197.138...
>
>>"Scented Nectar" <me [at] scentednectar.com> wrote in news:lZadnfPLM6pEGHvfRVn-
>>jg [at] rogers.com:
>>
>>
>>>"Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1122398399.733973.47500 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.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
|
|
|
| Re: Ignoring Rudy [message #112409 ] |
Mi, 27 Juli 2005 10:45 |
|
"Beach Runner" <bob [at] nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RLFFe.52408$mC.18511 [at] tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
>> "David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr [at] alltel.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns969F99E6EF023nokvamli [at] 213.155.197.138...
>>
>>>"Scented Nectar" <me [at] scentednectar.com> wrote in
>>>news:lZadnfPLM6pEGHvfRVn-
>>>jg [at] rogers.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1122398399.733973.47500 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.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 fucking people are making me doubt
the theory of evolution.
|
|
|
| Re: Ignoring Rudy [message #113473 ] |
Mi, 27 Juli 2005 12:23 |
|
"Scented Nectar" <me [at] scentednectar.com> wrote in news:QOmdnZlYOaBrjnrfRVn-
uw [at] rogers.com:
(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. Most trolls become increasingly infuriated when nobody
pays any attention to their childish tantrums and sometimes they give up,
but whether they do or not, at least, you have closed your ears to them. It
makes for a calmer mind.
David W.
--
There are two ways to slide easily through life: Namely, to believe
everything, or to doubt everything;
both ways save us from thinking.
Alfred Korzybski, _Manhood of Humanity_ (1921)
|
|
|
| Re: Ignoring Rudy [message #113474 ] |
Mi, 27 Juli 2005 12:26 |
|
"Dutch" <no [at] email.com> wrote in news:11eeie5iqie7u25 [at] news.supernews.com:
(snip)
> I swear you fucking 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)
|
|
|
| Re: Davey Wright Not Really Ignoring Rudy [message #113478 ] |
Mi, 27 Juli 2005 16:23 |
|
David Wright Sr. wrote:
> "Scented Nectar" <me [at] scentednectar.com> wrote in news:QOmdnZlYOaBrjnrfRVn-
> uw [at] rogers.com:
>
> (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?
|
|
|
| Re: Ignoring Rudy [message #113480 ] |
Mi, 27 Juli 2005 21:51 |
|
David Wright Sr. wrote:
> "Scented Nectar" <me [at] scentednectar.com> wrote in news:lZadnfPLM6pEGHvfRVn-
> jg [at] rogers.com:
>
> > "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1122398399.733973.47500 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.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)
|
|
|
| Re: Davey Trying Desperately to Ignore Rudy [message #113481 ] |
Mi, 27 Juli 2005 21:54 |
|
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> David Wright Sr. wrote:
> > "Scented Nectar" <me [at] scentednectar.com> wrote in news:lZadnfPLM6pEGHvfRVn-
> > jg [at] rogers.com:
> >
> >
> >>"Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1122398399.733973.47500 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.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.
|
|
|
| Re: Davey Trying Desperately to Ignore Rudy [message #113486 ] |
Mi, 27 Juli 2005 22:01 |
|
Ron wrote:
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>David Wright Sr. wrote:
>>
>>>"Scented Nectar" <me [at] scentednectar.com> wrote in news:lZadnfPLM6pEGHvfRVn-
>>>jg [at] rogers.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1122398399.733973.47500 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.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 twat, Ronnie. A gutless, skinny, limp-wristed
twat. No punch in a little pederast like you at all.
> YOU are the one who claimed animals can't anticipate
They can't.
|
|
|
| Re: Ignoring Rudy [message #113487 ] |
Mi, 27 Juli 2005 22:08 |
|
"David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr [at] alltel.net> wrote
> "Dutch" <no [at] email.com> wrote
>
> (snip)
>
>> I swear you fucking 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Ignoring Rudy [message #113488 ] |
Mi, 27 Juli 2005 22:12 |
|
Dutch wrote:
> "David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr [at] alltel.net> wrote
>
>>"Dutch" <no [at] email.com> wrote
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>
>>>I swear you fucking 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 fuck knows it.
|
|
|
| Re: Davey Trying Desperately to Ignore Rudy [message #113497 ] |
Do, 28 Juli 2005 13:42 |
|
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Ron wrote:
>
>>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>> David Wright Sr. wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Scented Nectar" <me [at] scentednectar.com> wrote in
>>>> news:lZadnfPLM6pEGHvfRVn-
>>>> jg [at] rogers.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1122398399.733973.47500 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.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 twat, Ronnie. A gutless, skinny, limp-wristed twat. 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Davey Trying Desperately to Ignore Rudy [message #113518 ] |
Do, 28 Juli 2005 16:57 |
|
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.
|
|
|
| Re: Davey Trying Desperately to Ignore Rudy [message #113531 ] |
Do, 28 Juli 2005 20:18 |
|
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.
|
|
|
| Re: Ignoring Rudy [message #113537 ] |
Do, 28 Juli 2005 23:41 |
|
Found scrawled in the outhouse on Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:08:14 -0700, "Dutch" <no [at] email.com>
wrote:
>
>"David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr [at] alltel.net> wrote
>> "Dutch" <no [at] email.com> wrote
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>> I swear you fucking 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
|
|
|
| Re: Ignoring Rudy [message #113540 ] |
Fr, 29 Juli 2005 01:27 |
|
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:07:45 +0000 (UTC), "David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr [at] alltel.net> wrote:
>"Scented Nectar" <me [at] scentednectar.com> wrote in news:lZadnfPLM6pEGHvfRVn-
>jg [at] rogers.com:
>
>> "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1122398399.733973.47500 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.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.
|
|
|
| Re: Ignoring Rudy [message #113544 ] |
Fr, 29 Juli 2005 02:26 |
|
dh [at] . wrote in news:qbqie1htc46r09lmsfutfl02ag7j3ps2ao [at] 4ax.com:
(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.
|
|
|
| Re: Davey Trying Desperately to Ignore Rudy [message #113546 ] |
Fr, 29 Juli 2005 02:36 |
|
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.
|
|
|
| Re: Davey Trying Desperately to Ignore Rudy [message #114480 ] |
Fr, 29 Juli 2005 17:00 |
|
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.
|
|
|
| Re: Davey Trying Desperately to Ignore Rudy [message #114482 ] |
Fr, 29 Juli 2005 17:07 |
|
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.
|
|
|
| Re: Davey Trying Desperately to Ignore Rudy [message #114483 ] |
Fr, 29 Juli 2005 17:09 |
|
usual suspect <support [at] our.troops> wrote in news:QvrGe.46270$gL1.3860
[at] 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Davey Trying Desperately to Ignore Rudy [message #114487 ] |
Fr, 29 Juli 2005 17:24 |
|
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.
<...>
|
|
|
| Re: Davey Trying Desperately to Ignore Rudy [message #114488 ] |
Fr, 29 Juli 2005 17:52 |
|
usual suspect <support [at] our.troops> wrote in
news:6TrGe.36629$X76.21902 [at] tornado.texas.rr.com:
> 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Davey Trying Desperately to Ignore Rudy [message #114489 ] |
Fr, 29 Juli 2005 17:59 |
|
"David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr [at] alltel.net> wrote in
news:Xns96A278DEAFEE8nokvamli [at] 213.155.197.138:
(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.
|
|
|
| Re: Davey Trying Desperately to Ignore Rudy [message #114491 ] |
Fr, 29 Juli 2005 19:02 |
|
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?
|
|
|
| Re: Davey Trying Desperately to Ignore Rudy [message #114505 ] |
Fr, 29 Juli 2005 19:44 |
|
usual suspect <support [at] our.troops> wrote in news:hitGe.46340$gL1.32344
[at] 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Davey Trying Desperately to Ignore Rudy [message #114506 ] |
Fr, 29 Juli 2005 19:46 |
|
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 fucking questions and stop changing the subject.
|
|
|
| Re: Davey Trying Desperately to Ignore Rudy [message #114511 ] |
Fr, 29 Juli 2005 19:58 |
|
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 fucking questions and stop changing the subject.
Shut up ~jonnie~/Rudy/goober.
|
|
|
| Re: Davey Trying Desperately to Ignore Rudy [message #114516 ] |
Fr, 29 Juli 2005 22:00 |
|
"David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr [at] alltel.net> wrote
> You have earned your place alongside Rudy in my kill-file.
What's the point in filtering out everyone you disagree with?
|
|
|
| Re: Davey Trying Desperately to Ignore Rudy [message #114519 ] |
Fr, 29 Juli 2005 22:12 |
|
"Dutch" <no [at] email.com> wrote in news:11el2mtqmvpioee [at] news.supernews.com:
>
> "David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr [at] alltel.net> 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)
|
|
|
| For David Wright -- opinion? [message #114521 ] |
Fr, 29 Juli 2005 22:46 |
|
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?
|
|
|
| Re: For David Wright -- opinion? [message #114531 ] |
Sa, 30 Juli 2005 01:10 |
|
Meadowlark <YoMama [at] nowhere.com> wrote in news:dce5lj$vi7$1 [at] reader2.nmix.net:
> 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
dwrighsr [at] alltel.net
|
|
|
| Re: Davey Trying Desperately to Ignore Rudy [message #114538 ] |
Sa, 30 Juli 2005 02:13 |
|
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
|
|
|
| Re: Davey Trying Desperately to Ignore Rudy [message #114539 ] |
Sa, 30 Juli 2005 02:15 |
|
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.
|
|
|
| Re: For David Wright -- opinion? [message #114545 ] |
Sa, 30 Juli 2005 02:43 |
|
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?
|
|
|
| Re: For David Wright -- opinion? [message #114546 ] |
Sa, 30 Juli 2005 03:17 |
|
David Wright Sr. wrote:
> Meadowlark <YoMama [at] nowhere.com> wrote in news:dce5lj$vi7$1 [at] reader2.nmix.net:
>>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.
|
|
|
| Re: For David Wright -- opinion? [message #114548 ] |
Sa, 30 Juli 2005 04:22 |
|
Meadowlark <YoMama [at] nowhere.com> wrote in news:dceli0$81q$1
[at] reader2.nmix.net:
(snip)
>
> Would you care to give some background on your own approach to
> animal rights? You sound educated and intelligent, and capable of
> real discussion.
>
I don't wish to mislead anyone. The fact that I believe that animals have
emotions and some degree of cognitive ability doesn't mean that I have any
approach to animal rights. I have very mixed ideas about that subject that
I don't really care to discuss in this, or any online, forum. I am not a
vegetarian or vegan. I came into this discussion because of cross-posting
to another group and felt that I had an obligation to try to offset at
least some of the nonsense being posted by Rudy.
Thank you. Please forgive me if I have unwittingly mislead you.
David Wright Sr.
|
|
|
| Re: For David Wright -- opinion? [message #114554 ] |
Sa, 30 Juli 2005 05:55 |
|
David Wright Sr. wrote:
> Meadowlark <YoMama [at] nowhere.com> wrote in news:dceli0$81q$1
> [at] reader2.nmix.net:
> (snip)
>>Would you care to give some background on your own approach to
>>animal rights? You sound educated and intelligent, and capable of
>>real discussion.
> I don't wish to mislead anyone. The fact that I believe that animals have
> emotions and some degree of cognitive ability doesn't mean that I have any
> approach to animal rights. I have very mixed ideas about that subject that
> I don't really care to discuss in this, or any online, forum. I am not a
> vegetarian or vegan. I came into this discussion because of cross-posting
> to another group and felt that I had an obligation to try to offset at
> least some of the nonsense being posted by Rudy.
> Thank you. Please forgive me if I have unwittingly mislead you.
Oh, no problem. I can understand your unwillingness to discuss
*anything* in a forum where Rudy (Jon) and Usual also post -- I
am in the same situation myself. It's hard to imagine that
anyone can still deny animals emotions and cognitive ability,
after all the scientific and empirical material which has
been published in the last twenty years or so. The argument that
some animals have what might be regarded as rudimentary ethical/
moral capacity is newer, but is moving into the mainstream with
recent articles in the popular press (_Newsweek_, IIRC). This
undercuts one of the foundations of Regan's theories, which makes
for an interesting controversy.
Quite outside animals rights _per se_, what is your opinion on
animals as (possible) moral agents in a limited sense? What
about the newer evidence that some parrots probably have the
cognitive ability of a four or five year old human child? That
chimpanzees may have some kind of an aesthetic sense? So much
new information is showing up that the old categories into which
this group has degenerated in recent years have become more and
more irrelevant. I'd like to see some more useful discussion.
However, if you are uncomfortable posting publicly on this
newsgroup, I can certainly understand. If so, I'll return to
Lurk mode. :)
> David Wright Sr.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Mo Sep 6 12:19:01 CEST 2010
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,13405 Sekunden |
