Elmo wrote:

said (on or about) 07/01/2005 14:31:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 04:49:10 GMT, Goo wrote:


No dog has any sense of anticipation longer than a
couple of seconds.



Can you back up that absurd sounding claim?


I don't know about anticipation but it's my experience that dog's have
very little sense of time.

They have virtually ZERO sense of time.

"No dog knows that there have been dogs before him, and
there will be dogs after him." - Kenneth Boulding


Mo no dog knows that its mother once was young. No
dog anticipates death.


If I walk up to the mailbox and back (less
than 5 minutes) I get the same greeting as I do when I've been away all
day. So for a dog, anything more than a few minutes is roughly
equivalent to "forever".

dh@. wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 19:38:02 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


****wit David Harrison wrote:


On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 04:49:10 GMT, Goo wrote:



No dog has any sense of anticipation longer than a
couple of seconds.


Can you back up that absurd sounding claim?

Shut up, ****wit.


That's right, you can't.

I can, and have done.

Shut up, ****wit. You are an idiot when it comes to
animals.

dh@. wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 20:40:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


dh@. wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 07:53:22 -0400, Jim Elbrecht wrote:



On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 14:31:38 -0400, wrote:



On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 04:49:10 GMT, Goo wrote:



No dog has any sense of anticipation longer than a
couple of seconds.

Can you back up that absurd sounding claim?

If Goo comes back with a theory-- I'll dispute it with personal
experience.


Goo is short for Goobernicus.

Goo is your ****witted baby talk, an absolute disgrace for a forty-six year old (pseudo) man to use.


Okay Goo

Stop using baby talk, ****wit. Grow up.



your ****witted baby talk, an absolute disgrace
for a forty-six year old (pseudo) man to use.



It would be hilarious to see him
try to defend his beliefs, but he is most likely as afraid to try as
he is with a number of similar absurd sounding ideas that he
wants to promote. He also insists that animals are incapable
of feeling pride, and also disappointment.

Non human animals experience neither pride nor
disappointment. They don't have the mental ability to
feel either.


It has already been decided that pride and disappointment are
no more difficult to experience than anger

No, that has not been decided. You have emptily
asserted it.

Animals do not experience pride or disappointment. Period.


I used to keep my small-game hunting jacket in an upstairs closet.
When I was hunting that day I would take it out of the closet and
carry it downstairs. My rabbit dog would go nuts until we left the
house together, me wearing the jacket.

The jacket was a signal. Animals respond to signals.
Dr. Pavlov demonstrated that over 100 years ago.

That isn't the same thing as anticipation. If you tell
your dog today you're going to go rabbit hunting
tomorrow, the dog will stare at you stupidly.


That's a different thing Goo,

Stop using baby talk, ****wit.

It isn't a different thing. A human WILL anticipate
going rabbit hunting after being told he's going to be
taken rabbit hunting the next day.

Animals do not anticipate. Thanks for admitting it.


Now she was an exceptional dog- a mutt from a mostly beagle and mostly
black & tan- so I don't doubt that there are some dogs [just like some
people] that can't anticipate any more than a couple seconds. But
the *No dogs* claim is definitely wrong.

Jim


I feel quite certain that he would not only insist no dogs are able
to,

No dogs experience "anticipation".


So, you are "brave" enough to insist that much, but you are still
too cowardly to explain why you "think" a dog can experience
aniticipation for a somehow predetermined period of time, and then
later insist that no dogs experience it at all.

It isn't anticipating, in the sense you want to give
it, AT ALL. Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or
cattle, or any other animal you've ever encountered.

dh@. wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 10:22:12 +0100, Derek wrote:


On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 14:49:08 -0400, dh@. wrote:


I feel quite certain that he would not only insist
no dogs are able to, but that no animals at all are
capable of it

You're on record as claiming animals cannot
anticipate things,


That's a lie.


It's not a lie, ****wit. He has you by the short hairs.



even their own deaths, even
if those animals are witnessing the deaths of
others in their immediate vicinity;

"You might feel that they become afraid when
they see the pigs before them get killed, but that's
not the case either. I've seen pigs killed in front
of each other several times, and talked to other
people who have as well, and never have seen
or heard of an instance where a pig became
scared of its own slaughter after witnessing that
of another. In fact just the opposite...what I've
seen is them sniffing the dead pig, and drinking
its blood."
David Harrison May 3 2004 http://tinyurl.com/bzppt


That example, or whatever you think it was, in
no way addresses whether or not animals are capable
of anticipation.

It most certainly does! He just bashed your head in.
It shows YOU saying that pigs cannot anticipate their
own deaths.


But, seeing as you've now changed your mind
and accept the notion that animals can anticipate
things, why aren't you doing as earlier promised
and thinking "about the whole thing [killing
animals for food] in a different way"?

"My position is that they don't understand their
position. They don't know about death, they
don't know about meat, and they certainly
don't know they will be killed so humans can
eat them. If they did, I would think about the
whole thing in a different way"
David Harrison Mar 12 2001 http://tinyurl.com/bl2xa

"If the animals we raise for food knew the
situation they are in, it would change my way
of thinking about it a great deal."
David Harrison Sep 20 2003 http://tinyurl.com/b4lcs

According to you, animals can anticipate things,


Not things that they aren't aware of. Duh.

You don't know what they're aware of. They certainly
are aware of OTHERS of their kind being killed, right
before their eyes; so why wouldn't they anticipate that
it's going to happen to them?

Answer: because they cannot antitipate AT ALL. They
can respond to signals, but that's an unconscious
response. It is not anticipation. Anticipation is a
conscious response based on understanding.
Understanding of that sort requires language; a boy
cannot anticipate that his father is going to take him
hunting or to the baseball game unless he can
UNDERSTAND, linguistically and conceptually, what his
father has told him.

Disappointment occurs BECAUSE an an anticipation or
expectation wasn't met. Anticipation requires
langugage. Animals do not have language. It's that
simple. But it's far too complex for you, because you
are admittedly stupid.


which necessarily means they are aware of
their immediate situation.


That's a lie.

No.


Have you started
thinking about your diet on them differently, or
were you lying again?

****wit is always lying.

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 15:48:46 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 20:47:18 +0100, Derek wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 14:49:08 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 07:53:22 -0400, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 14:31:38 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 04:49:10 GMT, Goo wrote:

No dog has any sense of anticipation longer than a
couple of seconds.

Can you back up that absurd sounding claim?

If Goo comes back with a theory-- I'll dispute it with personal
experience.

Goo is short for Goobernicus.

You're so funny. You kill me every time.

It would be hilarious to see him
try to defend his beliefs, but he is most likely as afraid to try as
he is with a number of similar absurd sounding ideas that he
wants to promote. He also insists that animals are incapable
of feeling pride,

Then I take it you would have no objection to
the proposition that animals are capable of
rational thinking that in itself can recognise its
own value by inference alone.

You invent any stupid ass thing that you feel like

You're of the opinion that animals feel pride, I
didn't invent that. Ability to feel pride requires
the faculty of knowing "one's own proper
dignity or value; self-respect."

Well done, Dave,
although for the record I totally disagree with
any such proposition.

pride
n.
A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pride

Now you've acknowledged animals own dignity
and value,

That's a lie.

You've only just finished trying to ridicule others
for not believing animals can feel pride, which
necessarily means you believe animals can feel
it. That's an acknowledgement where animals
"own proper dignity or value; self-respect."

even to the point where they can
recognise it within themselves introspectively,
what justification do you have for taking this
dignity and value away from them by having
them farmed and slaughtered, simply for your
taste preferences? Does the concept of
dignity and inherent value mean that little to
you?

Whatever they may experience in that area, they
only experience due to their consumers.

Answer the questions, Harrison. I'm not interested
in reading your nonsense on animals getting to
experience life because we eat them, and nor will
I allow you to use it as a diversion.

pride
in.
A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pride

Now you've acknowledged animals own dignity
and value, even to the point where they can
recognise it within themselves introspectively,
what justification do you have for taking this
dignity and value away from them by having
them farmed and slaughtered, simply for your
taste preferences? Does the concept of
dignity and inherent value mean that little to
you?

and also disappointment.

Disappointment can only arise if one's
expectations are dashed, which necessarily
means a knowledge of the future and an
understanding of one's abilities. Do animals
have these capabilities?

They can anticipate some things and are aware of
some of their abiilities.

I was talking about an animals' lack of ability to
suffer disappointment in that instance, not
whether they can anticipate anything. But, now
you're of the opinion that animals can anticipate
things, why have you always hitherto maintained
that pigs aren't capable of anticipating their own
deaths, as in;

"You might feel that they become afraid when
they see the pigs before them get killed, but that's
not the case either. I've seen pigs killed in front
of each other several times, and talked to other
people who have as well, and never have seen
or heard of an instance where a pig became
scared of its own slaughter after witnessing that
of another. In fact just the opposite...what I've
seen is them sniffing the dead pig, and drinking
its blood."
David Harrison May 3 2004 http://tinyurl.com/bzppt

It's a level of ignorance
that is quite impressive. LOL...Darwin gives an excellent example
of his dog experiencing disappointment, and describes the dog's
expression of it and his change of behaviour as a result of it.

Darwin affirms the consequent when concluding
his dog can feel disappointment, simply by looking
into its face or observing its behaviour.

1) If the dog is disappointed, then he will do x, y, z.
2) He does x, y, z
therefore
3) the dog is disappointed.

Goo
quite amusingly insists that Darwin's observation is merely his own
projection of an emotion

He's right.

Darwin recognised disappointment in his dog

He projected a human emotion onto an animal
that cannot be disappointed. Animals cannot be
or feel disappointed.

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 15:50:01 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 10:22:12 +0100, Derek wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 14:49:08 -0400, dh@. wrote:

I feel quite certain that he would not only insist
no dogs are able to, but that no animals at all are
capable of it

You're on record as claiming animals cannot
anticipate things,

That's a lie.

The statement you made in May 2004 makes it
quite clear that, according to you, pigs cannot
anticipate things, even while other pigs in their
immediate vicinity are being killed. Read it again
below this line.

"You might feel that they become afraid when
they see the pigs before them get killed, but that's
not the case either. I've seen pigs killed in front
of each other several times, and talked to other
people who have as well, and never have seen
or heard of an instance where a pig became
scared of its own slaughter after witnessing that
of another. In fact just the opposite...what I've
seen is them sniffing the dead pig, and drinking
its blood."
David Harrison May 3 2004 http://tinyurl.com/bzppt

That example, or whatever you think it was, in
no way addresses whether or not animals are capable
of anticipation.

It proves quite conclusively that you don't believe
pigs can anticipate their own deaths, Harrison,
even while other pigs are being killed around them,
yet in this thread you try to claim that animals CAN
anticipate things, and ridicule others for not agreeing
with you.

But, seeing as you've now changed your mind
and accept the notion that animals can anticipate
things, why aren't you doing as earlier promised
and thinking "about the whole thing [killing
animals for food] in a different way"?

"My position is that they don't understand their
position. They don't know about death, they
don't know about meat, and they certainly
don't know they will be killed so humans can
eat them. If they did, I would think about the
whole thing in a different way"
David Harrison Mar 12 2001 http://tinyurl.com/bl2xa

"If the animals we raise for food knew the
situation they are in, it would change my way
of thinking about it a great deal."
David Harrison Sep 20 2003 http://tinyurl.com/b4lcs

According to you, animals can anticipate things,

Not things that they aren't aware of. Duh.

They are aware that other pigs are being killed
right in front of them, and if they can anticipate
things, as you claim, they would surely be able
to anticipate their own inevitable deaths in such
circumstances, if in fact your proposition has
any truth to it.

which necessarily means they are aware of
their immediate situation.

That's a lie.

How else can a being anticipate something if
not aware of its immediate situation?

Have you started
thinking about your diet on them differently, or
were you lying again?

I knew you'd try to avoid answering this, Harrison.
Being that you believe animals can anticipate
things, and being that you have clearly stated, "If
the animals we raise for food knew the situation
they are in, it would change my way of thinking
about it a great deal.", what efforts have you
made to change your diet from animals and onto
vegetables?

Rudy Canoza wrote:
Elmo wrote:

said (on or about) 07/01/2005 14:31:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 04:49:10 GMT, Goo wrote:


No dog has any sense of anticipation longer than a
couple of seconds.



Can you back up that absurd sounding claim?


I don't know about anticipation but it's my experience that dog's have
very little sense of time.

They have virtually ZERO sense of time.

"No dog knows that there have been dogs before him, and
there will be dogs after him." - Kenneth Boulding


Mo no dog knows that its mother once was young. No
dog anticipates death.



Sez ~jonnie~ the gerbil pumper.





If I walk up to the mailbox and back (less
than 5 minutes) I get the same greeting as I do when I've been away all
day. So for a dog, anything more than a few minutes is roughly
equivalent to "forever".

Please take rec.pets.dogs.health out of the crossposts


"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
Shut up, ****wit. You are an idiot when it comes to
animals.

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 19:31:45 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 08:55:29 -0700, Louis Boyd
wrote:

Elmo wrote:
said (on or about) 07/01/2005 14:31:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 04:49:10 GMT, Goo wrote:

No dog has any sense of anticipation longer than a
couple of seconds.

Can you back up that absurd sounding claim?

I don't know about anticipation but it's my experience that dog's have
very little sense of time. If I walk up to the mailbox and back (less
than 5 minutes) I get the same greeting as I do when I've been away all
day. So for a dog, anything more than a few minutes is roughly
equivalent to "forever".

For pet parrots the situation is different. If you return after a few
hours they'll greet you happily. If you've been gone several days
they'll typically bite you, perhaps for having been away so long. A few
hours later they're just as happy to see you as before.

But what does it matter. The concept of time is an artifact of human
civilization. What animal has any reason to care about time at all?
Sure, conditions change with time, but it's only present conditions most
animals have any reason to care about. Sure, some animals seem to
prepare for the future, but that doesn't really mean squirrels know that
it will snow eight months after nuts are plentiful. It only means the
squirrels which did for some reason decide to store more nuts than those
which didn't had a better survival rate.

Ants obviously aren't as intellegent as humans,

No, not when measured by HUMAN standards.

but there certainly are
a lot more of them on this planet. Does that mean they're more
successful and better adapted?

Maybe on the Ant IQ Test it does.
If we can judge them by our standards, why shouldn't they judge us by theirs?

The standards is what is important. If you want to go by population
size, apparently they have that, but then so does bacteria. Length
of time on the planet? Again... Ability to manipulate our environment?
That's where humans excel. That and the ability to store and share
information are the things which allow us to live as we do, imo. We
are certainly helpless pathetic creatures in many other areas, like our
ability to survive naked with no tools in almost any environment other
than those which we create.

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:21:07 +0100, Derek wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 15:50:01 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 10:22:12 +0100, Derek wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 14:49:08 -0400, dh@. wrote:

I feel quite certain that he would not only insist
no dogs are able to, but that no animals at all are
capable of it

You're on record as claiming animals cannot
anticipate things,

That's a lie.

The statement you made in May 2004 makes it
quite clear that, according to you, pigs cannot
anticipate things, even while other pigs in their
immediate vicinity are being killed. Read it again
below this line.

"You might feel that they become afraid when
they see the pigs before them get killed, but that's
not the case either. I've seen pigs killed in front
of each other several times, and talked to other
people who have as well, and never have seen
or heard of an instance where a pig became
scared of its own slaughter after witnessing that
of another. In fact just the opposite...what I've
seen is them sniffing the dead pig, and drinking
its blood."
David Harrison May 3 2004 http://tinyurl.com/bzppt

That example, or whatever you think it was, in
no way addresses whether or not animals are capable
of anticipation.

It proves quite conclusively that you don't believe
pigs can anticipate their own deaths,

They can't anticipate things which they are not
aware of, as I explained to you before.

Harrison,
even while other pigs are being killed around them,
yet in this thread you try to claim that animals CAN
anticipate things, and ridicule others for not agreeing
with you.

But, seeing as you've now changed your mind
and accept the notion that animals can anticipate
things, why aren't you doing as earlier promised
and thinking "about the whole thing [killing
animals for food] in a different way"?

"My position is that they don't understand their
position. They don't know about death, they
don't know about meat, and they certainly
don't know they will be killed so humans can
eat them. If they did, I would think about the
whole thing in a different way"
David Harrison Mar 12 2001 http://tinyurl.com/bl2xa

"If the animals we raise for food knew the
situation they are in, it would change my way
of thinking about it a great deal."
David Harrison Sep 20 2003 http://tinyurl.com/b4lcs

According to you, animals can anticipate things,

Not things that they aren't aware of. Duh.

They are aware that other pigs are being killed
right in front of them,

LOL! How do you think they know what death is, when it's
happening to their brother or son right in front of them? Well,
whatever way it is that you think they learn about it, you're
wrong. Just for amusement though, how do you think they
learn what death is, and/or to fear it?

and if they can anticipate
things, as you claim, they would surely be able
to anticipate their own inevitable deaths in such
circumstances,

...or to anticipate their own inevitable deaths, when they
don't even know what death is even as they drink the death
blood of their fellows?

if in fact your proposition has
any truth to it.

They can anticipate things which they learn about, but not
things that they don't.

which necessarily means they are aware of
their immediate situation.

That's a lie.

How else can a being anticipate something if
not aware of its immediate situation?

A pig can anticipate eating later, when in fact its true
situation is that a bullet in the brain will prevent it from
ever eating anything again. That's one example.

Have you started
thinking about your diet on them differently, or
were you lying again?

I knew you'd try to avoid answering this,

The answer is no, and should be so obviously so that
it's stupid to humor you by answering the stupid ****.

Harrison.
Being that you believe animals can anticipate
things, and being that you have clearly stated, "If
the animals we raise for food knew the situation
they are in, it would change my way of thinking
about it a great deal.",

But they don't, so my way of thinking has not been
changed a damn bit.

what efforts have you
made to change your diet from animals and onto
vegetables?

None of course, since I've no reason to.