wrote:

Leif Erikson wrote:

****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:

On Sat, 20 May 2006 22:20:12 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:

On Fri, 19 May 2006 18:29:17 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:

On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:23:54 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:

On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:48:08 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:

On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:21:27 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions

It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans. Duh!
It didn't work with me.

That was not the point

LOL...I mean: I can't believe that,

It's not a case of what you believe, the notion that pigs know they will
be
killed does not appear in the piece

How can someone speak for pig about something the pig could not
have a clue about, without creating a fantasy?

When he has the pig say, "spare me thy sophistry" he is not implying that
pigs talk or know what sophistry means,

He is creating a fantasy,

No, he is not, get a clue. There is NO fantasy in the essay

Then where did he get a pig

He didn't "get" any pig, ****wit. He wrote an essay, and as a matter
of literary style, he chose to write it as an allegory.

Salt thoroughly demolishes the idea that you are doing livestock
animals any "favor" or "good deed" or "benefit" by causing them to
live, ****wit. You are not doing any of that.


What he does is demolish the idea that you, or the pig, can have any
idea of whether you have done the aniimal a favor by causing it to
live. It is "a question unamenable to discourse." It is certainly left
as a possibility that you have done the animal a favor but there is no
basis for any claim that you have done so and even less for the claim
that you intended to do so.

The only possibility is if the animal "pre-existed".
Rational people don't believe in that.



So many of your Cartesian assumptions are similarly neither provable
nor knowable with any certainty. You criticize, rather bitterly, people
who make unwarranted assumptions by making unwaranted assumptions in
the opposite direction.

No human knows whether a dog anticiipates sunrise or whether a cat
knows this or that. But you arrogantly tell people that you know for
certain. You know nothing.

There's no reason to believe they anticipate sunrise or
anything else. One shouldn't believe in things that
aren't supported by evidence or sound theory.



Is there some utility for you in your fervent belief that animals don't
experience this or that, some episode of animal torture that you must
convince yourself caused no harm?

No. I'm just out to crush David Harrison, bka ****wit,
who wants to argue with "animal rights activists" while
clinging to his own bizarre mutant form of "ar"
himself. ****wit doesn't realize that he's actually
giving weight to the "aras'" arguments by trying to
impute human qualities to animals.

Please take rec.pets.cats.community out of the headers
when you foolishly respond to one of ****wit's posts.

Leif Erikson wrote:
wrote:

Leif Erikson wrote:

****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:

On Sat, 20 May 2006 22:20:12 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:

On Fri, 19 May 2006 18:29:17 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:

On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:23:54 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:

On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:48:08 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:

On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:21:27 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions

It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans. Duh!
It didn't work with me.

That was not the point

LOL...I mean: I can't believe that,

It's not a case of what you believe, the notion that pigs know they will
be
killed does not appear in the piece

How can someone speak for pig about something the pig could not
have a clue about, without creating a fantasy?

When he has the pig say, "spare me thy sophistry" he is not implying that
pigs talk or know what sophistry means,

He is creating a fantasy,

No, he is not, get a clue. There is NO fantasy in the essay

Then where did he get a pig

He didn't "get" any pig, ****wit. He wrote an essay, and as a matter
of literary style, he chose to write it as an allegory.

Salt thoroughly demolishes the idea that you are doing livestock
animals any "favor" or "good deed" or "benefit" by causing them to
live, ****wit. You are not doing any of that.


What he does is demolish the idea that you, or the pig, can have any
idea of whether you have done the aniimal a favor by causing it to
live. It is "a question unamenable to discourse." It is certainly left
as a possibility that you have done the animal a favor but there is no
basis for any claim that you have done so and even less for the claim
that you intended to do so.

The only possibility is if the animal "pre-existed".
Rational people don't believe in that.

The only way we would no whether we were doing the animal a favor by
causing it to exist, although I would bet against it, is to know what
non-existance is like. Since none of us do, it cannot be carried to a
yes or no answer, only to an indeterminate answer. Of course, this
negates the use of letting the animals exist as an excuse or mitigation
for killing them but it can't be stated as positively as you do without
knowledge that you cannot have.




So many of your Cartesian assumptions are similarly neither provable
nor knowable with any certainty. You criticize, rather bitterly, people
who make unwarranted assumptions by making unwaranted assumptions in
the opposite direction.

No human knows whether a dog anticiipates sunrise or whether a cat
knows this or that. But you arrogantly tell people that you know for
certain. You know nothing.

There's no reason to believe they anticipate sunrise or
anything else. One shouldn't believe in things that
aren't supported by evidence or sound theory.

So, believing that they DON'T anticipate the sunrise is also believing
in something not supported by evidence.



Is there some utility for you in your fervent belief that animals don't
experience this or that, some episode of animal torture that you must
convince yourself caused no harm?

No. I'm just out to crush David Harrison, bka ****wit,
who wants to argue with "animal rights activists" while
clinging to his own bizarre mutant form of "ar"
himself. ****wit doesn't realize that he's actually
giving weight to the "aras'" arguments by trying to
impute human qualities to animals.

Please take rec.pets.cats.community out of the headers
when you foolishly respond to one of ****wit's posts.

I think that I will stay out of your private arguments from now on.
Anyone capable of the amount of absolute certaintly that you both
possess, while neither of you knows anything at all, was going to bore
me eventually.

Will in New Haven

wrote:

Leif Erikson wrote:

wrote:


Leif Erikson wrote:


****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:


On Sat, 20 May 2006 22:20:12 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:



****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:


On Fri, 19 May 2006 18:29:17 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:



****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:


On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:23:54 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:



****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:


On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:48:08 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:



****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:


On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:21:27 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions

It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans. Duh!
It didn't work with me.

That was not the point

LOL...I mean: I can't believe that,

It's not a case of what you believe, the notion that pigs know they will
be
killed does not appear in the piece

How can someone speak for pig about something the pig could not
have a clue about, without creating a fantasy?

When he has the pig say, "spare me thy sophistry" he is not implying that
pigs talk or know what sophistry means,

He is creating a fantasy,

No, he is not, get a clue. There is NO fantasy in the essay

Then where did he get a pig

He didn't "get" any pig, ****wit. He wrote an essay, and as a matter
of literary style, he chose to write it as an allegory.

Salt thoroughly demolishes the idea that you are doing livestock
animals any "favor" or "good deed" or "benefit" by causing them to
live, ****wit. You are not doing any of that.


What he does is demolish the idea that you, or the pig, can have any
idea of whether you have done the aniimal a favor by causing it to
live. It is "a question unamenable to discourse." It is certainly left
as a possibility that you have done the animal a favor but there is no
basis for any claim that you have done so and even less for the claim
that you intended to do so.

The only possibility is if the animal "pre-existed".
Rational people don't believe in that.


The only way we would no whether we were doing the animal a favor by
causing it to exist, although I would bet against it, is to know what
non-existance is like.

Non-existence isn't "like" anything. There is no basis
for comparison. One can only compare states of existence.

The only way you could know if you're doing the animal
a favor is if a) there is some state of "pre-existence"
that occurs before material existence in our world, and
b) you had some knowledge of what that "pre-existence"
state was like. Salt's point is that since you don't
know if such a state exists, let alone what it is like,
you can never logically say that causing the animal to
exist is conferring a "benefit" on it.

Rational people don't believe in "pre-existence":
there's no evidence for it, and there's no theoretical
basis for believing in it. One might probabilistically
believe in something for which there is no (as yet)
evidence, but only if there's a well-developed theory
that predicts such a phenomenon.


Since none of us do, it cannot be carried to a
yes or no answer, only to an indeterminate answer.

Probabilistically, one can say there is no such thing
as the "pre-existence" state that would have to be, in
order for a hypothetical comparison.



Of course, this
negates the use of letting the animals exist as an excuse or mitigation
for killing them but it can't be stated as positively as you do without
knowledge that you cannot have.

In the absence of evidence or theory, I conclude there
is no such thing as a "pre-existence" existence; I
conclude that the entity we think of as "an animal"
does not exist until it is conceived. The sperm and
the egg exist as individual entities before the
conception of (what will become) an animal, but the
sperm and the egg are not experiential entities, and so
causing the animal to be conceived does not confer a
benefit either on it (because it didn't exist), nor on
the sperm or egg (because they're not experiential
entities.) I am on solid footing with this...and you
know it.


So many of your Cartesian assumptions are similarly neither provable
nor knowable with any certainty. You criticize, rather bitterly, people
who make unwarranted assumptions by making unwaranted assumptions in
the opposite direction.

No human knows whether a dog anticiipates sunrise or whether a cat
knows this or that. But you arrogantly tell people that you know for
certain. You know nothing.

There's no reason to believe they anticipate sunrise or
anything else. One shouldn't believe in things that
aren't supported by evidence or sound theory.


So, believing that they DON'T anticipate the sunrise is also believing
in something not supported by evidence.

No, it isn't. Go study some epistemology, then get
back to us, billy.


Is there some utility for you in your fervent belief that animals don't
experience this or that, some episode of animal torture that you must
convince yourself caused no harm?

No. I'm just out to crush David Harrison, bka ****wit,
who wants to argue with "animal rights activists" while
clinging to his own bizarre mutant form of "ar"
himself. ****wit doesn't realize that he's actually
giving weight to the "aras'" arguments by trying to
impute human qualities to animals.

Please take rec.pets.cats.community out of the headers
when you foolishly respond to one of ****wit's posts.


I think that I will stay out of your private arguments from now on.
Anyone capable of the amount of absolute certaintly that you both
possess, while neither of you knows anything at all,

****wit doesn't know anything. I know quite a lot,
based on good education and solid critical thinking
skills. ****wit is an uneducated goober cracker.

wrote in message ups.com...

Leif Erikson wrote:
....
when you foolishly respond to one of ****wit's posts.

I think that I will stay out of your private arguments from now on.
Anyone capable of the amount of absolute certaintly that you both
possess, while neither of you knows anything at all, was going to bore
me eventually.

Will in New Haven

"There once was a numbnut called JonnyBall,
Who knew f*** all about f*** all.
Though he tried hard to hide it,
And tried long to deny it..
The effort made him look more a fool. "
...
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html


On the other hand, this may be of interest to you..
http://www.red-ice.net/specialreport...luniverse.html

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 Goo wrote:

wrote:

Goo wrote:

****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:

On Sat, 20 May 2006 22:20:12 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:

On Fri, 19 May 2006 18:29:17 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:

On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:23:54 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:

On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:48:08 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:

On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:21:27 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions

It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans. Duh!
It didn't work with me.

That was not the point

LOL...I mean: I can't believe that,

It's not a case of what you believe, the notion that pigs know they will
be
killed does not appear in the piece

How can someone speak for pig about something the pig could not
have a clue about, without creating a fantasy?

When he has the pig say, "spare me thy sophistry" he is not implying that
pigs talk or know what sophistry means,

He is creating a fantasy,

No, he is not, get a clue. There is NO fantasy in the essay

Then where did he get a pig

He didn't "get" any pig, ****wit. He wrote an essay, and as a matter
of literary style, he chose to write it as an allegory.

Salt thoroughly demolishes the idea that you are doing livestock
animals any "favor" or "good deed" or "benefit" by causing them to
live, ****wit. You are not doing any of that.


What he does is demolish the idea that you, or the pig, can have any
idea of whether you have done the aniimal a favor by causing it to
live. It is "a question unamenable to discourse." It is certainly left
as a possibility that you have done the animal a favor but there is no
basis for any claim that you have done so and even less for the claim
that you intended to do so.

The only possibility is if the animal "pre-existed".
Rational people don't believe in that.
__________________________________________________ _______
"Either farm animals "exist" in some kind of pre-conceived,
pre-born state, or they do not." - Goo

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged.
Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare
improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
life we can detect, we cannot conclude that life is a
benefit to it." - Goo

"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was for the animals; one simply
cannot know." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Goober! How do you claim to now know, that which
you previously claimed "one simply cannot know"?
__________________________________________________ _______
"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo

"I *know* animals don't "benefit" from "getting to experience
life". . . They don't because they can't conceive of the idea
of "benefit"" - Goo

"Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit" to
them" - Goo

""Life" is not a benefit" - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 Leif Erikson helpfully wrote:


wrote:


Leif Erikson helpfully wrote:


****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:


On Sat, 20 May 2006 22:20:12 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:



****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:


On Fri, 19 May 2006 18:29:17 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:



****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:


On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:23:54 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:



****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:


On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:48:08 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:



****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:


On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:21:27 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions

It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans. Duh!
It didn't work with me.

That was not the point

LOL...I mean: I can't believe that,

It's not a case of what you believe, the notion that pigs know they will
be
killed does not appear in the piece

How can someone speak for pig about something the pig could not
have a clue about, without creating a fantasy?

When he has the pig say, "spare me thy sophistry" he is not implying that
pigs talk or know what sophistry means,

He is creating a fantasy,

No, he is not, get a clue. There is NO fantasy in the essay

Then where did he get a pig

He didn't "get" any pig, ****wit. He wrote an essay, and as a matter
of literary style, he chose to write it as an allegory.

Salt thoroughly demolishes the idea that you are doing livestock
animals any "favor" or "good deed" or "benefit" by causing them to
live, ****wit. You are not doing any of that.


What he does is demolish the idea that you, or the pig, can have any
idea of whether you have done the aniimal a favor by causing it to
live. It is "a question unamenable to discourse." It is certainly left
as a possibility that you have done the animal a favor but there is no
basis for any claim that you have done so and even less for the claim
that you intended to do so.

The only possibility is if the animal "pre-existed".
Rational people don't believe in that.

[snip goober cracker ****wit's absurd spew, except]

""Life" is not a benefit" - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯


That's a true statement, ****wit.

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 a defeated (by his own stupidity) Goober
wrote as he once again slinked away from his own ineptitude:

[snip

How do you claim to now know, that which you previously claimed
"one simply cannot know"? How Goo???