Fish do/don't anticipate things? (was: "ARAs" against Game chickens)

dh@. wrote:

When a human looks into a mirror they eventually realize it's their
reflection because as they move around, the image moves around the exact
same way. He will notice that if he wears a red sticker on his chest or
any other marking, the mirror image will show the same markings. The
image may only be two-dimensional and may not smell or feel like a
human, but an image does not need to be an *exact* duplicate of the
subject in order to be recognized by any creature that has the ability
to reason.


Explain why a dog would ever consider that it is looking at an image
of itself.

It's not done consciously or purposely, so there is no 'why'. I'll say
it again. If any creature has the ability to see, and has any concept of
'self', it would sooner or later sense that the image in the mirror
belongs to it and it would show a reaction i.e. if it sees a snack next
to its leg in the mirror image, it would then think to look for it by
its real leg and eat it.


I hope you can by now...it's urine, it's bone, it's territory, it's balls,
it's house, it's bowl, it's food, it's toy, it's leash...are you beginning
to see any relevant evidence that it may have some concept of
it's self?

Nope.


I do. Since we see that it's aware of its objects, we know that it
can be aware of objects. We know that it can recognise other
individuals, and distinguish between them. It has a mental concept
of objects and of individuals, both of which suggest it recognises
itself as an object and an individual, and other things suggest that
it even has a mental concept of what species it is.

There is a difference between something being an "object" and something
being a "subject". The subject is the perceiver (fish, dog, human, etc)
and only whatever it's perceiving in its environment is an object. A
robot could respond to the presence of objects in all kinds of
sophisticated ways, but it does not mean it is aware of itself and it's
own mental processes.


C'mon dh, most humans don't think about the photons either. A detailed
scientific understanding of how the mirror works is not necessary to
know that the image it shows belongs to you. Even if an uninformed
primitive human or a very young child scratches his head, looks at it
and thinks "gee, I guess I must be in two places at once", he still
realizes the image in the mirror somehow corresponds to 'him' and nobody
else.


Understanding a mirror to some extent is necessary, and if dogs come
to an incorrect conclussion about mirrors, they are doing no worse than
you are in concluding that somehow restricts them to being able to have
it can have a mental concept of every object it encounters except itself.

No, not at all. One does not need to know anything about light, glass,
or photons to pass the mirror test. People in ancient cultures, 2 year
old children, and perhaps chimpanzees and dolphins instinctively realize
that what they see in the mirror belongs to them without even thinking
about it. And if a dog (or a fish) is able to see and recognize images
of objects, why can it not recognize an image of itself? Simple. It is
unable to form such a concept. A betta fish will become aggressive and
flare up if you put a mirror in front of it because it operates soley on
visual cues, but it only thinks its another male. A dog will ignore it
both because it has no scent AND also because it lacks the ability to
recognize it as an image of itself. That's all there is to it.

- Logic316



"If a man speaks in the woods
and no woman is there to hear it,
is he still wrong?"

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 00:10:05 -0400, Logic316 wrote:

dh@. wrote:

When a human looks into a mirror they eventually realize it's their
reflection because as they move around, the image moves around the exact
same way. He will notice that if he wears a red sticker on his chest or
any other marking, the mirror image will show the same markings. The
image may only be two-dimensional and may not smell or feel like a
human, but an image does not need to be an *exact* duplicate of the
subject in order to be recognized by any creature that has the ability
to reason.


Explain why a dog would ever consider that it is looking at an image
of itself.

It's not done consciously or purposely, so there is no 'why'. I'll say
it again. If any creature has the ability to see, and has any concept of
'self', it would sooner or later sense that the image in the mirror
belongs to it

We still haven't seen any reason at all why a dog would ever consider
that it is looking at an image of itself. No reason at all.

and it would show a reaction i.e. if it sees a snack next
to its leg in the mirror image, it would then think to look for it by
its real leg and eat it.


I hope you can by now...it's urine, it's bone, it's territory, it's balls,
it's house, it's bowl, it's food, it's toy, it's leash...are you beginning
to see any relevant evidence that it may have some concept of
it's self?

Nope.


I do. Since we see that it's aware of its objects, we know that it
can be aware of objects. We know that it can recognise other
individuals, and distinguish between them. It has a mental concept
of objects and of individuals, both of which suggest it recognises
itself as an object and an individual, and other things suggest that
it even has a mental concept of what species it is.

There is a difference between something being an "object" and something
being a "subject". The subject is the perceiver (fish, dog, human, etc)
and only whatever it's perceiving in its environment is an object. A
robot could respond to the presence of objects in all kinds of
sophisticated ways, but it does not mean it is aware of itself and it's
own mental processes.

Out of curiosity, why do you think being able to understand a mirror
is a better sign of self awareness than things like recognising their own
urine, territory, possesions, etc? Why do you think that being able to
understand a mirror is a better sign of self awareness than the fact that
they can be aware of so many other selves besides their own?

C'mon dh, most humans don't think about the photons either. A detailed
scientific understanding of how the mirror works is not necessary to
know that the image it shows belongs to you. Even if an uninformed
primitive human or a very young child scratches his head, looks at it
and thinks "gee, I guess I must be in two places at once", he still
realizes the image in the mirror somehow corresponds to 'him' and nobody
else.


Understanding a mirror to some extent is necessary, and if dogs come
to an incorrect conclussion about mirrors, they are doing no worse than
you are in concluding that somehow restricts them to being able to have
it can have a mental concept of every object it encounters except itself.

No, not at all. One does not need to know anything about light, glass,
or photons to pass the mirror test. People in ancient cultures, 2 year
old children, and perhaps chimpanzees and dolphins instinctively realize
that what they see in the mirror belongs to them without even thinking
about it.

They had to get some type of understanding of it somehow, even
if their understanding was not entirely correct.

And if a dog (or a fish) is able to see and recognize images
of objects, why can it not recognize an image of itself?

Why should it ever consider the possibility that it's seeing a reflection
of itself?

Simple. It is
unable to form such a concept.

I don't believe that. I believe dogs can learn to recognise their reflection,
if a person is able to teach them what it is.

A betta fish will become aggressive and
flare up if you put a mirror in front of it because it operates soley on
visual cues, but it only thinks its another male. A dog will ignore it
both because it has no scent AND also because it lacks the ability to
recognize it as an image of itself. That's all there is to it.

- Logic316

LOL. That certainly doesn't mean it has no mental concept of itself. They
are entirely different things. You can't say that not understanding something
it doesn't care in the least bit about, restricts it from having any mental
concept of itself. You have as yet given no reason at all to jump to a
conclusion like that.

dh@. wrote:

It's not done consciously or purposely, so there is no 'why'. I'll say
it again. If any creature has the ability to see, and has any concept of
'self', it would sooner or later sense that the image in the mirror
belongs to it


We still haven't seen any reason at all why a dog would ever consider
that it is looking at an image of itself. No reason at all.

It wouldn't, because it lacks the ability. A creature either has the
ability to understand an image it's looking at, or it doesn't. It's like
any other trait produced by evolution - it somehow allows the organism
to survive longer and produce more offspring and thereby pass on that
trait - humans have it because it serves some useful function for them,
and canines never developed it because it would have served them no
purpose out in the wild. The only question is how to record the
creature's ability to recognize its image - in the case of a 2 year old
child, you can place a red sticker on his chest, he will see the sticker
in the mirror image, and then likely go to look for it on his real chest.


Out of curiosity, why do you think being able to understand a mirror
is a better sign of self awareness than things like recognising their own
urine, territory, possesions, etc? Why do you think that being able to
understand a mirror is a better sign of self awareness than the fact that
they can be aware of so many other selves besides their own?

The experiment has nothing to do with understanding the mirror. A dog
(or a fish, etc) is capable of recognizing images of other things, but
not an image of itself and therefore is not "self-aware". It really
isn't any more complicated than that.


No, not at all. One does not need to know anything about light, glass,
or photons to pass the mirror test. People in ancient cultures, 2 year
old children, and perhaps chimpanzees and dolphins instinctively realize
that what they see in the mirror belongs to them without even thinking
about it.


They had to get some type of understanding of it somehow, even
if their understanding was not entirely correct.

I'll say it once more, it's NOT THE DANG MIRROR the subject has to
understand, just the image reflected on it.


Simple. It is
unable to form such a concept.

I don't believe that. I believe dogs can learn to recognise their reflection,
if a person is able to teach them what it is.

A dog can neither recognize it's own reflection, nor is cabable of being
taught what it is. These abilities are mutually inclusive - you can't
have one without the other.


A betta fish will become aggressive and
flare up if you put a mirror in front of it because it operates soley on
visual cues, but it only thinks its another male. A dog will ignore it
both because it has no scent AND also because it lacks the ability to
recognize it as an image of itself. That's all there is to it.

- Logic316


LOL. That certainly doesn't mean it has no mental concept of itself. They
are entirely different things. You can't say that not understanding something
it doesn't care in the least bit about, restricts it from having any mental
concept of itself. You have as yet given no reason at all to jump to a
conclusion like that.

A betta most certainly DOES care about seeing another male approaching
it's territory, and if it had the ability to be "self-aware" it wouldnt
bother flaring up and stressing itself out when it sees itself in a
mirror. As for the dog, it doesn't care about the image in the mirror
because it doesn't *understand* it - NOT the other way around! If you
were to put blinders on the dog and hang a favorite chewie toy near it
where it can't see it directly, but it can see it in the mirror image,
it still wouldn't think to turn around and look for it.

- Logic316



"A diplomat thinks twice before saying nothing."

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:27:26 -0400, Logic316 wrote:

dh@. wrote:

It's not done consciously or purposely, so there is no 'why'. I'll say
it again. If any creature has the ability to see, and has any concept of
'self', it would sooner or later sense that the image in the mirror
belongs to it


We still haven't seen any reason at all why a dog would ever consider
that it is looking at an image of itself. No reason at all.

It wouldn't, because it lacks the ability. A creature either has the
ability to understand an image it's looking at, or it doesn't.

I believe you try to oversimplify tremendously, but even if a creature
does not understand an image in a mirror, I don't believe that has a
thing to do with whether or not they have self awareness. But then I
believe something that's blind can have self awareness....even a blind
dog. That must seem insane to you.

It's like
any other trait produced by evolution - it somehow allows the organism
to survive longer and produce more offspring and thereby pass on that
trait -

We'll have to disagree on this, but I believe some level of self awareness
is required for most animals to survive.

humans have it because it serves some useful function for them,
and canines never developed it because it would have served them no
purpose out in the wild. The only question is how to record the
creature's ability to recognize its image - in the case of a 2 year old
child, you can place a red sticker on his chest, he will see the sticker
in the mirror image, and then likely go to look for it on his real chest.


Out of curiosity, why do you think being able to understand a mirror
is a better sign of self awareness than things like recognising their own
urine, territory, possesions, etc? Why do you think that being able to
understand a mirror is a better sign of self awareness than the fact that
they can be aware of so many other selves besides their own?

The experiment has nothing to do with understanding the mirror.

To you that is somehow an intelligent thing to say, but to me it is an
example of great ignorance. So one of us is wrong. I believe that you're
wrong, because I don't see how a dog could be expected to know that
he's looking at a reflection of himself in a mirror, if he doesn't understand
that mirrors reflect things. A concept of reflection is necessary for an
animal to understand that it's looking at a reflection of itself. To me that
is a basic fact. I believe it far more likely that a dog has no mental concept
of reflection, than it is that a dog has no mental concept of itself.

A dog
(or a fish, etc) is capable of recognizing images of other things, but
not an image of itself and therefore is not "self-aware". It really
isn't any more complicated than that.

That is only one possibility, and a very unlikely one imo.

No, not at all. One does not need to know anything about light, glass,
or photons to pass the mirror test. People in ancient cultures, 2 year
old children, and perhaps chimpanzees and dolphins instinctively realize
that what they see in the mirror belongs to them without even thinking
about it.


They had to get some type of understanding of it somehow, even
if their understanding was not entirely correct.

I'll say it once more, it's NOT THE DANG MIRROR the subject has to
understand, just the image reflected on it.

How can it understand that it's looking at a reflection of itself, if it
doesn't understand that mirrors reflect images?

Simple. It is
unable to form such a concept.

I don't believe that. I believe dogs can learn to recognise their reflection,
if a person is able to teach them what it is.

A dog can neither recognize it's own reflection,

Can it recognize anything's reflection?

nor is cabable of being
taught what it is.

Even if so, that certainly doesn't have a thing to do with whether
or not they have any awareness of themselves.

These abilities are mutually inclusive - you can't
have one without the other.


A betta fish will become aggressive and
flare up if you put a mirror in front of it because it operates soley on
visual cues, but it only thinks its another male. A dog will ignore it
both because it has no scent AND also because it lacks the ability to
recognize it as an image of itself. That's all there is to it.

- Logic316


LOL. That certainly doesn't mean it has no mental concept of itself. They
are entirely different things. You can't say that not understanding something
it doesn't care in the least bit about, restricts it from having any mental
concept of itself. You have as yet given no reason at all to jump to a
conclusion like that.

A betta most certainly DOES care about seeing another male approaching
it's territory,

And that has what to do with recognising its image in a mirror?

and if it had the ability to be "self-aware" it wouldnt
bother flaring up and stressing itself out when it sees itself in a
mirror.

Now you need to explain how a betta could possibly learn that
mirrors reflect images of things, since the ability to do so would be
required in order for it to know it was seeing a reflection, but just
not being self aware enough to understand that the reflection it
somehow knows it's looking at, is of itself. Your saying that bettas
know they are seeing a reflection, and their limitation is only in
understanding that the reflection is of themselves, because they
have no concept of themselves. So I want to know how you
think they learn what a reflection is, and why you believe it's
more likely that they have no concept of themselves than it
is that they just have no concept of reflection.

As for the dog, it doesn't care about the image in the mirror
because it doesn't *understand* it -

That's my point.

NOT the other way around! If you
were to put blinders on the dog and hang a favorite chewie toy near it
where it can't see it directly, but it can see it in the mirror image,
it still wouldn't think to turn around and look for it.

- Logic316

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 11:56:18 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


dh@. wrote
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 18:05:42 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


dh@. wrote
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 10:56:55 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[..]

I'm not opposed to cock fighting
if it's done with consideration for the birds

'Consideration for the birds' according to your logic means that one
only
has to ponder the fact that if the birds weren't raised for fighting
they
would never gotten to experience life at all,

You know there's more to it than that, so as always you're lying.

But *that* part of it is the core of your position on domestic animals,

The first step is to consider their lives. The next is to cosider the
quality of their lives.

Consideration of "their lives" apart from the quality of those lives is
metaphysical nonsense, it's woolgathering. The only reason you do it is
because you believe that noting that they "experience life" forms a useful
argument. It does not.

It does unless the only thing you care about is their deaths. Their deaths
are all you/"ARAs" want people to consider. I will always consider their lives
as well as their deaths, the good and the bad.

I took the first step years ago. You never will.
You pretending any interest in the second is amusing in a most
contemptible and pathetic way to me.

Why? Why can't I be interested in the welfare of animals only if they are
born?

You can't care about their lives, so I've no reason to believe you care
about any of the details of their lives either. It would be absurd to believe
that you really do.

it's
what sets your position apart. There isn't a single person here who
doesn't,
at least in principle, advocate decent treatment of domestic animals,

Which domestic animals do "ARAs" advocate decent treatment of?

All of them, how about you?

Of couse I know that you won't say anything about them advocating
decent treatment of existing domestic animals:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 06:07:48 GMT

Who the **** cares about such a short term issue? They'd
be handled some way or another by different groups. What's important is
the
medium/long term implications, that is no more animals "in bondage" to
humans. THAT'S the important issue to be debated ****wit, NOT what will
happen to a population of present day animals that were only going to live
a
short time anyway. Get your ****ing head straight.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
because they don't matter to you.

It doesn't matter in the long run *how long* existing livestock live. They
currently don't live very long, so what's the big deal if they were killed
off under an elimination agenda?

So you need to explain which domestic
animals "ARAs" advocate decent treatment of in the long term.

ALL OF THEM!

None would exist to receive the decent treatment that you
dishonestly insist could somehow be provided for "THEM!"

so to
tack that onto your position as if we disagree about it is dishonest.

Because you are a dishonest sophist.

just like consumers only need
to ponder that pigs only experience life because we eat them.

You're lying Dutch, and we know it.

It's precisely what you mean when you talk about "consideration" for the
animals.

You are incapable of giving consideration to the animals, so of
course you are incapable of understanding the consideration I give
them as well. Damn Dutch, it seems that you could have figured
that out for yourself.

Then explain it to me in your words. It appears to mean that since they
experience life, therefore we do something honorable by raising them for
food, aka "The Logic of the Larder". How is that specifically a wrong
interpertation?

Some of their lives are worth living. Some are not.

We know there's more to
it, and you are a lowlife **** for deliberately lying and saying that
there isn't. But you continually persuade me that you're really this
stupid.

If you mean "animal welfare" then it's you who is lying, because you
advocate sanctioned animal bloodsports,

I've reached an educated conclusion which again you can't
understand. You are arguing with me about things you don't have
a clue about. How could I possibly have any regard at all for your
opinion about things like knife vs. gaff, or gaff length, or details
regarding trimming, or pit regulations, or possible regulations regarding
their housing on the yard, or nutrition,
etc..............................? How
could I, even if I wanted to?

Am I supposed to be impressed that you are familar with the trivia of
bloodsports?

You don't know anything about cock fighting, so your opinion of it
is worth as little or less than that of an ignorant child.

Are you a fan of bullfighting also? What other forms of
animal-torture-for-pleasure do you find amusing?

and oppose every animal welfare
campaign promoted by PeTA

What good have they done?

They have been instrumental in raising awareness and pressuring fast-food
chains to make improvements in the conditions for both hens and pigs.

I'm not convinced that they are, though I believe they are likely to
dishonestly persuade some people that they're responsible for things
they are not.

Even if "ARAs" are responsible for some improvements in AW, I
would rather see consumers and growers take more interest in the
quality of lives of the animals they raise, than "ARAs" who want to
see the animals done away with. That's what I would like to see
happen, and that's what you are so maniacally opposed to seeing
happen because it could destroy your hopes of elimination, as I
frequently point out.

List
the improvements for animals your "consideration" has accomplished. That
shouldn't take long.

What harm have they done?

PeTA probably does plenty of harm, but I still support their animal welfare
campaigns

How much money do you send them?

on behalf of livestock. Nobody else around is doing anything.

on the flimsy pretense that they advocate
"elimination, not welfare".

Since you like fantasies, here's one: What if someone told you
they wanted some money so they could go help a person build
a huge outside yard for their laying hens--hens restricted to battery
cages--and a nice big roomy house they could go in and out of
whenever they want....and then after they get that done they're
going to terrorise a mink farm and release 400 mink, and they
need money to do all that. Do you think it would be a good idea
to give them some money but tell them only to use it on the chicken
project? You encourage such because it supports "AR":

I would support the improvement for hens, and I am dead set against mink
"farms". How about you? Do you enjoy watching wild animals crammed into tiny
cages?

I don't know enough about mink farming to have an opinion. I do
know that I'm opposed to seeing hundreds of mink released, for
reasons which you have proven to have absolutely no idea about.

[..]

You criticise me for giving consideration to the animals themselves,

No,

Yes.

Your "consideration" is self-serving rhetoric.

for claiming a moral benefit due to the animals "experiencing life". You
always pretend that is NOT our objection to your argument,

Because it's not.

Yes it is, it's the only thing it logically can be.

Your objection to me is my suggestion that anything could be
ethically equivalent or superior to eliminating farm animals, as
we are both well aware.

If you gave even the slightest crumb of a ****
about the animals, you could and would easily ignore anything to
do with a person's moral benefit when considering the position of
the animals.

What do you mean "considering the position of the animals"?

What do you think? Have you ever tried it? No. You can't. It's
another of those things you will never be able to do, or even try.
If you could have, you would have been doing it and there would
be no need for you to ask me about it, or to try to prevent considering
the position of the animals as you maniacally do.

Explain. Except
for welfare, what else is there to consider?

[..]

Such as?

Have some influence on providing them with decent lives. For example
I buy cage free eggs to encourage those type lives for hens, and that is
the *only* reason I buy them.

That only affects animal welfare. How is buying free range related to this
"consideration" that you talk about that allegedly goes much deeper than
welfare?

What I talk about IS Animal Welfare. What you talk about is their
elimination--i.e. the gross mi$nomer "Animal Rights"--instead, like I've
been pointing out for years.

It doesn't cause *more* hens to be born, so what is it?

Try to get it straight...just this one thing Dutch:

AW promotes decent life for livestock.
"AR" promotes no life for livestock.
You're pro "AR". I'm pro AW.

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:22:12 -0400, dh@. wrote:

I'm pro AW.

No, Harrison, you're not. People who promote animal
welfare don't breed animals to fight in pits for their
sadistic pleasure, like you do. You're a liar and a fraud.

dh@. wrote:

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 11:56:18 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


dh@. wrote

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 18:05:42 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


dh@. wrote

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 10:56:55 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[..]


I'm not opposed to cock fighting
if it's done with consideration for the birds

'Consideration for the birds' according to your logic means that one
only
has to ponder the fact that if the birds weren't raised for fighting
they
would never gotten to experience life at all,

You know there's more to it than that, so as always you're lying.

But *that* part of it is the core of your position on domestic animals,

The first step is to consider their lives. The next is to cosider the
quality of their lives.

Consideration of "their lives" apart from the quality of those lives is
metaphysical nonsense, it's woolgathering. The only reason you do it is
because you believe that noting that they "experience life" forms a useful
argument. It does not.


It does

It does not.


I took the first step years ago. You never will.
You pretending any interest in the second is amusing in a most
contemptible and pathetic way to me.

Why? Why can't I be interested in the welfare of animals only if they are
born?


You can't care about their lives,

He does care about their lives...IF they are born.

Stop lying, ****wit.



It doesn't matter in the long run *how long* existing livestock live. They
currently don't live very long, so what's the big deal if they were killed
off under an elimination agenda?


So you need to explain which domestic
animals "ARAs" advocate decent treatment of in the long term.

ALL OF THEM!


None would exist

They advocate decent for any of them IF they exist.


so to
tack that onto your position as if we disagree about it is dishonest.

Because you are a dishonest sophist.


just like consumers only need
to ponder that pigs only experience life because we eat them.

You're lying Dutch, and we know it.

It's precisely what you mean when you talk about "consideration" for the
animals.

You are incapable of giving consideration to the animals, so of
course you are incapable of understanding the consideration I give
them as well. Damn Dutch, it seems that you could have figured
that out for yourself.

Then explain it to me in your words. It appears to mean that since they
experience life, therefore we do something honorable by raising them for
food, aka "The Logic of the Larder". How is that specifically a wrong
interpertation?


Some of their lives are worth living. Some are not.

NONE of them "benefit" from coming into existence. None.



I've reached an educated conclusion which again you can't
understand.

**** yourself up the ass, ****wit. There is *NOTHING*
you can understand that Dutch and I cannot. Badly hung
over and with a piece of rebar through our heads, Dutch
and I both are far smarter and more intelligent than
you. Dutch and I understand many things that you do
not; you understand NOTHING that he and I do not. This
is beyond dispute.


You are arguing with me about things you don't have
a clue about.

He has more than a clue. You have none, ****wit. None.


[****wit's bull****]

Am I supposed to be impressed that you are familar with the trivia of
bloodsports?


You don't know anything about cock fighting

He knows enough to kick your ****ing ass.


Are you a fan of bullfighting also? What other forms of
animal-torture-for-pleasure do you find amusing?

All of them.


and oppose every animal welfare
campaign promoted by PeTA

What good have they done?

They have been instrumental in raising awareness and pressuring fast-food
chains to make improvements in the conditions for both hens and pigs.


I'm not convinced that they are

You're wrong. As bad and silly as they are, they have
done VASTLY more than you to raise awareness of animal
*welfare*.



List
the improvements for animals your "consideration" has accomplished. That
shouldn't take long.


What harm have they done?

List the improvements for animals your "consideration"
has accomplished. It's a short list: ZERO.

Your "consideration" has done zero, because your
consideration IS zero, ****wit. You give ZERO
consideration to animals and their welfare; it's
nothing but lip service, a lie.


PeTA probably does plenty of harm, but I still support their animal welfare
campaigns


How much money do you send them?

Ha ha ha ha ha!


on behalf of livestock. Nobody else around is doing anything.


on the flimsy pretense that they advocate
"elimination, not welfare".

Since you like fantasies, here's one: What if someone told you
they wanted some money so they could go help a person build
a huge outside yard for their laying hens--hens restricted to battery
cages--and a nice big roomy house they could go in and out of
whenever they want....and then after they get that done they're
going to terrorise a mink farm and release 400 mink, and they
need money to do all that. Do you think it would be a good idea
to give them some money but tell them only to use it on the chicken
project? You encourage such because it supports "AR":

I would support the improvement for hens, and I am dead set against mink
"farms". How about you? Do you enjoy watching wild animals crammed into tiny
cages?


I don't know enough about mink farming to have an opinion.

You don't know enought about ANYTHING to have an
opinion, ****WIT.


You criticise me for giving consideration to the animals themselves,

No,

Yes.

NO. He criticizes you for LYING and saying you give
consideration to animals. You do not, ****wit. This
is established.


Your "consideration" is self-serving rhetoric.


for claiming a moral benefit due to the animals "experiencing life". You
always pretend that is NOT our objection to your argument,

Because it's not.

Yes it is, it's the only thing it logically can be.


Your objection to me is my suggestion that anything could be
ethically equivalent or superior to eliminating farm animals

False. Our objection is that you do not give
"consideration" to the animals; and that you falsely
claim to be doing them a favor by causing them to live.
That is our objection.

You do NOT give any consideration to the animals. What
you do is LIE and say that you give them consideration,
when all you are doing is trying to mitigate the moral
harm you fear you cause.


If you gave even the slightest crumb of a ****
about the animals, you could and would easily ignore anything to
do with a person's moral benefit when considering the position of
the animals.

What do you mean "considering the position of the animals"?


What do you think?

It's bull****. Unconceived/unborn animals do not have
a "position", you ****ing tub of ****.


Explain.

There is NOTHING to explain, Dutch. It's bull**** from
start to finish. Unborn/unconceived animals do NOT
have a "position"...unless, AS ****wit does believe
(stupidly), the unconceived/unborn animals are sitting
around waiting to be born. ****wit DOES believe that,
but it's bull****.


Such as?

Have some influence on providing them with decent lives. For example
I buy cage free eggs to encourage those type lives for hens, and that is
the *only* reason I buy them.

That only affects animal welfare. How is buying free range related to this
"consideration" that you talk about that allegedly goes much deeper than
welfare?


What I talk about IS Animal Welfare.

That's a lie, ****wit.


It doesn't cause *more* hens to be born, so what is it?


Try to get it straight.

**** off, ****wit, you stupid tub of ****. David
Harrison - ****wit - is a stupid tub of ****.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 05:48:43 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Dutch and I understand many things that you do
not; you understand NOTHING that he and I do not. This
is beyond dispute.

Explain the wiring in Molefay, or be once again a known liar.

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:35:58 +0100, Derek wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:22:12 -0400, dh@. wrote:

I'm pro AW.

No, Harrison, you're not.

Yes 2goo, I am. Remember that I am the one who is trying
to get you to care even to the slightest degree about significant
facts to game chickens, but you don't care, can't care, and
therefore you never will care. It's not bad enough that you don't
care about significant aspects to the birds, but you lie about
them too.

People who promote animal
welfare don't breed animals to fight in pits

Some do. Some don't. You lied.

for their
sadistic pleasure,

I don't.

like you do.

You're a liar. I did. I don't. But you *are* a liar, and
will always *be* a liar. And an ignoramus too Goochild
....maybe that's because you really believe your lies,
but you're still an inconsiderate (inconsiderate of the
animals) liar, and ingnoramus, regardless of how
"innocently" you may have gotten in your position. As
always I mean only the best by pointing that out, in
the hopes that you could some day become a less
dishonest and inconsiderate person. Good luck, if not
for you at least for those who must have some association
with you. They have my (our?) sympathy.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:22:33 -0400, dh@. wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:35:58 +0100, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:22:12 -0400, dh@. wrote:

I'm pro AW.

No, Harrison, you're not.

Yes

No, Harrison, you're not. People who promote animal
welfare don't breed animals to fight in pits for their
sadistic pleasure, like you do. You're a liar and a fraud.