XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.psychology, rec.pets.dogs.behavior   
   XPost: alt.animals.dog   
   From: someguy@ph.con   
      
   the convicted felon David Fuckwit Harrison lied:   
      
   > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 Rudy Canoza wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >>the convicted felon David Fuckwit Harrison lied:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 Rudy Canoza wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >>>>The likeliest one, Fuckwit, particularly when you   
   >>>>understand *all* of the aspects of self awareness that   
   >>>>"philosophers of mind" are talking about.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   Explain or at least list them *all* you poor pathetic   
   >>>Goober, or we'll again have proof that you have no   
   >>>idea what you're trying to talk about.   
   >>   
   >>What the fuck do you mean, "all", Fuckwit?  You just   
   >>revealed, yet again, that you not only don't know what   
   >>youre talking about, but you don't even know the right   
   >>questions to ask.   
   >   
   >   
   >     Asking you to explain anything is a waste of time   
      
   Yes, it is.  I explain.  You don't comprehend.  SO it   
   is a waste of time.   
      
      
   >>Philosophers of mind are not in   
   >>unanimous agreement on what they are, you stupid fuck,   
   >>so there *can not* be an "all".   
   >   
   >   
   >     So we now have yet another example of how incredibly   
   > stupid I am.   
      
   Yes, we do, although I fail to see what that has to do   
   with the topic.   
      
      
   >>Here are *some*, Fuckwit, and they indicate that again,   
   >>you are grossly over your head.   
   >>   
   >>- being aware that one is a being separate from others,   
   >>  *and* from the rest of the environment   
   >   
   >   
   >     They are.   
      
   Prove it.  You can't, of course.   
      
      
   >>- being aware, as a direct implication of one's own   
   >>  self awareness, that *others* are self aware   
   >   
   >   
   >     No Rudy,   
      
   Yes, Fuckwit-Harrison-the-convict.  This is a *direct*   
   implication of self awareness, as philosophers of the   
   mind define it.  If you don't get their definition,   
   then you simply can't participate in the discussion.   
      
      
   >   
   >>- knowing that one has a beginning and an end   
   >   
   >   
   >     No Rudy,   
      
   Yes, Fuckwit-Harrison-the-convict.  See above.   
      
      
   >>- knowing that one exists at a particular place and time,   
   >   
   >   
   >     No again Rudy.   
      
   Yes, Goo-Fuckwit-the-convict.  See above.   
      
      
   >>  which *necessarily* implies that there are other   
   >>  places and times in which the self aware being does   
   >>  *not* exist   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>At the very best, Fuckwit, you stupid unaware log, dogs   
   >>could conceivably meet the first;   
   >   
   >   
   >     I can't believe you could understand even that much   
   > Rudy.   
      
   I understand far more than you about the topic,   
   Fuckwit.  I have education and the ability to think   
   critically.  You have neither, and you have the further   
   handicap of deliberately choosing to be stupid.   
      
      
   >>but there is no evidence they do,   
   >   
   >   
   >     LOL!   
      
   What's funny, Fuckwit-the-convict?   
      
      
   >>and people like you who just   
   >>stubbornly insist they do have no evidence to support   
   >>the belief, only your own wishful thinking.   
   >>   
   >>Dogs clearly do not have the next three.   
   >   
   >   
   >     Whether they do or not   
      
   They don't, and it's why they are judged by competent   
   philosophers of mind not to be self aware.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)