XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.psychology, rec.pets.dogs.behavior
XPost: alt.animals.dog
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 17:47:29 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>the convicted felon
Lie.
>David Fuckwit Harrison lied:
Lie.
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>
>>>the convicted felon
Lie.
>David Fuckwit Harrison lied:
Lie.
>>>>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.
Lie.
>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.
Lie.
>Yes, we do,
Lie.
>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.
They function and behave as beings seperate from
others and the rest of the environment, making choices
and performing actions in the interests of themselves
as beings seperate from others and the rest of the
environment. Acting in their self interests proves some
sense of self. Licking, tasting and smelling themselves
necessarily creates some concepts of self.
>You can't, of course.
>
>
>>>- being aware, as a direct implication of one's own
>>> self awareness, that *others* are self aware
>>
>>
>> No Rudy,
Lie.
(there's no reason to call you Rudy)
>Yes, Fuckwit-Harrison-the-convict.
Lie.
>This is a *direct*
>implication of self awareness,
That doesn't matter Goo. You couldn't understand
why. It's really pretty funny too.
>as philosophers of the
>mind define it. If you don't get their definition,
Goo, it's no profound concept that a being would have
to posess some self awareness in order to contemplate
it in others. But just because a being as stupid as
yourself can't contemplate it in others, doesn't mean
you're too stupid to have any awareness of your own
moronic self. And just because a dog might not
contemplate it in another dog, doesn't mean it's not
capable of any awareness of itself either. You are
stupid enough to believe it does though, and are
too stupid to understand why it does not. Like I said
it's pretty funny, considering that you insist you're smart.
>then you simply can't participate in the discussion.
Lie.
(in fact I began the discussion)
>>>- knowing that one has a beginning and an end
>>
>>
>> No Rudy,
Lie.
>Yes, Fuckwit-Harrison-the-convict.
Lie.
>See above.
Lie.
(in this case, the "above" is a lie)
>>>- knowing that one exists at a particular place and time,
>>
>>
>> No again Rudy.
Lie.
>Yes, Goo-Fuckwit-the-convict.
Lie.
>See above.
Lie.
(in this case, the "above" is a lie)
>>> 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.
Lie.
>I understand far more than you about the topic,
>Fuckwit. I have education
Explain what you have learned from experience with
animals.
>and the ability to think
>critically.
There's no evidence of that.
>You have neither,
I have far more education from personal experience
with animals than you ever will, and have had since
grade school.
>and you have the further
>handicap of deliberately choosing to be stupid.
>
>>>but there is no evidence they do,
>>
>>
>> LOL!
>
>What's funny,
Your ignorance. Your stupidity. But only because of
your attitude about them. If it bothered you that you *are
incredibly!* ignorant then it wouldn't be funny at all.
But then if it bothered you, you would probably learn and
no longer be ignorant. LOL! There's no danger of that...lol
...none.... LOL!!! I just figured you out Goober! Somewhere
in you "education" someone told you some things that
are wrong about animals, like they can't anticipate for
example. The idea is retarded to anyone who has experience
around animals, but having none yourself, you BELIEVED
them. LOL!!! Oh Goober your ignorance is just HILARIOUS!!!
I was laughing at you and making jokes with the farmers
down the road in elementary school, 30 years before I ever
even knew you existed. Now seeing such ignorance on
deliberate display is even funnier.
>Fuckwit-the-convict?
Lie.
>>>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.
Goo, anyone who "thinks" your other stupid ideas even
are necessary for self awareness is not only ignorant of
animals, but of reality. I explained why, and you are admittedly
too stupid to understand.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
