XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.psychology, rec.pets.dogs.behavior
XPost: alt.animals.dog
From: someguy@ph.con
Fuckwit Harrison the convict lied:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 17:47:29 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>
>>the convicted felon
>
>
> Lie.
No.
>>David Fuckwit Harrison lied:
>
>
> Lie.
No.
>>>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.
No; all true. I explain, you don't comprehend. For
you, the experience undoubtedly is a waste of time.
>>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.
No. You *are* incredibly stupid.
>
>
>>Yes, we do,
>
>
> Lie.
No; we do have yet another example of your stupidity.
>>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,
Not a proof, Fuckwit. That doesn't show that *they*
are aware of the separation. It's "separate", NOT
"seperate", you ignorant fuck.
>>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.
Yes, you lied in saying that awareness of others' self
awareness isn't important.
>>Yes, Fuckwit-Harrison-the-convict.
>
>
> Lie.
No.
>>This is a *direct*
>>implication of self awareness,
>
>
> That doesn't matter Rudy.
Yes, Fuckwit-the-convict, it does matter. It helps to
create yet another test.
>>as philosophers of the
>>mind define it. If you don't get their definition,
>
>
> Rudy, it's no profound concept that a being would have
> to posess some self awareness in order to contemplate
> it in others.
It's apparently profound enough that you can't get your
felon's mind around it, Fuckwit.
>>then you simply can't participate in the discussion.
>
>
> Lie.
Not a lie. You are incapable of participating. You're
too stupid, too limited intellectually, too inarticulate.
>>>>- knowing that one has a beginning and an end
>>>
>>>
>>> No Rudy,
>
>
> Lie.
Not a lie.
>
>
>>Yes, Fuckwit-Harrison-the-convict.
>
>
> Lie.
Not a lie.
>>See above.
>
>
> Lie.
Not a lie.
>>>>- knowing that one exists at a particular place and time,
>>>
>>>
>>> No again Rudy.
>
>
> Lie.
You're calling yourself a liar now, Fuckwit.
>>Yes, Goo-Fuckwit-the-convict.
>
>
> Lie.
Not a lie.
>
>
>>See above.
>
>
> Lie.
Not a lie, Fuckwit.
>>>> 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.
You're calling yourself a liar again, Fuckwit.
>
>
>>I understand far more than you about the topic,
>
>
>>Fuckwit. I have education
>
>
> Explain what you have learned from experience with
> animals.
non sequitur
>>and the ability to think
>>critically.
>
>
> There's no evidence of that.
There is.
>>You have neither,
>
>
> I have far more education from personal experience
Anecdotes.
>>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.
Those can't be funny, because they're figments of your
imagination.
>
>>Fuckwit-the-convict?
>
>
> Lie.
Not a 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.
>
>
> Rudy, anyone who "thinks" your other
Dogs are generally considered not to be self aware,
Fuckwit.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
