XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.animals.dog, rec.pets.dogs.behavior   
   From: someguy@ph.con   
      
   moonspeak@hotmail.com wrote:   
      
   > Rudy Canoza wrote:   
   >   
   >>moonspeak@hotmail.com lied:   
   >>   
   >>>Rudy Canoza wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>moonspeak@hotmail.com lied:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>Rudy Canoza wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>moonspeak@hotmail.com lied:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>   
   >>>>>>Give up, moonie.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>If no one attempted to see if something exists, it means that *that*   
   >>>>>something doesn't exists?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>NO, moonie, you goddamned idiot.  And it's not what I   
   >>>>said, either.  You really are clueless.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>You said dog do not have self-awareness because there is no scientific   
   >>>evidence that they do,   
   >>   
   >>No, you fucking liar, I did NOT say that.  I didn't say   
   >>anything even close to that, you clueless fuck.   
   >   
   >   
   > Rudy: "But the mirror test *IS* a widely acknowledged test of   
   > self-awareness   
   > among researchers into animal intelligence, and dogs fail it."   
   >   
   > Rudy: "True, but when they fail *any* test of self awareness, then the   
   > smart   
   > bet is that they don't have it."   
   >   
   > Rudy: "Dogs do not have self awareness.  They don't not have   
   > it *because* they fail the test, but they do fail the   
   > test, and that leads one to think that they lack self   
   > awareness."   
   >   
   > Sorry for forgetting to add the word *tentatively* to my sentence   
   > above.   
      
   ASSHOLE, you got the logic entirely wrong.  Look above   
   at your bullshit that you attribute to me:  "You said   
   dog do not have self-awareness because there is no   
   scientific evidence that they do".  Look at your   
   fucking "because".  That's completely wrong, and a   
   violation of logic that I would never make.  I didn't   
   say what you said I said, you fucking liar.   
      
      
   >>>yet you do not even know if any experiments were   
   >>>performed to test it. Do you conclude that humans do not have   
   >>>self-awarenss because there is no scientific evidence that they do?   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>>>Fuckwit - and you, given your   
   >>>>>>>>leanings - are the ones with the burden of proof.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>You are still running away with your imagination, I see.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>Nope.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>You have no proof.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Of what, you fucking moron?   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>Of my leanings.   
   >>   
   >>I do have.   
   >   
   >   
   > You certainly do have a vivid imagination.   
      
   No.   
      
      
   >>>>>>>>SHOW that dogs, or any other animals, possess self   
   >>>>>>>>awareness, or shut your fucking yap.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>Why would I do that?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>You wouldn't; you're a shirker.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Wrong,   
   >>>>   
   >>>>No, RIGHT.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>... says the believer of his own imagination.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>>>Just shut your fucking yap, moonie - you can't possibly   
   >>>>>>>>show *evidence* of self awareness in any animals except   
   >>>>>>>>humans.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>What is the scientific evidence that humans have self-awareness?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>You're one of these insistent, low-time-value fucks who   
   >>>>>>>>insists on having the last word, aren't you, moonie?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>No,   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>Yes.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Are you aware of any scientific evidence that humans have   
   >>>>>self-awareness?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Are you?   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>No, that is why I'm asking you. You appear to believe that humans have   
   >>>self-awareness without scientific evidence.   
   >>   
   >>No, I don't believe it in the absence of scientific   
   >>evidence.  We have self awareness because we define it.   
   >>  Self awareness in humans is not provable by   
   >>scientific evidence, you fucking dope.  It's something   
   >>that is DEFINED by human nature.   
   >   
   >   
   > So people can just change the definition of "self-awareness" to suit   
   > their needs?   
      
   No.  There's debate around the margins over what it is   
   in humans.  Broadly, there's agreement.  You don't   
   seriously question that, either.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)