XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.cats.misc, alt.pets.rabbits
XPost: rec.pets.birds
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 13:16:37 -0600, Leslie wrote:
>Found scrawled in the outhouse on Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:03:28 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:51:42 -0600, Leslie wrote:
>>
>>>Found scrawled in the outhouse on Mon, 04 Jul 2005 10:44:15 -0400, dh@.
wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:11:01 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Domestic animals are
>>>>>> completely dependant on us for the pairing of sperm and egg which
>>>>>> begin their particular lives. Those particular animals only exist
because
>>>>>> humans raise them, and if they were set free so humans no longer
>>>>>> had such infuence the same animals would not be born. The human
>>>>>> situation is different because humans are already free.
>>>>>
>>>>>Completely false. All humans ALSO are dependent on the
>>>>>thoughts and actions of earlier humans for the pairing
>>>>>of the sperm and egg that results in a new human. They
>>>>>are no different from these domestic animals you
>>>>>misunderstand.
>>>>
>>>> Yes they are. They are free to travel the world in search of someone
>>>>else to fuck. Domestic animals are not. It's another one of those things
>>>>you're just too stupid to understand.
>>>
>>>OIC. So Barney, the neighborhood mutt, hasn't just "traveled freely" across
several
>>>hundred acres to fuck a bitch on somebody else's place, resulting in 8
little muttleys?
>>>Barney is a domestic dog. He is owned. That NEVER implies that he is
without freedom or
>>>means to cross his boundaries to breed any bitch in season he can smell.
>>
>> There are leash laws in most places I'm aware of. Even if there were not,
>>the dogs are dependant on their masters, and are directly influenced by
>>where their masters allow them to go.
>
>You are truly certifiable, FW. How many dogs that can READ the leash laws do
you know?
That aspect is meaningless, though you can't understand why.
>Ooopss... and I'll bet you never figured that dogs can climb fences, dig
through dirt,
>slip slicker than snot through doorways, and otherwise run loose through the
countryside
>(or neighborhood). If they did not, and IF dogs were TRULY influenced and
controlled by
>humans then the local dog catcher would be out of work!
A lot of people let their dogs run free regardless of leash laws.
>>>Gotta hand it to you, FW. You are a LOT stupider than I thought possible.
>>
>> You have certainly proven the same thing about yourself to me. It's
really
>>hard to believe you are too stupid to understand that humans have a lot
>>of influence over where their dogs are able to mate, but you admittedly are
>>that stupid.
>
>Because you say so, Fuckwit? Lemme see: because you say so, all dogs and
their breeding
>behaviors are entirely controlled by human beings.
That's a lie...
>And because you say so, I am too stupid
>to understand (read 'accept') this postulate.
...so that is necessarily a lie as well.
>Isn't this just a translation of your favorite fallacy: ipse dixit?
As yet all it does is shows that you don't understand how human
influence on breeding is significant to the existence of domestic animals.
You don't understand, and have devoted you posts to flaunting that fact
for some reason. Wow. You are too stupid to understand how human
influence on breeding is significant to the existence of domestic animals.
I'm so impressed with your level of stupidity....
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
