XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.cats.misc, alt.pets.rabbits   
   XPost: rec.pets.birds   
   From: heirlair@fone.net   
      
   Found scrawled in the outhouse on Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:56:50 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   Excuse me, FW but *YOU* are the one who mentioned "leash laws". See above.   
   You tried to use it to support your inane argument that human "masters"   
   control the   
   movements of domestic animals. That's pure bullshit, and you know it.   
      
   >>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.   
      
   WTF does this have to do with anything?! You've just proved my point here:   
   dogs can run   
   free if they've a mind to do so. Sheeeesh!!   
      
   >>>>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...   
      
   So, you lied. That was your argument - but now you've admitted that it was a   
   lie. That   
   must make you a TROLL.   
      
   >>And because you say so, I am too stupid   
   >>to understand (read 'accept') this postulate.   
   >   
   >    ...so that is necessarily a lie as well.   
      
   zzzzzz.......   
      
   >>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....   
   >   
   How can I understand your position when you keep moving the goal posts? Your   
   initial   
   argument had nothing to do with "significance". It was an absolute: humans   
   control   
   animals. Period. Take a position, fer Chrissakes!   
      
   In fact, and this has been *my* position, humans most certainly do have some   
   significant   
   influence on the breeding of domestic animals. Their influence can be either   
   active or   
   passive. That is, active influence might include a planned breeding of Horse A   
   to Horse B.   
   Passive influence might include just opening the gate and seeing what comes   
   out a year   
   later after a corral full of intact horses run together.   
      
   Cheers 2 U,   
      
   Leslie   
   "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity.   
   And I'm not sure about the former.".... Albert Einstein   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)