XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.cats.misc, alt.pets.rabbits
XPost: rec.pets.birds
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:03:40 -0600, Leslie wrote:
>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.
No. Humans have a lot of control over the movements of domestic animals.
>>>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 -
That's a lie. If you're going to pretend it's not, post a quote of me
saying that.
>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
You would have to try first, but even *IF!* you tried I'm not convinced
you could understand it.
>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.
It also includes raising a puppy who later gets free and reproduces, but
I thought you said you were too stupid to understand things like that.
You damn sure have acted like you are, and I predict you'll act like it again.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
