Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 5, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 3, 3:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> On Jul 1, 6:50 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 30, 4:45 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Following Dutch's reply to this ranting-and-raving post
>>>>>> of rupie's, I had to go back and revisit it.
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 4:32 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Suppose I said that blue-eyed people were more entitled to
>>>>>>>>> consideration than brown-eyed people. Would I not have a burden of
>>>>>>>>> proof to meet?
>>>>>>>> Yes. And identically, if you say to blue-eyed people
>>>>>>>> that brown-eyed people are entitled to equal
>>>>>>>> consideration, the burden of proof is *also* on you,
>>>>>>>> for the same reason: you're making the assertion that
>>>>>>>> you wish others to accept.
>>>>>>> Hang on a moment. This is incoherent.
>>>>>> No, it isn't. You *plainly* didn't understand what I
>>>>>> wrote.
>>>>> On the contrary, you plainly don't understand how burden of proof
>>>>> arguments work.
>>>> I plainly *DO* understand, rupie, and you plainly do not. You want to
>>>> make the assertion about moral equality: the burden of proof is on
>>>> you, and you fail to meet it.
>>> You make an assertion about difference in moral status.
>> YOU are the one making an assertion, rupie. Defend
>> it...if you can <snicker>
>>
>
> No, the situation is symmetrical. I am making assertions, you are
> making assertions.

No. You are making assertions. I was just going about
my life minding my own business. You want me to change
the way I live. Defend your assertions, or shut the
**** up.


>>>>>>> You can't say the burden of
>>>>>>> proof is on those who claim P, and also on those who claim ~P.
>>>>>> Nor *did* I say that, rupie. Re-read it.
>>>> Did you re-read it, you stupid sniveling gutless ****?
>>> Yes, I did just re-read it and my characterization of your position
>>> was
>> utter bullshit.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>
> I wrote

utter bullshit.


>>>>>>> Having a burden of proof is an asymmetrical situation. You're maintaining
>>>>>>> that in the nineteenth century, when people claimed that negroes were
>>>>>>> not entitled to equal consideration, they had no burden of proof to
>>>>>>> meet.
>>>>>> No, I never maintained that. Just how far up your
>>>>>> rectum did you have to reach to find that little
>>>>>> nugget, rupie? It's shit. I never said anything like
>>>>>> that. We never, at any point, were talking about what
>>>>>> those who supported unequal consideration for Negroes
>>>>>> (it's a proper noun, you idiot) said, because in their
>>>>>> society, it was just assumed; they didn't go around
>>>>>> making any assertions about it.
>>>>> Well, you *are* making assertions that animals are not entitled to
>>>>> equal consideration, repeatedly.
>>>> You began by asserting that animals deserve equal moral
>>>> consideration. You do not support your assertion (you can't.) The
>>>> burden is on you to support your assertion, NOT on anyone else to show
>>>> your assertion is false. Get busy.
>>> It's sufficient for me to point out
>> You "point out" nothing, ****. You make an assertion,
>> and you can't defend it. You're done.
>>
>
> I make an argument

You make an assertion at the foundation of that
argument, and you can't defend the assertion.


>>>>>> But suppose that a southerner who supported slavery, or
>>>>>> at least some form of unequal treatment for Negroes,
>>>>>> had gone to the north for a visit. And suppose further
>>>>>> that the place he visited had recognized, in a basic
>>>>>> sense, complete political and legal and moral equality
>>>>>> among different races and ethnicities - so much so that
>>>>>> no one who accepted that equality ever thought it
>>>>>> necessary to state the case for it, because it was just
>>>>>> reality. Now suppose this southerner is astonished at
>>>>>> this, and wants to tell the northerners that they've
>>>>>> got it all wrong, that Negroes do not deserve equal
>>>>>> moral (and thus political and legal) consideration.
>>>>>> Where does the burden of proof now lay, rupie? It
>>>>>> plainly lays with the southerner, who is the one making
>>>>>> an assertion.
>>>>> Very interesting. How does he meet it?
>>>> I'm not interested in "how" he might meet it, ****witted little skirt-
>>>> boy.
>>> Why not?
>> It's irrelevant, skirt-boy. See below.
>>
>>>> I'm only interested in pointing out that the burden is his,
>>>> because he is the one making the assertion. And of course, when you
>>>> assert - without support - that animals deserve equal moral
>>>> consideration, the burden of proof is on you...and you fail to meet
>>>> it.
>> That.
>>
>
> But I maintain that this view is unacceptable because it can't account
> for how the abolitionists could have adequatly argued for the
> abolition of slavery. You maintain that they could have, but you
> haven't met your obligation to explain how.

I don't have any such obligation.

In fact, the only obligation I have in this entire
affair is to point out that you can't defend your most
basic assertion, and that you're a hypocrite.


>>>>>>> It was their opponents' job to refute them.
>>>>>> It was the opponents' - the abolitionists' - job to
>>>>>> support their assertion that Negroes were entitled to
>>>>>> equal consideration, and they met it.
>>>>> How?
>>>> Go read what the abolitionists wrote. I'm not doing your assignments
>>>> for you, rupie, you little skirt-boy.
>>>>>> You can't meet
>>>>>> your similar burden.
>>>>>>> If they *did* have a burden of proof to meet,
>>>>>> They didn't have any burden of proof because they
>>>>>> weren't making any assertions at all, rupie. They were
>>>>>> simply going about life as they had always known it.
>>>>> Jolly good. But people who explicitly defend the status quo regarding
>>>>> animals, such as yourself, are making positive assertions
>>>> No.
>>> Of course you are.
>> No.
>>
>
> Right

Right.


>>>> You're not meeting your burden of proof, and that's all there is to
>>>> it.
>>> If the presumption in favour of equal consideration
>> No such presumption.
>>
>
> Well, I had something to say about certain unacceptable conclusions
> which would follow if that was the case, which you snipped.

It was crap.


>>>>>>> then the move "Show us why negroes shouldn't
>>>>>>> get equal consideration" would have been legitimate, contrary to what
>>>>>>> you're claiming.
>>>>>> No, rupie, it would not have been. Those asserting the
>>>>>> moral equality of Negroes would have had the burden.
>>>>>> *Anyone* making such an assertion, regardless of the
>>>>>> direction of the assertion, always has the burden of proof.
>>>>>>> So make up your mind.
>>>>>> It already was, and is.
>>>>> So you're saying you can escape the burden of proof just by not saying
>>>>> anything.
>>>> No, I'm saying the burden is on you, and it is; and you fail.
>> You fail utterly.
>>
>
> My argument is fine

It's crap. You can't support your most basic
assertion. It is not an axiom.


>>>>>>> Where does the burden of proof
>>>>>>> lie, with those who advocate equal consideration for negroes, or those
>>>>>>> who deny it?
>>>>>> It lies with whomever is making an assertion trying to
>>>>>> persuade someone else of some position contrary to the
>>>>>> one the listener holds _ex ante_. If it's a
>>>>>> segregationist trying to persuade an
>>>>>> equal-consideration adherent that consideration
>>>>>> shouldn't be equal, then the burden is on the
>>>>>> segregationist. If the roles are reversed, then the
>>>>>> burden is on the equal-consideration proponent. The
>>>>>> burden is always on the person making an assertion
>>>>>> intended to persuade.
>>>>> Great. So convince me that your view of the moral status of animals is
>>>>> the correct one.
>>>> No, you persuade me, skirt-boy. You won't, of course, because you
>>>> have no idea how to start.
>>> If I said "I don't think that Negroes are entitled to equal
>>> consideration, you persuade me that they are", you would clearly have
>>> no idea how to start either.
>> You're wrong, rupie. I do know.
>>
>
> Empty bluster.

You keep telling yourself that, rupie. It might make
the pain go away for a bit.


>> Get busy defending your assertion, skirt-boy.
>>
>
> Let's go over it again

Let's have you defend your assertion, for the *first*
time, skirt-boy.


>>>>>>> It can't be on both.
>>>>>> I never said it was, rupie. You misread in order to
>>>>>> think I did. I said it could be *either*, depending on
>>>>>> who was talking to whom.
>>>>> So, if it's not a legitimate move to ask someone to justify a pattern
>>>>> of discrimination,
>>>> I didn't say that, rupie.
>>> Well, what the hell are you saying then?
>> I'm saying that you are failing to support your crucial
>> assertion. You are - an utter failure.
>>
>
> See above.

Bullshit above, as usual. You can't defend your
assertion. Someone might be able to defend it, but you
can't.


>>>>> then can you give me just one historical example of
>>>>> a valid argument for ending discrimination?
>>>>>>> It must be on one or the other, and
>>>>>>> you've been maintaining it was on the advocates of equal
>>>>>>> consideration.
>>>>>> And I'm correct, given the context.
>>>>>> The problem for you in this, rupie, is that you are so
>>>>>> incoherently convinced of the *intrinsic* rightness of
>>>>>> what you believe, that you want to consider it
>>>>>> axiomatic. This is a very surprising position for
>>>>>> someone allegedly with a Ph.D. in mathematics. In
>>>>>> math, there are theorems that *become* axioms, but they
>>>>>> don't start out that way. Once a theorem is proved, it
>>>>>> may be subsequently taken as axiomatic in the
>>>>>> elaboration and proof of other theorems, but only
>>>>>> because the truth of the axiom was already proved,
>>>>>> rather than simply assumed out of thin air.
>>>>> You obviously don't know much about mathematical logic.
>>>> I know enough to know that axioms don't just exist in the ether,
>>>> ****wit. They first are proved, THEN they are used as axioms later
>>>> on.
>>> Er, not really, no.
>> Yes, really. I didn't do Ph.D. level maths, rupie, but
>> I did enough. I also know how axioms work in other fields.
>>
>
> Axioms are not proved.

Axioms *are* proved; once proved, they don't require
further proof.


>> You can't merely assert something is "axiomatic", rupie.
>>
>
> We've all got to start somewhere.

You may not begin by assuming something that you
absolutely are required to demonstrate.


>>>> You want your moral beliefs to be treated as axiomatically correct
>>>> from the outset, rupie, and I'm here to shove that right down your
>>>> skinny pencil-neck throat.
>>> I'm taking the formal principle of justice
>> Crap. Crap that assumes one of its basic premises as
>> axiomatic, so the entire endeavor is crap.
>>
>
> Yes, most moral philosophes do take the formal principle of justice

Crap.


>>>>>> You *want* the proposition that animals deserve equal
>>>>>> moral consideration to be considered axiomatic, rupie,
>>>>>> but it is not. That's why there's still so much debate
>>>>>> on it. Your desire is motivated by
>>>>>> a) your irrationally passionate gut-level, not
>>>>>> intellectual, attachment to animals ("Bambi"
>>>>>> syndrome)
>>>>>> b) your basic philosophical laziness and inability
>>>>>> You don't *want* to have to prove the propostion,
>>>>>> because you're a lazy, narcissistic **** who likes the
>>>>>> easy life on your imaginary moral pedestal. You like
>>>>>> thinking of yourself as morally superior merely because
>>>>>> of having declared yourself free of cruelty to animals.
>>>>>> Your position is bullshit.
>>>>> I've given a good explanation of why the burden of proof is on someone
>>>>> who wants to deny equal consideration.
>>>> You have not.
>>> Yes, I have,
>> You haven't, rupie. You've fallen back on mere (and
>> empty) ipse dixit. It's all you have.
>>
>
> See above.

Empty ipse dixit above. As usual. Crap.


>>>> You have consistently shirked your rhetorical
>>>> responsibility, and you always will.
>>>> It is not axiomatic that animals deserve equal consideration, rupie.
>>>> That's just reality.
>>> The formal principle of justice
>> Crap. Something that, again, assumes that which it
>> must support. Burden of proof: NOT MET.

And nothing has changed.