skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 29, 1:56 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Guppy the Corpse Pumper wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 2:08 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:52 pm, shrubkiller > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
>>>>>>>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
>>>>>>>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
>>>>>>>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
>>>>>>>>>>> Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
>>>>>>>>>> It is not self-evident. In fact, it is more likely self-evidently
>>>>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>>> More proof that
>>>>>>>> The proposition of equal moral considerability of
>>>>>>>> animals (with humans) is self evidently false.
>>>>>>> Well, surely if I can be criticized for making an assertion without
>>>>>>> meeting by burden of proof, then this assertion of yours here can
>>>>>>> equally be criticized on that basis.
>>>>>> I'm just following your lead.
>>>>> I see. Well, that blabber of mine to which I directed you
>>>> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>>> I mean, you did ask me to defend my position in your opening post. So
>>> I direct you towards a considered attempt at a defence
>> Post the content here, skirt-boy. I'm not interested
>> in signing up for your fruit-display Yahoo group.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> I don't think you have to sign up to the Yahoo group to download the
> file. Dutch did it and I don't think he signed up. It's too long to
> put in a newsgroup message. Maybe I'll put it on my webpage.
>
> So, anyway, by your own admission you dismissed my talk as "babble"
> without having read a single word of it.
I know that you assume that which you are required to
prove.
|