On Jul 30, 1:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, yes. You know a lot, Ball. I just recently made a post elsewhere
in this thread on that subject. You know what flaws my talk has
without reading it, and you know what flaws my maths paper has despite
knowing nothing about maths. And you know that I'm queer, that I'm
destined to be a career telemarketer, and so forth. Each time you make
one of these pronouncements it's with absolute certainty. It's just
amazing, how much you know.

Anyway, you asked me to meet my burden of proof, and I've given you a
text to have a look at. If you write up a response, I'll post it on my
webpage and I'll make a good faith effort to consider your criticisms
in a fair and open-minded way, and I'll write a considered response to
them. And we can keep that going for as long as you like. Can't say
fairer than that, now can you?