View Single Post
  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 30, 2:38 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > 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.

>
> > Yes, yes. You know a lot, Rudy.

>
> Right - I do. I do know that you still assume in your
> little sermon that animals are entitled to equal moral
> consideration, when that premise is the very thing you
> are tasked to show. You haven't shown it, and we all
> know you can't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


You asked me for an argument. I gave you one. Instead of bothering to
read it, you confidently asserted that you know, without reading a
single word of it, that in it I assume what I am required to show,
that I haven't shown what I am required to show, and that I can't.
This is not the case. There's not much I can do if you're not going to
read it. You asked for the argument, the argument has been produced
and remains unreplied to. That means I've won. You apparently feel
content with this situation. Jolly good. Now, say some more funny
stuff.