On Jul 31, 4:34 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jul 31, 3:40 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rupert wrote:
> > > On Jul 31, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >> Rupert wrote:
> > >>> 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.
> > >>> You asked me for an argument. I gave you one.
> > >> You didn't. You merely repeated the assertion you
> > >> can't seem to support.
>
> > > Okay, this is your response to my talk?
>
> > What talk? The unsupported blabber about animals being
> > due equal consideration?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I directed you to a document in the Files section of my Yahoo group.
> Have you actually managed to download it yet? Or are you unable to
> download it without joining my Yahoo group and do you want me to put
> it up on my webpage?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I've put it on my webpage for you. How could I refuse, when you asked
so nicely?

http://rupertmccallum.com/animal%20rights%20talk.doc