On Jul 31, 2:52 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 1:09 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rupert wrote:
> > > 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
>
> > What laughable bullshit!
>
> > Here I want to discuss a short argument for this
> > conclusion which would probably be accepted as
> > sound, with perhaps some qualifications, by almost
> > all philosophers who hold the view that using
> > animals in scientific research is wrong.
>
> > In other words, people who have *ALREADY* reached the
> > very conclusion you're attempting to prove! HA HA HA
> > HA HA! You ****ing DILETTANTE fruit! "Philosopher" my
> > ass...
>
> Is that your response, then?

Yes, you circular ****wit. You explicitly acknowledge that you are
assuming the very thing you are tasked with proving. What a ****ing
chump.