FoodBanter.com - View Single Post - skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert

On Aug 1, 11:06 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jul 31, 3:29 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 1, 8:03 am, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 1, 7:56 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Jolly good. Let me just say that I cannot believe what a joke you are.
> > > The idea that any respectable university ever gave you a Ph.D. is
> > > quite absurd. I will publish your response on my webpage along with my
> > > reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > It's up there. Your move.
>
> >http://rupertmccallum.com/debate.html
>
> Take the name off your page, fruit.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Why?