|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|
|
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 1, 11:05 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 3:03 pm, 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.
>>> Jolly good.
>> You stupid ****ing chump.
>
> Non sequitur.
You are such a clueless ****.
|