|
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, 11:06 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?
Take it down, rupie.
|