|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|
|
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Aug 1, 3:58 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pfffft.
|