|
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|
|
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
>> 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 -
>>>> Let me get this straight,
>>> Take it down, rupie. I know how to get that page
>>> ****ed up but good if you don't. Take it down. No one
>>> authorized you to put anyone's name on your page. Take
>>> it down.
>>
>> God help me, what a coward.
>
> Take it down, rupie. You are not authorized to post personal references
> and photos on your site.
canoza must be mexican castor oil and snot mix.
|