On Aug 8, 5:18 am, Dutch > wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:GPWti.39889$fJ5.24475@pd7urf1no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:XhQti.39249$fJ5.34707@pd7urf1no...
> >>>> He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
> >>>> the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
> >>>> read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
> >>>> childish display.
> >>> He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.
> >> They aren't ignorant, they read "The literature",
>
> > The showed "*no evidence*" of reading the philosophical literature.
>
> Translation, they disagreed with the idea of "Animal Rights" therefore
> they are to be treated like ignorant children.

No. They made arguments which appeared to show a lack of familiarity
with the literature, therefore Regan remarked on that fact.