Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 30, 1:50 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 6:56 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 29, 5:40 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >> [..]

>
> >>>>> What would it take for the capability not to be there? This idea of
> >>>>> the ability being somehow "inherent but not operative" is totally
> >>>>> obscure to me. You either have an ability or you don't.
> >>>> Do you understand having wings but not being able to fly?
> >>> Yes, that's fine.
> >> It's exactly like that. Such an animal has the capability of flight but
> >> not the ability.

>
> > Well, on that basis it sounds to me as though having the capability
> > involves having a structure present which in normal contexts gives one
> > the ability.

>
> Right
>
> So I would say the issue of whether neonates, fetuses, or
>
> > radically cognitively impaired humans have the capability for
> > linguistic competence, moral agency, and so forth, is a matter for
> > scientific investigation, not something that can be inferred from
> > everyday observation.

>
> I disagree. Although it is difficult to generalize about which abilities
> any particular impaired person may retain, it is readily observable that
> young at any stage do develop human abilities, thereby confirming that
> they had innate capabilities.
>


Above you said the test was whether there was a structure present that
provided the ability in ordinary context. Now you seem to be saying
that the test is whether there is reason to think that the ability
will eventually develop under normal circumstances. Those are two
different tests.

> >>>> Do you
> >>>> understand having the capability of speech but not being able to talk?
> >>> Well, this could use a little more elaboration. You mean someone with
> >>> laryngitis?
> >> That would be one possible example, there could be many others, infants
> >> for example,

>
> > I don't think you'll find many people will find it plausible to say
> > that infants have the capability of speech.

>
> You're talking about "ability", not capability.
>


There's no distinction in ordinary usage. Wetlesen says "Infants have
the capability, but not the ability, for speech." The meaning of this
is obscure to me, and I believe it would be obscure to most native
English speakers as well.

> >> or someone suffering from brain trauma or stress disorder.

>
> > I would say that would depend on the brain trauma.

>
> Of course, but it's an example of how a person could have the ability to
> speak damaged. They could and many do subsequently learn all over again.
>


So the ability is termporarily lost. But apparently the capability
stays there permanently. What's the basis for saying that? What
actually happens is that neural pathways are damaged and then
gradually re-formed. What's the basis for saying the capability was
never lost? In what sense is it always there?

> >> The primary way we know with relative certainty that these individuals
> >> have the capability of speech is by their species. This is exactly the
> >> same principle as the flightless bird above.

>
> > It's not clear enough how to generalize from the case of the
> > flightless bird. Do chickens have the capability of flight? Why, or
> > why not?

>
> No, observing the rest of the species tells us that. Why, I'm not sure.
>


So it looks like we now have three different tests.

(1) Is there a structure present which realizes the ability in normal
contexts?
(2) Do we know that the ability will eventually develop under normal
circumstances?
(3) Do conspecifics have the ability?

Those are very different tests.

> > In the case of the advanced cognitive abilities, what brain
> > structures have to be there for the capability to be present? What
> > kinds of brain damage would mean the capability was no longer there?
> > Why? You're just vaguely saying "oh, they're the same species as us,
> > so it's reasonable to assume they have the same capabilities as us",
> > as if it were self-evident what that meant. It's just not good enough.
> > You have to give a scientific account of what it is to have the
> > capabilities and give evidence that they actually have them.

>
> It's always good to have more information, as humans we crave knowledge,
> but the present purpose we have enough to know that only humans have the
> abilities in question.
>


But it's crucial to argument that we have good reason to suspect that
all humans with a brain have the capabilities, but no reason to
suspect this in the case of nonhumans. Whatever "capabilities" means.
You need to substantiate this claim.

> >>>> Advanced cognitive abilities are no different.
> >>> This really doesn't tell me anything. You're talking as though it were
> >>> self-evident how to generalize those two examples. It's not.
> >> Just like the eagle with underdeveloped wings, we know from long
> >> experience observing members of their species that they have the
> >> capability of flight. If the bird were a baby emu we would not make that
> >> assumption, we would assume that they will never be able to fly.

>
> > Well, that's interesting. So it's relevant whether the structure has
> > the potential to become functional. So, what about the case of a
> > radically brain-damaged human, then?

>
> We would not be able to define that individual's precise disability,
> because it is specific to him. In any case we would not form any
> conclusions about dogs on that basis. The idea is actually absurd when
> you look at from that angle.
>


I don't understand why there is a reason to give a brain-damaged human
the benefit of the doubt (why is there any doubt at all, using the
test you gave just above?) but it's "absurd" to do the same for a dog.
You've given me three different tests so far, only the one based on
species does the job of making the distinction, but I need to be told
why species is such a big deal.

> >>>> None of the abilities an
> >>>> ape displays are evident in young apes.
> >>>>> I guess you're
> >>>>> somehow alluding to the fact that the machinery which gives rise to
> >>>>> the ability in normal contexts is all there.
> >>>> You don't have to guess, I have made it abundantly clear what I mean.
> >>> Part of the way I earn my living is by explaining mathematical
> >>> concepts to teenagers. I find it very rewarding work. Now, often those
> >>> teenagers fail to understand something which is crystal clear to me.
> >>> If I were to say to them under those circumstances, "you don't have to
> >>> guess, I have made it abundantly clear what I mean", I don't think
> >>> they'd be hiring me for too much longer. I would be shirking my
> >>> professional responsibilities and I would also be delusional, I would
> >>> be flying in the face of the obvious reality that I hadn't succeeding
> >>> in doing my job of conveying my understanding to them.
> >>> I'm just going with this analogy for the sake of argument. I have to
> >>> confess that I find it very difficult to maintain this image of you
> >>> somehow standing in the same relation to me as I do to those teenagers
> >>> with a straight face, but never mind that. Let's say for the sake of
> >>> argument that you're the patient, long-suffering teacher and I'm the
> >>> slow-witted student. You still have to accept the obvious fact that
> >>> you're not conveying anything to me. Whatever that says about me, it's
> >>> part of the reality. Saying "I've already made it clear" is pretty
> >>> lame, don't you think? Surely it would be more rational to say "Well,
> >>> so far I haven't made it clear to you, I guess I'll either give up or
> >>> try a bit harder."
> >> That's a very good way of putting it. I will try harder. It's not like
> >> there are a plethora of intelligent people willing to discuss this
> >> subject with me..

>
> > Jolly good. And I'll do my best to be fair and open-minded. But I do
> > think there are some serious problems here.

>
> Yea, oh well, let's soldier on.
>
>
>
> >>>>> You might be able to give
> >>>>> that idea a precise sense in some contexts, though you haven't done
> >>>>> that yet.
> >>>> Every example I have given does it.
> >>> You think it's straightforward how to generalize those examples. I
> >>> don't. I'm really quite surprised it's not clear to you, based on what
> >>> I've said, why I find this talk of "capability" so vague.
> >> Can you maybe articulate why you find it difficult to generalize? The
> >> capability of flight is a fairly complex ability, as is the set of
> >> advanced cognitive functions we're discussing. In both cases we only
> >> know of the capability by making assumptions from prior observations of
> >> similar animals. In neither case do we require a thorough understanding
> >> of the mechanics of the ability.

>
> > Okay, let's see. You say "a baby eagle has the capability of flight
> > but not the ability, a baby emu doesn't have the capability". And
> > Wetlesen says that capability is not the same as potential ability.

>
> No he doesn't. You're forgetting that you misread that sentence. He
> makes in quite clear that capability *is* latent, undeveloped ability.
> If you can't agree to this I could ask him to clarify it, but I am
> positive about it.
>


Well, I'll have another look. If capability is latent ability then we
need to be told the reason for suspecting that a radically cognitively
impaired human has any latent ability, any more than a dog.

> So
>
> > do I know what you mean? Well, the best I can do is speculate that by
> > having "the capability of flight" you mean the presence of some
> > structure which is in some sense sufficiently like the structure which
> > actually enables the ability in the cases where the ability is
> > present. It's a bit vague exactly where to draw the line, but assuming
> > you mean something like this, then I've got some understanding of the
> > concept you want to use. But to generalize it to the context of
> > advanced cognitive abilities, I think I need to know more about
> > exactly what structures you regard as most essential. The way in which
> > our brain structures give us advanced cognitive abilities is a bit
> > different to the way in which wings give birds the ability for flight.
> > It's a bit more complicated.

>
> I agree that it's all complicated, but the essence of it is the same. It
> is ability in some form that is part of the structure of the organism
> that can develop under the right circumstances.
>


But I see no reason to think that radically cognitively impaired
humans have such a thing.

> >> [..]

>
> >>> Where's the definition? I didn't see one.
> >> A capability is defined as a non-operative ability. The status of being
> >> non-operative may be due to a number of factors which we previously
> >> discussed.

>
> > Well, you can put it that way if you want, but I think you're straying
> > a bit from the way Wetlesen puts it.

>
> Not at all, that it exactly what he says. There is one sentence where he
> uses the word ability where he means capability but if you read the
> whole section it is quite clear what he means.
>
> > You're saying a capability is a
> > special case of an ability, Wetlesen says a capability can be present
> > without the corresponding ability being present.

>
> The two don't seem contradictory, capability doesn't disappear when
> ability begins, it becomes temporarily sidelined, secondary.
>
> > I mean, this may seem
> > like splitting hairs, but my problem is that when Wetlesen uses
> > "ability" to mean only abilities that are operative, the sense is
> > clear to me, but when you use "ability" to mean abilities that may or
> > may not be operative, the same difficulties of interpretation come up
> > as in the case of "capability".

>
> Let's use the example of the ability to solve complex equations, you
> developed the ability to do this from your basic capability and a lot of
> study. Let's say you stop doing math and lose the ability to do them,
> you would retain the capability and with some effort you would regain
> the ability you have now.
>
>
>
> >> [..]

>
> >>>>> How far is it allowed to be from being in working order?
> >>>> That doesn't matter.
> >>> It does matter if you want to understand the concept. Without some way
> >>> of going about deciding where to draw the line, I can't accept that
> >>> this is a well-defined enough concept to do the job that's being
> >>> required of it.
> >>> These are important questions. You're kidding yourself if you think
> >>> that you're seriously engaging with a philosophical issue if you brush
> >>> off questions like this with "It doesn't matter".
> >> I think you misunderstood the response. I didn't mean to brush your
> >> question off, I mean literally that it_doesn't_matter how far the
> >> capability is from being in working order. All that matters is that we
> >> have decided that it exists or that there is a reasonable possibility
> >> that it may exist.

>
> > But you have to convince me that it's reasonable to give all humans
> > with a brain the benefit of the doubt and not to give any nonhumans
> > the benefit of the doubt. Hence the issue of where to draw the line
> > becomes relevant.

>
> There is no doubt to give non-humans with respect to higher cognitive
> abilities, we simply have no evidence they have such capabilities. There
> is some inkling that great apes may approach such capabilities, enough
> that I think they should be protected with basic moral consideration.
>


I don't understand why there is a doubt the benefit of which to give
in the case of radically cognitively impaired humans, but not in the
case of nonhumans.

>
>
> >> It's the capability itself on which we are placing
> >> the value, not the becoming operative. When we decide that fish or cows
> >> lack the capability we mean there is zero possibility that those
> >> abilities would ever manifest.

>
> > But there are plenty of human cases where there is also zero
> > possibility.

>
> I would say not zero,


I wouldn't. That seems to be the problem.

> almost all cases involve some level of
> diminishment, leaving some functionality. In any case, besides the faint
> hope principle, there is a long list of social, legal, personal,
> religious, logistic, and other reasons why we maintain moral
> consideration for impaired humans. There is no possibility that this
> backwards approach using marginal humans will ever convince us that we
> treat animals incorrectly.
>


I find it pretty convincing. So do lots of other people.

> >>>>> And,
> >>>>> anyway, what is supposed to be the morally big deal about the
> >>>>> machinery being there?
> >>>> The inherent capability is necessary for the operative ability to ever
> >>>> be expressed. Morally, life dictates that we "draw lines" since there is
> >>>> no practical way to avoid causing harm, therefore we use concepts like
> >>>> sentience to rationalize the way we interact with the world. We all do
> >>>> it. You dismiss the interests of some organisms as subservient to your
> >>>> own based largely on some sentience-type criteria, as well as convenience.
> >>> Yes, I have some criteria for determining what sort of consideration I
> >>> give to various beings. We've talked about those. Now your job is to
> >>> explain to me what you think Wetlesen's criteria are and defend them.
> >> Wetlesen's criterion is sentience, the same as yours, and mine.

>
> > I thought it was capability.

>
> For sentience. Page 2. "In the following I shall argue for a biocentric
> answer to the main question. This is an individualistic version of a
> nonanthropocentric position. It ascribes moral status to all individual
> living organisms; humans, other animals, plants, and micro-organisms.
> This position is congenial to Albert Schweitzer's 'reverence for life'.
> To me it has a strong appeal with both philosophical and religious
> overtones. On the other hand, I do not accept Schweitzer's assumption
> that all living organisms should be ascribed an equal moral status
> value. Such a strong assumption seems to be counter-intuitive, and
> besides, unnecessary. Instead, I shall argue for a grading of moral
> status value, as well as of the strength of our corresponding duties to
> moral subjects. There will be one exception from this grading, however,
> pertaining to human beings. They are ascribed the highest moral status
> value, not because they are humans but because they are moral agents or
> moral persons. This will be a universalistic and egalitarian view of
> human dignity and basic human rights. Other living beings are ascribed
> degrees of moral status value depending on their degree of relevant
> similarity to moral persons. Presumably, animals with self-consciousness
> or consciousness and sentience have a higher moral status value than
> nonconscious and nonsentient organisms. Even so, however, the organisms
> with a lesser moral status value are not devoid of moral status, and for
> this reason we do have a prima facie duty not to cause avoidable harm to
> them. Or if we cannot avoid harming them in order to survive ourselves,
> then we have at least a subsidiary duty to cause the least harm."
>
> >> He

>
> >> proposes that consideration be accorded in a graded fashion based on
> >> degrees of sentience.

>
> > Well, that sounds fine to me, except that I think that no meaningful
> > distinction can be drawn between radically cognitive impaired humans
> > and nonhumans, so I accept the argument from marginal cases.

>
> None of the reasons we extend consideration to marginal humans apply to
> non-humans.
>


How about their capacity to suffer?

I don't accept that you've given any good reason why we should make a
distinction.

> >> It is an approach that mirrors how most of us
> >> already think. Popper's notion of the natural selection of theories
> >> would lead us to conclude that this is a very useful idea.

>
> > For Popper, the key criterion would be the extent to which the theory
> > subjects itself to the risk of empirical falsification.

>
> Not according to the quote I found.
>


Yes, according to the quote you found, correctly interpreted. I know
Popper's philosophy of science. I'll find quotes in support of my
interpretation if you like.

> What would it
>
> > take to falsify the hypothesis that all humans with a brain can be
> > reasonably assumed to have the capability for linguistic competence
> > and moral agency, but no nonhumans can?

>
> That's not a reasonable hypothesis, it contains absolutes and absolutes
> don't lend themselves to reasonable hypotheses about social realities.
>


Quite. But the hypothesis must be sustained if the AMC is to be
rebutted. So it's a shame for you that it's not reasonable.

> >>>>>> Explain what is inadequate about the above description. I'll tell you,
> >>>>>> nothing.
> >>>>> Everything. You haven't given any indication of what having the
> >>>>> capability consists in.
> >>>> The way we determine if an organism has specific capabilities is by
> >>>> observation. The primary clue is species.
> >>> That's pretty much all you've said so far. Species is a big clue.
> >>> That's all we know so far. You haven't explained why, you've just
> >>> asserted it. All right, so species is a big clue, maybe we'll hear
> >>> more about why that is later. Now, what else is relevant? What are the
> >>> criteria? How do we go about determining it?
> >> Species is relevant in this argument because an animal's species tells
> >> us most of the story of that animal's capabilities and limitations.

>
> > That's pretty much just repeating what you've already said.

>
> Something similar to how you keep repeating the argument from marginal
> cases you mean?
>


Which has not yet been rebutted.

> > Could you
> > perhaps tell me why species gives us so much information,

>
> It just does.


Not very informative.

> Why can birds fly? Why can we breathe air?
>


I assume biologists could help you out there.

> and more
>
> > importantly *what* is it giving us information about?

>
> About members of the species, their abilities and limitations.
>


I thought it was giving us information about the capabilities of the
members of the species who lacked the abilities. And I was craving
some explication of what this meant.

>
>
> >> [..]

>
> >>> really is true. Shouldn't you be a little bit more open to the
> >>> possibility that maybe there is some validity to my point of view and
> >>> maybe this concept is not quite as clear as you think it is?
> >> Yes, I acknowledge that it is not clear to you. It is clear to me
> >> however. My theory about why it is not clear to you, fwiw, has to do
> >> with "cognitive dissonance". Since the theory disrupts a strongly held
> >> existing idea in your brain, your brain is setting up interference that
> >> is preventing you from internalizing it. This interference is causing
> >> you to perceive the idea as confusing. The idea in itself is not really
> >> difficult or vague however. The reason I mention this is not to be
> >> patronizing, I offer it as an plausible theory which may help you to
> >> deal with moving forward in this exercise. I do have some personal
> >> experience with cognitive dissonance, I experienced it, and at the point
> >> when I finally consciously confronted the underlying conflict I
> >> experienced a kind of physical discomfort in the brain, a dizziness and
> >> a buzzing in my ears, followed shortly by a kind of feeling of relief
> >> and elevated mental clarity. The brain will attempt to punish you to
> >> stop you from threatening the existing belief.

>
> >> > So see how you go at

>
> >>> dispelling the webs of confusion. Or not. It's up to you.
> >> Maybe if I lay it out in point form

>
> >> 1. There are such things as advanced cognitive abilities.

>
> >> 2. There is such a thing as the capability to develop these abilities,
> >> otherwise the abilities would not exist.

>
> > If there is the slightest reason to suspect that a radically
> > cognitively impaired human has any "capability to develop the
> > abilities", then I'm not clear on what "capability to develop the
> > abilities" means.

>
> There is the slightest reason, they are human, therefore the possibility
> exists, not only of advancing,


No, in many cases that doesn't exist.

> but that some exists already,


I don't see that, given that in many cases it's a certainty that
they'll never develop the abilities.

> and in most
> cases it probably does. Then there are the other reasons...
>


I'm not impressed with the other reasons.

>
>
> >> 3. Up until the present time only humans have exhibited these abilities.

>
> >> 4. Therefore only humans (as far as we know) possess the capability to
> >> develop these abilities.

>
> > And not all humans with a brain, so far as I can tell...

>
> We should avoid the absolute "all" in this context, it leads to confusion.


You need to defend the contention that all humans with a brain can be
reasonably assumed to have the relevant capabilities in order to rebut
the AMC.

  #82 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 31, 12:44 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > Derek wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:47:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza
> >> > wrote:
> >>> Derek wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:58:38 GMT, Rudy Canoza
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>> Derek wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:33:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza
> >>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>> Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:39:23 GMT, Rudy Canoza
> >>>>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I do have some personal experience with cognitive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> dissonance, I experienced it, and at the point when I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> finally consciously confronted the underlying conflict I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced a kind of physical discomfort in the brain, a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> dizziness and a buzzing in my ears, followed shortly by a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of feeling of relief and elevated mental clarity. The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> brain will attempt to punish you to stop you from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> threatening the existing belief.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar who
> >>>>>>>>>>>> had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal evidence
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to get your points accepted, both here and in alt.abortion,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> when you try to stop deluding yourself your brain punishes
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you to such an extent that it hurts you ("physical
> >>>>>>>>>>>> discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and gives you a buzzing
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sound in your ears.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
> >>>>>>>>>>>> all who was it hurting?" Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2002http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Deluding myself felt good." Dutch Jun 4 2005
> >>>>>>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/94eq3
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Your history is well established.
> >>>>>>>>>> As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain why I
> >>>>>>>>>> or anyone should take you seriously after learning how
> >>>>>>>>>> mentally ill you are, you try to excuse your bad
> >>>>>>>>>> behaviour by referring to the alleged bad behaviour of others.
> >>>>>>>>>> That's simply not good enough, Ditch. Going
> >>>>>>>>>> from that statement you made at the top of this post
> >>>>>>>>>> and others you've made over the years concerning your
> >>>>>>>>>> deluded state of mind, and how it makes you feel good,
> >>>>>>>>>> you're clearly suffering from a serious mental illness and
> >>>>>>>>>> can't be taken seriously here on these issues. You're a
> >>>>>>>>>> deluded liar who, when faced with the truth, refuses to
> >>>>>>>>>> accept that truth because, simply put, it makes your brain
> >>>>>>>>>> hurt and makes your ears buzz. haw haw haw.
> >>>>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
> >>>>>>>> He's clearly suffering from a serious mental illness if his
> >>>>>>>> mental conflicts and self-confessed delusions cause physical
> >>>>>>>> discomfort in the brain, dizziness, and a buzzing in the ears.
> >>>>>>>> He's certifiable.
> >>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
> >>>>>> He's a self-confessed delusional who believes his own
> >>>>>> brain punishes itself with pain, dizziness, and a buzzing
> >>>>>> in the ears when forced to confront conflicts. That's
> >>>>>> a very serious mental disorder which must be taken
> >>>>>> into account when discussing issues with him, because
> >>>>>> rather than face the truth like a normal person does he deludes
> >>>>>> himself instead to feel good for fear that his
> >>>>>> brain is going to punish him again.
> >>>>> WAS.
> >>>> IS. I've no reason to believe he's cured.
> >>> No, WAS. You have no reason to doubt that he has resolved the conflict

>
> >> His quotes show that hasn't resolved any conflicts at all.

>
> > His quotes show that he *has* resolved the only relevant conflict. He
> > no longer believes animals have rights.

>
> >>>>> He resolved the cognitive dissonance by eliminating the delusion.
> >>>> His quotes show that he's flip-flopped back and forth on the issues
> >>>> raised here for years, so no, I don't believe
> >>>> for one moment that he's ever managed to resolve those
> >>>> conflicts which cause his brain to attack itself in the way
> >>>> he describes.
> >>> His quotes and all of his posting history since about 2001 show that
> >>> he no longer believes in animal "rights".

>
> >> False. He first came here claiming to be an advocate on the
> >> proposition of animal rights.
> >> "I am an animal rights believer." Dutch 12 Feb 2001
> >>http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3
> >> and
> >> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted like
> >> branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". They are derivative. They
> >> reflect from a) what our own rights are b) to what degree and how
> >> we value the animal or species." Dutch 23 Feb 2001
> >>http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh
> >> But within just a few months he started writing things like;
> >> "They have no rights because the very idea of a world of animals
> >> with rights is a laugh."

>
> > That's a lot of time that went by. Mercer, among others, set him straight.

>
> Those quotes don't even say what he claims they do, he knows it. I have
> said all along that I believe that there are such things as "animal
> rights" and I contend that most people believe that there are. They are
> nothing at all like "Animal Rights" as AR presents it though. I refuse
> to concede useful, informative English phrases to extremists.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Okay, so you believe that nonhuman animals have some rights, but you
don't accept most of the positions that people who identify themselves
as ARAs do. Which is fine. In this respect you disagree with Ball, he
explicitly denies that nonhuman animals have any rights. And he also
thinks that if you believe that nonhuman animals have any rights, then
you must stop supporting all commercial agriculture. This is a crucial
part of his case that I am a hypocrite. So this disagreement of yours
with him is quite important. If you are right, then he has no case
that I am a hypocrite, and you should acknowledge this point.

  #83 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 31, 4:02 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 03:45:55 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
> >On Jul 29, 7:28 am, Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass
> > wrote:
> >> On Jul 28, 9:24 am, 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- Hide quoted text -

>
> >> > > - Show quoted text -

>
> >> > So, may I take it that you have no cogent criticisms to make of my
> >> > talk?

>
> >> You're kidding, right?

>
> >> Goo will dismiss your talk entirely without having read or heard it.

>
> >> Only Goo is wise.

>
> >> Only Goo knows.

>
> >Yes, I've often thought how great it would be to know everything, like
> >him. Like the way he knows that all the male activists at Animal
> >Liberation, including me, are queer, and the way he knows that the
> >mathematical paper I'm working on is rubbish, and the way he knows
> >that I'm seething with rage at him as opposed to roaring with
> >laughter,

>
> Since the Goober makes up whatever he wants, and never
> even tries to back up his absurd claims, he presents what he
> considers to be an intelligent character when the reality is that
> he's very clearly just a liar.
>
> >and the way he knows that I'm the one who exhibits symptoms
> >of psychosis, and so much more. Imagine knowing so much.

>
> "Knowing"? "Much"? When considering dishonesty to the
> extreme of the Goobal level, it always leads to the question:
>
> How much of his absurdity is the Goober himself stupid enough
> to believe?
>


Yes, I certainly often wonder about that myself. It really is quite
mind-boggling.


  #84 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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?
  #85 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 31, 12:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 30, 2:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 30, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:55 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, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****! ................are you ever stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would appear.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I blah blah blah
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You contribute to animal death.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You violate your so-called beliefs.
>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes - daily.
>>>>>>>>> No, I don't
>>>>>>>> Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.
>>>>>>> Yawn.
>>>>>> Uh-huh - NOT. You're still defensive, and with good
>>>>>> reason.
>>>>> By the way, Rudy, I do genuinely wonder whether I should become self-
>>>>> sufficient in food and electricity.
>>>> No, you don't wonder that at all. You're fully
>>>> committed - addicted, even - to a life of pleasure, and
>>>> you'd have to give that up; you have no intention of
>>>> giving it up.
>>> You don't have a clue, Ball, any more than you have a clue about
>>> anything else. I do seriously consider it. Sure, I'd find it hard to
>>> sacrifice my personal comfort to that extent, but I'd be much more
>>> likely to do it than just about anyone else, certainly much more
>>> likely than you in similar circumstances. However, I have genuine
>>> reservations about it, for the reasons I explained.
>>>>> I don't think that you've shown
>>>>> that I've verbally committed myself to anything which entails that I
>>>>> should, but
>>>> Daily, you participate in processes that cause animals
>>>> to die. Your participation is voluntary, unnecessary,
>>>> repeated and done with full awareness of the deaths.
>>>> It is not "merely financial" support; it is active
>>>> participation. It is the proof that you don't extend
>>>> the same moral consideration to animals that you do to
>>>> humans,
>>> No, it's not.

>> Yes, it is.
>>
>>>> and thus, your preaching of animal "rights" is
>>>> bullshit.
>>> Non sequitur.

>> No, not in the least. It proves that you don't believe
>> your own preaching,

>
> It does not.


It certainly does, rupie.


>> so the preaching is bullshit.

>
> And this in any case would not follow.


It does.


  #86 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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?

  #87 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 31, 3:40 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 12:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 30, 2:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 30, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:55 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, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****! ................are you ever stupid.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would appear.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I blah blah blah
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You contribute to animal death.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You violate your so-called beliefs.
> >>>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes - daily.
> >>>>>>>>> No, I don't
> >>>>>>>> Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.
> >>>>>>> Yawn.
> >>>>>> Uh-huh - NOT. You're still defensive, and with good
> >>>>>> reason.
> >>>>> By the way, Rudy, I do genuinely wonder whether I should become self-
> >>>>> sufficient in food and electricity.
> >>>> No, you don't wonder that at all. You're fully
> >>>> committed - addicted, even - to a life of pleasure, and
> >>>> you'd have to give that up; you have no intention of
> >>>> giving it up.
> >>> You don't have a clue, Ball, any more than you have a clue about
> >>> anything else. I do seriously consider it. Sure, I'd find it hard to
> >>> sacrifice my personal comfort to that extent, but I'd be much more
> >>> likely to do it than just about anyone else, certainly much more
> >>> likely than you in similar circumstances. However, I have genuine
> >>> reservations about it, for the reasons I explained.
> >>>>> I don't think that you've shown
> >>>>> that I've verbally committed myself to anything which entails that I
> >>>>> should, but
> >>>> Daily, you participate in processes that cause animals
> >>>> to die. Your participation is voluntary, unnecessary,
> >>>> repeated and done with full awareness of the deaths.
> >>>> It is not "merely financial" support; it is active
> >>>> participation. It is the proof that you don't extend
> >>>> the same moral consideration to animals that you do to
> >>>> humans,
> >>> No, it's not.
> >> Yes, it is.

>
> >>>> and thus, your preaching of animal "rights" is
> >>>> bullshit.
> >>> Non sequitur.
> >> No, not in the least. It proves that you don't believe
> >> your own preaching,

>
> > It does not.

>
> It certainly does, rupie.
>


What utterly palpable nonsense for so many reasons. But then, just
about everything you say is palpable nonsense for so many reasons.

It's palpable nonsense for at least three reasons:

(1) You have not established that any belief to which I have verbally
committed myself entails that anything I am doing is morally wrong.
(2) Even if, contrary to fact, you had established this, it would not
follow that I do not believe the propositions to which I have verbally
committed myself. I might be a hypocrite, as you yourself claim. You
don't seem to be able to make your mind up whether I'm hypocritical or
insincere.
(3) In any case, the original claim was that it would prove that the
beliefs to which I verbally committed myself were bullshit, which is
also obvious nonsense. Whether or not I actually believe them, or act
in accordance with them, has no bearing on their merits.

You really never do get tired of talking nonsense, do you?

> >> so the preaching is bullshit.

>
> > And this in any case would not follow.

>
> It does.


Of course it wouldn't follow. Even if, contrary to fact, you could
establish that I don't really believe it, or don't really act in
accordance with it, this would very obviously have no bearing on the
merits of the doctrine.

  #88 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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

  #89 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 30, 1:50 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 30, 6:56 am, Dutch > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 29, 5:40 am, Dutch > wrote:
>>>> [..]
>>>>>>> What would it take for the capability not to be there? This idea of
>>>>>>> the ability being somehow "inherent but not operative" is totally
>>>>>>> obscure to me. You either have an ability or you don't.
>>>>>> Do you understand having wings but not being able to fly?
>>>>> Yes, that's fine.
>>>> It's exactly like that. Such an animal has the capability of flight but
>>>> not the ability.
>>> Well, on that basis it sounds to me as though having the capability
>>> involves having a structure present which in normal contexts gives one
>>> the ability.

>> Right
>>
>> So I would say the issue of whether neonates, fetuses, or
>>
>>> radically cognitively impaired humans have the capability for
>>> linguistic competence, moral agency, and so forth, is a matter for
>>> scientific investigation, not something that can be inferred from
>>> everyday observation.

>> I disagree. Although it is difficult to generalize about which abilities
>> any particular impaired person may retain, it is readily observable that
>> young at any stage do develop human abilities, thereby confirming that
>> they had innate capabilities.
>>

>
> Above you said the test was whether there was a structure present that
> provided the ability in ordinary context. Now you seem to be saying
> that the test is whether there is reason to think that the ability
> will eventually develop under normal circumstances. Those are two
> different tests.


And? Is there a rule that there can be only test to verify something?
It's pretty difficult, at least for a lay person to understand
neurological mechanisms, but it's quite easy to observe that B follows
A. Both are true.

>>>>>> Do you
>>>>>> understand having the capability of speech but not being able to talk?
>>>>> Well, this could use a little more elaboration. You mean someone with
>>>>> laryngitis?
>>>> That would be one possible example, there could be many others, infants
>>>> for example,
>>> I don't think you'll find many people will find it plausible to say
>>> that infants have the capability of speech.

>> You're talking about "ability", not capability.
>>

>
> There's no distinction in ordinary usage.


But we're not talking about ordinary usage here, that was already agreed
on, long ago.

Wetlesen says "Infants have
> the capability, but not the ability, for speech." The meaning of this
> is obscure to me, and I believe it would be obscure to most native
> English speakers as well.


I'm incredulous that a person of your intelligence would find this
obscure. It means that whatever the mechanisms that permit a human being
to talk they are not yet fully formed in an infant. The same goes for
it's ability to walk. Yet they do have the capability to develop these
skills, given time and the right environment. No reasonably intelligent
person would find this obscure I'm quite sure. I submit that you are
having trouble with this because you believe that there may be an
unpleasant a consequence to "getting it" and you are not prepared to
accept that consequence.

>>>> or someone suffering from brain trauma or stress disorder.
>>> I would say that would depend on the brain trauma.

>> Of course, but it's an example of how a person could have the ability to
>> speak damaged. They could and many do subsequently learn all over again.
>>

>
> So the ability is termporarily lost. But apparently the capability
> stays there permanently. What's the basis for saying that? What
> actually happens is that neural pathways are damaged and then
> gradually re-formed. What's the basis for saying the capability was
> never lost?


The verification is in the reforming of neural pathways, the return of
the ability.

> In what sense is it always there?


Apparently the capacity to form neural pathways to enable abilities to
manifest remained. Perhaps the very same mechanism that the person's
brain used as an infant. A neuroscientist would likely have a more
technical explanation, but that hardly matters, there obviously *is* an
explanation.


>>>> The primary way we know with relative certainty that these individuals
>>>> have the capability of speech is by their species. This is exactly the
>>>> same principle as the flightless bird above.
>>> It's not clear enough how to generalize from the case of the
>>> flightless bird. Do chickens have the capability of flight? Why, or
>>> why not?

>> No, observing the rest of the species tells us that. Why, I'm not sure.
>>

>
> So it looks like we now have three different tests.
>
> (1) Is there a structure present which realizes the ability in normal
> contexts?
> (2) Do we know that the ability will eventually develop under normal
> circumstances?
> (3) Do conspecifics have the ability?
>
> Those are very different tests.


That's all good right? The more the merrier, unless one test comes out
different than the others, and I don't think that is the case.

>>> In the case of the advanced cognitive abilities, what brain
>>> structures have to be there for the capability to be present? What
>>> kinds of brain damage would mean the capability was no longer there?
>>> Why? You're just vaguely saying "oh, they're the same species as us,
>>> so it's reasonable to assume they have the same capabilities as us",
>>> as if it were self-evident what that meant. It's just not good enough.
>>> You have to give a scientific account of what it is to have the
>>> capabilities and give evidence that they actually have them.

>> It's always good to have more information, as humans we crave knowledge,
>> but the present purpose we have enough to know that only humans have the
>> abilities in question.
>>

>
> But it's crucial to argument that we have good reason to suspect that
> all humans with a brain have the capabilities, but no reason to
> suspect this in the case of nonhumans. Whatever "capabilities" means.
> You need to substantiate this claim.


The tests you listed above pretty much do that as far as I can see,
along with the complete absence of these abilities in non-humans.

>>>>>> Advanced cognitive abilities are no different.
>>>>> This really doesn't tell me anything. You're talking as though it were
>>>>> self-evident how to generalize those two examples. It's not.
>>>> Just like the eagle with underdeveloped wings, we know from long
>>>> experience observing members of their species that they have the
>>>> capability of flight. If the bird were a baby emu we would not make that
>>>> assumption, we would assume that they will never be able to fly.
>>> Well, that's interesting. So it's relevant whether the structure has
>>> the potential to become functional. So, what about the case of a
>>> radically brain-damaged human, then?

>> We would not be able to define that individual's precise disability,
>> because it is specific to him. In any case we would not form any
>> conclusions about dogs on that basis. The idea is actually absurd when
>> you look at from that angle.
>>

>
> I don't understand why there is a reason to give a brain-damaged human
> the benefit of the doubt


Because of the considerations under tests #2 and #3.

>(why is there any doubt at all, using the
> test you gave just above?)


We can't verify test #1 without a neurological examination, at CT scan
perhaps, even that would probably be inconclusive. Some humans with
massive catastrophic brain damage have fully recovered functionality.

> but it's "absurd" to do the same for a dog.


I meant it is absurd to attempt to conclude anything about dogs at all
by considering brain-damaged humans.

> You've given me three different tests so far, only the one based on
> species does the job of making the distinction, but I need to be told
> why species is such a big deal.


As long as humans continue to develop these abilities and no non-humans
do, people will, being bears for efficiency, use species as a simple way
to determine if these capabilities likely exist in a particular
indivdual. As soon as other species start exhibiting these abilities
that strategy will have to be abandoned.

>>>>>> None of the abilities an
>>>>>> ape displays are evident in young apes.
>>>>>>> I guess you're
>>>>>>> somehow alluding to the fact that the machinery which gives rise to
>>>>>>> the ability in normal contexts is all there.
>>>>>> You don't have to guess, I have made it abundantly clear what I mean.
>>>>> Part of the way I earn my living is by explaining mathematical
>>>>> concepts to teenagers. I find it very rewarding work. Now, often those
>>>>> teenagers fail to understand something which is crystal clear to me.
>>>>> If I were to say to them under those circumstances, "you don't have to
>>>>> guess, I have made it abundantly clear what I mean", I don't think
>>>>> they'd be hiring me for too much longer. I would be shirking my
>>>>> professional responsibilities and I would also be delusional, I would
>>>>> be flying in the face of the obvious reality that I hadn't succeeding
>>>>> in doing my job of conveying my understanding to them.
>>>>> I'm just going with this analogy for the sake of argument. I have to
>>>>> confess that I find it very difficult to maintain this image of you
>>>>> somehow standing in the same relation to me as I do to those teenagers
>>>>> with a straight face, but never mind that. Let's say for the sake of
>>>>> argument that you're the patient, long-suffering teacher and I'm the
>>>>> slow-witted student. You still have to accept the obvious fact that
>>>>> you're not conveying anything to me. Whatever that says about me, it's
>>>>> part of the reality. Saying "I've already made it clear" is pretty
>>>>> lame, don't you think? Surely it would be more rational to say "Well,
>>>>> so far I haven't made it clear to you, I guess I'll either give up or
>>>>> try a bit harder."
>>>> That's a very good way of putting it. I will try harder. It's not like
>>>> there are a plethora of intelligent people willing to discuss this
>>>> subject with me..
>>> Jolly good. And I'll do my best to be fair and open-minded. But I do
>>> think there are some serious problems here.

>> Yea, oh well, let's soldier on.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> You might be able to give
>>>>>>> that idea a precise sense in some contexts, though you haven't done
>>>>>>> that yet.
>>>>>> Every example I have given does it.
>>>>> You think it's straightforward how to generalize those examples. I
>>>>> don't. I'm really quite surprised it's not clear to you, based on what
>>>>> I've said, why I find this talk of "capability" so vague.
>>>> Can you maybe articulate why you find it difficult to generalize? The
>>>> capability of flight is a fairly complex ability, as is the set of
>>>> advanced cognitive functions we're discussing. In both cases we only
>>>> know of the capability by making assumptions from prior observations of
>>>> similar animals. In neither case do we require a thorough understanding
>>>> of the mechanics of the ability.
>>> Okay, let's see. You say "a baby eagle has the capability of flight
>>> but not the ability, a baby emu doesn't have the capability". And
>>> Wetlesen says that capability is not the same as potential ability.

>> No he doesn't. You're forgetting that you misread that sentence. He
>> makes in quite clear that capability *is* latent, undeveloped ability.
>> If you can't agree to this I could ask him to clarify it, but I am
>> positive about it.
>>

>
> Well, I'll have another look. If capability is latent ability then we
> need to be told the reason for suspecting that a radically cognitively
> impaired human has any latent ability, any more than a dog.


This is trivial, history offers us NO examples of dogs developing these
abilities, while humans, impaired or otherwise do exhibit them. The
*only* room for reasonable doubt is with humans. With the vast majority
of all humans, there's no doubt at all that these abilities *do* exist
to some degree.


>> So
>>
>>> do I know what you mean? Well, the best I can do is speculate that by
>>> having "the capability of flight" you mean the presence of some
>>> structure which is in some sense sufficiently like the structure which
>>> actually enables the ability in the cases where the ability is
>>> present. It's a bit vague exactly where to draw the line, but assuming
>>> you mean something like this, then I've got some understanding of the
>>> concept you want to use. But to generalize it to the context of
>>> advanced cognitive abilities, I think I need to know more about
>>> exactly what structures you regard as most essential. The way in which
>>> our brain structures give us advanced cognitive abilities is a bit
>>> different to the way in which wings give birds the ability for flight.
>>> It's a bit more complicated.

>> I agree that it's all complicated, but the essence of it is the same. It
>> is ability in some form that is part of the structure of the organism
>> that can develop under the right circumstances.
>>

>
> But I see no reason to think that radically cognitively impaired
> humans have such a thing.


Of course it's plausible that there are some number of human beings so
radically impaired that virtually all semblance of "humanity", if you
will, is absent. What would you expect people do with them? Kill them?
Why would you expect that? People don't kill their dogs for being dumb.
People don't kill any animal for being dumb.


>>>> [..]
>>>>> Where's the definition? I didn't see one.
>>>> A capability is defined as a non-operative ability. The status of being
>>>> non-operative may be due to a number of factors which we previously
>>>> discussed.
>>> Well, you can put it that way if you want, but I think you're straying
>>> a bit from the way Wetlesen puts it.

>> Not at all, that it exactly what he says. There is one sentence where he
>> uses the word ability where he means capability but if you read the
>> whole section it is quite clear what he means.
>>
>>> You're saying a capability is a
>>> special case of an ability, Wetlesen says a capability can be present
>>> without the corresponding ability being present.

>> The two don't seem contradictory, capability doesn't disappear when
>> ability begins, it becomes temporarily sidelined, secondary.
>>
>>> I mean, this may seem
>>> like splitting hairs, but my problem is that when Wetlesen uses
>>> "ability" to mean only abilities that are operative, the sense is
>>> clear to me, but when you use "ability" to mean abilities that may or
>>> may not be operative, the same difficulties of interpretation come up
>>> as in the case of "capability".

>> Let's use the example of the ability to solve complex equations, you
>> developed the ability to do this from your basic capability and a lot of
>> study. Let's say you stop doing math and lose the ability to do them,
>> you would retain the capability and with some effort you would regain
>> the ability you have now.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> [..]
>>>>>>> How far is it allowed to be from being in working order?
>>>>>> That doesn't matter.
>>>>> It does matter if you want to understand the concept. Without some way
>>>>> of going about deciding where to draw the line, I can't accept that
>>>>> this is a well-defined enough concept to do the job that's being
>>>>> required of it.
>>>>> These are important questions. You're kidding yourself if you think
>>>>> that you're seriously engaging with a philosophical issue if you brush
>>>>> off questions like this with "It doesn't matter".
>>>> I think you misunderstood the response. I didn't mean to brush your
>>>> question off, I mean literally that it_doesn't_matter how far the
>>>> capability is from being in working order. All that matters is that we
>>>> have decided that it exists or that there is a reasonable possibility
>>>> that it may exist.
>>> But you have to convince me that it's reasonable to give all humans
>>> with a brain the benefit of the doubt and not to give any nonhumans
>>> the benefit of the doubt. Hence the issue of where to draw the line
>>> becomes relevant.

>> There is no doubt to give non-humans with respect to higher cognitive
>> abilities, we simply have no evidence they have such capabilities. There
>> is some inkling that great apes may approach such capabilities, enough
>> that I think they should be protected with basic moral consideration.
>>

>
> I don't understand why there is a doubt the benefit of which to give
> in the case of radically cognitively impaired humans, but not in the
> case of nonhumans.


Let's disconnect the two cases to clarify things.

With respect to non-humans first, there is *no doubt*, period. Not one
has ever exhibited these particular abilities so we have zero reason to
believe they have them. That's that, end of story.

Due to the similarities between great apes and humans it might make
sense to protect them with some higher moral status, but even they have
not actually demonstrated the kind of higher brain functions we're
talking about.

With respect to impaired humans, every one is different, every diagnosis
is different. All we know for sure is that humans as a rule do have
these capabilities. Maybe this person has some rich inner experience
going on, it's possible. That's the doubt.


>>>> It's the capability itself on which we are placing
>>>> the value, not the becoming operative. When we decide that fish or cows
>>>> lack the capability we mean there is zero possibility that those
>>>> abilities would ever manifest.
>>> But there are plenty of human cases where there is also zero
>>> possibility.

>> I would say not zero,

>
> I wouldn't. That seems to be the problem.


Even if that were the case, it doesn't actually present the problem that
you propose with this argument. We don't assign moral status to marginal
humans based on their cognitive abilities, we do so for a long list of
other reasons, not the least of which are simply compassionate grounds.
If animals are to ever earn elevated moral status by default, they will
not get it by breaking down the back door, they will need to earn it by
acquiring higher cognitive capabilities.

You may wish to argue that all animals and non-humans should have the
same moral status regardless, but that's a different argument, and just
as hard a sell as this one.

>
>> almost all cases involve some level of
>> diminishment, leaving some functionality. In any case, besides the faint
>> hope principle, there is a long list of social, legal, personal,
>> religious, logistic, and other reasons why we maintain moral
>> consideration for impaired humans. There is no possibility that this
>> backwards approach using marginal humans will ever convince us that we
>> treat animals incorrectly.
>>

>
> I find it pretty convincing. So do lots of other people.


There are groups of people who believe in just about anything you can
think of, beliefs are funny that way. Once you decide to commit to
believing something and invest some of yourself in that belief it's not
easy to stop. It's a very good reason to cultivate skepticism.
Mathematics doesn't tend to be like this.

>
>>>>>>> And,
>>>>>>> anyway, what is supposed to be the morally big deal about the
>>>>>>> machinery being there?
>>>>>> The inherent capability is necessary for the operative ability to ever
>>>>>> be expressed. Morally, life dictates that we "draw lines" since there is
>>>>>> no practical way to avoid causing harm, therefore we use concepts like
>>>>>> sentience to rationalize the way we interact with the world. We all do
>>>>>> it. You dismiss the interests of some organisms as subservient to your
>>>>>> own based largely on some sentience-type criteria, as well as convenience.
>>>>> Yes, I have some criteria for determining what sort of consideration I
>>>>> give to various beings. We've talked about those. Now your job is to
>>>>> explain to me what you think Wetlesen's criteria are and defend them.
>>>> Wetlesen's criterion is sentience, the same as yours, and mine.
>>> I thought it was capability.

>> For sentience. Page 2. "In the following I shall argue for a biocentric
>> answer to the main question. This is an individualistic version of a
>> nonanthropocentric position. It ascribes moral status to all individual
>> living organisms; humans, other animals, plants, and micro-organisms.
>> This position is congenial to Albert Schweitzer's 'reverence for life'.
>> To me it has a strong appeal with both philosophical and religious
>> overtones. On the other hand, I do not accept Schweitzer's assumption
>> that all living organisms should be ascribed an equal moral status
>> value. Such a strong assumption seems to be counter-intuitive, and
>> besides, unnecessary. Instead, I shall argue for a grading of moral
>> status value, as well as of the strength of our corresponding duties to
>> moral subjects. There will be one exception from this grading, however,
>> pertaining to human beings. They are ascribed the highest moral status
>> value, not because they are humans but because they are moral agents or
>> moral persons. This will be a universalistic and egalitarian view of
>> human dignity and basic human rights. Other living beings are ascribed
>> degrees of moral status value depending on their degree of relevant
>> similarity to moral persons. Presumably, animals with self-consciousness
>> or consciousness and sentience have a higher moral status value than
>> nonconscious and nonsentient organisms. Even so, however, the organisms
>> with a lesser moral status value are not devoid of moral status, and for
>> this reason we do have a prima facie duty not to cause avoidable harm to
>> them. Or if we cannot avoid harming them in order to survive ourselves,
>> then we have at least a subsidiary duty to cause the least harm."
>>
>> >> He

>>
>>>> proposes that consideration be accorded in a graded fashion based on
>>>> degrees of sentience.
>>> Well, that sounds fine to me, except that I think that no meaningful
>>> distinction can be drawn between radically cognitive impaired humans
>>> and nonhumans, so I accept the argument from marginal cases.

>> None of the reasons we extend consideration to marginal humans apply to
>> non-humans.
>>

>
> How about their capacity to suffer?


I assumed that the marginal humans could not even suffer. If that is the
case then I reject your argument even more vehemently.

> I don't accept that you've given any good reason why we should make a
> distinction.


I don't argue that we should ignore the suffering of animals, but
suffering in itself is not an advanced cognitive ability, although I
would say that those abilities probably tend to intensify suffering.

>>>> It is an approach that mirrors how most of us
>>>> already think. Popper's notion of the natural selection of theories
>>>> would lead us to conclude that this is a very useful idea.
>>> For Popper, the key criterion would be the extent to which the theory
>>> subjects itself to the risk of empirical falsification.

>> Not according to the quote I found.
>>

>
> Yes, according to the quote you found, correctly interpreted. I know
> Popper's philosophy of science. I'll find quotes in support of my
> interpretation if you like.
>
>> What would it
>>
>>> take to falsify the hypothesis that all humans with a brain can be
>>> reasonably assumed to have the capability for linguistic competence
>>> and moral agency, but no nonhumans can?

>> That's not a reasonable hypothesis, it contains absolutes and absolutes
>> don't lend themselves to reasonable hypotheses about social realities.
>>

>
> Quite. But the hypothesis must be sustained if the AMC is to be
> rebutted. So it's a shame for you that it's not reasonable.


No it doesn't, the AMC contains assumptions that cannot be verified. For
one thing, radically impaired humans are treated as a special disability
case, they are not judged in the same way as fully functioning animals
are judged, and you cannot simply presuppose that they should be before
making your argument. If you are going to second guess how we view
radically impaired humans vs how we view animals then you must begin by
accepting the actual reasons we view radically impaired humans as we do.
You don't do that, you presume to claim that our treatment of them vis
vis moral status is tied to their cognitive abilities, and that is
clearly not the case. Once this link is broken you cannot reconnect it.
Radically impaired humans are given a certain moral status for a list of
reasons which you must accept as reality. In short, along with being a
backwards argument, and an argument based on creating a rule from an ad
hoc exception, it is circular.


>
>>>>>>>> Explain what is inadequate about the above description. I'll tell you,
>>>>>>>> nothing.
>>>>>>> Everything. You haven't given any indication of what having the
>>>>>>> capability consists in.
>>>>>> The way we determine if an organism has specific capabilities is by
>>>>>> observation. The primary clue is species.
>>>>> That's pretty much all you've said so far. Species is a big clue.
>>>>> That's all we know so far. You haven't explained why, you've just
>>>>> asserted it. All right, so species is a big clue, maybe we'll hear
>>>>> more about why that is later. Now, what else is relevant? What are the
>>>>> criteria? How do we go about determining it?
>>>> Species is relevant in this argument because an animal's species tells
>>>> us most of the story of that animal's capabilities and limitations.
>>> That's pretty much just repeating what you've already said.

>> Something similar to how you keep repeating the argument from marginal
>> cases you mean?
>>

>
> Which has not yet been rebutted.


Done, to death.

>>> Could you
>>> perhaps tell me why species gives us so much information,

>> It just does.

>
> Not very informative.


Yes, actually it tells us A LOT.

>> Why can birds fly? Why can we breathe air?
>>

>
> I assume biologists could help you out there.


As they could you.

>> and more
>>
>>> importantly *what* is it giving us information about?

>> About members of the species, their abilities and limitations.
>>

>
> I thought it was giving us information about the capabilities of the
> members of the species who lacked the abilities. And I was craving
> some explication of what this meant.


Ask a neurobiologist if you think it will make a difference.

>>
>>>> [..]
>>>>> really is true. Shouldn't you be a little bit more open to the
>>>>> possibility that maybe there is some validity to my point of view and
>>>>> maybe this concept is not quite as clear as you think it is?
>>>> Yes, I acknowledge that it is not clear to you. It is clear to me
>>>> however. My theory about why it is not clear to you, fwiw, has to do
>>>> with "cognitive dissonance". Since the theory disrupts a strongly held
>>>> existing idea in your brain, your brain is setting up interference that
>>>> is preventing you from internalizing it. This interference is causing
>>>> you to perceive the idea as confusing. The idea in itself is not really
>>>> difficult or vague however. The reason I mention this is not to be
>>>> patronizing, I offer it as an plausible theory which may help you to
>>>> deal with moving forward in this exercise. I do have some personal
>>>> experience with cognitive dissonance, I experienced it, and at the point
>>>> when I finally consciously confronted the underlying conflict I
>>>> experienced a kind of physical discomfort in the brain, a dizziness and
>>>> a buzzing in my ears, followed shortly by a kind of feeling of relief
>>>> and elevated mental clarity. The brain will attempt to punish you to
>>>> stop you from threatening the existing belief.
>>>> > So see how you go at
>>>>> dispelling the webs of confusion. Or not. It's up to you.
>>>> Maybe if I lay it out in point form
>>>> 1. There are such things as advanced cognitive abilities.
>>>> 2. There is such a thing as the capability to develop these abilities,
>>>> otherwise the abilities would not exist.
>>> If there is the slightest reason to suspect that a radically
>>> cognitively impaired human has any "capability to develop the
>>> abilities", then I'm not clear on what "capability to develop the
>>> abilities" means.

>> There is the slightest reason, they are human, therefore the possibility
>> exists, not only of advancing,

>
> No, in many cases that doesn't exist.


You can't say that. It is sufficent if someone important *believes*
there is hope.
>
>> but that some exists already,

>
> I don't see that, given that in many cases it's a certainty that
> they'll never develop the abilities.


"The" abilities? Which ones, to what degree? Every case is unique and
difficult to categorize clearly.

>> and in most
>> cases it probably does. Then there are the other reasons...
>>

>
> I'm not impressed with the other reasons.


It doesn't matter if you're impressed with the other reasons, it doesn't
matter if some of the reasons are completely irrational, the fact is,
they ARE real reasons, and they explain why exceptional status is
accorded such individuals. That effectively breaks the link to the
cognitive capability argument.
>
>>
>>>> 3. Up until the present time only humans have exhibited these abilities.
>>>> 4. Therefore only humans (as far as we know) possess the capability to
>>>> develop these abilities.
>>> And not all humans with a brain, so far as I can tell...

>> We should avoid the absolute "all" in this context, it leads to confusion.

>
> You need to defend the contention that all humans with a brain can be
> reasonably assumed to have the relevant capabilities in order to rebut
> the AMC.


I rebutted the AMC right above. Once there exists a list of actual
*other* reasons why as humans we extend moral status to marginal cases,
and such a list exists, then the argument for extending them to animals
based on cognitive similarities between them and animals evaporates.
Cognitive abilities don't come into it. And it doesn't matter what the
reasons are, provided they are plausibly actual reasons.


  #90 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 31, 12:44 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> Derek wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:47:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:58:38 GMT, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:33:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:39:23 GMT, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do have some personal experience with cognitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dissonance, I experienced it, and at the point when I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally consciously confronted the underlying conflict I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced a kind of physical discomfort in the brain, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dizziness and a buzzing in my ears, followed shortly by a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of feeling of relief and elevated mental clarity. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brain will attempt to punish you to stop you from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threatening the existing belief.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get your points accepted, both here and in alt.abortion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you try to stop deluding yourself your brain punishes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you to such an extent that it hurts you ("physical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and gives you a buzzing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound in your ears.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all who was it hurting?" Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2002http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Deluding myself felt good." Dutch Jun 4 2005
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/94eq3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your history is well established.
>>>>>>>>>>>> As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain why I
>>>>>>>>>>>> or anyone should take you seriously after learning how
>>>>>>>>>>>> mentally ill you are, you try to excuse your bad
>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour by referring to the alleged bad behaviour of others.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's simply not good enough, Ditch. Going
>>>>>>>>>>>> from that statement you made at the top of this post
>>>>>>>>>>>> and others you've made over the years concerning your
>>>>>>>>>>>> deluded state of mind, and how it makes you feel good,
>>>>>>>>>>>> you're clearly suffering from a serious mental illness and
>>>>>>>>>>>> can't be taken seriously here on these issues. You're a
>>>>>>>>>>>> deluded liar who, when faced with the truth, refuses to
>>>>>>>>>>>> accept that truth because, simply put, it makes your brain
>>>>>>>>>>>> hurt and makes your ears buzz. haw haw haw.
>>>>>>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>>>>>>>>> He's clearly suffering from a serious mental illness if his
>>>>>>>>>> mental conflicts and self-confessed delusions cause physical
>>>>>>>>>> discomfort in the brain, dizziness, and a buzzing in the ears.
>>>>>>>>>> He's certifiable.
>>>>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>>>>>>> He's a self-confessed delusional who believes his own
>>>>>>>> brain punishes itself with pain, dizziness, and a buzzing
>>>>>>>> in the ears when forced to confront conflicts. That's
>>>>>>>> a very serious mental disorder which must be taken
>>>>>>>> into account when discussing issues with him, because
>>>>>>>> rather than face the truth like a normal person does he deludes
>>>>>>>> himself instead to feel good for fear that his
>>>>>>>> brain is going to punish him again.
>>>>>>> WAS.
>>>>>> IS. I've no reason to believe he's cured.
>>>>> No, WAS. You have no reason to doubt that he has resolved the conflict
>>>> His quotes show that hasn't resolved any conflicts at all.
>>> His quotes show that he *has* resolved the only relevant conflict. He
>>> no longer believes animals have rights.
>>>>>>> He resolved the cognitive dissonance by eliminating the delusion.
>>>>>> His quotes show that he's flip-flopped back and forth on the issues
>>>>>> raised here for years, so no, I don't believe
>>>>>> for one moment that he's ever managed to resolve those
>>>>>> conflicts which cause his brain to attack itself in the way
>>>>>> he describes.
>>>>> His quotes and all of his posting history since about 2001 show that
>>>>> he no longer believes in animal "rights".
>>>> False. He first came here claiming to be an advocate on the
>>>> proposition of animal rights.
>>>> "I am an animal rights believer." Dutch 12 Feb 2001
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3
>>>> and
>>>> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted like
>>>> branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". They are derivative. They
>>>> reflect from a) what our own rights are b) to what degree and how
>>>> we value the animal or species." Dutch 23 Feb 2001
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh
>>>> But within just a few months he started writing things like;
>>>> "They have no rights because the very idea of a world of animals
>>>> with rights is a laugh."
>>> That's a lot of time that went by. Mercer, among others, set him straight.

>> Those quotes don't even say what he claims they do, he knows it. I have
>> said all along that I believe that there are such things as "animal
>> rights" and I contend that most people believe that there are. They are
>> nothing at all like "Animal Rights" as AR presents it though. I refuse
>> to concede useful, informative English phrases to extremists.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

>
> Okay, so you believe that nonhuman animals have some rights, but you
> don't accept most of the positions that people who identify themselves
> as ARAs do. Which is fine. In this respect you disagree with Ball, he
> explicitly denies that nonhuman animals have any rights.


Correct.

> And he also
> thinks that if you believe that nonhuman animals have any rights, then
> you must stop supporting all commercial agriculture. This is a crucial
> part of his case that I am a hypocrite. So this disagreement of yours
> with him is quite important. If you are right, then he has no case
> that I am a hypocrite, and you should acknowledge this point.


I don't believe that animals in crop fields hold rights against farmers,
I believe that domestic animals hold specific rights against their
caretakers, while Mr Ball believes that those are strictly obligations
that those people owe, not rights held by the animals. In my view one
implies the other.

"ARAs" on the other hand don't define the limitations of their alleged
beliefs clearly enough to know what they mean, but if you claim to
believe animals have rights in the sense that humans do, then he's
right, you must pull up stakes and get out of the commercial/industrial
food system.



  #91 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:49:10 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>On Jul 31, 12:44 pm, Dutch > wrote:

[..]
>> I have said all along that I believe that there are such things as "animal
>> rights" and I contend that most people believe that there are. They are
>> nothing at all like "Animal Rights" as AR presents it though. I refuse
>> to concede useful, informative English phrases to extremists.

>
>Okay, so you believe that nonhuman animals have some rights, but you
>don't accept most of the positions that people who identify themselves
>as ARAs do. Which is fine. In this respect you disagree with Ball, he
>explicitly denies that nonhuman animals have any rights. And he also
>thinks that if you believe that nonhuman animals have any rights, then
>you must stop supporting all commercial agriculture.


That's correct, and Jon has tackled him before on this
issue with,

"Rights trump interests, if you believe in rights at all.
In fact, if you are trying to bend "right" as you are
trying, then you deserve all the grief "aras" will give
you over where you draw the line.

Take your example of abuse of animals. If you
interpret an anti-abuse law that states you are not
permitted to beat your pets as the codification of
some right, then what is the right? It clearly isn't the
specific wording of the law itself. It has to be some
broader and much less specific right, the respect of
which has taken this particular form. Is it the right
not to be capriciously - i.e., unnecessarily - harmed
by humans? If that's it, then you have just
acknowledged that humans DO NOT have the right
to raise animals for food, because that harm is clearly
not necessary from a nutritional standpoint."
Jonathan Ball to Dutch 2003-09-14 http://tinyurl.com/3x2h4c

>This is a crucial part of his case that I am a hypocrite.
>So this disagreement of yours with him is quite important.


I agree that it is, so it's no surprise to see Jon trying
to insist that Dutch doesn't believe in animal rights.

>If you are right, then he has no case
>that I am a hypocrite, and you should acknowledge this point.


True, but he won't.
  #92 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 02:44:31 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Derek wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:47:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:58:38 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:33:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:39:23 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do have some personal experience with cognitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dissonance, I experienced it, and at the point when I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally consciously confronted the underlying conflict I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced a kind of physical discomfort in the brain, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dizziness and a buzzing in my ears, followed shortly by a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of feeling of relief and elevated mental clarity. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brain will attempt to punish you to stop you from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threatening the existing belief.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get your points accepted, both here and in alt.abortion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you try to stop deluding yourself your brain punishes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you to such an extent that it hurts you ("physical
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and gives you a buzzing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound in your ears.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all who was it hurting?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002 http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Deluding myself felt good."
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch Jun 4 2005 http://tinyurl.com/94eq3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your history is well established.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain why I
>>>>>>>>>>> or anyone should take you seriously after learning how
>>>>>>>>>>> mentally ill you are, you try to excuse your bad
>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour by referring to the alleged bad behaviour of others.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's simply not good enough, Ditch. Going
>>>>>>>>>>> from that statement you made at the top of this post
>>>>>>>>>>> and others you've made over the years concerning your
>>>>>>>>>>> deluded state of mind, and how it makes you feel good,
>>>>>>>>>>> you're clearly suffering from a serious mental illness and
>>>>>>>>>>> can't be taken seriously here on these issues. You're a
>>>>>>>>>>> deluded liar who, when faced with the truth, refuses to
>>>>>>>>>>> accept that truth because, simply put, it makes your brain
>>>>>>>>>>> hurt and makes your ears buzz. haw haw haw.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He's clearly suffering from a serious mental illness if his
>>>>>>>>> mental conflicts and self-confessed delusions cause physical
>>>>>>>>> discomfort in the brain, dizziness, and a buzzing in the ears.
>>>>>>>>> He's certifiable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He's a self-confessed delusional who believes his own
>>>>>>> brain punishes itself with pain, dizziness, and a buzzing
>>>>>>> in the ears when forced to confront conflicts. That's
>>>>>>> a very serious mental disorder which must be taken
>>>>>>> into account when discussing issues with him, because
>>>>>>> rather than face the truth like a normal person does he deludes
>>>>>>> himself instead to feel good for fear that his
>>>>>>> brain is going to punish him again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WAS.
>>>>>
>>>>> IS. I've no reason to believe he's cured.
>>>>
>>>> No, WAS. You have no reason to doubt that he has resolved the conflict
>>>
>>> His quotes show that hasn't resolved any conflicts at all.

>>
>> His quotes show that he *has* resolved the only relevant conflict. He
>> no longer believes animals have rights.
>>
>>
>>>>>> He resolved the cognitive dissonance by eliminating the delusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> His quotes show that he's flip-flopped back and forth on the issues
>>>>> raised here for years, so no, I don't believe
>>>>> for one moment that he's ever managed to resolve those
>>>>> conflicts which cause his brain to attack itself in the way
>>>>> he describes.
>>>>
>>>> His quotes and all of his posting history since about 2001 show that
>>>> he no longer believes in animal "rights".
>>>
>>> False. He first came here claiming to be an advocate on the
>>> proposition of animal rights.
>>>
>>> "I am an animal rights believer."
>>> Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
>>> like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
>>> They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
>>> own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
>>> the animal or species."
>>> Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh
>>>
>>> But within just a few months he started writing things like;
>>>
>>> "They have no rights because the very idea of
>>> a world of animals with rights is a laugh."

>>
>> That's a lot of time that went by. Mercer, among others, set him straight.

>
> I have said all along that I believe that there are such things
> as "animal rights" and I contend that most people believe that
> there are.


Thanks for shitting all over Jon, Dutch.
  #93 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Derek wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 02:44:31 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> Derek wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:47:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:58:38 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:33:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:39:23 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do have some personal experience with cognitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dissonance, I experienced it, and at the point when I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally consciously confronted the underlying conflict I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced a kind of physical discomfort in the brain, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dizziness and a buzzing in my ears, followed shortly by a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of feeling of relief and elevated mental clarity. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brain will attempt to punish you to stop you from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threatening the existing belief.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get your points accepted, both here and in alt.abortion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you try to stop deluding yourself your brain punishes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you to such an extent that it hurts you ("physical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and gives you a buzzing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound in your ears.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all who was it hurting?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002 http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Deluding myself felt good."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch Jun 4 2005 http://tinyurl.com/94eq3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your history is well established.
>>>>>>>>>>>> As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain why I
>>>>>>>>>>>> or anyone should take you seriously after learning how
>>>>>>>>>>>> mentally ill you are, you try to excuse your bad
>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour by referring to the alleged bad behaviour of others.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's simply not good enough, Ditch. Going
>>>>>>>>>>>> from that statement you made at the top of this post
>>>>>>>>>>>> and others you've made over the years concerning your
>>>>>>>>>>>> deluded state of mind, and how it makes you feel good,
>>>>>>>>>>>> you're clearly suffering from a serious mental illness and
>>>>>>>>>>>> can't be taken seriously here on these issues. You're a
>>>>>>>>>>>> deluded liar who, when faced with the truth, refuses to
>>>>>>>>>>>> accept that truth because, simply put, it makes your brain
>>>>>>>>>>>> hurt and makes your ears buzz. haw haw haw.
>>>>>>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>>>>>>>>> He's clearly suffering from a serious mental illness if his
>>>>>>>>>> mental conflicts and self-confessed delusions cause physical
>>>>>>>>>> discomfort in the brain, dizziness, and a buzzing in the ears.
>>>>>>>>>> He's certifiable.
>>>>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>>>>>>> He's a self-confessed delusional who believes his own
>>>>>>>> brain punishes itself with pain, dizziness, and a buzzing
>>>>>>>> in the ears when forced to confront conflicts. That's
>>>>>>>> a very serious mental disorder which must be taken
>>>>>>>> into account when discussing issues with him, because
>>>>>>>> rather than face the truth like a normal person does he deludes
>>>>>>>> himself instead to feel good for fear that his
>>>>>>>> brain is going to punish him again.
>>>>>>> WAS.
>>>>>> IS. I've no reason to believe he's cured.
>>>>> No, WAS. You have no reason to doubt that he has resolved the conflict
>>>> His quotes show that hasn't resolved any conflicts at all.
>>> His quotes show that he *has* resolved the only relevant conflict. He
>>> no longer believes animals have rights.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> He resolved the cognitive dissonance by eliminating the delusion.
>>>>>> His quotes show that he's flip-flopped back and forth on the issues
>>>>>> raised here for years, so no, I don't believe
>>>>>> for one moment that he's ever managed to resolve those
>>>>>> conflicts which cause his brain to attack itself in the way
>>>>>> he describes.
>>>>> His quotes and all of his posting history since about 2001 show that
>>>>> he no longer believes in animal "rights".
>>>> False. He first came here claiming to be an advocate on the
>>>> proposition of animal rights.
>>>>
>>>> "I am an animal rights believer."
>>>> Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
>>>> like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
>>>> They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
>>>> own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
>>>> the animal or species."
>>>> Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh
>>>>
>>>> But within just a few months he started writing things like;
>>>>
>>>> "They have no rights because the very idea of
>>>> a world of animals with rights is a laugh."
>>> That's a lot of time that went by. Mercer, among others, set him straight.

>> I have said all along that I believe that there are such things
>> as "animal rights" and I contend that most people believe that
>> there are.

>
> Thanks for shitting all over Jon, Dutch.


That's not a nice way to talk.
  #94 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 31, 6:30 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 12:44 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>> Derek wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:47:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>> Derek wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:58:38 GMT, Rudy Canoza
> >>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>> Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:33:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza
> >>>>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:39:23 GMT, Rudy Canoza
> >>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do have some personal experience with cognitive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dissonance, I experienced it, and at the point when I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally consciously confronted the underlying conflict I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced a kind of physical discomfort in the brain, a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dizziness and a buzzing in my ears, followed shortly by a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of feeling of relief and elevated mental clarity. The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brain will attempt to punish you to stop you from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threatening the existing belief.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal evidence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get your points accepted, both here and in alt.abortion,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you try to stop deluding yourself your brain punishes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you to such an extent that it hurts you ("physical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and gives you a buzzing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound in your ears.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all who was it hurting?" Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2002http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Deluding myself felt good." Dutch Jun 4 2005
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/94eq3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your history is well established.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain why I
> >>>>>>>>>>>> or anyone should take you seriously after learning how
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mentally ill you are, you try to excuse your bad
> >>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour by referring to the alleged bad behaviour of others.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's simply not good enough, Ditch. Going
> >>>>>>>>>>>> from that statement you made at the top of this post
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and others you've made over the years concerning your
> >>>>>>>>>>>> deluded state of mind, and how it makes you feel good,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you're clearly suffering from a serious mental illness and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> can't be taken seriously here on these issues. You're a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> deluded liar who, when faced with the truth, refuses to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> accept that truth because, simply put, it makes your brain
> >>>>>>>>>>>> hurt and makes your ears buzz. haw haw haw.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
> >>>>>>>>>> He's clearly suffering from a serious mental illness if his
> >>>>>>>>>> mental conflicts and self-confessed delusions cause physical
> >>>>>>>>>> discomfort in the brain, dizziness, and a buzzing in the ears.
> >>>>>>>>>> He's certifiable.
> >>>>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
> >>>>>>>> He's a self-confessed delusional who believes his own
> >>>>>>>> brain punishes itself with pain, dizziness, and a buzzing
> >>>>>>>> in the ears when forced to confront conflicts. That's
> >>>>>>>> a very serious mental disorder which must be taken
> >>>>>>>> into account when discussing issues with him, because
> >>>>>>>> rather than face the truth like a normal person does he deludes
> >>>>>>>> himself instead to feel good for fear that his
> >>>>>>>> brain is going to punish him again.
> >>>>>>> WAS.
> >>>>>> IS. I've no reason to believe he's cured.
> >>>>> No, WAS. You have no reason to doubt that he has resolved the conflict
> >>>> His quotes show that hasn't resolved any conflicts at all.
> >>> His quotes show that he *has* resolved the only relevant conflict. He
> >>> no longer believes animals have rights.
> >>>>>>> He resolved the cognitive dissonance by eliminating the delusion.
> >>>>>> His quotes show that he's flip-flopped back and forth on the issues
> >>>>>> raised here for years, so no, I don't believe
> >>>>>> for one moment that he's ever managed to resolve those
> >>>>>> conflicts which cause his brain to attack itself in the way
> >>>>>> he describes.
> >>>>> His quotes and all of his posting history since about 2001 show that
> >>>>> he no longer believes in animal "rights".
> >>>> False. He first came here claiming to be an advocate on the
> >>>> proposition of animal rights.
> >>>> "I am an animal rights believer." Dutch 12 Feb 2001
> >>>>http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3
> >>>> and
> >>>> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted like
> >>>> branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". They are derivative. They
> >>>> reflect from a) what our own rights are b) to what degree and how
> >>>> we value the animal or species." Dutch 23 Feb 2001
> >>>>http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh
> >>>> But within just a few months he started writing things like;
> >>>> "They have no rights because the very idea of a world of animals
> >>>> with rights is a laugh."
> >>> That's a lot of time that went by. Mercer, among others, set him straight.
> >> Those quotes don't even say what he claims they do, he knows it. I have
> >> said all along that I believe that there are such things as "animal
> >> rights" and I contend that most people believe that there are. They are
> >> nothing at all like "Animal Rights" as AR presents it though. I refuse
> >> to concede useful, informative English phrases to extremists.- Hide quoted text -

>
> >> - Show quoted text -

>
> > Okay, so you believe that nonhuman animals have some rights, but you
> > don't accept most of the positions that people who identify themselves
> > as ARAs do. Which is fine. In this respect you disagree with Ball, he
> > explicitly denies that nonhuman animals have any rights.

>
> Correct.
>
> > And he also
> > thinks that if you believe that nonhuman animals have any rights, then
> > you must stop supporting all commercial agriculture. This is a crucial
> > part of his case that I am a hypocrite. So this disagreement of yours
> > with him is quite important. If you are right, then he has no case
> > that I am a hypocrite, and you should acknowledge this point.

>
> I don't believe that animals in crop fields hold rights against farmers,
> I believe that domestic animals hold specific rights against their
> caretakers, while Mr Ball believes that those are strictly obligations
> that those people owe, not rights held by the animals. In my view one
> implies the other.
>
> "ARAs" on the other hand don't define the limitations of their alleged
> beliefs clearly enough to know what they mean,


It's just as well-defined as your own position.

I believe that we should grant nonhuman animals the same rights as
humans with similar cognitive capacities, and we should give nonhuman
animals the same consideration in any given situation which we would
give to humans with similar cognitive capacities in relevantly similar
circumstances.

> but if you claim to
> believe animals have rights in the sense that humans do, then he's
> right, you must pull up stakes and get out of the commercial/industrial
> food system.


I said what I believe above, and I'm not currently convinced that it
requires me to do that.

  #95 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 31, 7:22 pm, Derek > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:49:10 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
> >On Jul 31, 12:44 pm, Dutch > wrote:

> [..]
> >> I have said all along that I believe that there are such things as "animal
> >> rights" and I contend that most people believe that there are. They are
> >> nothing at all like "Animal Rights" as AR presents it though. I refuse
> >> to concede useful, informative English phrases to extremists.

>
> >Okay, so you believe that nonhuman animals have some rights, but you
> >don't accept most of the positions that people who identify themselves
> >as ARAs do. Which is fine. In this respect you disagree with Ball, he
> >explicitly denies that nonhuman animals have any rights. And he also
> >thinks that if you believe that nonhuman animals have any rights, then
> >you must stop supporting all commercial agriculture.

>
> That's correct, and Jon has tackled him before on this
> issue with,
>
> "Rights trump interests, if you believe in rights at all.
> In fact, if you are trying to bend "right" as you are
> trying, then you deserve all the grief "aras" will give
> you over where you draw the line.
>


But Jon draws the line somewhere too. One of his favourite anti-AR
philosophers is Tibor Machan, a libertarian who maintains that
nonhuman animals have no rights. However, even Tibor Machan agrees
that we may forcibly intervene to prevent someone setting fire to a
cat. I'm sure Jon would concede this point too. And if you believe
that, then you may as well say that the cat has an enforceable right
not to be harmed in that way. Everyone draws the line somewhere. Jon's
trying to escape the charge of hypocrisy by refusing to grant nonhuman
animals any entitlement to any sort of consideration at all, but no-
one goes to this extreme any more than anyone goes to the extreme of
boycotting all commercial agriculture. Which is why all this nonsense
about "if you draw the line anywhere at all, and you don't stop
supporting commercial agriculture, then you're a hypocrite" is so
silly.


> Take your example of abuse of animals. If you
> interpret an anti-abuse law that states you are not
> permitted to beat your pets as the codification of
> some right, then what is the right? It clearly isn't the
> specific wording of the law itself. It has to be some
> broader and much less specific right, the respect of
> which has taken this particular form. Is it the right
> not to be capriciously - i.e., unnecessarily - harmed
> by humans? If that's it, then you have just
> acknowledged that humans DO NOT have the right
> to raise animals for food, because that harm is clearly
> not necessary from a nutritional standpoint."
> Jonathan Ball to Dutch 2003-09-14http://tinyurl.com/3x2h4c
>


So Ball is opposed to laws preventing abuse of pets, is he? It just
goes to show that his position is basically self-refuting.

> >This is a crucial part of his case that I am a hypocrite.
> >So this disagreement of yours with him is quite important.

>
> I agree that it is, so it's no surprise to see Jon trying
> to insist that Dutch doesn't believe in animal rights.
>
> >If you are right, then he has no case
> >that I am a hypocrite, and you should acknowledge this point.

>
> True, but he won't.


Ah well, some things never change.



  #96 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Derek wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:16:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Derek wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:47:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:58:38 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:33:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:39:23 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do have some personal experience with cognitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dissonance, I experienced it, and at the point when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I finally consciously confronted the underlying conflict
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I experienced a kind of physical discomfort in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brain, a dizziness and a buzzing in my ears, followed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shortly by a kind of feeling of relief and elevated mental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clarity. The brain will attempt to punish you to stop you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from threatening the existing belief.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence to get your points accepted, both here and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in alt.abortion, when you try to stop deluding yourself
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your brain punishes you to such an extent that it hurts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you ("physical discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gives you a buzzing sound in your ears.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all who was it hurting?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002 http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Deluding myself felt good."
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch Jun 4 2005 http://tinyurl.com/94eq3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your history is well established.
>>>>>>>>>>> As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain
>>>>>>>>>>> why I or anyone should take you seriously after learning
>>>>>>>>>>> how mentally ill you are, you try to excuse your bad
>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour by referring to the alleged bad behaviour of
>>>>>>>>>>> others. That's simply not good enough, Ditch. Going
>>>>>>>>>>> from that statement you made at the top of this post
>>>>>>>>>>> and others you've made over the years concerning your
>>>>>>>>>>> deluded state of mind, and how it makes you feel good,
>>>>>>>>>>> you're clearly suffering from a serious mental illness and
>>>>>>>>>>> can't be taken seriously here on these issues. You're a
>>>>>>>>>>> deluded liar who, when faced with the truth, refuses to
>>>>>>>>>>> accept that truth because, simply put, it makes your
>>>>>>>>>>> brain hurt and makes your ears buzz. haw haw haw.
>>>>>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>>>>>>>> He's clearly suffering from a serious mental illness if his
>>>>>>>>> mental conflicts and self-confessed delusions cause
>>>>>>>>> physical discomfort in the brain, dizziness, and a
>>>>>>>>> buzzing in the ears. He's certifiable.
>>>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>>>>>> He's a self-confessed delusional who believes his own
>>>>>>> brain punishes itself with pain, dizziness, and a buzzing
>>>>>>> in the ears when forced to confront conflicts. That's
>>>>>>> a very serious mental disorder which must be taken
>>>>>>> into account when discussing issues with him, because
>>>>>>> rather than face the truth like a normal person does he
>>>>>>> deludes himself instead to feel good for fear that his
>>>>>>> brain is going to punish him again.
>>>>>> WAS.
>>>>> IS. I've no reason to believe he's cured.
>>>> No, WAS. You have no reason to doubt that he has
>>>> resolved the conflict
>>> His quotes show that hasn't resolved any conflicts at all.

>> His quotes show that he *has* resolved the only
>> relevant conflict. He no longer believes animals have
>> rights.

>
> His quotes which rest in Google archives show that
> he still believes animals hold rights against us.


False.


>>>>>> He resolved the cognitive dissonance by eliminating the delusion.
>>>>> His quotes show that he's flip-flopped back and forth on
>>>>> the issues raised here for years, so no, I don't believe
>>>>> for one moment that he's ever managed to resolve those
>>>>> conflicts which cause his brain to attack itself in the way
>>>>> he describes.
>>>> His quotes and all of his posting history since about
>>>> 2001 show that he no longer believes in animal "rights".
>>> False. He first came here claiming to be an advocate
>>> on the proposition of animal rights.
>>>
>>> "I am an animal rights believer."
>>> Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
>>> like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
>>> They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
>>> own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
>>> the animal or species."
>>> Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh
>>>
>>> But within just a few months he started writing
>>> things like;
>>>
>>> "They have no rights because the very idea of
>>> a world of animals with rights is a laugh."
>>> Dutch 7 Aug 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6wffc

>
> <restore evidence that shows Dutch's ever-changing
> position on the proposition on animal rights>


[snip bullshit]

He doesn't believe in animal rights.
  #97 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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?

>
> I directed you to a document


Post the proof of your assertion here, fruit.
  #98 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 31, 3:40 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 31, 12:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 30, 2:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:55 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, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****! ................are you ever stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would appear.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I blah blah blah
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You contribute to animal death.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You violate your so-called beliefs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes - daily.
>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.
>>>>>>>>> Yawn.
>>>>>>>> Uh-huh - NOT. You're still defensive, and with good
>>>>>>>> reason.
>>>>>>> By the way, Rudy, I do genuinely wonder whether I should become self-
>>>>>>> sufficient in food and electricity.
>>>>>> No, you don't wonder that at all. You're fully
>>>>>> committed - addicted, even - to a life of pleasure, and
>>>>>> you'd have to give that up; you have no intention of
>>>>>> giving it up.
>>>>> You don't have a clue, Ball, any more than you have a clue about
>>>>> anything else. I do seriously consider it. Sure, I'd find it hard to
>>>>> sacrifice my personal comfort to that extent, but I'd be much more
>>>>> likely to do it than just about anyone else, certainly much more
>>>>> likely than you in similar circumstances. However, I have genuine
>>>>> reservations about it, for the reasons I explained.
>>>>>>> I don't think that you've shown
>>>>>>> that I've verbally committed myself to anything which entails that I
>>>>>>> should, but
>>>>>> Daily, you participate in processes that cause animals
>>>>>> to die. Your participation is voluntary, unnecessary,
>>>>>> repeated and done with full awareness of the deaths.
>>>>>> It is not "merely financial" support; it is active
>>>>>> participation. It is the proof that you don't extend
>>>>>> the same moral consideration to animals that you do to
>>>>>> humans,
>>>>> No, it's not.
>>>> Yes, it is.
>>>>>> and thus, your preaching of animal "rights" is
>>>>>> bullshit.
>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>>> No, not in the least. It proves that you don't believe
>>>> your own preaching,
>>> It does not.

>> It certainly does, rupie.
>>

>
> What utterly palpable nonsense


No. If you don't practice what you preach - and you
don't - then you don't believe the preaching. That
makes it bullshit, too.


>>>> so the preaching is bullshit.
>>> And this in any case would not follow.

>> It does.

>
> Of course it wouldn't follow.


Of course it follows, fruit.
  #99 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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...
  #100 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 31, 6:30 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 31, 12:44 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:47:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:58:38 GMT, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:33:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:39:23 GMT, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do have some personal experience with cognitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dissonance, I experienced it, and at the point when I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally consciously confronted the underlying conflict I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced a kind of physical discomfort in the brain, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dizziness and a buzzing in my ears, followed shortly by a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of feeling of relief and elevated mental clarity. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brain will attempt to punish you to stop you from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threatening the existing belief.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get your points accepted, both here and in alt.abortion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you try to stop deluding yourself your brain punishes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you to such an extent that it hurts you ("physical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and gives you a buzzing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound in your ears.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all who was it hurting?" Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2002http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Deluding myself felt good." Dutch Jun 4 2005
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/94eq3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your history is well established.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain why I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or anyone should take you seriously after learning how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentally ill you are, you try to excuse your bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour by referring to the alleged bad behaviour of others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's simply not good enough, Ditch. Going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from that statement you made at the top of this post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and others you've made over the years concerning your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deluded state of mind, and how it makes you feel good,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're clearly suffering from a serious mental illness and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't be taken seriously here on these issues. You're a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deluded liar who, when faced with the truth, refuses to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accept that truth because, simply put, it makes your brain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hurt and makes your ears buzz. haw haw haw.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>>>>>>>>>>> He's clearly suffering from a serious mental illness if his
>>>>>>>>>>>> mental conflicts and self-confessed delusions cause physical
>>>>>>>>>>>> discomfort in the brain, dizziness, and a buzzing in the ears.
>>>>>>>>>>>> He's certifiable.
>>>>>>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.
>>>>>>>>>> He's a self-confessed delusional who believes his own
>>>>>>>>>> brain punishes itself with pain, dizziness, and a buzzing
>>>>>>>>>> in the ears when forced to confront conflicts. That's
>>>>>>>>>> a very serious mental disorder which must be taken
>>>>>>>>>> into account when discussing issues with him, because
>>>>>>>>>> rather than face the truth like a normal person does he deludes
>>>>>>>>>> himself instead to feel good for fear that his
>>>>>>>>>> brain is going to punish him again.
>>>>>>>>> WAS.
>>>>>>>> IS. I've no reason to believe he's cured.
>>>>>>> No, WAS. You have no reason to doubt that he has resolved the conflict
>>>>>> His quotes show that hasn't resolved any conflicts at all.
>>>>> His quotes show that he *has* resolved the only relevant conflict. He
>>>>> no longer believes animals have rights.
>>>>>>>>> He resolved the cognitive dissonance by eliminating the delusion.
>>>>>>>> His quotes show that he's flip-flopped back and forth on the issues
>>>>>>>> raised here for years, so no, I don't believe
>>>>>>>> for one moment that he's ever managed to resolve those
>>>>>>>> conflicts which cause his brain to attack itself in the way
>>>>>>>> he describes.
>>>>>>> His quotes and all of his posting history since about 2001 show that
>>>>>>> he no longer believes in animal "rights".
>>>>>> False. He first came here claiming to be an advocate on the
>>>>>> proposition of animal rights.
>>>>>> "I am an animal rights believer." Dutch 12 Feb 2001
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted like
>>>>>> branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". They are derivative. They
>>>>>> reflect from a) what our own rights are b) to what degree and how
>>>>>> we value the animal or species." Dutch 23 Feb 2001
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh
>>>>>> But within just a few months he started writing things like;
>>>>>> "They have no rights because the very idea of a world of animals
>>>>>> with rights is a laugh."
>>>>> That's a lot of time that went by. Mercer, among others, set him straight.
>>>> Those quotes don't even say what he claims they do, he knows it. I have
>>>> said all along that I believe that there are such things as "animal
>>>> rights" and I contend that most people believe that there are. They are
>>>> nothing at all like "Animal Rights" as AR presents it though. I refuse
>>>> to concede useful, informative English phrases to extremists.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Okay, so you believe that nonhuman animals have some rights, but you
>>> don't accept most of the positions that people who identify themselves
>>> as ARAs do. Which is fine. In this respect you disagree with Ball, he
>>> explicitly denies that nonhuman animals have any rights.

>> Correct.
>>
>>> And he also
>>> thinks that if you believe that nonhuman animals have any rights, then
>>> you must stop supporting all commercial agriculture. This is a crucial
>>> part of his case that I am a hypocrite. So this disagreement of yours
>>> with him is quite important. If you are right, then he has no case
>>> that I am a hypocrite, and you should acknowledge this point.

>> I don't believe that animals in crop fields hold rights against farmers,
>> I believe that domestic animals hold specific rights against their
>> caretakers, while Mr Ball believes that those are strictly obligations
>> that those people owe, not rights held by the animals. In my view one
>> implies the other.
>>
>> "ARAs" on the other hand don't define the limitations of their alleged
>> beliefs clearly enough to know what they mean,

>
> It's just as well-defined as your own position.
>
> I believe that we should grant nonhuman animals the same rights as
> humans with similar cognitive capacities, and we should give nonhuman
> animals the same consideration in any given situation which we would
> give to humans with similar cognitive capacities in relevantly similar
> circumstances.


Why? The according of basic rights to severely retarded humans has
nothing to do with their cognitive capacities, as I have previously
described.

To illustrate the point further:
Humans who have extraordinary cognitive capacities have the exact same
basic rights as humans who have greatly diminished cognitive capacities.
That is, a person with an IQ of 160 has the same rights as a person with
an IQ of 60.

The whole regime of "human rights" exists because humans have the
cognitive capacity and desire to create and live within such a system.
That does not mean that we are obliged to revoke the basic rights of
humans who cannot participate due to no fault of their own. Animals were
never part of the system in the first place, and I see no way to
consistently include them.


>> but if you claim to
>> believe animals have rights in the sense that humans do, then he's
>> right, you must pull up stakes and get out of the commercial/industrial
>> food system.

>
> I said what I believe above, and I'm not currently convinced that it
> requires me to do that.


Then you must believe that severely retarded humans deserve no
consideration because you are giving no consideration to the victims of
that commercial agriculture.


  #101 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 30, 5:30 pm, Derek > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:16:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:47:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>> Derek wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:58:38 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>> Derek wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:33:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>> Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:39:23 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:36:35 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:56:43 GMT, Dutch > wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I do have some personal experience with cognitive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> dissonance, I experienced it, and at the point when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I finally consciously confronted the underlying conflict
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I experienced a kind of physical discomfort in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> brain, a dizziness and a buzzing in my ears, followed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> shortly by a kind of feeling of relief and elevated mental
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> clarity. The brain will attempt to punish you to stop you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> from threatening the existing belief.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, it's established, then, that not only are you a liar
> >>>>>>>>>>>> who had to invent a family of kids to use as anecdotal
> >>>>>>>>>>>> evidence to get your points accepted, both here and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in alt.abortion, when you try to stop deluding yourself
> >>>>>>>>>>>> your brain punishes you to such an extent that it hurts
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you ("physical discomfort"), makes you feel dizzy, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> gives you a buzzing sound in your ears.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after
> >>>>>>>>>>>> all who was it hurting?"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Deluding myself felt good."
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch Jun 4 2005http://tinyurl.com/94eq3

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And you wonder why I never take you seriously?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Your history is well established.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> As usual, when forced to address your lies and explain
> >>>>>>>>>> why I or anyone should take you seriously after learning
> >>>>>>>>>> how mentally ill you are, you try to excuse your bad
> >>>>>>>>>> behaviour by referring to the alleged bad behaviour of
> >>>>>>>>>> others. That's simply not good enough, Ditch. Going
> >>>>>>>>>> from that statement you made at the top of this post
> >>>>>>>>>> and others you've made over the years concerning your
> >>>>>>>>>> deluded state of mind, and how it makes you feel good,
> >>>>>>>>>> you're clearly suffering from a serious mental illness and
> >>>>>>>>>> can't be taken seriously here on these issues. You're a
> >>>>>>>>>> deluded liar who, when faced with the truth, refuses to
> >>>>>>>>>> accept that truth because, simply put, it makes your
> >>>>>>>>>> brain hurt and makes your ears buzz. haw haw haw.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.

>
> >>>>>>>> He's clearly suffering from a serious mental illness if his
> >>>>>>>> mental conflicts and self-confessed delusions cause
> >>>>>>>> physical discomfort in the brain, dizziness, and a
> >>>>>>>> buzzing in the ears. He's certifiable.

>
> >>>>>>> Cognitive dissonance is not mental illness.

>
> >>>>>> He's a self-confessed delusional who believes his own
> >>>>>> brain punishes itself with pain, dizziness, and a buzzing
> >>>>>> in the ears when forced to confront conflicts. That's
> >>>>>> a very serious mental disorder which must be taken
> >>>>>> into account when discussing issues with him, because
> >>>>>> rather than face the truth like a normal person does he
> >>>>>> deludes himself instead to feel good for fear that his
> >>>>>> brain is going to punish him again.

>
> >>>>> WAS.

>
> >>>> IS. I've no reason to believe he's cured.

>
> >>> No, WAS. You have no reason to doubt that he has
> >>> resolved the conflict

>
> >> His quotes show that hasn't resolved any conflicts at all.

>
> >His quotes show that he *has* resolved the only
> >relevant conflict. He no longer believes animals have
> >rights.

>
> His quotes which rest in Google archives show that
> he still believes animals hold rights against us. There's
> no use in trying to deny it.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> He resolved the cognitive dissonance by eliminating the delusion.

>
> >>>> His quotes show that he's flip-flopped back and forth on
> >>>> the issues raised here for years, so no, I don't believe
> >>>> for one moment that he's ever managed to resolve those
> >>>> conflicts which cause his brain to attack itself in the way
> >>>> he describes.

>
> >>> His quotes and all of his posting history since about
> >>> 2001 show that he no longer believes in animal "rights".

>
> >> False. He first came here claiming to be an advocate
> >> on the proposition of animal rights.

>
> >> "I am an animal rights believer."
> >> Dutch 12 Feb 2001http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3

>
> >> and

>
> >> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
> >> like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
> >> They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
> >> own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
> >> the animal or species."
> >> Dutch 23 Feb 2001http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh

>
> >> But within just a few months he started writing
> >> things like;

>
> >> "They have no rights because the very idea of
> >> a world of animals with rights is a laugh."
> >> Dutch 7 Aug 2001http://tinyurl.com/6wffc

>
> <restore evidence that shows Dutch's ever-changing
> position on the proposition on animal rights>
>
> and
>
> "Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I
> find it irrational ...."
> Dutch 28 Aug 2002http://tinyurl.com/47wy4
>
> But then he switched back again, accepting the
> proposition of animal rights and claiming to have
> signed a petition in support for it to the Canadian
> government.
>
> "I recently signed a petition online supporting
> an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
> Dutch 18 Sept 2003http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn
>
> and later;
>
> "Rights for animals exist because human rights
> exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
> animals would not exist."
> Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz
>
> and
>
> "If they are inherent in humans then why are
> they not in some way inherent in all animals?
> I think rights are a human invention which we
> apply widely to humans and in specific ways in
> certain situations to other animals."
> ...
> "There is no coherent reason why humans ought
> to be prohibited from extending some form of
> rights towards animals in their care."
> ...
> "I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights,
> we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply
> versions of them to certain animals in limited ways
> within our sphere of influence."
> Dutch 18 May 2005http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb
>
> and
>
> "I measure my right to be free from physical assault
> by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone
> who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist
> to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must
> conclude that they hold rights against humans who
> would abuse them."
> Dutch Sep 20 2005http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp
>
> and
>
> "Animals can be "moral patients", in a similar
> way as minor children or people in comas.
> They can hold rights against us, but we can't
> hold rights against them."
> Dutch 24 Sep 2005http://tinyurl.com/cpxhx
>
> and, this very month
>
> "I would hold in fact that this is so plausible that apes
> should be granted basic rights."
> Dutch 7 July 2007http://tinyurl.com/328k8h
>
> And then back again,
>
> "I'm not an ARA."
> Dutch 19 Jul 2007http://tinyurl.com/253nlg
>
> As we can plainly see, he's constantly changing his
> stance on this position.
> <end restore>
>
> When you snip away the evidence that supports my
> claim and defeats yours, it reveals your dishonesty.
>
> >That's a lot of time that went by.

>
> And during that time he flip-flopped back and forth,
> and then back again this very month.
>
> >Mercer, among others, set him straight.

>
> No, clearly he did not. Dutch is holding his buzzing ears
> right now while his brain attacks him.





How could something that tiny and feeble attack anyone?






- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



  #102 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Is that your response, then?

  #103 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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.



  #104 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 1, 1:06 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 3:40 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 31, 12:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 30, 2:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 30, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:55 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, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****! ................are you ever stupid.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would appear.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I blah blah blah
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You contribute to animal death.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You violate your so-called beliefs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes - daily.
> >>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, you do - daily. You're massively hypocritical.
> >>>>>>>>> Yawn.
> >>>>>>>> Uh-huh - NOT. You're still defensive, and with good
> >>>>>>>> reason.
> >>>>>>> By the way, Rudy, I do genuinely wonder whether I should become self-
> >>>>>>> sufficient in food and electricity.
> >>>>>> No, you don't wonder that at all. You're fully
> >>>>>> committed - addicted, even - to a life of pleasure, and
> >>>>>> you'd have to give that up; you have no intention of
> >>>>>> giving it up.
> >>>>> You don't have a clue, Ball, any more than you have a clue about
> >>>>> anything else. I do seriously consider it. Sure, I'd find it hard to
> >>>>> sacrifice my personal comfort to that extent, but I'd be much more
> >>>>> likely to do it than just about anyone else, certainly much more
> >>>>> likely than you in similar circumstances. However, I have genuine
> >>>>> reservations about it, for the reasons I explained.
> >>>>>>> I don't think that you've shown
> >>>>>>> that I've verbally committed myself to anything which entails that I
> >>>>>>> should, but
> >>>>>> Daily, you participate in processes that cause animals
> >>>>>> to die. Your participation is voluntary, unnecessary,
> >>>>>> repeated and done with full awareness of the deaths.
> >>>>>> It is not "merely financial" support; it is active
> >>>>>> participation. It is the proof that you don't extend
> >>>>>> the same moral consideration to animals that you do to
> >>>>>> humans,
> >>>>> No, it's not.
> >>>> Yes, it is.
> >>>>>> and thus, your preaching of animal "rights" is
> >>>>>> bullshit.
> >>>>> Non sequitur.
> >>>> No, not in the least. It proves that you don't believe
> >>>> your own preaching,
> >>> It does not.
> >> It certainly does, rupie.

>
> > What utterly palpable nonsense

>
> No. If you don't practice what you preach - and you
> don't -


False.

> then you don't believe the preaching.


False, this obviously does not follow.

> That
> makes it bullshit, too.
>


False, this obviously does not follow.

> >>>> so the preaching is bullshit.
> >>> And this in any case would not follow.
> >> It does.

>
> > Of course it wouldn't follow.

>
> Of course it follows, fruit.



You're really not very good at talking sense, are you, Ball?

  #105 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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.



  #106 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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

  #107 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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.

  #108 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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.

  #109 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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?

  #110 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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, Ball. I am perfectly happy to sign my full
name and photo to all my Internet activity. You, apparently, are a bit
uncomfortable with the idea that, within a few days, anyone will be
able to type your name into Google and find a record of this debate.
Well, I can certainly understand that. Now, you have made defamatory
statements about me in the past, to the effect that I have a
propensity for violent crime. And also, with rather amusing irony, you
have publicly fantasized about committing violent acts towards me,
which constitutes threats of violence which are not protected by the
First Amendment. And, in the context of this, you think you're going
to give me orders about what I put up on my webpage, just because it's
a little inconvenient for you?

It's always such a joy when you come up with new and unexpected comic
material.



  #111 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Non sequitur. I note that you haven't actually read my reply yet.

  #112 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default 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 ****.
  #113 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default 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 -

>
> 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.
  #114 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default 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.
  #115 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default 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 -

>
> > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


God help me, what a coward. Afraid to have the tiniest excerpt from
all your ridiculous ranting here appear next to your full name on
someone's webpage. (Although I've embellished it a bit more now).

I've got your IP address, Ball. I'll be notifying your ISP that you've
threatened to vandalize my website and I'll be looking into the
possibility of bringing criminal charges against you on this basis
alone. I wouldn't recommend you try to muck around with my website.



  #116 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default 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.

  #117 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:30:39 -0700, Rupert > wrote:

[..]
>Why?


Because he hasn't given you his permission. Take it down.
  #118 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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.
  #119 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 1, 5:17 pm, Derek > wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:30:39 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >Why?

>
> Because he hasn't given you his permission. Take it down.


Could you elaborate? Is this a legal argument, or a moral argument?

  #120 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 1, 5:47 pm, 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Okay, well do you want to talk this over from the legal point of view?

Initially all I did was post a short excerpt from one of your posts in
the context of your full name. It didn't occur to me that it would be
an issue.

You know, I've seen another website which gives quotes from you and
refers to you as "talk.politics.animals regular Jonathan Ball".
Perhaps that was back in the days where you didn't care who knew your
full name. Why exactly do you care who knows your full name, anyway?
Do you want to keep your activity here secret from some people?

And what about Lesley's website? That's got your full name and your
photo. Did you harangue her in this way?

It's common knowledge on this newsgroup that your name is Jonathan
Ball. It's publicly available information. What exactly is your
concern?

Anyway, you certainly didn't go about this in a very sensible way, did
you? First you try to give me orders, then you threaten illegal
activity. I think your negotation skills need improving.

Try asking me nicely, Ball, and we'll see how we go.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Beef skirt Ophelia[_14_] General Cooking 112 08-11-2015 08:51 PM
Skirt steak substitute? Ravenlynne General Cooking 78 12-11-2009 06:32 PM
Skirt Steak Gunner[_6_] Mexican Cooking 1 19-03-2008 10:09 PM
Got skirt steak Bob General Cooking 8 19-08-2005 05:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"