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
  #106 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2007, 11:29 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
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  
Old 01-08-2007, 02:05 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
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  
Old 01-08-2007, 02:06 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
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  
Old 01-08-2007, 03:30 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
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  
Old 01-08-2007, 03:41 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
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  
Old 01-08-2007, 04:29 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
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  
Old 01-08-2007, 06:57 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
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  
Old 01-08-2007, 06:58 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
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  
Old 01-08-2007, 06:58 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
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  
Old 01-08-2007, 08:04 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
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  
Old 01-08-2007, 08:05 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
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  
Old 01-08-2007, 08:17 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
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  
Old 01-08-2007, 08:47 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
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  
Old 01-08-2007, 09:17 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
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  
Old 01-08-2007, 09:22 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
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 07:51 PM
Skirt steak substitute? Ravenlynne General Cooking 78 12-11-2009 05:32 PM
Skirt Steak Gunner[_6_] Mexican Cooking 1 19-03-2008 09:09 PM
Got skirt steak Bob General Cooking 8 19-08-2005 05:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017