skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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 you have no inheirent common sense. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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", we couldn't if we wanted to, and nobody actually wants to, despite their irrational pleas to the contrary. What we do is select a few animals to give special consideration. It's what we have always done and what we will continue to do. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, 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 don't you have a go at writing some sort of reply to the file called "animal rights talk.doc" he http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discus..._ethics/files/ Tell me exactly what's wrong with it. I'll publish your response on my website if you like. We can get some sort of webbed debate going. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Jul 27, 4:13 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, 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 don't you have a go at writing some sort of reply to the file > called "animal rights talk.doc" he Why don't YOU have a go at justifying your most basic assertion? |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On Jul 27, 4:13 pm, Rupert > wrote: >> On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, 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 don't you have a go at writing some sort of reply to the file >> called "animal rights talk.doc" he > > Why don't YOU have a go at justifying your most basic assertion? > He is a follower of David DeGrazia, whose approach is to argue that opponents of "equal consideration" are the ones with the burden. I attempted to read his book "Taking Animals Seriously" at Rupert's suggestion. I ended up taking animals seriously but not DeGrazia. The book is the the most tangled bunch of hogwash I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. The entire book is a circular effort to define "Equal Consideration" in such a way that it shifts the burden to opponents to disprove it. Rupert will never justify his position, he knows intuitively that he can't, that's why he is attracted to DeGrazia. Strange that it never occurs to him that the assertion is flawed. In attacking the essay moralstat99 he latches onto one word that he thinks is poorly defined and disregards the whole essay on that basis. DeGrazia's book is loaded with poorly defined concepts, as he admits himself, yet Rupert eats in up like salted popcorn. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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 never treat any nonhuman animal in a way in which I would not be prepared to treat a human of similar cognitive capacities in relevantly similar circumstances, and I never financially support any process which affects nonhuman animals in ways such that I would not be prepared to financially support processes which affected humans of similar cognitive capacities in similar ways in relevantly similar circumstances. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Jul 28, 10:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jul 27, 4:13 pm, Rupert > wrote: > > > On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, 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 don't you have a go at writing some sort of reply to the file > > called "animal rights talk.doc" he > > Why don't YOU have a go at justifying your most basic assertion? What do you suppose that talk is? Have you read it? That talk is a lecture I gave recently at the University of Sydney to a group of students who were about to embark on animal research projects. You are welcome to have a go at engaging with the arguments in it if you feel like it. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Jul 28, 1:26 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote: > > On Jul 27, 4:13 pm, Rupert > wrote: > >> On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, 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 don't you have a go at writing some sort of reply to the file > >> called "animal rights talk.doc" he > > > Why don't YOU have a go at justifying your most basic assertion? > > He is a follower of David DeGrazia, whose approach is to argue that > opponents of "equal consideration" are the ones with the burden. I > attempted to read his book "Taking Animals Seriously" at Rupert's > suggestion. That's true, and I'm certainly happy to talk over Chapter 3 of "Taking Animals Seriously" with Ball if he wants to. However, I did actually refer him to a lecture I gave, for payment, recently, in defence of my position. That was what I was hoping he might engage with. Rather odd that he missed that. > I ended up taking animals seriously but not DeGrazia. The > book is the the most tangled bunch of hogwash I have ever had the > misfortune to encounter. The entire book is a circular effort to define > "Equal Consideration" in such a way that it shifts the burden to > opponents to disprove it. Rupert will never justify his position, he > knows intuitively that he can't, that's why he is attracted to DeGrazia. > Strange that it never occurs to him that the assertion is flawed. > I'm sorry you didn't like DeGrazia. I think he's quite a clear and insightful writer, myself. It would be nice if you could actually engage with what he wrote and try to offer some cogent criticisms. > In attacking the essay moralstat99 he latches onto one word that he > thinks is poorly defined It's the crucial concept on which the whole argument rests, and nothing resembling an adequate explanation of the concept is given. He doesn't even make a start. Until he makes a start, we've got nothing. He himself would acknowledge this point, I'm quite sure. He would acknowledge that by itself the essay is not a satisfactory rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases, that further clarification of the crucial concept of "capability" is required. > and disregards the whole essay on that basis. No, I think parts of the essay are quite interesting, and I'm particularly interested in the discussion of moral methodology. Furthermore, I am interested in the attempted rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases and will follow it up further, looking at the thesis to which he refers. But the section which attempts to rebut the argument from marginal cases is what you've been focussing on, and it's quite short, and it crucially rests on the notion of "capability", which is introduced in one very short paragraph, which is not an adequate explanation. This section of the essay is a non- starter until we've got an explanation of the crucial notion of "capability". > DeGrazia's book is loaded with poorly defined concepts, No. This is pretty rich when you are so excited about an essay which does not make the least attempt at defining the crucial notion of "capability". > as he admits > himself, No, he does not. > yet Rupert eats in up like salted popcorn. It's not just me who thinks DeGrazia has something interesting to say. He's a well-respected bioethicist. There are quite a lot of professional academics who think this is good philosophy. I'm sure they've made just as much of a good faith effort to think about the matter critically as you have, and I see no reason to think that their critical faculties are any less than yours. They might be wrong, but are you really in a position to say that quite so confidently? Shouldn't be somewhat more open to the possibility that it might be you who's underestimating the quality of DeGrazia's work? Surely it's at least a possibility? Or are you infallible, are you? |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yes. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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. Lots of people think it's not self-evidently false. A huge majority of those who seriously consider the matter, I would say. Surely you've got to say something more to those people than just asserting that it is self-evidently false. God, this habit of yours of changing the follow-up is tiresome. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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 never treat > any nonhuman animal in a way in which I would not be prepared to treat > a human of similar cognitive capacities in relevantly similar > circumstances, and I never financially support any process which > affects nonhuman animals in ways such that I would not be prepared to > financially support processes which affected humans of similar > cognitive capacities in similar ways in relevantly similar > circumstances. > Who the hell talks like that? Give an example of a situation where this theory would apply, a farmers field full of profoundly retarded humans? |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 28, 1:26 pm, Dutch > wrote: >> In attacking the essay moralstat99 he latches onto one word that he >> thinks is poorly defined > > It's the crucial concept on which the whole argument rests, and > nothing resembling an adequate explanation of the concept is given. He defines "capability" as a subset of "capacity", being an ability that is inherent but not operative. Just as a baby bird whose wings have not yet developed has the inherent capability, but not the operative ability to fly, so an infant has the inherent but non-operative abilities of advanced cognition. A marginal human has the capability but it is non-operative due to disability. Explain what is inadequate about the above description. I'll tell you, nothing. It is crystal clear. You're in a corner with no way out except to acknowledge that the approach in this essay leads to a rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases. You might disagree with the overall approach the argument takes, or you might still argue that humans treat animals cruelly on other grounds, but if you accept this approach you ought to reassess the argument from marginal cases. That argument always sounded intuitively phony to me, but moralsta99 expresses why in rigorous form. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Jul 28, 6:03 pm, Dutch > 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 never treat > > any nonhuman animal in a way in which I would not be prepared to treat > > a human of similar cognitive capacities in relevantly similar > > circumstances, and I never financially support any process which > > affects nonhuman animals in ways such that I would not be prepared to > > financially support processes which affected humans of similar > > cognitive capacities in similar ways in relevantly similar > > circumstances. > > Who the hell talks like that? Give an example of a situation where this > theory would apply, a farmers field full of profoundly retarded humans?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yes, that's right. It's a highly counterfactual scenario, but that's the sort of thing you've got to talk about if you want to apply the notion of "equal consideration" in that context. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Jul 28, 6:21 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Jul 28, 1:26 pm, Dutch > wrote: > >> In attacking the essay moralstat99 he latches onto one word that he > >> thinks is poorly defined > > > It's the crucial concept on which the whole argument rests, and > > nothing resembling an adequate explanation of the concept is given. > > He defines "capability" as a subset of "capacity", being an ability that > is inherent but not operative. Just as a baby bird whose wings have not > yet developed has the inherent capability, but not the operative ability > to fly, so an infant has the inherent but non-operative abilities of > advanced cognition. A marginal human has the capability but it is > non-operative due to disability. > 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. 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 might be able to give that idea a precise sense in some contexts, though you haven't done that yet. As I said before, that's a scientific research programme, not a matter of common sense. How much of the machinery needs to be there? How far is it allowed to be from being in working order? And, anyway, what is supposed to be the morally big deal about the machinery being there? > 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. > It is crystal clear. If you think that then there's something seriously amiss with your standards of clarity. > You're in a corner with no way out except > to acknowledge that the approach in this essay leads to a rebuttal of > the argument from marginal cases. Oh, get over yourself. This wasn't the way I reacted when you were bagging DeGrazia. I didn't have the arrogance to say "I've got you in a corner, there's no way out for you but to accept my position." No- one is that arrogant when presenting a serious argument. I patiently tried to explain how I understood the text to you. You haven't convinced me. That's the bottom line. I believe that you have not done anything significant by way of clarifying this notion of "capability", and I am quite certain that just about any academic philosopher reading this conversation would agree, including the author of that essay that you like so much. You can shoot your mouth off all you like about how you've got me in a corner, and I daresay you believe it, but it's not going to impress me and I don't think it's going to impress any other sensible person either. > You might disagree with the overall > approach the argument takes, or you might still argue that humans treat > animals cruelly on other grounds, but if you accept this approach you > ought to reassess the argument from marginal cases. I'm happy to reassess the argument from marginal cases as soon as I understand this notion of "capability". The notion remains totally obscure for the moment, so I don't have an adequate reply to the argument from marginal cases. > That argument always > sounded intuitively phony to me, but moralsta99 expresses why in > rigorous form. Well, you can think that if you like. Suppose you were writing an essay for a philosophy professor whose judgement you respected, but who was skeptical about this argument. How would you go about explaining the crucial notion of "capability" to him? Do you really think he would find what you have said so far satisfactory? If you think that, you really have no clue about the standards of clarity and rigor which prevail in academic philosophy. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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. Yes. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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 talk of mine to which I directed you says quite a lot in defence of my beliefs. I certainly do a lot more than just say "it's self-evidently true". Why don't you read my talk and give me your comments? |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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 |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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? |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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, Ball. My actions are in accordance with my beliefs as I have stated them. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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 - 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 and you pretend to fall asleep. So, were you not really being serious in issuing the challenge? I don't think you've actually read the talk, have you? |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 28, 6:03 pm, Dutch > 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 never treat >>> any nonhuman animal in a way in which I would not be prepared to treat >>> a human of similar cognitive capacities in relevantly similar >>> circumstances, and I never financially support any process which >>> affects nonhuman animals in ways such that I would not be prepared to >>> financially support processes which affected humans of similar >>> cognitive capacities in similar ways in relevantly similar >>> circumstances. >> Who the hell talks like that? Give an example of a situation where this >> theory would apply, a farmers field full of profoundly retarded humans?- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Yes, that's right. It's a highly counterfactual scenario, Wha? Who the hell talks like that? You mean "bullshit"? but that's > the sort of thing you've got to talk about if you want to apply the > notion of "equal consideration" in that context. I don't want to talk about it, I want YOU to give an example that might occur in the real world to represent that description you gave. All I can think of is things like hoards of severely retarded people being coated with deadly pesticides, I suppose you would be OK with that. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 28, 6:21 pm, Dutch > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Jul 28, 1:26 pm, Dutch > wrote: >>>> In attacking the essay moralstat99 he latches onto one word that he >>>> thinks is poorly defined >>> It's the crucial concept on which the whole argument rests, and >>> nothing resembling an adequate explanation of the concept is given. >> He defines "capability" as a subset of "capacity", being an ability that >> is inherent but not operative. Just as a baby bird whose wings have not >> yet developed has the inherent capability, but not the operative ability >> to fly, so an infant has the inherent but non-operative abilities of >> advanced cognition. A marginal human has the capability but it is >> non-operative due to disability. >> > > 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? Do you understand having the capability of speech but not being able to talk? Advanced cognitive abilities are no different. 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. > 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. > As I said before, that's a scientific research programme, > not a matter of common sense. How much of the machinery needs to be > there? It's not "machinery" in the literal sense. This is hilarious you know, your declaration of the "equal consideration principle" is about as vague as one can possibly be, with no examples from real life being given at all to clarify it, yet you proclaim it to be clear as a bell. This idea is expressed in one word, one clear definition with any number of clarifying examples, yet you reject it. > How far is it allowed to be from being in working order? That doesn't matter. > 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. >> 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. >> It is crystal clear. > > If you think that then there's something seriously amiss with your > standards of clarity. Your standards of comprehension are what are lacking. > >> You're in a corner with no way out except >> to acknowledge that the approach in this essay leads to a rebuttal of >> the argument from marginal cases. > > Oh, get over yourself. This wasn't the way I reacted when you were > bagging DeGrazia. I didn't have the arrogance to say "I've got you in > a corner, there's no way out for you but to accept my position." No- > one is that arrogant when presenting a serious argument. I patiently > tried to explain how I understood the text to you. > > You haven't convinced me. That's the bottom line. I believe that you > have not done anything significant by way of clarifying this notion of > "capability", and I am quite certain that just about any academic > philosopher reading this conversation would agree, including the > author of that essay that you like so much. You can shoot your mouth > off all you like about how you've got me in a corner, and I daresay > you believe it, but it's not going to impress me and I don't think > it's going to impress any other sensible person either. > >> You might disagree with the overall >> approach the argument takes, or you might still argue that humans treat >> animals cruelly on other grounds, but if you accept this approach you >> ought to reassess the argument from marginal cases. > > I'm happy to reassess the argument from marginal cases as soon as I > understand this notion of "capability". The notion remains totally > obscure for the moment, so I don't have an adequate reply to the > argument from marginal cases. > >> That argument always >> sounded intuitively phony to me, but moralsta99 expresses why in >> rigorous form. > > Well, you can think that if you like. Thanks for the permission to think what I want to think. Suppose you were writing an > essay for a philosophy professor whose judgement you respected, but > who was skeptical about this argument. How would you go about > explaining the crucial notion of "capability" to him? Do you really > think he would find what you have said so far satisfactory? If you > think that, you really have no clue about the standards of clarity and > rigor which prevail in academic philosophy. I realize that you desperately want to think of yourself as the professor lecturing the rest of us, but get over yourself. If I had a professor like you I would attempt to switch classes. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Jul 28, 1:40 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Jul 28, 6:21 pm, Dutch > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Jul 28, 1:26 pm, Dutch > wrote: > >>>> In attacking the essay moralstat99 he latches onto one word that he > >>>> thinks is poorly defined > >>> It's the crucial concept on which the whole argument rests, and > >>> nothing resembling an adequate explanation of the concept is given. > >> He defines "capability" as a subset of "capacity", being an ability that > >> is inherent but not operative. Just as a baby bird whose wings have not > >> yet developed has the inherent capability, but not the operative ability > >> to fly, so an infant has the inherent but non-operative abilities of > >> advanced cognition. A marginal human has the capability but it is > >> non-operative due to disability. > > > 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? Do you > understand having the capability of speech but not being able to talk? > Advanced cognitive abilities are no different. 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. > > > 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. > > > As I said before, that's a scientific research programme, > > not a matter of common sense. How much of the machinery needs to be > > there? > > It's not "machinery" in the literal sense. This is hilarious you know, > your declaration of the "equal consideration principle" is about as > vague as one can possibly be, with no examples from real life being > given at all to clarify it, yet you proclaim it to be clear as a bell. > This idea is expressed in one word, one clear definition with any number > of clarifying examples, yet you reject it. > > > How far is it allowed to be from being in working order? > > That doesn't matter. > > > 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. > > >> 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. > > >> It is crystal clear. > > > If you think that then there's something seriously amiss with your > > standards of clarity. > > Your standards of comprehension are what are lacking. > > > > > > > > >> You're in a corner with no way out except > >> to acknowledge that the approach in this essay leads to a rebuttal of > >> the argument from marginal cases. > > > Oh, get over yourself. This wasn't the way I reacted when you were > > bagging DeGrazia. I didn't have the arrogance to say "I've got you in > > a corner, there's no way out for you but to accept my position." No- > > one is that arrogant when presenting a serious argument. I patiently > > tried to explain how I understood the text to you. > > > You haven't convinced me. That's the bottom line. I believe that you > > have not done anything significant by way of clarifying this notion of > > "capability", and I am quite certain that just about any academic > > philosopher reading this conversation would agree, including the > > author of that essay that you like so much. You can shoot your mouth > > off all you like about how you've got me in a corner, and I daresay > > you believe it, but it's not going to impress me and I don't think > > it's going to impress any other sensible person either. > > >> You might disagree with the overall > >> approach the argument takes, or you might still argue that humans treat > >> animals cruelly on other grounds, but if you accept this approach you > >> ought to reassess the argument from marginal cases. > > > I'm happy to reassess the argument from marginal cases as soon as I > > understand this notion of "capability". The notion remains totally > > obscure for the moment, so I don't have an adequate reply to the > > argument from marginal cases. > > >> That argument always > >> sounded intuitively phony to me, but moralsta99 expresses why in > >> rigorous form. > > > Well, you can think that if you like. > > Thanks for the permission to think what I want to think. > > Suppose you were writing an > > > essay for a philosophy professor whose judgement you respected, but > > who was skeptical about this argument. How would you go about > > explaining the crucial notion of "capability" to him? Do you really > > think he would find what you have said so far satisfactory? If you > > think that, you really have no clue about the standards of clarity and > > rigor which prevail in academic philosophy. > > I realize that you desperately want to think of yourself as the > professor lecturing the rest of us, but get over yourself. If I had a > professor like you I would attempt to switch classes. Ahhhhh............so good to hear once again from Goo's little bum-boy Baby Goo. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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 - > > - Show 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. Are you familiar with the concept that when you make a request of someone you exercise basic courtesy? |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
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. Okay, so you believe - let's assume - that in the course of my discussions on this newsgroup I've verbally committed myself to propositions which entail that what I am doing is morally wrong. I find your attempts to argue that point absolutely pitiful, but you're convinced that you've demonstrated it beyond all reasonable doubt. So you think you've demonstrated that I'm a hypocrite, and I think that this, like pretty much everything you say, is a joke. Okay. Well, we've certainly got that much established. Do you have any desire to move forward from there? Or will you be content to endlessly repeat the unargued assertion - which I think is a joke and will be recognized by such by any reasonable person - that you've shown that I'm a hypocrite, for all eternity? Supposing I were a hypocrite, what of it, why would you or anyone else except me care? Do you have no desire to discuss more interesting topics? |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Jul 29, 5:15 am, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote: > > On Jul 28, 6:03 pm, Dutch > 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 never treat > >>> any nonhuman animal in a way in which I would not be prepared to treat > >>> a human of similar cognitive capacities in relevantly similar > >>> circumstances, and I never financially support any process which > >>> affects nonhuman animals in ways such that I would not be prepared to > >>> financially support processes which affected humans of similar > >>> cognitive capacities in similar ways in relevantly similar > >>> circumstances. > >> Who the hell talks like that? Give an example of a situation where this > >> theory would apply, a farmers field full of profoundly retarded humans?- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Yes, that's right. It's a highly counterfactual scenario, > > Wha? Who the hell talks like that? You mean "bullshit"? > This is your idea of serious discussion, is it? > but that's > > > the sort of thing you've got to talk about if you want to apply the > > notion of "equal consideration" in that context. > > I don't want to talk about it, Fine, don't. Then I can stop wasting my time. > I want YOU to give an example that might > occur in the real world to represent that description you gave. All I > can think of is things like hoards of severely retarded people being > coated with deadly pesticides, I suppose you would be OK with that. I can't give you an example which might occur in the real world. I can only give you highly counterfactual examples. I've done that. Yes, I would be okay with that, you have said elsewhere that you would be too. |
skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 29, 5:15 am, Dutch > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Jul 28, 6:03 pm, Dutch > 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 never treat >>>>> any nonhuman animal in a way in which I would not be prepared to treat >>>>> a human of similar cognitive capacities in relevantly similar >>>>> circumstances, and I never financially support any process which >>>>> affects nonhuman animals in ways such that I would not be prepared to >>>>> financially support processes which affected humans of similar >>>>> cognitive capacities in similar ways in relevantly similar >>>>> circumstances. >>>> Who the hell talks like that? Give an example of a situation where this >>>> theory would apply, a farmers field full of profoundly retarded humans?- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> Yes, that's right. It's a highly counterfactual scenario, >> Wha? Who the hell talks like that? You mean "bullshit"? >> > > This is your idea of serious discussion, is it? counterfactual. A conditional statement whose antecedent is known (or, at least, believed) to be contrary to fact. What the hell are you talking about? >> but that's >> >>> the sort of thing you've got to talk about if you want to apply the >>> notion of "equal consideration" in that context. >> I don't want to talk about it, > > Fine, don't. Then I can stop wasting my time. YOU are the one who is supposed to be explaining it. >> I want YOU to give an example that might >> occur in the real world to represent that description you gave. All I >> can think of is things like hoards of severely retarded people being >> coated with deadly pesticides, I suppose you would be OK with that. > > I can't give you an example which might occur in the real world. I can > only give you highly counterfactual examples. So the moral guidelines you are proposing we must follow don't relate to situations in the real world? That seems misguided. What's their purpose? I've done that. Yes, I > would be okay with that, you have said elsewhere that you would be > too. How is that possible, I just made that scenario up out of my head. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter