Vegetarian Discussion: Skirt-boy: Burden Of Proof Not Met

Skirt-boy: Burden Of Proof Not Met
Posts: 83

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   Next  (First | Last)

Rudy Canoza
2007-07-27 03:42:35 EST
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.

Shrubkiller
2007-07-27 15:52:32 EST
On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> 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?

Fuck! ................are you ever stupid.


Rudy Canoza
2007-07-27 16:08:46 EST
On Jul 27, 12:52 pm, shrubkiller <shrubkil...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> 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.


Guppy The Corpse Pumper
2007-07-27 16:57:07 EST
On Jul 27, 2:08 pm, Rudy Canoza <notgen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 12:52 pm, shrubkiller <shrubkil...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> 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.



Dutch
2007-07-27 18:31:25 EST
shrubkiller wrote:
> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> 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?
>
> Fuck! ................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.

Rupert
2007-07-27 19:13:07 EST
On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> 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" here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discussion_of_animal_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.


Rupert
2007-07-27 19:44:51 EST
On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> shrubkiller wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> 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?
>
> > Fuck! ................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.




Rudy Canoza
2007-07-27 20:58:05 EST
On Jul 27, 4:13 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> 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" here:

Why don't YOU have a go at justifying your most basic assertion?


Dutch
2007-07-27 23:09:26 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> shrubkiller wrote:
>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> 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?
>>> Fuck! ................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.

Dutch
2007-07-27 23:26:39 EST
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On Jul 27, 4:13 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> 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" here:
>
> 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.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron