Vegetarian Discussion: Rupie The Fruitcake Fuck-scum

Rupie The Fruitcake Fuck-scum
Posts: 54

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   Next  (First | Last)

Rudy Canoza
2008-01-13 01:33:57 EST
http://rupertmccallum.com/debate.html

This is a talk I recently gave to the University of
Sydney to some Honours students who were about to
embark on animal research projects. When Rudy
Canoza, a regular contributor to the newsgroup
talk.politics.animals, challenged me to defend my
contention that nonhuman animals are entitled to
equal moral consideration with humans, I asked him
to write a response to it.

Here is his first response.


rupie, you stupid fuck-scum: *I* challenged *you* to
defend your contention. You failed to do so. You
failed to do so, rupie, because you CANNOT. Instead,
all you can do is try, clumsily and oafishly and
ham-handedly, to turn it around and to shift the burden
to your opponents. And that is exactly, and *all*,
that you have done. It's all *ANY* "ar" fuck-scum does.

Rupert
2008-01-13 02:12:28 EST
On 1月13日, 下午2时33分, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> http://rupertmccallum.com/debate.html
>
> This is a talk I recently gave to the University of
> Sydney to some Honours students who were about to
> embark on animal research projects. When Rudy
> Canoza, a regular contributor to the newsgroup
> talk.politics.animals, challenged me to defend my
> contention that nonhuman animals are entitled to
> equal moral consideration with humans, I asked him
> to write a response to it.
>
> Here is his first response.
>
> rupie, you stupid fuck-scum: *I* challenged *you* to
> defend your contention. You failed to do so.

Incorrect. The defence is in my talk, to which you have not yet
provided a decent reply. The ball is in your court.

> You
> failed to do so, rupie, because you CANNOT. Instead,
> all you can do is try, clumsily and oafishly and
> ham-handedly, to turn it around and to shift the burden
> to your opponents.

That it not what I do in my talk. Anyone can see that that is not what
I do. I have made it clear that that it not what I do in my replies to
your utterly pitiful attempts to argue otherwise, although that is
unnecessary, the talk stands by itself and anyone can see that your
response to it is a joke. If you want to argue that I beg the
question, you must demonstrate this by means of citations from the
talk. I doubt that you have read it beyond the first paragraph, you
have certainly given no evidence of this. I do not beg the question in
my talk. Your attempts to argue this are a joke. You lose.

> And that is exactly, and *all*,
> that you have done. It's all *ANY* "ar" fuck-scum does.

Let people judge for themselves, then, whether that is all I have
done. I am happy to let the exchange speak for itself.

http://rupertmccallum.com/debate.html

Even if you had given an adequate response to my talk, Ball, you would
still have the task of showing that *all* AR writers beg the question.
That would be a lengthy task.

You are such a sad joke, Ball.

Rupert
2008-01-13 03:39:27 EST
On 1月13日, 下午2时33分, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> http://rupertmccallum.com/debate.html
>
> This is a talk I recently gave to the University of
> Sydney to some Honours students who were about to
> embark on animal research projects. When Rudy
> Canoza, a regular contributor to the newsgroup
> talk.politics.animals, challenged me to defend my
> contention that nonhuman animals are entitled to
> equal moral consideration with humans, I asked him
> to write a response to it.
>
> Here is his first response.
>
> rupie, you stupid fuck-scum: *I* challenged *you* to
> defend your contention. You failed to do so. You
> failed to do so, rupie, because you CANNOT. Instead,
> all you can do is try, clumsily and oafishly and
> ham-handedly, to turn it around and to shift the burden
> to your opponents. And that is exactly, and *all*,
> that you have done. It's all *ANY* "ar" fuck-scum does.

Let me present you with a simple challenge, Ball. Despite all your
ranting about how I try to shift the burden of proof to my opponents,
I do actually present a formal argument in that talk. It has three
premises, (1), (2), (3), and a conclusion, (4). The conclusion is that
the harmful use of nonhuman animals in scientific research is morally
wrong. This argument is presented fairly early in the talk, but I'm
not sure if you've read that far yet.

Now, one of the following must be right:

A. Premise (1) is wrong.
B. Premise (2) is wrong.
C. Premise (3) is wrong.
D. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. (This also covers
such possibilities as the premises being too vague to be right or
wrong, or there being an equivocation in the meaning of terms).
E. Conclusion (4) is correct.

Those are the options, Ball. I'm sure as a master of logic and
philosophy you would know that.

Now your job is to pick one of statements A-D and argue for it. I'm
certainly entitled to expect that much from you. Until such time as
you've done so, you have to concede "For the time being I haven't
given a satisfactory reply to your argument". Simple as that.

This is not shifting the burden of proof. There is a distinction
between shifting the burden of proof and presenting a formal argument
and asking for a reply. You seem to be a bit confused about that
distinction.

So, let's hear it.

Rudy Canoza
2008-01-13 12:14:23 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On 1月13日, 下午2时33分, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>> http://rupertmccallum.com/debate.html

You fucking oaf: Chinese Simplified GB2312 again, and
you don't even know what you did to cause it! You're a
fuck-up, rupie.


>>
>> This is a talk I recently gave to the University of
>> Sydney to some Honours students who were about to
>> embark on animal research projects. When Rudy
>> Canoza, a regular contributor to the newsgroup
>> talk.politics.animals, challenged me to defend my
>> contention that nonhuman animals are entitled to
>> equal moral consideration with humans, I asked him
>> to write a response to it.
>>
>> Here is his first response.
>>
>> rupie, you stupid fuck-scum: *I* challenged *you* to
>> defend your contention. You failed to do so.
>
> Incorrect.

No, CORRECT: I challenged you to defend your
contention, and you *ADMIT* that rather than do so, you
instead asked me a question. That's exactly what you
wrote.


>> You failed to do so, rupie, because you CANNOT. Instead,
>> all you can do is try, clumsily and oafishly and
>> ham-handedly, to turn it around and to shift the burden
>> to your opponents.
>
> That it not what I do in my talk.

What you did in your blabber - not a talk, rupie; a
windy, wheezy blabber - was to continue to assume the
thing you must prove, and try to shift the burden of proof.


>> And that is exactly, and *all*,
>> that you have done. It's all *ANY* "ar" fuck-scum does.
>
> Let people judge for themselves,

Ha ha ha ha ha! Just who do you think reads that
bullshit of yours, rupie?

Rudy Canoza
2008-01-13 13:36:20 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On 1月13日, 下午2时33分, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>> http://rupertmccallum.com/debate.html

STILL going with the Chinese Simplified GB2312 font, I
see, you incompetent drooling fuck.


>>
>> This is a talk I recently gave to the University of
>> Sydney to some Honours students who were about to
>> embark on animal research projects. When Rudy
>> Canoza, a regular contributor to the newsgroup
>> talk.politics.animals, challenged me to defend my
>> contention that nonhuman animals are entitled to
>> equal moral consideration with humans, I asked him
>> to write a response to it.
>>
>> Here is his first response.
>>
>> rupie, you stupid fuck-scum: *I* challenged *you* to
>> defend your contention. You failed to do so. You
>> failed to do so, rupie, because you CANNOT. Instead,
>> all you can do is try, clumsily and oafishly and
>> ham-handedly, to turn it around and to shift the burden
>> to your opponents. And that is exactly, and *all*,
>> that you have done. It's all *ANY* "ar" fuck-scum does.
>
> Let me present you with a simple challenge

You couldn't, ever - not in your wildest dreams.

Rupert
2008-01-13 18:13:28 EST
On Jan 14, 1:14 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On 1月13日, 下午2时33分, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> >>http://rupertmccallum.com/debate.html
>
> You fucking oaf: Chinese Simplified GB2312 again, and
> you don't even know what you did to cause it! You're a
> fuck-up, rupie.
>

That would be because the Internet access on my computer wasn't
working, so I used my co-worker's computer, and she is Chinese and had
the settings on her computer set to Chinese. I'm in China, were you
aware of that? I really don't see that it's anything to make a fuss
about. You're quite bizarre.

>
>
>
>
> >> This is a talk I recently gave to the University of
> >> Sydney to some Honours students who were about to
> >> embark on animal research projects. When Rudy
> >> Canoza, a regular contributor to the newsgroup
> >> talk.politics.animals, challenged me to defend my
> >> contention that nonhuman animals are entitled to
> >> equal moral consideration with humans, I asked him
> >> to write a response to it.
>
> >> Here is his first response.
>
> >> rupie, you stupid fuck-scum: *I* challenged *you* to
> >> defend your contention. You failed to do so.
>
> > Incorrect.
>
> No, CORRECT: I challenged you to defend your
> contention, and you *ADMIT* that rather than do so, you
> instead asked me a question. That's exactly what you
> wrote.
>

It's easy to demonstrate that that's false. As pointed out elsewhere
in this thread, the talk contains a formal argument. You still haven't
given a single citation from the talk. Who do you think you're
kidding?

> >> You failed to do so, rupie, because you CANNOT. Instead,
> >> all you can do is try, clumsily and oafishly and
> >> ham-handedly, to turn it around and to shift the burden
> >> to your opponents.
>
> > That it not what I do in my talk.
>
> What you did in your blabber - not a talk, rupie; a
> windy, wheezy blabber - was to continue to assume the
> thing you must prove, and try to shift the burden of proof.
>

Wrong. Endlessly asserting this is really incredibly lame. You must
give a citation from the talk to back up your contention. There's
nothing there that will support what you say. Anyone who actually
reads the talk will know that you're talking through your hat.

> >> And that is exactly, and *all*,
> >> that you have done. It's all *ANY* "ar" fuck-scum does.
>
> > Let people judge for themselves,
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha! Just who do you think reads that
> bullshit of yours, rupie?

Well, evidently not you, which is why it's quite pitiful to watch you
pretending you're competent to comment on it. I can check the download
rates for my talk if you're interested. It doesn't matter. Just who do
you think is going to take your word for what I do in my talk without
looking for themselves? Anyone who forms a view on the matter without
reading the talk is a fool and their opinion doesn't matter. It
appears that that would include you.

Rupert
2008-01-13 18:16:22 EST
On Jan 14, 2:36 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On 1月13日, 下午2时33分, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> >>http://rupertmccallum.com/debate.html
>
> STILL going with the Chinese Simplified GB2312 font, I
> see, you incompetent drooling fuck.
>

You're not well, Ball.

>
>
>
>
> >> This is a talk I recently gave to the University of
> >> Sydney to some Honours students who were about to
> >> embark on animal research projects. When Rudy
> >> Canoza, a regular contributor to the newsgroup
> >> talk.politics.animals, challenged me to defend my
> >> contention that nonhuman animals are entitled to
> >> equal moral consideration with humans, I asked him
> >> to write a response to it.
>
> >> Here is his first response.
>
> >> rupie, you stupid fuck-scum: *I* challenged *you* to
> >> defend your contention. You failed to do so. You
> >> failed to do so, rupie, because you CANNOT. Instead,
> >> all you can do is try, clumsily and oafishly and
> >> ham-handedly, to turn it around and to shift the burden
> >> to your opponents. And that is exactly, and *all*,
> >> that you have done. It's all *ANY* "ar" fuck-scum does.
>
> > Let me present you with a simple challenge
>
> You couldn't, ever - not in your wildest dreams.

You're proud of being pathetic, aren't you?

It has now been demonstrated that you have no satisfactory reply to my
talk and that all your blustering to the contrary is just so much hot
air.

Rupert
2008-01-13 23:21:31 EST
On Jan 13, 10:36 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On 1月13日, 下午2时33分, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
> >>http://rupertmccallum.com/debate.html
>
> STILL going with the Chinese Simplified GB2312 font, I
> see, you incompetent drooling fuck.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> This is a talk I recently gave to the University of
> >> Sydney to some Honours students who were about to
> >> embark on animal research projects. When Rudy
> >> Canoza, a regular contributor to the newsgroup
> >> talk.politics.animals, challenged me to defend my
> >> contention that nonhuman animals are entitled to
> >> equal moral consideration with humans, I asked him
> >> to write a response to it.
>
> >> Here is his first response.
>
> >> rupie, you stupid fuck-scum: *I* challenged *you* to
> >> defend your contention. You failed to do so. You
> >> failed to do so, rupie, because you CANNOT. Instead,
> >> all you can do is try, clumsily and oafishly and
> >> ham-handedly, to turn it around and to shift the burden
> >> to your opponents. And that is exactly, and *all*,
> >> that you have done. It's all *ANY* "ar" fuck-scum does.
>
> > Let me present you with a simple challenge
>
> You couldn't, ever - not in your wildest dreams.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It seems to me, Ball, that what you're really doing is rejecting
premise (1), although for some reason you're not capable of coming out
and saying so. You're saying it's not legitimate for me to ask for a
morally relevant difference between the case of using cognitively
impaired humans in research and using nonhumans in research. You're
saying it's perfectly all right to make different judgements about
these two cases, and the burden is on me to show that we shouldn't.
I've only shown that we shouldn't on the assumption of the formal
principle of justice (premise (1)), and that's not good enough,
according to you, because you don't see any reason why we should
accept premise (1). You haven't been articulate enough to actually
come out and say this, but I think that's the gist of your point.

So, am I right? You reject premise (1), you're saying I need to say
more in its defence? Just say the word and we'll move forward from
there.

Rudy Canoza
2008-01-14 00:28:34 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jan 14, 1:14 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On 1月13日, 下午2时33分, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>>> http://rupertmccallum.com/debate.html
>> You fucking oaf: Chinese Simplified GB2312 again, and
>> you don't even know what you did to cause it! You're a
>> fuck-up, rupie.
>>
>
> That would be because the Internet access on my computer wasn't
> working,

No. It would be because you're a bumbling fuckwit.


>>
>>>> This is a talk I recently gave to the University of
>>>> Sydney to some Honours students who were about to
>>>> embark on animal research projects. When Rudy
>>>> Canoza, a regular contributor to the newsgroup
>>>> talk.politics.animals, challenged me to defend my
>>>> contention that nonhuman animals are entitled to
>>>> equal moral consideration with humans, I asked him
>>>> to write a response to it.
>>>> Here is his first response.
>>>> rupie, you stupid fuck-scum: *I* challenged *you* to
>>>> defend your contention. You failed to do so.
>>> Incorrect.
>> No, CORRECT: I challenged you to defend your
>> contention, and you *ADMIT* that rather than do so, you
>> instead asked me a question. That's exactly what you
>> wrote.
>>
>
> It's easy to demonstrate that that's false.

No, you fuckwit. It's right in your fucking wheezy text:

When Rudy Canoza, a regular contributor to the
newsgroup talk.politics.animals, challenged me to
defend my contention that nonhuman animals are
entitled to equal moral consideration with humans, I
asked him to write a response to it.

I challenged *you*, fuckwit, to defend your contention,
and rather than defend it - because you can't - you
bitchily demanded that I respond to you. What the fuck
is the matter with you, faggot?



>>>> You failed to do so, rupie, because you CANNOT. Instead,
>>>> all you can do is try, clumsily and oafishly and
>>>> ham-handedly, to turn it around and to shift the burden
>>>> to your opponents.
>>> That it not what I do in my talk.
>> What you did in your blabber - not a talk, rupie; a
>> windy, wheezy blabber - was to continue to assume the
>> thing you must prove, and try to shift the burden of proof.
>>
>
> Wrong.

No, right: you merely assumed the thing you must
prove, and you attempted to weasel out of your burden
of proof.


>>>> And that is exactly, and *all*,
>>>> that you have done. It's all *ANY* "ar" fuck-scum does.
>>> Let people judge for themselves,
>> Ha ha ha ha ha! Just who do you think reads that
>> bullshit of yours, rupie?
>
> Well, evidently not you,

I'd rather watch paint dry.

Rudy Canoza
2008-01-14 00:29:26 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2:36 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On 1月13日, 下午2时33分, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>>> http://rupertmccallum.com/debate.html
>> STILL going with the Chinese Simplified GB2312 font, I
>> see, you incompetent drooling fuck.
>>
>
> You're not well,

I'm just fine, you stupid bumbling fuck-scum. But
you're psychotic.


>>>> This is a talk I recently gave to the University of
>>>> Sydney to some Honours students who were about to
>>>> embark on animal research projects. When Rudy
>>>> Canoza, a regular contributor to the newsgroup
>>>> talk.politics.animals, challenged me to defend my
>>>> contention that nonhuman animals are entitled to
>>>> equal moral consideration with humans, I asked him
>>>> to write a response to it.
>>>> Here is his first response.
>>>> rupie, you stupid fuck-scum: *I* challenged *you* to
>>>> defend your contention. You failed to do so. You
>>>> failed to do so, rupie, because you CANNOT. Instead,
>>>> all you can do is try, clumsily and oafishly and
>>>> ham-handedly, to turn it around and to shift the burden
>>>> to your opponents. And that is exactly, and *all*,
>>>> that you have done. It's all *ANY* "ar" fuck-scum does.
>>> Let me present you with a simple challenge
>> You couldn't, ever - not in your wildest dreams.
>
> You're proud of

You couldn't present a challenge in your wildest
dreams, girlie.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6   Next  (First | Last)


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