Re: Time to Start Shooting "animal rights" Psychopaths

On Jul 7, 4:47=A0am, "Steve Thompson"<steve49...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 04:57:40PM -0700, Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 6:45=A0am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > On Jul 6, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> > > >> Rupert, slavishly adoring of a third-rate philosophy prof who
spen=
t his
> > > >> career at an academic backwater, uncritically quoted the
third-rat=
e prof
> > > >> and blabbered:
>
> > > > It would be widely agreed in the academic community
>
> > > No.
>
> > > > that the author of
> > > > "The Case for Animal Rights" is not a "third-rate prof
>
> > > Regan spent his entire career at an academic backwater, and if not
fo=
r
> > > having staked out an extreme position on a controversial topic, his
> > > entire career would have gone unnoticed in the academic world.
>
> > There's more to it than just taking an extreme position on a
> > controversial topic, it's generally agreed that "The Case for Animal
> > Rights" is an interesting and well-argued book, with interesting
> > remarks about moral methodology, nonhuman animal psychology, and so
> > forth. He takes positions on topics other than our treatment of
> > nonhuman animals and those are discussed as well.
>
> > Anyway, you think John Rawls should have been thrown out of academia
> > (despite not having read any of his books all the way through), and he
> > was the most influential political philosopher of the twentieth
> > century, so you obviously don't think much of the standards of
> > scholar****p that currently prevail in moral and political philosophy
> > anyway, so in that case the question of how highly Regan's work is
> > regarded by academics is not really all that im****tant.
>
> What's really not all that im****tant is reading your impotent drivel.

Fair enough, well, maybe you should find something better to do with
your time.