Re: Time to Start Shooting "animal rights" Psychopaths

On Jul 7, 1:44=A0pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 6:45 am, 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 spent
=
his
> >>>> career at an academic backwater, uncritically quoted the third-rate
=
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
for
> >> 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),
>
> I think Rawls has an undeservedly bloated reputation in academia because
> his positions are left-wing, and academia is undeniably leftist.
=A0Rawls
> himself, and his acolytes, unreservedly believe in redistribution of
> goods and resources to achieve a nebulous sort of "justice" that Rawls
> has invented. =A0You yourself, rupie, have cited someone else - seems to
> me his name is Nozick or something like that - who critiques Rawls from
> a libertarian, anti-collectivist perspective. =A0Sorry, rupie - you,
bein=
g
> youthful, have an advantage on me. =A0Rawls and his critics gained their
> academic reputations largely after I left the academic world.
>
> Rawls is a collectivist - you claim to be an anarchist/libertarian,
> although you plainly are not - and I don't have much truck with
> collectivism.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You might find this interesting:

http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=3D4335

Sure, you're entitled to take that view about Rawls, but what's it
based on? How much of his stuff have you read?

You've got no basis for saying I'm not an anarchist, and it's
completely indefensible to say that immigration restrictions are
consistent with libertarian principles. You're saying it's like the
right of a homeowner to decide who enters his home. You don't own a
share in a cor****ation that owns all the land in America, and if you
do then that would render libertarianism completely meaningless. I've
explained that plenty of times, it's unanswerable.