Rupie begins the statement of his "third premises" [sic]:

    Let us now examine the third premises [sic]. Is it
    right to say that there are no morally relevant
    differences between research involving radically
    cognitively impaired humans and research involving
    nonhuman animals?

In the next nearly 350 word pile of wheeze, rupie does 
nothing - *ZERO* - to support his contention that 
species has no moral relevance.  What he does, instead, 
is belabor what is essentially a straw man argument. 
He harps about cognition, but at no point does he 
establish that the implied acceptance of species as a 
morally relevant distinction by the majority is based 
on a comparison of cognitive abilities.

Then, after this 350-word passing of gas, we come to 
rupie's - and, of course, the entire "ar" movement's - 
sniveling, gutless abdication of their intellectual 
obligation to defend their premise:

    There is an extensive philosophical literature about
    this issue. But I think it is at least reasonably
    clear that if anyone maintains that there is a
    morally relevant difference between the two cases,
    the burden is on that person to explain what the
    morally relevant difference is and why it is morally
    relevant. Carl Cohen, for example, tries to explain
    why species membership is morally relevant. I shall
    not look into the issue further here, but I think
    it is reasonably clear that there is a puzzle here.

First of all, the vast majority of people who accept 
that there is a morally relevant difference based on 
species do not do so after having made an explicit 
statement to that effect.  Rather, they accept it 
because it is the prevailing wisdom - the champion - 
and they can't see a likely successful challenge to it. 
  And of course, rupie himself acknowledges that at 
least one professional philosopher who has given a 
great amount of thought to the issue feels he *can* 
successfully show that species is morally relevant, but 
rupie very abruptly gets weak in the knees and meekly 
whines "I shall not look into the issue further here."

The fact is that *whenever* a challenger wishes to 
knock off a prevailing champion, the challenger must 
win decisively.  rupie and the other "aras" are the 
challengers in this, and they must *prove* that species 
difference has no moral relevance; it simply does not 
work to say that other side hasn't shown that it is 
relevant.