On 4/9/2012 9:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> Why *should* humans extend equal moral consideration to non-human
> animals? More to the point: why should they be *obliged* to do so?
>
> No reason at all.

The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that "ar" takes as a
basic axiomatic assumption the very thing they must demonstrate, and so
it fails to demonstrate what it must. "ar" simply *assumes* that
animals must be shown equal moral consideration, and then invalidly
demands that opponents show why they shouldn't be. It's a failure.
"ar" must demonstrate *why* animals must be shown equal moral
consideration, and to date they've never been able to do so.