On 4/9/2012 10:59 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> "George Plimpton" > wrote
>> 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.
>
> They never will, because its impossible.

I believe they can't do it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
However, when one starts by assuming the very thing one must prove, that
does nothing at all to advance the cause.