On 4/15/2012 6:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2:13 am, George > wrote:
>> On 4/12/2012 3:08 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 6:47 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 12, 7:11 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 12:23 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>> > wrote
>>
>>>>>>>>> Most ethicists would agree that equal consideration of interests is
>>>>>>>>> the default starting position.
>>
>>>>>>>> For whom? My default starting position for consideration is my own
>>>>>>>> interests, followed by my immediate family including my pets, my community,
>>>>>>>> my country, mankind, higher level animals, rare plant species, lower level
>>>>>>>> animals, the planet, and the economy is implied in there somewhere.
>>
>>>>>>>> The default starting position for every organism in existence is its own
>>>>>>>> interests, that is the way the world works.
>>
>>>>>>> That is something that requires defence from the moral point of view.
>>
>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>> Because the interests of other organisms are equally important from
>>>>> the moral point of view,
>>
>>>> That's the assertion you must prove, but have to date not even attempted
>>>> to prove.
>>
>>> The burden of proof is on someone who says that the interests of a
>>> particular class of organisms deserve special consideration.
>>
>> The burden of proof is on you limp challengers.
>
> Well, it just degenerates into an exchange of contrary assertions
> about who has the burden of proof

You have claimed not only that the burden of proof in terms of
justifying "speciesism" is on those who rely on it, but also that it is
the consensus of ethicists that equal consideration is due
suffering-capable entities regardless of species. You keep piling up
the burdens of proof that you then shirk.