On Apr 16, 5:37*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/15/2012 8:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 4:58 am, George > *wrote:
> >> 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,
>
> > Yes, I have claimed that, and I have also claimed that most ethicists
> > agree on this point,
>
> You're full of shit on that point.
>

Well, my friend who is doing a PhD in metaethics doesn't think so, and
it might be fair to say that he would be in a better position to know
than you.

> >> You keep piling up
> >> the burdens of proof that you then shirk.
>
> > What do you want me to try to prove?
>
> All of it.

All of what?