skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Jul 28, 8:31 am, Dutch > wrote:
> shrubkiller wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
> >> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
> >> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
> >> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
>
> > Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
>
> > ****! ................are you ever stupid.
>
> Why would anyone think that is self-evident when it is so self-evidently
> NOT? Nobody gives animals "equal consideration",
I do.
|