On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > 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.
>
> No you don't, you just think it sounds like the right thing for you to
> say. The moment anyone tried to pin you down on it the word "equal"
> would immediately lose it's usual meaning and the goalposts on wheels
> would appear.

I show equal consideration for nonhuman animals, because I never treat
any nonhuman animal in a way in which I would not be prepared to treat
a human of similar cognitive capacities in relevantly similar
circumstances, and I never financially support any process which
affects nonhuman animals in ways such that I would not be prepared to
financially support processes which affected humans of similar
cognitive capacities in similar ways in relevantly similar
circumstances.