skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Jul 28, 4:52 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > 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 blah blah blah
>
> You contribute to animal death.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes.
|