On Jul 28, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Guppy the Corpse Pumper wrote:
>
> > On Jul 27, 2:08 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> On Jul 27, 12:52 pm, 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?
> >> It is not self-evident. In fact, it is more likely self-evidently
> >> false.
>
> > More proof that
>
> The proposition of equal moral considerability of
> animals (with humans) is self evidently false.

Well, surely if I can be criticized for making an assertion without
meeting by burden of proof, then this assertion of yours here can
equally be criticized on that basis. Lots of people think it's not
self-evidently false. A huge majority of those who seriously consider
the matter, I would say. Surely you've got to say something more to
those people than just asserting that it is self-evidently false.

God, this habit of yours of changing the follow-up is tiresome.