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 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.
>

Who the hell talks like that? Give an example of a situation where this
theory would apply, a farmers field full of profoundly retarded humans?