skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> 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.
>
> Yes.
You violate your so-called beliefs. Yes.
|