skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 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.
No.
|