View Single Post
  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > 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.

>
> I'm just following your lead.


I see. Well, that talk of mine to which I directed you says quite a
lot in defence of my beliefs. I certainly do a lot more than just say
"it's self-evidently true". Why don't you read my talk and give me
your comments?