skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> 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.
Yes - daily.
|