skirt-boy: burden of proof not met
Rupert wrote:
> 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 blabber of mine to which I directed you
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|