On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So, may I take it that you have no cogent criticisms to make of my
talk?