View Single Post
  #29 (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, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 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.


No, I don't, Ball. My actions are in accordance with my beliefs as I
have stated them.