Rupert wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> I mean, you did ask me to defend my position in your opening post. So
> I direct you towards a considered attempt at a defence

Post the content here, skirt-boy. I'm not interested
in signing up for your fruit-display Yahoo group.