Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 28, 6:03 pm, Dutch > 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 never treat
>>> any nonhuman animal in a way in which I would not be prepared to treat
>>> a human of similar cognitive capacities in relevantly similar
>>> circumstances, and I never financially support any process which
>>> affects nonhuman animals in ways such that I would not be prepared to
>>> financially support processes which affected humans of similar
>>> cognitive capacities in similar ways in relevantly similar
>>> circumstances.
>> Who the hell talks like that? Give an example of a situation where this
>> theory would apply, a farmers field full of profoundly retarded humans?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes, that's right. It's a highly counterfactual scenario,

Wha? Who the hell talks like that? You mean "bullshit"?

but that's
> the sort of thing you've got to talk about if you want to apply the
> notion of "equal consideration" in that context.

I don't want to talk about it, I want YOU to give an example that might
occur in the real world to represent that description you gave. All I
can think of is things like hoards of severely retarded people being
coated with deadly pesticides, I suppose you would be OK with that.