On Jul 28, 9:24 am, 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> So, may I take it that you have no cogent criticisms to make of my
> talk?




You're kidding, right?

Goo will dismiss your talk entirely without having read or heard it.

Only Goo is wise.

Only Goo knows.








- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -