On Jul 29, 1:56 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't think you have to sign up to the Yahoo group to download the
file. Dutch did it and I don't think he signed up. It's too long to
put in a newsgroup message. Maybe I'll put it on my webpage.

So, anyway, by your own admission you dismissed my talk as "babble"
without having read a single word of it.

Are you familiar with the concept that when you make a request of
someone you exercise basic courtesy?