Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 29, 5:15 am, Dutch > wrote:
>> 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"?
>>
>
> This is your idea of serious discussion, is it?

counterfactual. A conditional statement whose antecedent is known (or,
at least, believed) to be contrary to fact.

What the hell are you talking about?


>> 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,
>
> Fine, don't. Then I can stop wasting my time.

YOU are the one who is supposed to be explaining 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.
>
> I can't give you an example which might occur in the real world. I can
> only give you highly counterfactual examples.

So the moral guidelines you are proposing we must follow don't relate to
situations in the real world? That seems misguided. What's their purpose?

I've done that. Yes, I
> would be okay with that, you have said elsewhere that you would be
> too.

How is that possible, I just made that scenario up out of my head.