Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 31, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 30, 2:38 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 30, 1:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> 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 -
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> I know that you assume that which you are required to
>>>>>> prove.
>>>>> Yes, yes. You know a lot, Rudy.
>>>> Right - I do. I do know that you still assume in your
>>>> little sermon that animals are entitled to equal moral
>>>> consideration, when that premise is the very thing you
>>>> are tasked to show. You haven't shown it, and we all
>>>> know you can't.
>>> You asked me for an argument. I gave you one.
>> You didn't. You merely repeated the assertion you
>> can't seem to support.
>
> Okay, this is your response to my talk?

What talk? The unsupported blabber about animals being
due equal consideration?