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 you have no inheirent common sense.

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.

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. Lots of people think it's not
self-evidently false. A huge majority of those who seriously consider
the matter, I would say. Surely you've got to say something more to
those people than just asserting that it is self-evidently false.

God, this habit of yours of changing the follow-up is tiresome.

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.

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 talk of mine to which I directed you says quite a
lot in defence of my beliefs. I certainly do a lot more than just say
"it's self-evidently true". Why don't you read my talk and give me
your comments?

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

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?

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 -

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 and you pretend
to fall asleep. So, were you not really being serious in issuing the
challenge? I don't think you've actually read the talk, have you?