> Once again:  you, and all the fuck-scum like you, are
> saying in effect, "Prove that animals /don't/ have this
> moral considerability."  That doesn't work.  You must
> *PROVE* the moral considerability if you wish to get
> anyone to accept it.  But you can't, and you know you
> can't.  So, you demand instead - like the petulant
> fudge-packer you are - that your opponents disprove
> your claim.  That is logically invalid, and you lose.