Rupert wrote:
On Jul 16, 4:15 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
I've given my argument yet again and demonstrated that your criticisms
of it are unsatisfactory.
Stating that your opponents must disprove your assertions is not a
convincing argument.


There's more to it than that. I've elaborated on why the burden of
proof lies where I claim it does.

You've done no such thing. You (and DeGrazia) can't support your
assertions so you attempt to force others to supply proof of the
contrary, its the oldest trick in the book. If you expect for one single
moment that such a tactic is going to meet with any success you are
dreaming. All it does is show to everyone that your position cannot be
argued on its merits.

Ball's alternative account of where
the burden of proof lies has serious problems, which I have explained.
He has given no satisfactory response.

I've provided a coherent point of view which refutes the argument from
marginal cases. It lays out a solid foundation which explains rights and
our relationship with animals.