Rupert wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:57 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 16, 7:31 pm, Dutch wrote:
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.
I've explained exactly why the burden of proof lies where it does.
Everyone who proposes a point of view has an opportunity and an
obligation to provide supporting arguments for that view, if they hope
to persuade anyone that their point of view is worthwhile. Simply
shifting the entire burden to the other side is lazy and indicative of a
failed position.
By now, it's apparent the "ar" side can't support their
fundamental proposition, and thus don't even bother to
try. The dishonesty comes in acting as if the
proposition is proved, and generally accepted; an
axiom, in other words. It is not.

Good other points below.


What's apparent is that you are incapable of engaging with the
arguments in any serious way.

What's apparent is the arguments for "ar" aren't
serious, not least because they assume the fundamental
thing they must show.


Those who judge two different cases differently have to supply a
morally relevant difference between the two cases. The burden is on
them to show that the morally relevant difference exists.
Moralstat99 does just that, systematically and convincingly. It is
argued that "sentience" (including advanced intelligence) is the key
determinant for attributing moral significance to organisms, and that
rather than their being simply two categories, humans and animals, as
your argument implies, there are actually a plethora of levels of
sentience, humans being the highest, followed by great apes, other
mammals, birds, fish, and on down to insects, microscopic organisms and
plants. Moral significance is assigned according to the degree of
sentience possessed by each species. This explains the normal view of
humans and animals and it even accounts for the way you explain *your*
attitude towards the animals you kill in you daily life.
If this
weren't so, there would have been no way to argue for the emancipation
of black people.
Emancipation succeeded because advocates correctly argued out that there
is no difference in "sentience" (including advanced intelligence)
between white people and black people. Proponents of slavery had no
valid response. Those who argue that animals and humans should receive
equal consideration cannot make the argument that animals and humans
possess equal sentience, that is why you resort to shifting the burden.
The author of the essay you admire so much, and every
other serious scholar in animal ethics, would agree with me.
You should learn to avoid this little fallacy, it makes you look silly.
Those who
want to argue that being human gives you a special moral status have
to explain why. Some think it can be done, some can't.
I just did it, re-read moralstat99. It is based on "sentience"
(including advanced intelligence). The actions of every human, including
you, confirms the correctness of this very intuitive conclusion.
To say DeGrazia does not support his assertions is palpable nonsense.
As you said to Derek, you're not evaluating the text honestly.
He goes to great lengths to support his contention that his opponents
have the burden of proof. As I stated, that is not the same as making a
positive argument for one's position.
You can deny it all you want, but there's an argument here that has to
be seriously engaged with, and none of you are doing that.
You can deny it all you want, but there is *no* argument left that has
not been adequately dealt with, and if you were not so heavily
emotionally invested in your "Animal Liberation" agenda you might be
able to see that.
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.
You've given someone else's attempted rebuttal of the argument from
marginal cases, which we've talked about a bit and we'll talk about
some more.
The only thing left for you to say is that moralstat99 thoroughly and
convincingly refutes the Argument from Marginal Cases, one of the
fundamental pillars of the Animal Rights movement. The good news is,
Rupert, life goes on, the sun will still shine, brighter in the light of
reason.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -