Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 17, 6:00 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the lying skirt-boy 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.
You haven't, rupie. You have merely, and emptily,
asserted where it lies.
No. I have given an argument.
No, rupie, you haven't. You've mumbled an asssertion,
and run away from supporting it.
You are wrong. The burden of
supporting your claim that animals are due equal moral
consideration lies on YOU and your other failure
"aras". We know you can't meet it.
|