Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> Bill wrote:
>
>> Rat & Swan wrote:
>> <snip>
>
>
>>>> Raising animals destined for human consumption is not unjust.
>
>
>>> This has potential. Why not, in your opinion?
>
>
>> I'm not interested in going over old ground with you, bitch.
>
>
> I'm sure you aren't,

No, I'm not. You lost substantially, and you're a liar.

>> You aren't
>> saying anything new, and what you said over several years was entirely
>> unpersuasive and shot full of holes.
>
>
> You were never able to prove it wrong,

Yes, I and several others did prove it wrong.


>> Let's answer this one question, though, with a redirection. The
>> burden is not on me to show that it is just, as you are the one
>> seeking to implement a radical change.
>
>
> If you state categorically that it is not unjust, then the
> burden is on you to support your statement.

The burden is on you to show that it is unjust. Until
you persuasively do so, then by presumption it is just.

>
>> You need to show that it *is* unjust, and why, in a way that is
>> persuasive. You never came close before, and I doubt you will now.
>> You're a waste of time, and you shouldn't be back here.
>
>
> Scared to death of me, aren't you,

No. Bored to death.

>
> <snip>
>
>>>> CDs are not related in any way to property status of food animals.
>
>
>>> Why not? I think Francione makes a persuasive case they are.
>
>
>> Francione doesn't address CDs.
>
>
> He does.

He doesn't.