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, Jonnie. You devolve into personal
attack as quickly as possible, and never rise above it
again.

> 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, which was why you
turned to personal attack, lies, and curse-words.

> 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.

> 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, Jonnie? Why are you in
such a lather to get me to leave? If I'm a waste of time,
why are you responding?

<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. But you wouldn't know that, because you haven't read
his books, I suspect.

Rat