"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 29, 6:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > On Jun 29, 4:11 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >> The burden of proof is on you to support your
>> >> assertion,
>>
>> > So you keep saying. But, as discussed above, why?
>>
>> Because every assertion carries a burden of proof, especially if it
>> challenges conventional wisdom.
>
> A pattern of discrimination, even if it is part of conventional
> wisdom, carries a burden of proof.

No it doesn't, discrimination is what allows organisms to survive, and
you're misusing the term proof. Pretty sloppy for a mathematician.

>> You don't assert that a dog is no different
>> from a dandelion then demand that unless we disprove it to your
>> satisfaction
>> that it must be true.
>
> Why not?

Because that is not how rational debate works. We operate on a set of
reasonable assumptions which allow us to communicate ideas. It is a
reasonable assumption that a dog is different from a dandelion. If you want
to start a discussion based on the premise that they are not different then
it is reasonable that you should support that premise. Certainly you *can*
simply assert they you believe they are the same, and you *can* then demand
that others prove you wrong, but you should not expect anyone to indulge
your laziness.


>> In this instance, you yourself have acknowledged that
>> there are many major fundamental differences between humans and chickens.
>> Now you say that those differences are not "morally relevant",
>
> No, I'm not.

Then what are you saying, in English?

>
>> but according
>> to every commonly understood measure of criteria they are.
>>
>> >> and you can't meet it.
>>
>> > The abolitionists couldn't have met their burden of proof either, if
>> > they'd actually had to meet it. You convince me otherwise.
>>
>> They did meet it, they convinced us that humanity was the morally
>> relevant
>> factor to be granted rights,
>
> Well, they didn't convince me.

They didn't convince a lot of people, but they convinced most.

> What was their argument?

Did you read moralstat99?

>> and argued successfully that negros had it. At
>> least that is the essence of the debate in retrospect if not how it
>> actually
>> played out.
>>
>
> Elaborate. What do you mean by "humanity", anyway?

The sum of everything that makes you a "person", based mainly on an
extraordinarily highly developed brain.