OCCOM BILL wrote:Joe, you introduced the idea that a moral obligation exists. I've stated "no" it does not. Per your own link; it is your burden to demonstrate that it does. I am arguing no Strawman... I am not arguing at all... and wont until you fulfill
your burden of proof. Until then, my answer remains a simple "NO". :wink: If you prefer, you can simply accept the "NO" as my opinion. But please stop attempting to shift
your burden of proof onto me. I'm not biting.
Well, first you said that I made an assertion that I was obligated to defend. When pressed to identify that assertion, however, you changed direction. Now you say that, since you made an assertion, I am, for some reason, required to make and defend an assertion that is contrary to yours.
Sorry,
BILL, it just doesn't work that way.
Cavfancier is correct: I posed a hypothetical, not an argument. If you choose to make an assertion based upon that hypothetical, then you should also be able to support that assertion with something more than a mere "sez me." Your argument, however, is in no way enhanced by your attempts to force me to take a position that I have never taken in order to deflect attention from the nakedness of your own assertions.
But I will not press the point any further. Obviously, you are not capable of supporting your argument beyond your pitiable squeak of a "no." I am satisfied that you have reached your intellectual limits, and will not ask you to expand upon your threadbare argument.
