Ipse dixit wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:36:30 GMT, Bill > wrote:
>
>
>>Ipse dixit wrote:
>>

>>>>>>Karen Winter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Karen Winter = Rat & Swan?
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>is free to withdraw from the market for
>>>>>>commercially grown produce. She CHOOSES to buy from
>>>>>>animal-killing farmers
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Aha. "animal-killing farmers"
>>>>
>>>>Yes. She knows they kill animals, but she buys from
>>>>them anyway.
>
>
> There are two problems with that.

No. Your analysis is wrong.

>
> 1) She has no certain knowledge of the history behind
> the goods she buys, unless it is farmed meat.

She has knowledge of commercial fruit and vegetable
farming methods. The likelihood is that the
production, storage and distribution of all the food
she buys causes animal death.

If you drive a car at 80mph through a school playground
at recess, you *may* avoid striking any children, but
the likelihood is that you will strike and kill several.

> 2) You are assuming she will continue to buy goods which
> have been produced in a way she finds unethical.

That is a rock-solid assumption. She DOES continue to
buy goods which have been produced in a way she finds
unethical, and she has no intention of stopping, as her
posts have made clear; she's waiting for the unethical
production and distribution methods to disappear on
their own, with no concrete action from her.

>
> Her decision to avoid farmed meat on ethical grounds
> proves she wouldn't do either 1 or 2.

No, it does not prove that at all. There is zero logic
to your assertion, because there is zero connection
between her self-serving, ego-enhancing decision not to
eat meat, and her equally self-serving decision to eat
the cheapest, most easily obtainable vegetables she can
get.

>
>
>>>>That makes her morally complicit, if she
>>>>believes the killing of the animals is wrong.
>>>>
>
> Why or how, and by whose rule?

For the same reason that the getaway driver for a
robbery is fully morally and legally complicit for all
of the crimes that occur in the course of a robbery;
for the same reason that the buyer of stolen property
is guilty of a crime: without their participation, the
original crime doesn't happen. They are integral to crime.

>
>
>>>Is there any doubt that killing gratuitously is wrong,
>>
>>Yes, much:
>>
>>1. Most omnivores don't believe philosophically that
>>it's wrong.
>
>
> Then if most Muslims don't believe philosophically that
> murder and suicide bombing is wrong, do we or the rest of
> the Muslim world also believe that is right to commit murder
> by carrying bombs into public places, Mr. Ad populum?

My position is not an argumentum ad populum; I did not
argue that collateral deaths of animals is not wrong
because omnivores believe it not to be wrong. Admit
that you got it wrong; you did get it wrong.

Most Muslims *do* believe that murder and suicide
bombing are wrong, so your hypothetical premise is
crap, and your whole point disappears.

You stink at this.

>
>
>>2. "vegans" *claim* to believe philosophically that it's
>> wrong, but their behavior says otherwise.
>>
>
> What vegan behaviour tells you that,

Their continued and fully aware trade with farmers who
kill animals collaterally. They are in exactly the
same moral position as someone knowingly buying stolen
property.

> and where have
> you seen this contradictory behaviour?

Right here.

>
>
>>>and should she
>>>or you or I who buy from careless farmers and slave keepers
>>>be held accountable for their wrong work practices, even though
>>>we all buy from the general marketplace where these goods are
>>>distributed, apparently as perfectly ethical goods?
>>
>>1. You know what's going on before the goods get to
>>market.
>
>
> No, I do not,

Yes, you do. Stop lying.

> so please answer the question.

I did. You are shirking. You know how the vegetables
are produced, and you know that it causes animal death.

> I buy goods
> from the general marketplace without any prior knowledge

That's a lie. You know animals are killed in the
production of the food you eat. You can't get away
with a probabilistic dodge. Stop driving your car
through playgrounds.

> of the production methods used in my particular choice of
> food or footwear, so how can I be held accountable for
> buying the few unethical items that do reach my stores?

Because you are lying. You have the requisite knowledge.

> Am I to assume that all my goods are produced using unethical
> means to satisfy your argument?

You know what you need to know about food.

>
>
>>2. You don't have to buy there.
>>
>
>
> How do I know when I have left or entered that market?
>
> [snipped abusive ad hominem]

There was no ad hominem at all. We'll put it back, to
show your lack of ethics.

<restore>
Yes, if you believe the collateral death of animals is
wrong, you MUST be held morally accountable. You have
a choice of two paths to get out of your dilemma:

1. Discard the belief that collateral deaths are wrong.
2. Stop participating in the market for the goods whose
production, storage and distribution causes the
collateral deaths.

Doing #1 is not feasible, if you're going to try to
cling to your belief that killing animals to eat them
is morally wrong. That leaves #2. Why don't you do it?
</restore>


Answer the question, shirker. Along the way, admit
that there is no ad hominem in it, and that you lied,
and that you were unethical in cutting it out.

Then **** off.