"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:32:28 GMT, Bill > wrote:
> >Ipse dixit wrote:
> >> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:36:30 GMT, Bill > wrote:
> >>>Ipse dixit wrote:

> >>>>>>>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

So do we ALL, Bill / Jonathan Ball/ etc. etc.

> >> There are two problems with that.
> >>
> >> 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
>
> Thank you ;-)
>
heh heh heh. Well spotted.

> >is that the
> >production, storage and distribution of all the food
> >she buys causes animal death.
> >
> Then there's only a likelihood of them rather than a certainty,
> so any claim from you of her certain knowledge of them is
> now seriously in doubt. We both knew that though, dint we?
>
I've warned you about this character, Ipse, he's as slippery
as an eel.
> >
> >> 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.
>
> What's a rock solid assumption if not just a plain old guess? ;-)
>
> >She DOES continue to
> >buy goods which have been produced in a way she finds
> >unethical,
>
> So you assume.
>
> >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.
> >
> What concrete action can she or anyone take to stop
> them if she isn't already causing them?
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> It does.
>
> >There is zero logic
> >to your assertion, because there is zero connection
> >between her self-serving, ego-enhancing
>
> Oh. So it's about ego now, is it?
>
> >decision not to
> >eat meat, and her equally self-serving decision to eat
> >the cheapest, most easily obtainable vegetables she can
> >get.
> >
> You're still only assuming these things about her, and of
> course all other vegans who buy from the marketplace.
> You need more than assumptions and personal attacks
> to win an argument.
> >>
> >>>>>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.
> >
> If thieves use boot markets and auction rooms, or indeed the
> general marketplace to sell their stuff alongside legitimate
> goods, why or how, and by whose rule is the buyer of those
> stolen goods morally or legally complicit?
> >>
> >>>>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.
>
> "1. Most omnivores don't believe philosophically that
> it's wrong."
>
> >Admit
> >that you got it wrong; you did get it wrong.
> >
> You have attempted to argue that there are doubts among
> people that gratuitous killing is not wrong on the basis that
> "1. Most omnivores don't believe philosophically that
> it's wrong."
>
> That position attempts to win acceptance by appealing to
> a large group of people.
> http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#populum
>
> >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.
> >
Really?
> >>
> >>>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 not fully aware of any continued trade with farmers
> who kill animals, and you have conceded this point already
> by concluding there is only a likelihood of these deaths based
> on assumption.
>
> >They are in exactly the
> >same moral position as someone knowingly buying stolen
> >property.
> >
> How does one know that the goods they buy are stolen or
> produced unethically if bought from the same marketplace
> as legitimate and ethically produced goods?
>
> >> and where have
> >> you seen this contradictory behaviour?
> >
> >Right here.
> >
> You're mistaken then.
> >>
> >>>>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.
> >
> I do not, and you still haven't answered my question, " How or
> why 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?
>
> > 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 know there's a likelihood, but buying goods from the general
> marketplace where such a likelihood exists doesn't make me
> complicit in the theft of goods or unethical production practices
> performed by some who use that marketplace to sell their goods.
>
> >> I buy goods
> >> from the general marketplace without any prior knowledge
> >
> >That's a lie.
>
> I'm not clairvoyant, y'know.
>
> >You know animals are killed in the
> >production of the food you eat.
>
> No I don't.
>
> >You can't get away
> >with a probabilistic dodge.
>
> Neither can you.
>
> >Stop driving your car
> >through playgrounds.
> >
> Tell that to the driver.
>
> >> 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.
>
> These personal attacks a becoming very tiresome, Bill.
>
> I buy goods from the general marketplace without any prior
> knowledge 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? Am
> I to assume that all my goods are produced using unethical
> means to satisfy your argument?
>
> > 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?
>
> Can you answer that question, Bill?

No, he can't.