Dreck Nash, fat **** ordinaire, wrote:

> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:32:28 GMT, Bill > wrote:
>
>
>>Dreck Nash, fat **** ordinaire, wrote:
>>
>>

>>>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
>
>
> Thank you

The probability is 1, Drec, you dumb ****. Do you know
what a P = 1 means? No, I knew you didn't; not
something they teach to grease monkeys.

>
>
>>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,

No, there's a certainty, Dreck.

> so any claim from you of her certain knowledge of them is
> now seriously in doubt. We both knew that though, dint we?

No. We know that she has knowledge. She has admitted
as much.

You KNOW that animals are killed in the course of
producing your food.

>
>
>>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.
>
>
> What's a rock solid assumption if not just a plain old guess?

She will continue to buy goods which have been produced
in a way she finds unethical. She has done nothing to
stop so far, and nothing will change.

>
>
>>She DOES continue to
>>buy goods which have been produced in a way she finds
>>unethical,
>
>
> So you assume.

No; we know. You know it too, Dreck.

>
>
>>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?

She is causing them, Dreck; so are you. She knows how
not to do so; so do you, Dreck.

>
>>>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.

It does not, Dreck. You're making it up as you go
along, the way you always have.

>
>
>>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?

Yes, Dreck. It always has been. Same with you, Dreck,
except your accomplishments are so tiny, you really
shouldn't have an ego.

>
>
>>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,

No. We know them about her, and about you, Dreck.

> and of
> course all other vegans who buy from the marketplace.

We know these things about all of them, including you,
Dreck.


>>>>>>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?

Ask your crown prosecutor for the particulars, Dreck.

The fact is, Dreck, if you buy stolen property
unknowingly and it is determined that you have it, the
property may be seized from you without compensation.
If you buy it knowing it was stolen, you can be
prosecuted for the separate crime of receiving stolen
property. The rationale for the latter is that you
provide an incentive for the thief to steal.

We've been through all this several times in the last
couple of years, Dreck. You lost then, you lose now.

You'll just have to live with it, Dreck: your
purchases from animal-killing farmers - we know you buy
from them - reward them for doing something you claim
to find unethical. Your knowledge of the certainty of
animal death makes you morally 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."

Right. I already wrote that. I also wrote this, you
stupid ****:

I did not argue that collateral deaths of animals is
not wrong because omnivores believe it not to be
wrong.

You are dumber than a fence post, Dreck. You couldn't
correctly identify a fallacy if I beat you over the
head with it. That's why you commit so many fallacies
yourself, Dreck.

>
>
>>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."

Right, Dreck. This is how we know it's you: you
stubbornly keep reposting something that is not an
example of wha you claim. You don't need to keep
reposting what I wrote. You need to address the fact -
the fact, you fat **** - that what I wrote is not an
argumentum ad populum. You are simply wrong to assert
that it is one, Dreck.

Every time you have thought you've found your opponent
in a logical fallacy, Dreck, you're wrong. You have
never understood these logic citations you post.

>
> That position attempts to win acceptance by appealing to
> a large group of people.

I am not appealing or attempting to appeal to a large
group of people, Dreck. You lose.
>
>>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.

You really stink at this, Dreck.

>>
>>
>>>
>>>>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,

The ones who post here are, Dreck, you fat ****. They
acknowledge they are. You just puts your fingers in
your ears and go "nnnhh-nnnhh-nnnhh-nnnhh
I-don't-kill-them-I-don't-kill-them-I-don't-kill-them-I-don't-kill-them".
You're wrong.

> and you have conceded this point already
> by concluding there is only a likelihood of these deaths based
> on assumption.

No, there's a certainty. The less-than-one probability
applies to any given apple or eggplant or carrot.

Don't worry about what I have "conceded", Dreck, you
fat ****; "vegans" who post here, all of them, have
conceded that animals die in the course of producing
the food they eat. It is not in dispute. Time for you
to concede, and move on to your next bit of sophistry,
so I can demolish it, too.

>
>
>>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?

Sometimes, one knows, Dreck. That's why the law
provides a penalty for it. You're just going to have
to accept it.

>
>
>>>and where have
>>>you seen this contradictory behaviour?
>>
>>Right here.
>>
>
> You're mistaken then.

I'm not, Dreck.

>
>>>>>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,

You do, Dreck. You know.

>
>
>>Stop lying.
>>
>>
>>>so please answer the question.
>>
>>I did. You are shirking, Dreck, as usual. You know how the
>>vegetables are produced, and you know that it causes animal death.
>>
>
> I know there's a likelihood,

A certainty, when looking at all your purchases.

>
>>>I buy goods
>>>from the general marketplace without any prior knowledge
>>
>>That's a lie.
>
>
> I'm not clairvoyant, y'know.

You're just stupid, Dreck. Go back to your real name.
The adoption of ****witted pseudonyms doesn't get you
off the hook for all your past stupidity, because
you're just as stupid in the present.

>
>
>>You know animals are killed in the
>>production of the food you eat.
>
>
> No I don't.

You do. You know, Dreck.

>
>
>>You can't get away
>>with a probabilistic dodge.
>
>
> Neither can you.

I'm not.

>
>
>>Stop driving your car
>>through playgrounds.
>>
>
> Tell that to the driver.

You.

>
>
>>>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.

They aren't personal attacks, Dreck.

[snip repetitious and tiresome lie of innocence]

>
>
>> 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.

The silence is deafening, Dreck.