On 07/03/2012 20:32, George Plimpton wrote:
> "glen" He shares
> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
> his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed.

Yes it can. St. Derek disputed it rationally and took you out.

> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:
>
> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal
>
> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
> the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery
>
> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions
>
> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
> achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food

Stop killing humans with your tailpipe hypocrite. They have a right not to be killed by you. Start
believing in your own bullshit first and maybe others might take you seriously.

Note to St. Derek.

1. How the **** can you respect this guy?
2. *WHAT* the **** can I learn from him?
3. Decent? What the ****?
4. Honest? What the ****?
5. Intelligent? **** no.

Yep, Rupert is very smart and inquisitive and you regret a lot of stuff you've said to him because
he's a decent but no way is Ball smarter than him!!! How the **** can I stick with Ball and learn
stuff I never thought existed? He's a **** end of.

>
> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
> who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral
> responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living
> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
> CD footprint because he has never measured.