"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

>> >> >> The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
>> >> >> rebut it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
>> >> >> it is wrong to kill animals.
>> >> >
>> >> > <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
>> >> > animals then why do I feel good about lessening
>> >> > their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
>> >>
>> >> If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much
>> >> more
>> >> than you are doing.
>> >
>> > Thank you for repeating yourself...
>>
>> You're welcome. I hope you're writing some of this down..
>>
>> > If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much
>> > more
>> > about sexually broomed children.
>>
>> Passive vs active rights. Since I am not participating in any way with
>> abuse
>> of children I am not morally obliged to find any to rescue. It would be
>> OK
>> if I did, but I am not obliged.
>
> There is a serious disconnect in your thinking here. If you are not
> obligated because you don't participate with respect to the abuse of
> children then, because you do participate with respect to our pot
> smoking friend then you must be complicit there.

Attempting to impart information or give an opinion about an act is not
complicity in the act. If I tell my friend he oughta quit shoplifting, that
doesn't make me complicit in it. If I BUY some of the stuff, THEN I'm
complicit. Get the difference?

> You have defined the terms of participation in the act of "rescue" only
> where one is obliged through their actions. You have clearly stated your
> goal to "rescue" her from her evil ways.

That would not amount to complicity.

>> > If your really thought it was wrong, you would find a way tod o much
>> > more about the death of humans
>>
>> Passive vs active rights. Vegans are *subsiding* the killing of animals
>> who
>> they claim to believe have basic right to life. They have an active
>> involvment with the *unmitigated* killing of those animals by farmers
>> when
>> they purchase consumer goods.
>
> A nice phrase to remove responsibility

It defines responsibility, it doesn't remove it.

> A justified killing is still a
> killing.

Yes, what does justification have to do with it?

> Killing an animal for food is still killing an animal.

Naturally.

> Just as
> killing a human because they are robbing and threatening you is still
> killing another human being. The human ability to rationalize is
> "divine".

You take valid concepts and reduce them to absurdities. This is fallacious
thinking.

>> > If you really thought it was wrong....
>> >
>> > Not that I've completely embarrased you, what next.
>>
>> You actually thought that was a rock solid argument didn't you?
>
> Yes, and I'm still demonstrating that.

You aren't, you're groping in the dark. You have some agenda that is
preventing you from understanding basic concepts. You have brief lucid
periods which makes me discount the idea that you're just dumb.

>> Get this Ronny, you are NOT going to outwit me or Jay Santos or usual
>> suspect, we're way out of your league. You should be saving our posts to
>> study from.
>
> Hmmm.
>
> Too late. I've clearly demonstrated this. Despite your complaints of of
> vegan post smoker, you are just as "guilty" as she is and on all counts.

Not even remotely. I have taken no active role in her pot smoking, in fact I
have attempted to discourage it. Following from that, if she quit because of
my advice and subsequently had a negative outcome, it could be argued that I
was morally complicit, although not really, as I have offered my advice on a
take-it-or-leave-it basis.


>> >> The shocking thing is that you don't even think it's *bad*. Even if
>> >> consuming meat would prevent some animal death you wouldn't do it,
>> >> because
>> >> of the TASTE!
>> >>
>> >> Eating more vegetables is good, eating all vegetables is fine.
>> >> Assigning
>> >> false moral significance to it is a mistake.