In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> [..]
> >>
> >> >> > The vegan mitigates their responsibility by following all the rules
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > the laws associated with killing animals.
> >> >>
> >> >> There are no rules and laws associated with killing animals, no such
> >> >> law
> >> >> is
> >> >> even feasible. Vegans have fabricated a morality outside the normal
> >> >> one,
> >> >> with moral rules involving animals that go far beyond it, yet they
> >> >> live
> >> >> in
> >> >> the comfort and protection of the normal moral system with it's cheap
> >> >> affordable food and health care. If they are going to preach an
> >> >> outlandish
> >> >> moral system and preach to me that I ought to follow it, they need to
> >> >> follow
> >> >> it first. Cutting down on animal products is not nearly enough to
> >> >> validate
> >> >> their alleged moral system.
> >> >
> >> > "Normal moral system?" What's that about. I was taught to eat meat and
> >> > I
> >> > was taught which meats were acceptable and socially acceptable eat.
> >>
> >> Customs.
> >
> > Thank you. Customs are taught and learned. They are not biological or
> > genetic. They are common and popular.
>
> Therefore bad according to you.
>
> >> > Of course, your argument has been disputed and your simply ignored the
> >> > formations that clearly demonstrated the double standard that you
> >> > applied to the vegan.
> >>
> >> Not at all, you have utterly misconstrued the arguments all along the
> >> way.
> >>
> >> >> > Come on, Dutch. You lost.
> >> >>
> >> >> Phaw.. in your dreams. Wake up!
> >> >
> >> > I clearly demonstrated this. When your own logic was presented with a
> >> > different example, you simply commented that you didn't have the time
> >> > to
> >> > do all that was necessary to follow through.
> >>
> >> Your examples were nothing but a convoluted mess based on fallacies. I do
> >> not have the time to completely untangle your mixed-up thinking, you must
> >> do
> >> some of the work yourself.
> >
> > the work was done. All the was required was that you clarify why you
> > applied one standard to the vegan and another to yourself.
> >
> >> If you would learn to listen, instead of playing devil's advocate on
> >> every
> >> point to attempt to "score", you might get somewhere. Playing devil's
> >> advocate is exactly as valid as agreeing with everything you read.
> >
> > Listen? I'm reading your comments.
>
> You're reading but graspinf anything. I typically make a series of replies
> in a post, most of which you breeze over because you are being corrected,
> than you insert some non-sequitor knee-jerk remark at the end.
>
> Your approach is WORTHLESS.
>
> > Where you consider me being Devil's Advocate, I consider you blindly
> > introjecting what is spoonfed.
>
> False, unlike you I do NOT blindly reject that which is "spoonfed" in favour
> of irrational claptrap.

Dutch, others can read this as well as the fact the archives of this
discussion will be around for a bit of time.

I have clearly given you opportunities to clarify information which you
have posted and asked me to accept simply because it is common.