"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > 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.
>>
>> Mores the pity for you, flyweight.
>>
>> > I have clearly given you opportunities to clarify information which you
>> > have posted and asked me to accept simply because it is common.
>>
>> Your "opportunities to clarify" are nonsensical, they're poses. You're
>> not
>> bright and you're proving it.
>
> Astonish me then.

You are unavailable for processing incoming information, except to knee-jerk
reject it.

> Which point from the website that you asked me to read
> should we review, publicly. Do you need to check with the clique before
> you can respond?

How about this part..

Myth: No one has ever died from using marijuana
The Kaiser study also found that daily pot users have a 30% higher risk of
injuries, presumably from accidents. These figures are significant, though
not as high as comparable risks for heavy drinkers or tobacco addicts. That
pot can cause accidents is scarcely surprising, since marijuana has been
shown to degrade short-term memory, concentration, judgment, and
coordination at complex tasks including driving.(1) There have been numerous
reports of pot-related accidents --- some of them fatal, belying the
attractive myth that no one has ever died from marijuana. One survey of 1023
emergency room trauma patients in Baltimore found that fully 34.7% were
under the influence of marijuana, more even than alcohol (33.5%); half of
these (16.5%) used both pot and alcohol in combination.(2) This is perhaps
the most troublesome research ever reported about marijuana; as we shall
see, other accident studies have generally found pot to be less dangerous
than alcohol. Nonetheless, it is important to be informed on all sides of
the issue. Pot smokers should be aware that accidents are the number one
hazard of moderate pot use. In addition, of course, the psychoactive effects
of cannabis can have many other adverse effects on performance, school work,
and productivity.

> You seemed to view it as credible and reputable, when you asked me more
> than once to read it.

Well? What is your complaint with the above paragraph? Surely it made that
knee jerk.

Do you advocate legal pot?