In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Scented Nectar" > 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.

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.

> > 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. A justified killing is still a
killing. Killing an animal for food is still killing an animal. 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".

> > 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.

> 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.

> >> 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.