"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> > "Dutch" >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Reynard" > wrote
>> >> >> > They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining
>> >> >> > from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's not about "pushing meat", it's about reminding vegans that
>> >> >> their
>> >> >> diets
>> >> >> are not bloodless.
>> >> >
>> >> > Unfortunately, arguments such as the one that Dutch makes assumes a
>> >> > degree of responsibility for the actions of others that defies any
>> >> > logical rationalization.
>> >>
>> >> If it's illogical then why are people who hire killers sent to prison?
>> >
>> > I see. It's in the law so it must be logical. Humans craft laws. Humans
>> > are often times illogical. Ergo, it is possible to find instances of
>> > illogic in the law.
>> >
>> > Dutch, are you going to claim that the law conforms to logic?
>>
>> Quit dodging and answer the question. Should we be able to hire murderers
>> with impunity?
>
> Of course, we can and do and the answer is yes. That some idiot is
> prepared to kill another on the promise of few pennies is just an excuse
> for their original desire anyway.
>
> Soldiers are hired killers. We justify their actions and so do they.
> Executioners in states with death penalties are hired killers. Some
> people argue doctors are killers in that abortion is killing and those
> are paid acts. The US is currently invovled in war, many people are
> being hired for those killings.
>
> Now, don't dodge my question. Are you going to claim that the law is an
> example of logic. I just provided several examples where the law DOES
> allow for the hiring of killers.
>
>> >> > I admire vegans in that they do seem to be able to live up to their
>> >> > ethical values. Vegans are certainly better than I am. They can live
>> >> > their daily lives without having to kill.
>> >>
>> >> Who or what will you kill today?
>> >
>> > I don't need to kill. There are plenty of others who willingly take on
>> > that role for me.
>>
>> Exactly, just like vegans. Thanks for illustrating my point
>
> Once again, you hold others (the vegan) responsible for what others (the
> killers and farmers) do. I find passing responsibility is a consistent
> position for the vegan hater.
===========================
I find your ignorance to be far more consistant, fool. In the cases you
try to use above, you fail miserably. Why? Because those are actions we
are responsible for. We pay for them, we back them. We aren't claiming one
thing, and then doing another. That is the difference between us and
vegans. They claim that their *actions* result in either no death of animsl
or ferwer. Both are false. Vegnas have achoice of actions to take. The
ones here on usenet invariably take the selfish, easy, conveninet route.
They take actions that they *know* results in the death and suffering of
animals, despite their claim of living a life that causes none/less/fewer.
So, you can continue your troll now, knowing that your ignorance is well
known, fool.



The vegan is certainly better than me that
> they will choose to avoid harming an animal, but then I have my reasons
> to see that harm to animals continue to avoid harm to others.
==============
Ignorance on display....