Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The
>>>>>
>>>>>vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
>>>>>animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it
>>>>>is
>>>>>acceptable to kill some animals for their food.
>>>>
>>>>That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
>>>>hypocrisy
>>>>is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
>>>>kill
>>>>animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
>>>>people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
>>>>cheap
>>>>food.
>>>
>>>Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
>>>tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?
>>
>>The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal was
>>Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.
>>
>>Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?
>
>
> Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
> reasonable to me.

No one is attempting to hold any "vegan" responsible
for the *actions* of anyone else. It is the moral
outcome for which "vegans" share responsibility, not
the actions.

This has been explained to you dozens of times, over
the course of several weeks. You either are being
deliberately obtuse, or you are very stupid and unable
to see the distinction. Those are the only two
possible explanations.