In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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.
>
> Dolores is accountable for her own action, paying Pedro.

Giving a person money is not immoral. I did it several times today.