In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article > ,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article >, "Dutch"
> >
> >>>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>"Dutch" >
> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law,
> >>>>>>>>>>>the
> >>>>>>>>>>>new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain
> >>>>>>>>>>food.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>How do you know?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Please identify the animals that I killed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
> >>>>>>posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
> >>>>>killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
> >>>>>of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name of
> >>>>>the person who was killed as a result.
> >>>>
> >>>>We aren't talking about legal liability for murder or
> >>>>complicity to murder. We're talking about moral
> >>>>liability for deaths of animals, where those deaths are
> >>>>not considered illegal. It is the *principle* of
> >>>>complicity that is demonstrated by reference to the
> >>>>criminal law.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Let's run this through...
> >>>
> >>>I go to the store. Through my action of wanting to purchase meat, I now
> >>>create demand. As a result of my action a series of successive actions
> >>>then takes place which you are tracing back to me as the originating
> >>>cause.
> >>>
> >>>An animal dies, as part of this reasoning you hold me accountable for
> >>>the death of the animal.
> >>>
> >>>Now, if the farmer has a stroke in the process of slaughtering cattle
> >>>for me then, I must also be responsible for his death.
> >>
> >>No. You already know why not.
> >>
> >>
> >>>His death can be
> >>>traced backed to me as "the first cause".
> >>
> >>Nope.
> >>
> >>
> >>>If I hadn't wanted or needed
> >>>meat he wouldn't have been slaughtering the cattle and wouldn't have
> >>>died.
> >>
> >>Would have been doing something else, and died.
> >>
> >>
> >>>[...]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>No one is suggesting that "vegans'"
> >>>>complicity in the deaths of animals is illegal; just
> >>>>that it is immoral, according to *their* alleged
> >>>>"ethics". It IS immoral with respect to their alleged
> >>>>"ethics", and it is not necessary to know which
> >>>>"vegans" killed which animals.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Then please explain why one is
> >>
> >>Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
> >>participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
> >>consider immoral.
> >
> >
> > Let's apply this thinking to another example.
>
> No. You didn't honestly consider my example. Do that,
> then maybe you can try again.

All you've done is to provide me with more evidence that it is time that
we remove this feature from our laws.