Ron wrote:

> 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.

No. You actively support such laws. You WANT the
getaway driver in a robbery that results in a death to
be punished more harshly than the getaway driver in a
robbery that does not result in a death.