In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> That's completely different and you know it, quit fooling around.
> >
> > Unfortunately, you edited my statements.
>
> I did not.
>
> > I clearly stated that I was applying the same standard that I would use
> > in one situation to the example under discussion. You seem to have an
> > objection to me applying the reasoning consistently.
>
> Rudy explained the difference, although he should not have had to.

To rephrase, he justified the inconsistent application of a principle.
When the vegan does this they are deemed hypocrites. It seems then there
are times when it is acceptable to be hypocritical and times when it is
unacceptable to hypocritical.