Ron wrote:
> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>anal leakage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>anal leakage wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That is really interesting. In my family and in my culture we are taught
>>>>>that we are responsible for our actions. Your theory requires that I be
>>>>>responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions.
>>>>
>>>>You share responsibility for the outcomes of other
>>>>people's actions when those actions are done on your
>>>>behalf,
>>>
>>>
>>>Who taught you such nonsense?
>>
>>It isn't nonsense.
>>
>>Once again: if you drive the getaway car in a bank
>>robbery in which some innocent person in the bank is
>>shot and killed, you share in the legal AND moral
>>responsibility for that death (the legal responsibility
>>is based on the moral responsibility), and you face a
>>punishment greater than you would if no one had been
>>killed. This is not nonsense. You are a participant
>>in the event, even though you didn't pull the trigger.
>> This is moral, just, and as it should be.
>>
>>Deal with it. Or, instead of sitting there effetely
>>trying to be clever, try to explain, in detail and
>>without resorting to faggy sarcasm, exactly where the
>>flaw is.
>
>
> Ah, you blew it with this paragraph.
No, you do all the blowing.
|