In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It IS related to complicity. You are flatly wrong
> >>about that. They view the meat eater not just as
> >>complicit in the death of the animals he eats, but the
> >>prime cause. They are correct, too. That's why they
> >>can't get away with claiming NOT to be complicit in the
> >>deaths of the animals killed in the course of producing
> >>the foods they eat.
> >
> >
> > Which demonstrates how common it is for people confuse cause and
> > coincidence.
>
> No. There is no confusion at all. They clearly see
> that which you could see but for your stubborn pretense.

We've been there and done that. If the vegan choose to accept or believe
responsibility (what is being termed participation) for the actions and
outcomes of others that is a choice that they make. The error is further
compounded by using Kant's Categorical Imperative to create an absolute
moral code. (Meat eaters make the same mistake.)