In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> You DIDN'T do it. You whiffed.
>
> > 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.
>
> It is the correct choice.

It is a choice that confuses a logical fallacy ascribing cause and
effect where there is a coincidence. It is common to religion and a
means to inspire guilt in others. It is the same principle in the
Categorical Imperative that is utilized by Catholics and Christians and
in this case vegans and meat eaters.

> They are integral to the
> outcome. The outcome doesn't happen without their
> participation, just as the bank doesn't get robbed -
> and the innocent person murdered - without the getaway
> driver; just as the goods don't get stolen without the
> 'fence' willing to buy them. The participation of
> others - "vegans", getaway drivers, fences - drives the
> processes that lead to bad outcomes.
>
> > The error is further
> > compounded by using Kant's Categorical Imperative
>
> You do not know kak-all about Kant. Shut your ****ing
> mouth.