Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:45:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:09:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:52:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
>>>>>>>>Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
>>>>>>>>Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
>>>>>>>>at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
>>>>>>>>(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The task he has set himself is to take apart the
>>>>>>>>occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
>>>>>>>>doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
>>>>>>>>meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
>>>>>>>>industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
>>>>>>>>attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
>>>>>>>>fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
>>>>>>>>eat, based on expected utility considerations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
>>>>>>>>with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
>>>>>>>>is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
>>>>>>>>deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, it does not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, it does.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
>>>>>vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
>>>>>production, and after you've done that show where his
>>>>>article concludes that the vegetarian is responsible for
>>>>>them.
>>>>
>>>>His article doesn't explicitly do that.
>>>
>>>Exactly! You imagined it did and then asserted it.
>>
>>No, I never imagined anything about his article.
>
>
> You categorically stated that "it (Matheny's article)
> also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused
> by the production of the crops they eat."

No, I didn't. I wrote

His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.

"It" in the second sentence refers to "his analysis".
I never used the word "article". You lied in saying I
did. We've come to expect that kind of lying from you.

>
>>I extended it. Legitimately.
>
>
> You extended it

Legitimately and correctly.

>
>>>>Based on my extension of his mechanism, *I* did it.
>>>
>>>Then you cannot lie by claiming "it (Matheny's article)
>>>also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused
>>>by the production of the crops they eat."
>>
>>I never said that Matheny's *article* explicity did
>>this.
>
>
> "it (Matheny's article)

No, "it (Matheny's ANALYSIS)..."


> Stop lying, Jon.

Stop lying, fat crippled cuckold.

>
>
>>>What you
>>>should have written was that YOUR extension of it
>>>makes that link rather than the article itself.
>>
>>I never wrote that the *article* did it. I said that Matheny's analysis did it.
>
>
> No.

Yes. See above.