Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:21:51 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:45:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:09:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:52:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater 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".
>
>
> Then once again

Then once again, you lied.

Stop lying, fat crippled dog-beating cuckold.