"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote
> > > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> > > > >> > As I stated previously, it is consistent with the thinking of a
> > child
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > think that one is responsible for the outcome of other people's
> > > > >> > actions.
> > > > >> > It is what many of us are taught as children. As adults,
however,
> > we
> > > > >> > recognize the accountability and responsibility of the
individual
> > for
> > > > >> > their own actions.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Aiding and/or abetting are NOT actions? Why are we responsible
for
> > our
> > > > >> own
> > > > >> actions in other cases but not then?
> > > > >
> > > > > How do I perform the act of aiding if you are going to insist that
it
> > is
> > > > > an action?
> > > >
> > > > Any number of ways, read the article I linked below.
> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Who taught the indigenous populations of Africa
> > > > >> > > > or Australia that they were responsible for the outcomes of
> > other
> > > > >> > > > people's actions?
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > See above
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Read http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tcmplicty.html
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > This is further evidence of the problem of such thinking.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Define the problem.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > An accomplice
> > > > >> > to murder is not the murderer. An accomplice to theft is not
the
> > thief.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> An accomplice is an accomplice, to use your tautological form.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yup. An accomplice is an accomplice. We agree.
> > > >
> > > > Well, I'm happy we can at least agree on self-evident truths. An
> > accomplice
> > > > is held accountable *as* such, not for "the actions of another
person"
> > as
> > > > you have so often and wrongly alleged.
> > >
> > > Now, that we have that in print, I ask again -- when a farmer in
Mexico
> > > kills an amphibian in Mexico and a consumer is in Canada who is
> > > responsible for the action and the outcome of growing the food and
> > > killing the amphibian?
> >
> > As with any "act", responsibility is distributed among all parties who
> > knowingly participate in it for their benefit.
>
> What part of the moral code of "do unto others" are you finding this?

"Do unto others" is not a moral code, it's a guideline.

> > In this case the "act" is rooted in your hunger, your desire for
tomatoes,
> > and through your ability to pay it is linked via wholesalers and
retailers
> > to a farmer in Mexico who receives a portion of your dollar to kill an
> > amphibian in the process of cultivating the tomato field. The tomato is
more
> > than a red vegetable, it tells a story.
>
> Sorry. You've argued that the moral principle at work is the golden
> rule.

No, I didn't.

I agree that this is common to North America and Christianity. I,
> however, fail to see how complicity is in any way related to this moral
> code. Please clarify.

You're hopelessly confused Ron.

> > > Further, since the act of growing tomatoes is not illegal, how have
you
> > > determined that the Canadian in the example to be an accomplice?
> >
> > There you go confusing legality and moral complicity again.
>
> See above. Complicity has nothing to do with the statement or phrase "do
> unto others as you would have them do unto you." It seems there are
> other moral codes being operationalized that you are not stating here.

It seems you are obfuscating.

> > > > > The problem, Dutch, has been defined.
> > > > >
> > > > > When and were is the notion of accomplices extant or the principle
> > valid?
> > > >
> > > > I don't know precisely, but I suspect it began very early in the
> > development
> > > > of homo sapiens social groups.
> > >
> > > An opinion? A belief? Something that you hold as true without
evidence.
> >
> > A suspicion. I haven't read anything about that specifically. It would
be
> > under anthropology.
> >
> > > One might even call that faith.
> >
> > Or a guess.
>
> Same thing -- different word.

No, different concept.

> > > One could even regard the criminal code
> > > as the sacred text of a religion and be consistent with this as
religion
> > > by form and function.
> >
> > That could be argued, but to what purpose?
>
> I'm noting your observation of the vegan

Are we still talking about vegans?

> seems to be how you are
> treating the law -- a religion in form and function.

No.

> The law becomes the
> sacred text. There are "prophets" that are quoted as being the
> authorities and so on. Beliefs, moral codes, rules of conduct (where our
> disagreement appears) are the requirements of the practice of the
> religion.

Not convincing.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote
> > > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> > > > >> > As I stated previously, it is consistent with the thinking of a
> > child
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > think that one is responsible for the outcome of other people's
> > > > >> > actions.
> > > > >> > It is what many of us are taught as children. As adults,
however,
> > we
> > > > >> > recognize the accountability and responsibility of the
individual
> > for
> > > > >> > their own actions.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Aiding and/or abetting are NOT actions? Why are we responsible
for
> > our
> > > > >> own
> > > > >> actions in other cases but not then?
> > > > >
> > > > > How do I perform the act of aiding if you are going to insist that
it
> > is
> > > > > an action?
> > > >
> > > > Any number of ways, read the article I linked below.
> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Who taught the indigenous populations of Africa
> > > > >> > > > or Australia that they were responsible for the outcomes of
> > other
> > > > >> > > > people's actions?
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > See above
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Read http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tcmplicty.html
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > This is further evidence of the problem of such thinking.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Define the problem.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > An accomplice
> > > > >> > to murder is not the murderer. An accomplice to theft is not
the
> > thief.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> An accomplice is an accomplice, to use your tautological form.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yup. An accomplice is an accomplice. We agree.
> > > >
> > > > Well, I'm happy we can at least agree on self-evident truths. An
> > accomplice
> > > > is held accountable *as* such, not for "the actions of another
person"
> > as
> > > > you have so often and wrongly alleged.
> > >
> > > Now, that we have that in print, I ask again -- when a farmer in
Mexico
> > > kills an amphibian in Mexico and a consumer is in Canada who is
> > > responsible for the action and the outcome of growing the food and
> > > killing the amphibian?
> >
> > As with any "act", responsibility is distributed among all parties who
> > knowingly participate in it for their benefit.
>
> What part of the moral code of "do unto others" are you finding this?

"Do unto others" is not a moral code, it's a guideline.

> > In this case the "act" is rooted in your hunger, your desire for
tomatoes,
> > and through your ability to pay it is linked via wholesalers and
retailers
> > to a farmer in Mexico who receives a portion of your dollar to kill an
> > amphibian in the process of cultivating the tomato field. The tomato is
more
> > than a red vegetable, it tells a story.
>
> Sorry. You've argued that the moral principle at work is the golden
> rule.

No, I didn't.

I agree that this is common to North America and Christianity. I,
> however, fail to see how complicity is in any way related to this moral
> code. Please clarify.

You're hopelessly confused Ron.

> > > Further, since the act of growing tomatoes is not illegal, how have
you
> > > determined that the Canadian in the example to be an accomplice?
> >
> > There you go confusing legality and moral complicity again.
>
> See above. Complicity has nothing to do with the statement or phrase "do
> unto others as you would have them do unto you." It seems there are
> other moral codes being operationalized that you are not stating here.

It seems you are obfuscating.

> > > > > The problem, Dutch, has been defined.
> > > > >
> > > > > When and were is the notion of accomplices extant or the principle
> > valid?
> > > >
> > > > I don't know precisely, but I suspect it began very early in the
> > development
> > > > of homo sapiens social groups.
> > >
> > > An opinion? A belief? Something that you hold as true without
evidence.
> >
> > A suspicion. I haven't read anything about that specifically. It would
be
> > under anthropology.
> >
> > > One might even call that faith.
> >
> > Or a guess.
>
> Same thing -- different word.

No, different concept.

> > > One could even regard the criminal code
> > > as the sacred text of a religion and be consistent with this as
religion
> > > by form and function.
> >
> > That could be argued, but to what purpose?
>
> I'm noting your observation of the vegan

Are we still talking about vegans?

> seems to be how you are
> treating the law -- a religion in form and function.

No.

> The law becomes the
> sacred text. There are "prophets" that are quoted as being the
> authorities and so on. Beliefs, moral codes, rules of conduct (where our
> disagreement appears) are the requirements of the practice of the
> religion.

Not convincing.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote
> > > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > > > >> > Hmm. So it is subjectively wrong (ie. relative to time and
> > location) or
> > > > >> > absolutely wrong (universal through time and space) to be an
> > accomplice
> > > > >> > or accessory.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It depends on the nature of the act to which you are an
accomplice
> > and
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> nature of the complicity. Every case requires a moral and/or
legal
> > > > >> evaluation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Buying pot for glaucoma treatment and buying pot for selling to
> > > > > teenagers is the SAME act. Please describe the differences in the
> > > > > *actions* to warrant different moral or legal responses.
> > > >
> > > > One relieves the symptoms of a disease, the other condemns young
people
> > to a
> > > > life of menial jobs and unfulfilled potential.
> > >
> > > My question was, what is different about the actions?
> >
> > I answered it.
> > >
> > > > Two actions may be identical in physical form
> > >
> > > Thank you, so they are identical actions that are treated and regarded
> > > differently despite your claims that they are not the same actions.
> >
> > The same actions in different circumstances.
> >
> > > > but completely dissimiliar
> > > > when the entire circumstances are assessed morally. You must know
this
> > or
> > > > else you are sociopathic.
> > >
> > > The circumstances are the the same.
> >
> > No they aren't. The presence of the disease of glaucoma is a different
> > circumstance.
> >
> > > The reasoning or thinking is what is
> > > being assessed and having label of morality applied.
> >
> > No, there is an actual physically different set of circumstances in this
> > instance.
> >
> > > What you are calling moral, is merely a question of what is popular
and
> > > socially acceptable. I grew out of that phase by the 8th grade. If
being
> > > an assertive adults constitutes being a sociopath then, so be it.
> >
> > You have a complex about *not* being thought of as a child, resulting in
the
> > adoption of childish notions. Ironic..
> >
> > > I imagine then that your willingness to agree with what is popular or
> > > common is an avoidance to be labeled as a sociopath. Keeping you in
line
> > > is a breeze.
> >
> > Your self-professed "free thinking" is a pose. You are a prisoner of
your
> > abject fear of being viewed as "normal" or "conventional" or "a child"
of
> > being manipulated or controlled. You have lost all objectivity as a
result.
> > You are just as "in line" as I am, except that I understand why.
>
> roflmao, okay...
>
> I hope you weren't expecting payment for your armchair analysis.

Failure to respond to any of my salient points regarding circumstances
noted.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote
> > > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > > > >> > Hmm. So it is subjectively wrong (ie. relative to time and
> > location) or
> > > > >> > absolutely wrong (universal through time and space) to be an
> > accomplice
> > > > >> > or accessory.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It depends on the nature of the act to which you are an
accomplice
> > and
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> nature of the complicity. Every case requires a moral and/or
legal
> > > > >> evaluation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Buying pot for glaucoma treatment and buying pot for selling to
> > > > > teenagers is the SAME act. Please describe the differences in the
> > > > > *actions* to warrant different moral or legal responses.
> > > >
> > > > One relieves the symptoms of a disease, the other condemns young
people
> > to a
> > > > life of menial jobs and unfulfilled potential.
> > >
> > > My question was, what is different about the actions?
> >
> > I answered it.
> > >
> > > > Two actions may be identical in physical form
> > >
> > > Thank you, so they are identical actions that are treated and regarded
> > > differently despite your claims that they are not the same actions.
> >
> > The same actions in different circumstances.
> >
> > > > but completely dissimiliar
> > > > when the entire circumstances are assessed morally. You must know
this
> > or
> > > > else you are sociopathic.
> > >
> > > The circumstances are the the same.
> >
> > No they aren't. The presence of the disease of glaucoma is a different
> > circumstance.
> >
> > > The reasoning or thinking is what is
> > > being assessed and having label of morality applied.
> >
> > No, there is an actual physically different set of circumstances in this
> > instance.
> >
> > > What you are calling moral, is merely a question of what is popular
and
> > > socially acceptable. I grew out of that phase by the 8th grade. If
being
> > > an assertive adults constitutes being a sociopath then, so be it.
> >
> > You have a complex about *not* being thought of as a child, resulting in
the
> > adoption of childish notions. Ironic..
> >
> > > I imagine then that your willingness to agree with what is popular or
> > > common is an avoidance to be labeled as a sociopath. Keeping you in
line
> > > is a breeze.
> >
> > Your self-professed "free thinking" is a pose. You are a prisoner of
your
> > abject fear of being viewed as "normal" or "conventional" or "a child"
of
> > being manipulated or controlled. You have lost all objectivity as a
result.
> > You are just as "in line" as I am, except that I understand why.
>
> roflmao, okay...
>
> I hope you weren't expecting payment for your armchair analysis.

Failure to respond to any of my salient points regarding circumstances
noted.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote
> >
> > [..]
> > > IOW, we are who we are because we are individuals AND we have been
> > > taught to be who we are -- a socialization process. Any argument of
> > > innateness of anything requires significant evidence from my
> > > perspective.
> >
> > Every living organism is hard-wired for survival, to avoid and recoil
from
> > harm. That is innate.
>
> We disagree. That just means humans experience fear and have knowledge
> about death.

False, ALL organisms gravitate towards benefit and recoil from harm, even
rudimentary organisms and plants.

> If you are going to claim that this is hard wired, please
> describe the 'hard wiring'. Please describe the genetic sequence that
> requires any of us to recoil from harm, yet to actively seek out harmful
> situations contrary to our 'wiring'.

Excitement or stimulation is a benefit which outweighs risk. It's a
tradeoff.

> > Moral precepts, like The Golden Rule, are just ways to
> > organize behaviour in an attempt to minimize harm. Moral codes are
flawed
> > and inconsistent, but they are all based on the fundamental inherent
drive
> > to avoid harm. The suggestion that they are simply random cultural
artifacts
> > is wrong.
>
> LOL. That is YOUR objective and worldview. I find our culture extremely
> paranoid and fearful - some moreso than others. In most cases, I find
> that people tend to overestimate the degree of risk and harm that is
> likely to happen.

Perhaps they do, but you acknowledge that they assess risk, which is my
point.

> All harm is not bad.

That is an absolute statement and a strawman. It's very convenient to assert
absolutes to make a point, but it's not a valid argument.

> As I stated, I consider a 'redemption philosophy'
> to be wholly realistic in that many 'bad' or 'evil' things in the world
> can also be demonstrated to have positive effects and outcomes.

Explain how you understand 'redemption philosophy' .

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote
> >
> > [..]
> > > IOW, we are who we are because we are individuals AND we have been
> > > taught to be who we are -- a socialization process. Any argument of
> > > innateness of anything requires significant evidence from my
> > > perspective.
> >
> > Every living organism is hard-wired for survival, to avoid and recoil
from
> > harm. That is innate.
>
> We disagree. That just means humans experience fear and have knowledge
> about death.

False, ALL organisms gravitate towards benefit and recoil from harm, even
rudimentary organisms and plants.

> If you are going to claim that this is hard wired, please
> describe the 'hard wiring'. Please describe the genetic sequence that
> requires any of us to recoil from harm, yet to actively seek out harmful
> situations contrary to our 'wiring'.

Excitement or stimulation is a benefit which outweighs risk. It's a
tradeoff.

> > Moral precepts, like The Golden Rule, are just ways to
> > organize behaviour in an attempt to minimize harm. Moral codes are
flawed
> > and inconsistent, but they are all based on the fundamental inherent
drive
> > to avoid harm. The suggestion that they are simply random cultural
artifacts
> > is wrong.
>
> LOL. That is YOUR objective and worldview. I find our culture extremely
> paranoid and fearful - some moreso than others. In most cases, I find
> that people tend to overestimate the degree of risk and harm that is
> likely to happen.

Perhaps they do, but you acknowledge that they assess risk, which is my
point.

> All harm is not bad.

That is an absolute statement and a strawman. It's very convenient to assert
absolutes to make a point, but it's not a valid argument.

> As I stated, I consider a 'redemption philosophy'
> to be wholly realistic in that many 'bad' or 'evil' things in the world
> can also be demonstrated to have positive effects and outcomes.

Explain how you understand 'redemption philosophy' .

In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Twink Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
> >>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
> >>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
> >>>>
> >>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
> >>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
> >>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
> >>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
> >>>
> >>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
> >>
> >>Drama queen.
> >
> > *bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>
> It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
>
> >>>I find you evasive.
> >>
> >>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
> >>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
> >
> > Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
> > elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>
> Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
>
> >>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
> >>>vegan is violating.
> >>
> >>Easy: *their own*.
> >
> > I'll clarify,
>
> You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
> prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
> to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
> suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
> animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
> minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
> meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
> parts.
>
> > what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
> > violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
> > code.
>
> It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
> of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
>
> > Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
> > code?
>
> It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."

Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.

You are responsible for me if you accept that premeditated murder is
wrong. I expect you front and centre to accompany me tomorrow and keep
me safe. Don't prove to be a hypocrite.

In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Twink Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
> >>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
> >>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
> >>>>
> >>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
> >>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
> >>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
> >>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
> >>>
> >>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
> >>
> >>Drama queen.
> >
> > *bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>
> It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
>
> >>>I find you evasive.
> >>
> >>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
> >>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
> >
> > Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
> > elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>
> Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
>
> >>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
> >>>vegan is violating.
> >>
> >>Easy: *their own*.
> >
> > I'll clarify,
>
> You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
> prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
> to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
> suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
> animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
> minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
> meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
> parts.
>
> > what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
> > violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
> > code.
>
> It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
> of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
>
> > Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
> > code?
>
> It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."

Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.

You are responsible for me if you accept that premeditated murder is
wrong. I expect you front and centre to accompany me tomorrow and keep
me safe. Don't prove to be a hypocrite.

In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Twink Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
> >>>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >>>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
> >>>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Ipse dixit, in any case it's irrelevant, the vegan hires this person to
> >>>>>>do
> >>>>>>his dirty work for him and thus is equally culpable. If you go to the
> >>>>>>street
> >>>>>>and ask a common thief to steal you a stereo, you are complicit in that
> >>>>>>crime when it is committed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It's the lesser "evil".
> >>>>
> >>>>How is it a lesser evil? You're making a mockery of what little you were
> >>>>taught in your intro to logic course, you dopey little twink.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Sorry. I find you too abusive to spend some time responding to your
> >>>questions.
> >>
> >>And you called me evasive, lol.
> >
> > This is your style, so I'll leave you to it.
>
> And you called me evasive, lol.

You stated previsouly, as I recall, that premeditated murder was wrong.
I expect you now to act based on that belief. If you do not do
everything within your power to protect me from such an act...well,
we've discussed the flaws with that reasoning.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> usual suspect > wrote:
>
>> Twink Ron wrote:
>> >>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan"
>> >>>>>>food
>> >>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>> >>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than
>> >>>>>>the
>> >>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce
>> >>>>food
>> >>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>> >>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for
>> >>>>so
>> >>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>> >>>
>> >>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>> >>
>> >>Drama queen.
>> >
>> > *bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>>
>> It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
>>
>> >>>I find you evasive.
>> >>
>> >>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>> >>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>> >
>> > Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
>> > elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>>
>> Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
>>
>> >>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>> >>>vegan is violating.
>> >>
>> >>Easy: *their own*.
>> >
>> > I'll clarify,
>>
>> You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
>> prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
>> to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
>> suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
>> animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
>> minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
>> meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
>> parts.
>>
>> > what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
>> > violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
>> > code.
>>
>> It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
>> of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
>>
>> > Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
>> > code?
>>
>> It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."
>
> Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
> some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.
>
> You are responsible for me if you accept that premeditated murder is
> wrong. I expect you front and centre to accompany me tomorrow and keep
> me safe. Don't prove to be a hypocrite.
=====================
If you ever went to school for this, I'd go demand my money back if I were
you. They failed you miserably, fool. Logic is really really hard for
you, isn't it?

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> usual suspect > wrote:
>
>> Twink Ron wrote:
>> >>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan"
>> >>>>>>food
>> >>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>> >>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than
>> >>>>>>the
>> >>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce
>> >>>>food
>> >>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>> >>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for
>> >>>>so
>> >>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>> >>>
>> >>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>> >>
>> >>Drama queen.
>> >
>> > *bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>>
>> It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
>>
>> >>>I find you evasive.
>> >>
>> >>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>> >>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>> >
>> > Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
>> > elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>>
>> Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
>>
>> >>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>> >>>vegan is violating.
>> >>
>> >>Easy: *their own*.
>> >
>> > I'll clarify,
>>
>> You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
>> prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
>> to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
>> suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
>> animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
>> minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
>> meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
>> parts.
>>
>> > what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
>> > violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
>> > code.
>>
>> It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
>> of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
>>
>> > Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
>> > code?
>>
>> It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."
>
> Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
> some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.
>
> You are responsible for me if you accept that premeditated murder is
> wrong. I expect you front and centre to accompany me tomorrow and keep
> me safe. Don't prove to be a hypocrite.
=====================
If you ever went to school for this, I'd go demand my money back if I were
you. They failed you miserably, fool. Logic is really really hard for
you, isn't it?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Ron" > wrote
> > >
> > > [..]
> > > > IOW, we are who we are because we are individuals AND we have been
> > > > taught to be who we are -- a socialization process. Any argument of
> > > > innateness of anything requires significant evidence from my
> > > > perspective.
> > >
> > > Every living organism is hard-wired for survival, to avoid and recoil
> from
> > > harm. That is innate.
> >
> > We disagree. That just means humans experience fear and have knowledge
> > about death.
>
> False, ALL organisms gravitate towards benefit and recoil from harm, even
> rudimentary organisms and plants.

That is called projection, Dutch -- although various disciplines have
different words for the same process.

> > If you are going to claim that this is hard wired, please
> > describe the 'hard wiring'. Please describe the genetic sequence that
> > requires any of us to recoil from harm, yet to actively seek out harmful
> > situations contrary to our 'wiring'.
>
> Excitement or stimulation is a benefit which outweighs risk. It's a
> tradeoff.

Having you accept responsibility for your statements is likely an
impossibility. We were just discussing hardwiring which you were asked
to support. You failed again to support your contention with any
reasoning.

First you state that we are hardwired and then you state that we can
override hardwiring. Oh, the spoonfed.

> > > Moral precepts, like The Golden Rule, are just ways to
> > > organize behaviour in an attempt to minimize harm. Moral codes are
> flawed
> > > and inconsistent, but they are all based on the fundamental inherent
> drive
> > > to avoid harm. The suggestion that they are simply random cultural
> artifacts
> > > is wrong.
> >
> > LOL. That is YOUR objective and worldview. I find our culture extremely
> > paranoid and fearful - some moreso than others. In most cases, I find
> > that people tend to overestimate the degree of risk and harm that is
> > likely to happen.
>
> Perhaps they do, but you acknowledge that they assess risk, which is my
> point.

Well, what is my risk of having a hitman hired to kill me. I'm
estimating a number that is closest to zero. What is your view of
rational assessment of risk to me of a premeditated murder involving a
hitman? To see adults so fearful is quite sad.

> > All harm is not bad.
>
> That is an absolute statement and a strawman. It's very convenient to assert
> absolutes to make a point, but it's not a valid argument.

Odd. I used the same format that you use and then you call it a strawman
and an absolute. When I make that observation of your statements you
deny this. HOw interesting is that?

> > As I stated, I consider a 'redemption philosophy'
> > to be wholly realistic in that many 'bad' or 'evil' things in the world
> > can also be demonstrated to have positive effects and outcomes.
>
> Explain how you understand 'redemption philosophy' .

Another diversion. We have been discussing the moral code that is being
used to declare that vegans are acting immorally. YOu have failed to
respond to how the vegan's actions violate the concept of the golden
rule.

In article . net>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > usual suspect > wrote:
> >
> >> Twink Ron wrote:
> >> >>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan"
> >> >>>>>>food
> >> >>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >> >>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than
> >> >>>>>>the
> >> >>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce
> >> >>>>food
> >> >>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
> >> >>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for
> >> >>>>so
> >> >>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
> >> >>
> >> >>Drama queen.
> >> >
> >> > *bats eye lashes in flattered state*
> >>
> >> It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
> >>
> >> >>>I find you evasive.
> >> >>
> >> >>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
> >> >>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
> >> >
> >> > Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
> >> > elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
> >>
> >> Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
> >>
> >> >>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
> >> >>>vegan is violating.
> >> >>
> >> >>Easy: *their own*.
> >> >
> >> > I'll clarify,
> >>
> >> You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
> >> prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
> >> to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
> >> suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
> >> animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
> >> minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
> >> meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
> >> parts.
> >>
> >> > what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
> >> > violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
> >> > code.
> >>
> >> It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
> >> of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
> >>
> >> > Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
> >> > code?
> >>
> >> It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."
> >
> > Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
> > some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.
> >
> > You are responsible for me if you accept that premeditated murder is
> > wrong. I expect you front and centre to accompany me tomorrow and keep
> > me safe. Don't prove to be a hypocrite.
> =====================
> If you ever went to school for this, I'd go demand my money back if I were
> you. They failed you miserably, fool. Logic is really really hard for
> you, isn't it?

Arguing the status quo of one nation of many and over thousands of years
of history is just so uneducated and uninformed that I'll allow you to
further demonstrate your... well, only you can make you look bad.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > > > We call that hypocrisy where I live -- for the vegan, animal refers to
> > > > all animals (an absolute),
> > >
> > > Actually.. you're wrong again. To the vegan or ARA it refers to animals
> > > exploited and/or *killed* for the purpose of human use, they have no
> moral
> > > objection to using animals that die of natural causes.
> >
> > The same two issues emerge. HOw is this a violation of the principle of
> > the golden rule and why must they follow the golden rule because it is
> > common to Christianity and Western nations?
>
> You are just slipping out of one noose and into another. This will just go
> on forever as long as you continue this knee-jerk thinking.

Again, you avoid accountability for your comments. You stated that
actions are assessed morally based on cicumstance. Even though we
disagree, based on these statements of yours, you are still unable to
effectively argue how anything that you can claim is wrong in the
vegan's behaviour violates the golden rule.

> [..]
> > > > Thank you for finally agreeing to what I stated likely 2 weeks ago. My
> > > > moral codes are that which I learned within my culture and family and
> > > > are not inherent.
> > >
> > > They are not exclusively either one. There are inherent properties or
> > > principles in moralities as well as cultural specifics. For example,
> morals
> > > almost always hinge on some sort of harm, if there is no harm then there
> is
> > > no reason for a moral precept to exist.
> >
> > There is nothing "inherent" in the golden rule that requires action to
> > be harm free. Please clarify what you are reading into the principle "do
> > unto others as you would have them do unto you."
>
> Again, you're floundering here. The Golden Rule is a different issue.

Please be clear, Dutch. What guiding MORAL principle is the vegan
violating when they purchase rice from a grower, or tomatoes?

> > > > In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
> > > > is not right but determined by such things as time and location.
> > >
> > > Eating meat is "not wrong" in the context of the specific discussion
> between
> > > myself and a vegan. I *may* believe it is wrong under other
> circumstances.
> > > Wrong itself is also a rather vague term.
> >
> > Yet, you use the term.
>
> Yes, when the term is applied to my lifestyle, I question the person who
> uses it, then when I understand the context I respond accordingly.

That amounts to hypocrisy.

> It's called communication. What you are doing is called obfuscation.

Try a mirror, Dutch.

> > > > > > Even further, why is it morally acceptable to breed and herd cows
> for
> > > > > > slaughter, but not tigers and camels?
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you asking because you don't understand why or because you think
> I
> > > > > don't?
> > > >
> > > > Neither. I'm asking because it is easier to show the errors of logic
> by
> > > > having you put your responses in the newsgroup as you did above.
> > >
> > > Trouble is, I'm not making errors in logic.
> >
> > Arguments from popularity are exactly that.
>
> Popular ideas are not necessarily wrong. People who support popular ideas
> are not doing so necessarily *because* those ideas are popular. You are
> suffering under a delusion.

Wrong? Who said anything about wrong? I only stated that we are in
disagreement. I believe that what I said was this is commonly held
beliefs and thinking.

What moral principle are you applying when you infer that I think
something is wrong?

> > Once again, I ask how is the
> > golden rule the required morality for any human?
>
> Strawman.

The vegans who have been responding have not claimed that they are
required to follow the golden rule. You determined that this was the
guiding principle and that they must follow it. You further fail to
describe how their actions defy this guiding principle.

> > I agree it is common to
> > North American and to Christians. I agree that a multitude or religions
> > and nations support variations or earlier versions of the moral code.
> > Again, how does what is popular or common constitute logic.
>
> I would ask you that question, since you introduced the concept of
> popularity.

I argued that arguments from popularity can be viewed as a logical
fallacy. Thus far, the only reason to apply the golden rule that you
have been able to supply is one of popularity.

> > > > I can
> > > > retrive from the archives where I clearly stated that morality on
> eating
> > > > meat and morality in general was subjective and determined by the vary
> > > > factors that you FINALLY acknowledge above.
> > >
> > > I have never denied that there is a large component of subjectivity in
> > > morality, in fact I have given several illustrations of that very
> principle
> > > over the past couple of weeks. In one case I go out and commit
> premeditated
> > > murder and conclude that I have done something moral.
> >
> > Once again, you integrate legal codes with moral codes.
>
> I did the exact opposite.

How does the action you describe above violate the golden rule. To
assess the situation, the person who goes and commits premeditated
murders is like looking to be killed -- do unto others....

> > There is nothing inherent in the golden rule that requires one to view
> > killing as immoral. The act of killing another (do unto others) is the
> > desire to be killed (as you would have them do unto you). The principle
> > itself doesn't make suicide or homicide immoral.
>
> You have latched onto the "Golden Rule" like a dog with a bone. You are not
> being coherent.

Okay. Then I ask again, what is the moral principle that the vegan is
violating when they choose to buy rice or tomatoes from a grower?

> > > > You look foolish disagreeing with me then and agreeing with me now.
> > > > Further, claims of morality are ridiculous, when all we are really
> > > > speaking of is when a group of humans (X) thinks Y about any given
> issue.
> > >
> > > Why is it ridiculous to give credence to what humans think?
> >
> > That wasn't my point at all.
>
> It's precisely what you said right above. "claims of morality are
> ridiculous, when all we are really speaking of is when a group of humans (X)
> thinks Y about any given issue."
>
> You explicity said that claims of morality are ridiculous because they
> involve what a group of humans think.

Incorrect. What I was referring to again was the notion that people
gravitate to what is popular or commonly held thinking about X and then
label it as morality.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > > > We call that hypocrisy where I live -- for the vegan, animal refers to
> > > > all animals (an absolute),
> > >
> > > Actually.. you're wrong again. To the vegan or ARA it refers to animals
> > > exploited and/or *killed* for the purpose of human use, they have no
> moral
> > > objection to using animals that die of natural causes.
> >
> > The same two issues emerge. HOw is this a violation of the principle of
> > the golden rule and why must they follow the golden rule because it is
> > common to Christianity and Western nations?
>
> You are just slipping out of one noose and into another. This will just go
> on forever as long as you continue this knee-jerk thinking.

Again, you avoid accountability for your comments. You stated that
actions are assessed morally based on cicumstance. Even though we
disagree, based on these statements of yours, you are still unable to
effectively argue how anything that you can claim is wrong in the
vegan's behaviour violates the golden rule.

> [..]
> > > > Thank you for finally agreeing to what I stated likely 2 weeks ago. My
> > > > moral codes are that which I learned within my culture and family and
> > > > are not inherent.
> > >
> > > They are not exclusively either one. There are inherent properties or
> > > principles in moralities as well as cultural specifics. For example,
> morals
> > > almost always hinge on some sort of harm, if there is no harm then there
> is
> > > no reason for a moral precept to exist.
> >
> > There is nothing "inherent" in the golden rule that requires action to
> > be harm free. Please clarify what you are reading into the principle "do
> > unto others as you would have them do unto you."
>
> Again, you're floundering here. The Golden Rule is a different issue.

Please be clear, Dutch. What guiding MORAL principle is the vegan
violating when they purchase rice from a grower, or tomatoes?

> > > > In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
> > > > is not right but determined by such things as time and location.
> > >
> > > Eating meat is "not wrong" in the context of the specific discussion
> between
> > > myself and a vegan. I *may* believe it is wrong under other
> circumstances.
> > > Wrong itself is also a rather vague term.
> >
> > Yet, you use the term.
>
> Yes, when the term is applied to my lifestyle, I question the person who
> uses it, then when I understand the context I respond accordingly.

That amounts to hypocrisy.

> It's called communication. What you are doing is called obfuscation.

Try a mirror, Dutch.

> > > > > > Even further, why is it morally acceptable to breed and herd cows
> for
> > > > > > slaughter, but not tigers and camels?
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you asking because you don't understand why or because you think
> I
> > > > > don't?
> > > >
> > > > Neither. I'm asking because it is easier to show the errors of logic
> by
> > > > having you put your responses in the newsgroup as you did above.
> > >
> > > Trouble is, I'm not making errors in logic.
> >
> > Arguments from popularity are exactly that.
>
> Popular ideas are not necessarily wrong. People who support popular ideas
> are not doing so necessarily *because* those ideas are popular. You are
> suffering under a delusion.

Wrong? Who said anything about wrong? I only stated that we are in
disagreement. I believe that what I said was this is commonly held
beliefs and thinking.

What moral principle are you applying when you infer that I think
something is wrong?

> > Once again, I ask how is the
> > golden rule the required morality for any human?
>
> Strawman.

The vegans who have been responding have not claimed that they are
required to follow the golden rule. You determined that this was the
guiding principle and that they must follow it. You further fail to
describe how their actions defy this guiding principle.

> > I agree it is common to
> > North American and to Christians. I agree that a multitude or religions
> > and nations support variations or earlier versions of the moral code.
> > Again, how does what is popular or common constitute logic.
>
> I would ask you that question, since you introduced the concept of
> popularity.

I argued that arguments from popularity can be viewed as a logical
fallacy. Thus far, the only reason to apply the golden rule that you
have been able to supply is one of popularity.

> > > > I can
> > > > retrive from the archives where I clearly stated that morality on
> eating
> > > > meat and morality in general was subjective and determined by the vary
> > > > factors that you FINALLY acknowledge above.
> > >
> > > I have never denied that there is a large component of subjectivity in
> > > morality, in fact I have given several illustrations of that very
> principle
> > > over the past couple of weeks. In one case I go out and commit
> premeditated
> > > murder and conclude that I have done something moral.
> >
> > Once again, you integrate legal codes with moral codes.
>
> I did the exact opposite.

How does the action you describe above violate the golden rule. To
assess the situation, the person who goes and commits premeditated
murders is like looking to be killed -- do unto others....

> > There is nothing inherent in the golden rule that requires one to view
> > killing as immoral. The act of killing another (do unto others) is the
> > desire to be killed (as you would have them do unto you). The principle
> > itself doesn't make suicide or homicide immoral.
>
> You have latched onto the "Golden Rule" like a dog with a bone. You are not
> being coherent.

Okay. Then I ask again, what is the moral principle that the vegan is
violating when they choose to buy rice or tomatoes from a grower?

> > > > You look foolish disagreeing with me then and agreeing with me now.
> > > > Further, claims of morality are ridiculous, when all we are really
> > > > speaking of is when a group of humans (X) thinks Y about any given
> issue.
> > >
> > > Why is it ridiculous to give credence to what humans think?
> >
> > That wasn't my point at all.
>
> It's precisely what you said right above. "claims of morality are
> ridiculous, when all we are really speaking of is when a group of humans (X)
> thinks Y about any given issue."
>
> You explicity said that claims of morality are ridiculous because they
> involve what a group of humans think.

Incorrect. What I was referring to again was the notion that people
gravitate to what is popular or commonly held thinking about X and then
label it as morality.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote...
> > Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > > -snip-
> > >
> > > The rest is such nonsense I can't bear to read it.
> >
> > The golden rule -- can we assume that you no longer wish me to read your
> > remarks.
>
> That would be great.

Good thing that we view moral codes differently.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote...
> > Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > > -snip-
> > >
> > > The rest is such nonsense I can't bear to read it.
> >
> > The golden rule -- can we assume that you no longer wish me to read your
> > remarks.
>
> That would be great.

Good thing that we view moral codes differently.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Ron" > wrote
> > > > "Dutch" > wrote:
> > >
> > > [..]
> > > > > >> > As I stated previously, it is consistent with the thinking of a
> > > child
> > > > > >> > to
> > > > > >> > think that one is responsible for the outcome of other people's
> > > > > >> > actions.
> > > > > >> > It is what many of us are taught as children. As adults,
> however,
> > > we
> > > > > >> > recognize the accountability and responsibility of the
> individual
> > > for
> > > > > >> > their own actions.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Aiding and/or abetting are NOT actions? Why are we responsible
> for
> > > our
> > > > > >> own
> > > > > >> actions in other cases but not then?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How do I perform the act of aiding if you are going to insist that
> it
> > > is
> > > > > > an action?
> > > > >
> > > > > Any number of ways, read the article I linked below.
> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Who taught the indigenous populations of Africa
> > > > > >> > > > or Australia that they were responsible for the outcomes of
> > > other
> > > > > >> > > > people's actions?
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > See above
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Read http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tcmplicty.html
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > This is further evidence of the problem of such thinking.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Define the problem.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > An accomplice
> > > > > >> > to murder is not the murderer. An accomplice to theft is not
> the
> > > thief.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> An accomplice is an accomplice, to use your tautological form.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yup. An accomplice is an accomplice. We agree.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, I'm happy we can at least agree on self-evident truths. An
> > > accomplice
> > > > > is held accountable *as* such, not for "the actions of another
> person"
> > > as
> > > > > you have so often and wrongly alleged.
> > > >
> > > > Now, that we have that in print, I ask again -- when a farmer in
> Mexico
> > > > kills an amphibian in Mexico and a consumer is in Canada who is
> > > > responsible for the action and the outcome of growing the food and
> > > > killing the amphibian?
> > >
> > > As with any "act", responsibility is distributed among all parties who
> > > knowingly participate in it for their benefit.
> >
> > What part of the moral code of "do unto others" are you finding this?
>
> "Do unto others" is not a moral code, it's a guideline.
>
> > > In this case the "act" is rooted in your hunger, your desire for
> tomatoes,
> > > and through your ability to pay it is linked via wholesalers and
> retailers
> > > to a farmer in Mexico who receives a portion of your dollar to kill an
> > > amphibian in the process of cultivating the tomato field. The tomato is
> more
> > > than a red vegetable, it tells a story.
> >
> > Sorry. You've argued that the moral principle at work is the golden
> > rule.
>
> No, I didn't.
>
> I agree that this is common to North America and Christianity. I,
> > however, fail to see how complicity is in any way related to this moral
> > code. Please clarify.
>
> You're hopelessly confused Ron.
>
> > > > Further, since the act of growing tomatoes is not illegal, how have
> you
> > > > determined that the Canadian in the example to be an accomplice?
> > >
> > > There you go confusing legality and moral complicity again.
> >
> > See above. Complicity has nothing to do with the statement or phrase "do
> > unto others as you would have them do unto you." It seems there are
> > other moral codes being operationalized that you are not stating here.
>
> It seems you are obfuscating.
>
> > > > > > The problem, Dutch, has been defined.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When and were is the notion of accomplices extant or the principle
> > > valid?
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know precisely, but I suspect it began very early in the
> > > development
> > > > > of homo sapiens social groups.
> > > >
> > > > An opinion? A belief? Something that you hold as true without
> evidence.
> > >
> > > A suspicion. I haven't read anything about that specifically. It would
> be
> > > under anthropology.
> > >
> > > > One might even call that faith.
> > >
> > > Or a guess.
> >
> > Same thing -- different word.
>
> No, different concept.
>
> > > > One could even regard the criminal code
> > > > as the sacred text of a religion and be consistent with this as
> religion
> > > > by form and function.
> > >
> > > That could be argued, but to what purpose?
> >
> > I'm noting your observation of the vegan
>
> Are we still talking about vegans?
>
> > seems to be how you are
> > treating the law -- a religion in form and function.
>
> No.

Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law, the
new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.

> > The law becomes the
> > sacred text. There are "prophets" that are quoted as being the
> > authorities and so on. Beliefs, moral codes, rules of conduct (where our
> > disagreement appears) are the requirements of the practice of the
> > religion.
>
> Not convincing.

I think it is quite convincing. What is being demanded of the vegan fits
quite well with my observation of the law as a religion by function.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > usual suspect > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Twink Ron wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan"
>> >> >>>>>>food
>> >> >>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>> >> >>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than
>> >> >>>>>>the
>> >> >>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to
>> >> >>>>produce
>> >> >>>>food
>> >> >>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>> >> >>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you
>> >> >>>>for
>> >> >>>>so
>> >> >>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Drama queen.
>> >> >
>> >> > *bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>> >>
>> >> It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
>> >>
>> >> >>>I find you evasive.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others
>> >> >>have
>> >> >>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>> >> >
>> >> > Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
>> >> > elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>> >>
>> >> Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
>> >>
>> >> >>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>> >> >>>vegan is violating.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Easy: *their own*.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'll clarify,
>> >>
>> >> You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
>> >> prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
>> >> to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
>> >> suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
>> >> animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them
>> >> to
>> >> minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
>> >> meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
>> >> parts.
>> >>
>> >> > what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
>> >> > violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
>> >> > code.
>> >>
>> >> It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous
>> >> amounts
>> >> of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
>> >>
>> >> > Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
>> >> > code?
>> >>
>> >> It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."
>> >
>> > Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
>> > some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.
>> >
>> > You are responsible for me if you accept that premeditated murder is
>> > wrong. I expect you front and centre to accompany me tomorrow and keep
>> > me safe. Don't prove to be a hypocrite.
>> =====================
>> If you ever went to school for this, I'd go demand my money back if I
>> were
>> you. They failed you miserably, fool. Logic is really really hard for
>> you, isn't it?
>
> Arguing the status quo of one nation of many and over thousands of years
> of history is just so uneducated and uninformed that I'll allow you to
> further demonstrate your... well, only you can make you look bad.
=======================
I see you're reduced to just babbling now, eh pansy-boy?

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > usual suspect > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Twink Ron wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan"
>> >> >>>>>>food
>> >> >>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>> >> >>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than
>> >> >>>>>>the
>> >> >>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to
>> >> >>>>produce
>> >> >>>>food
>> >> >>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>> >> >>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you
>> >> >>>>for
>> >> >>>>so
>> >> >>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Drama queen.
>> >> >
>> >> > *bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>> >>
>> >> It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
>> >>
>> >> >>>I find you evasive.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others
>> >> >>have
>> >> >>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>> >> >
>> >> > Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
>> >> > elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>> >>
>> >> Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
>> >>
>> >> >>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>> >> >>>vegan is violating.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Easy: *their own*.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'll clarify,
>> >>
>> >> You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
>> >> prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
>> >> to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
>> >> suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
>> >> animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them
>> >> to
>> >> minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
>> >> meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
>> >> parts.
>> >>
>> >> > what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
>> >> > violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
>> >> > code.
>> >>
>> >> It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous
>> >> amounts
>> >> of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
>> >>
>> >> > Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
>> >> > code?
>> >>
>> >> It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."
>> >
>> > Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
>> > some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.
>> >
>> > You are responsible for me if you accept that premeditated murder is
>> > wrong. I expect you front and centre to accompany me tomorrow and keep
>> > me safe. Don't prove to be a hypocrite.
>> =====================
>> If you ever went to school for this, I'd go demand my money back if I
>> were
>> you. They failed you miserably, fool. Logic is really really hard for
>> you, isn't it?
>
> Arguing the status quo of one nation of many and over thousands of years
> of history is just so uneducated and uninformed that I'll allow you to
> further demonstrate your... well, only you can make you look bad.
=======================
I see you're reduced to just babbling now, eh pansy-boy?

Ron wrote:
> In article >,
> usual suspect > wrote:
>
>
>>Twink Ron wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
>>>>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>>>>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>>>>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>>>>
>>>>Drama queen.
>>>
>>>*bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>>
>>It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
>>
>>
>>>>>I find you evasive.
>>>>
>>>>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>>>>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>>>
>>>Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
>>>elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>>
>>Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
>>
>>
>>>>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>>>>>vegan is violating.
>>>>
>>>>Easy: *their own*.
>>>
>>>I'll clarify,
>>
>>You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
>>prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
>>to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
>>suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
>>animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
>>minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
>>meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
>>parts.
>>
>>
>>>what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
>>>violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
>>>code.
>>
>>It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
>>of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
>>
>>
>>>Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
>>>code?
>>
>>It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."
>
>
> Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
> some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.

He doesn't believe that "vegans" are responsible for
the actions of other. He believes, quite rightly, that
they share in responsibility for the deaths of animals
that are caused to produced the food they eat.

I suspect you *could* know that if you wanted to, but
because you're a snarky little sophist interested
solely in the appearance of cleverness rather than the
substance of learning, you choose to keep your eyes
firmly shut. Nice.

Ron wrote:
> In article >,
> usual suspect > wrote:
>
>
>>Twink Ron wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
>>>>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>>>>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>>>>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>>>>
>>>>Drama queen.
>>>
>>>*bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>>
>>It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
>>
>>
>>>>>I find you evasive.
>>>>
>>>>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>>>>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>>>
>>>Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
>>>elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>>
>>Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
>>
>>
>>>>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>>>>>vegan is violating.
>>>>
>>>>Easy: *their own*.
>>>
>>>I'll clarify,
>>
>>You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
>>prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
>>to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
>>suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
>>animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
>>minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
>>meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
>>parts.
>>
>>
>>>what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
>>>violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
>>>code.
>>
>>It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
>>of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
>>
>>
>>>Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
>>>code?
>>
>>It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."
>
>
> Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
> some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.

He doesn't believe that "vegans" are responsible for
the actions of other. He believes, quite rightly, that
they share in responsibility for the deaths of animals
that are caused to produced the food they eat.

I suspect you *could* know that if you wanted to, but
because you're a snarky little sophist interested
solely in the appearance of cleverness rather than the
substance of learning, you choose to keep your eyes
firmly shut. Nice.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
[..]
>> > > > IOW, we are who we are because we are individuals AND we have been
>> > > > taught to be who we are -- a socialization process. Any argument of
>> > > > innateness of anything requires significant evidence from my
>> > > > perspective.
>> > >
>> > > Every living organism is hard-wired for survival, to avoid and recoil
>> from
>> > > harm. That is innate.
>> >
>> > We disagree. That just means humans experience fear and have knowledge
>> > about death.
>>
>> False, ALL organisms gravitate towards benefit and recoil from harm, even
>> rudimentary organisms and plants.
>
> That is called projection, Dutch -- although various disciplines have
> different words for the same process.

What is called projection? Recoiling and/or defending from threats is
instinctive in all organisms.

>> > If you are going to claim that this is hard wired, please
>> > describe the 'hard wiring'. Please describe the genetic sequence that
>> > requires any of us to recoil from harm, yet to actively seek out
>> > harmful
>> > situations contrary to our 'wiring'.
>>
>> Excitement or stimulation is a benefit which outweighs risk. It's a
>> tradeoff.
>
> Having you accept responsibility for your statements is likely an
> impossibility. We were just discussing hardwiring which you were asked
> to support. You failed again to support your contention with any
> reasoning.

Do a bit of Googling for hardwire, fight or fight, organism, you'll find a
plethora of information that will confirm it for you. Of course since it's
not what you want to hear, you won't do this, you'll invent some ruse like
saying the internet is not a valid source of information.

> First you state that we are hardwired and then you state that we can
> override hardwiring.

What makes you think that being hardwired implies that it can't overriden?
What if two hardwired impulses conflict? We sublimate instinctive urges all
the time.

> Oh, the spoonfed.

There's that knee-jerk rejection of "conventional wisdom" again. Is it a
fear of being uncool, or what?

>> > > Moral precepts, like The Golden Rule, are just ways to
>> > > organize behaviour in an attempt to minimize harm. Moral codes are
>> flawed
>> > > and inconsistent, but they are all based on the fundamental inherent
>> drive
>> > > to avoid harm. The suggestion that they are simply random cultural
>> artifacts
>> > > is wrong.
>> >
>> > LOL. That is YOUR objective and worldview. I find our culture extremely
>> > paranoid and fearful - some moreso than others. In most cases, I find
>> > that people tend to overestimate the degree of risk and harm that is
>> > likely to happen.
>>
>> Perhaps they do, but you acknowledge that they assess risk, which is my
>> point.
>
> Well, what is my risk of having a hitman hired to kill me. I'm
> estimating a number that is closest to zero. What is your view of
> rational assessment of risk to me of a premeditated murder involving a
> hitman? To see adults so fearful is quite sad.

I have never known a person in my life who feared a hit man. What is sad?
People assess realistic risks all the time, like driving too fast, drinking
and driving, skiing out of bounds...

That's not sad, it's smart.

>> > All harm is not bad.
>>
>> That is an absolute statement and a strawman. It's very convenient to
>> assert
>> absolutes to make a point, but it's not a valid argument.
>
> Odd. I used the same format that you use and then you call it a strawman
> and an absolute.

Where did I use a strawman or an absolute statement as an argument?

> When I make that observation of your statements you
> deny this. HOw interesting is that?

Since it's another example of an unsupported statement by you, not very,
just typical.

>
>> > As I stated, I consider a 'redemption philosophy'
>> > to be wholly realistic in that many 'bad' or 'evil' things in the world
>> > can also be demonstrated to have positive effects and outcomes.
>>
>> Explain how you understand 'redemption philosophy' .
>
> Another diversion.

Diversion? YOU introduced it, now you refuse to explain what you mean??

> We have been discussing the moral code that is being
> used to declare that vegans are acting immorally.

Yeah, you've been asking cogent questions like "what's the name of the moral
code?" NOT.

> YOu have failed to
> respond to how the vegan's actions violate the concept of the golden
> rule.

You just cobble these question together in the desperate hope that
eventually one will make sense don't you? Does that make you cool?

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> > > > We call that hypocrisy where I live -- for the vegan, animal refers
>> > > > to
>> > > > all animals (an absolute),
>> > >
>> > > Actually.. you're wrong again. To the vegan or ARA it refers to
>> > > animals
>> > > exploited and/or *killed* for the purpose of human use, they have no
>> moral
>> > > objection to using animals that die of natural causes.
>> >
>> > The same two issues emerge. HOw is this a violation of the principle of
>> > the golden rule and why must they follow the golden rule because it is
>> > common to Christianity and Western nations?
>>
>> You are just slipping out of one noose and into another. This will just
>> go
>> on forever as long as you continue this knee-jerk thinking.
>
> Again, you avoid accountability for your comments.

Not my comments, an irrationally cobbled-together bunch of comments with a
question mark at the end?

>You stated that
> actions are assessed morally based on cicumstance.

Indisputable.

> Even though we
> disagree, based on these statements of yours, you are still unable to
> effectively argue how anything that you can claim is wrong in the
> vegan's behaviour violates the golden rule.

Incoherent nonsense.

>
>> [..]
>> > > > Thank you for finally agreeing to what I stated likely 2 weeks ago.
>> > > > My
>> > > > moral codes are that which I learned within my culture and family
>> > > > and
>> > > > are not inherent.
>> > >
>> > > They are not exclusively either one. There are inherent properties or
>> > > principles in moralities as well as cultural specifics. For example,
>> morals
>> > > almost always hinge on some sort of harm, if there is no harm then
>> > > there
>> is
>> > > no reason for a moral precept to exist.
>> >
>> > There is nothing "inherent" in the golden rule that requires action to
>> > be harm free. Please clarify what you are reading into the principle
>> > "do
>> > unto others as you would have them do unto you."
>>
>> Again, you're floundering here. The Golden Rule is a different issue.
>
> Please be clear, Dutch. What guiding MORAL principle is the vegan
> violating when they purchase rice from a grower, or tomatoes?

Whew! finally a coherent question, I suppose it was inevitable.

Tolerating other people killing animals on their behalf in the production of
food while attacking and demonizing good people for doing the same thing.

>> > > > In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
>> > > > is not right but determined by such things as time and location.
>> > >
>> > > Eating meat is "not wrong" in the context of the specific discussion
>> between
>> > > myself and a vegan. I *may* believe it is wrong under other
>> circumstances.
>> > > Wrong itself is also a rather vague term.
>> >
>> > Yet, you use the term.
>>
>> Yes, when the term is applied to my lifestyle, I question the person who
>> uses it, then when I understand the context I respond accordingly.
>
> That amounts to hypocrisy.

No it amounts to using words responsibly and rationally based on agreed upon
meanings.

>> It's called communication. What you are doing is called obfuscation.
>
> Try a mirror, Dutch.

Yes, please do Ron.

>
>> > > > > > Even further, why is it morally acceptable to breed and herd
>> > > > > > cows
>> for
>> > > > > > slaughter, but not tigers and camels?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Are you asking because you don't understand why or because you
>> > > > > think
>> I
>> > > > > don't?
>> > > >
>> > > > Neither. I'm asking because it is easier to show the errors of
>> > > > logic
>> by
>> > > > having you put your responses in the newsgroup as you did above.
>> > >
>> > > Trouble is, I'm not making errors in logic.
>> >
>> > Arguments from popularity are exactly that.
>>
>> Popular ideas are not necessarily wrong. People who support popular ideas
>> are not doing so necessarily *because* those ideas are popular. You are
>> suffering under a delusion.
>
> Wrong? Who said anything about wrong? I only stated that we are in
> disagreement. I believe that what I said was this is commonly held
> beliefs and thinking.
>
> What moral principle are you applying when you infer that I think
> something is wrong?

Tch tch, Ron, don't bullshit me. Every time you hear an idea that smacks of
"conventional wisdom" you sneer "Spoonfed" as if an idea is believed by many
people it is wrong by defnition.

>> > Once again, I ask how is the
>> > golden rule the required morality for any human?
>>
>> Strawman.
>
> The vegans who have been responding have not claimed that they are
> required to follow the golden rule. You determined that this was the
> guiding principle and that they must follow it. You further fail to
> describe how their actions defy this guiding principle.

I did actually describe it explicitly, but the question misses the mark by
so much it hardly matters.
>
>> > I agree it is common to
>> > North American and to Christians. I agree that a multitude or religions
>> > and nations support variations or earlier versions of the moral code.
>> > Again, how does what is popular or common constitute logic.
>>
>> I would ask you that question, since you introduced the concept of
>> popularity.
>
> I argued that arguments from popularity can be viewed as a logical
> fallacy.

You have never even attempted to establish that anything I have said was an
argument from popularity, you simply asserted it then proceeded as if it
were proven.

> Thus far, the only reason to apply the golden rule that you
> have been able to supply is one of popularity.

This degree of blind stupidity is bordering on the unforgivable. I have
explained the rationale behind the golden rule at least once in detail. Are
you not reading my responses? If not, then why should I continue?

>> > > > I can
>> > > > retrive from the archives where I clearly stated that morality on
>> eating
>> > > > meat and morality in general was subjective and determined by the
>> > > > vary
>> > > > factors that you FINALLY acknowledge above.
>> > >
>> > > I have never denied that there is a large component of subjectivity
>> > > in
>> > > morality, in fact I have given several illustrations of that very
>> principle
>> > > over the past couple of weeks. In one case I go out and commit
>> premeditated
>> > > murder and conclude that I have done something moral.
>> >
>> > Once again, you integrate legal codes with moral codes.
>>
>> I did the exact opposite.
>
> How does the action you describe above violate the golden rule. To
> assess the situation, the person who goes and commits premeditated
> murders is like looking to be killed -- do unto others....

Don't move the goalposts slimeball, I did the opposite of integrate legal
with moral, GET IT? Read it until you do.

>> > There is nothing inherent in the golden rule that requires one to view
>> > killing as immoral. The act of killing another (do unto others) is the
>> > desire to be killed (as you would have them do unto you). The principle
>> > itself doesn't make suicide or homicide immoral.
>>
>> You have latched onto the "Golden Rule" like a dog with a bone. You are
>> not
>> being coherent.
>
> Okay. Then I ask again, what is the moral principle that the vegan is
> violating when they choose to buy rice or tomatoes from a grower?

Their own.

>> > > > You look foolish disagreeing with me then and agreeing with me now.
>> > > > Further, claims of morality are ridiculous, when all we are really
>> > > > speaking of is when a group of humans (X) thinks Y about any given
>> issue.
>> > >
>> > > Why is it ridiculous to give credence to what humans think?
>> >
>> > That wasn't my point at all.
>>
>> It's precisely what you said right above. "claims of morality are
>> ridiculous, when all we are really speaking of is when a group of humans
>> (X)
>> thinks Y about any given issue."
>>
>> You explicity said that claims of morality are ridiculous because they
>> involve what a group of humans think.
>
> Incorrect. What I was referring to again was the notion that people
> gravitate to what is popular or commonly held thinking about X and then
> label it as morality.

Why is it relevant that the thinking is commonly held? You appear to be
embracing a reverse version of "argumentum ad populum" and calling that
wisdom.

The Ron plan goes like this.. since people who simply accept popular ideas
willy-nilly are committing an error in thinking, I will avoid that error by
simply rejecting popular ideas out of hand.

The main difference between them and you is only that they are probably
right more of the time.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> > > > We call that hypocrisy where I live -- for the vegan, animal refers
>> > > > to
>> > > > all animals (an absolute),
>> > >
>> > > Actually.. you're wrong again. To the vegan or ARA it refers to
>> > > animals
>> > > exploited and/or *killed* for the purpose of human use, they have no
>> moral
>> > > objection to using animals that die of natural causes.
>> >
>> > The same two issues emerge. HOw is this a violation of the principle of
>> > the golden rule and why must they follow the golden rule because it is
>> > common to Christianity and Western nations?
>>
>> You are just slipping out of one noose and into another. This will just
>> go
>> on forever as long as you continue this knee-jerk thinking.
>
> Again, you avoid accountability for your comments.

Not my comments, an irrationally cobbled-together bunch of comments with a
question mark at the end?

>You stated that
> actions are assessed morally based on cicumstance.

Indisputable.

> Even though we
> disagree, based on these statements of yours, you are still unable to
> effectively argue how anything that you can claim is wrong in the
> vegan's behaviour violates the golden rule.

Incoherent nonsense.

>
>> [..]
>> > > > Thank you for finally agreeing to what I stated likely 2 weeks ago.
>> > > > My
>> > > > moral codes are that which I learned within my culture and family
>> > > > and
>> > > > are not inherent.
>> > >
>> > > They are not exclusively either one. There are inherent properties or
>> > > principles in moralities as well as cultural specifics. For example,
>> morals
>> > > almost always hinge on some sort of harm, if there is no harm then
>> > > there
>> is
>> > > no reason for a moral precept to exist.
>> >
>> > There is nothing "inherent" in the golden rule that requires action to
>> > be harm free. Please clarify what you are reading into the principle
>> > "do
>> > unto others as you would have them do unto you."
>>
>> Again, you're floundering here. The Golden Rule is a different issue.
>
> Please be clear, Dutch. What guiding MORAL principle is the vegan
> violating when they purchase rice from a grower, or tomatoes?

Whew! finally a coherent question, I suppose it was inevitable.

Tolerating other people killing animals on their behalf in the production of
food while attacking and demonizing good people for doing the same thing.

>> > > > In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
>> > > > is not right but determined by such things as time and location.
>> > >
>> > > Eating meat is "not wrong" in the context of the specific discussion
>> between
>> > > myself and a vegan. I *may* believe it is wrong under other
>> circumstances.
>> > > Wrong itself is also a rather vague term.
>> >
>> > Yet, you use the term.
>>
>> Yes, when the term is applied to my lifestyle, I question the person who
>> uses it, then when I understand the context I respond accordingly.
>
> That amounts to hypocrisy.

No it amounts to using words responsibly and rationally based on agreed upon
meanings.

>> It's called communication. What you are doing is called obfuscation.
>
> Try a mirror, Dutch.

Yes, please do Ron.

>
>> > > > > > Even further, why is it morally acceptable to breed and herd
>> > > > > > cows
>> for
>> > > > > > slaughter, but not tigers and camels?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Are you asking because you don't understand why or because you
>> > > > > think
>> I
>> > > > > don't?
>> > > >
>> > > > Neither. I'm asking because it is easier to show the errors of
>> > > > logic
>> by
>> > > > having you put your responses in the newsgroup as you did above.
>> > >
>> > > Trouble is, I'm not making errors in logic.
>> >
>> > Arguments from popularity are exactly that.
>>
>> Popular ideas are not necessarily wrong. People who support popular ideas
>> are not doing so necessarily *because* those ideas are popular. You are
>> suffering under a delusion.
>
> Wrong? Who said anything about wrong? I only stated that we are in
> disagreement. I believe that what I said was this is commonly held
> beliefs and thinking.
>
> What moral principle are you applying when you infer that I think
> something is wrong?

Tch tch, Ron, don't bullshit me. Every time you hear an idea that smacks of
"conventional wisdom" you sneer "Spoonfed" as if an idea is believed by many
people it is wrong by defnition.

>> > Once again, I ask how is the
>> > golden rule the required morality for any human?
>>
>> Strawman.
>
> The vegans who have been responding have not claimed that they are
> required to follow the golden rule. You determined that this was the
> guiding principle and that they must follow it. You further fail to
> describe how their actions defy this guiding principle.

I did actually describe it explicitly, but the question misses the mark by
so much it hardly matters.
>
>> > I agree it is common to
>> > North American and to Christians. I agree that a multitude or religions
>> > and nations support variations or earlier versions of the moral code.
>> > Again, how does what is popular or common constitute logic.
>>
>> I would ask you that question, since you introduced the concept of
>> popularity.
>
> I argued that arguments from popularity can be viewed as a logical
> fallacy.

You have never even attempted to establish that anything I have said was an
argument from popularity, you simply asserted it then proceeded as if it
were proven.

> Thus far, the only reason to apply the golden rule that you
> have been able to supply is one of popularity.

This degree of blind stupidity is bordering on the unforgivable. I have
explained the rationale behind the golden rule at least once in detail. Are
you not reading my responses? If not, then why should I continue?

>> > > > I can
>> > > > retrive from the archives where I clearly stated that morality on
>> eating
>> > > > meat and morality in general was subjective and determined by the
>> > > > vary
>> > > > factors that you FINALLY acknowledge above.
>> > >
>> > > I have never denied that there is a large component of subjectivity
>> > > in
>> > > morality, in fact I have given several illustrations of that very
>> principle
>> > > over the past couple of weeks. In one case I go out and commit
>> premeditated
>> > > murder and conclude that I have done something moral.
>> >
>> > Once again, you integrate legal codes with moral codes.
>>
>> I did the exact opposite.
>
> How does the action you describe above violate the golden rule. To
> assess the situation, the person who goes and commits premeditated
> murders is like looking to be killed -- do unto others....

Don't move the goalposts slimeball, I did the opposite of integrate legal
with moral, GET IT? Read it until you do.

>> > There is nothing inherent in the golden rule that requires one to view
>> > killing as immoral. The act of killing another (do unto others) is the
>> > desire to be killed (as you would have them do unto you). The principle
>> > itself doesn't make suicide or homicide immoral.
>>
>> You have latched onto the "Golden Rule" like a dog with a bone. You are
>> not
>> being coherent.
>
> Okay. Then I ask again, what is the moral principle that the vegan is
> violating when they choose to buy rice or tomatoes from a grower?

Their own.

>> > > > You look foolish disagreeing with me then and agreeing with me now.
>> > > > Further, claims of morality are ridiculous, when all we are really
>> > > > speaking of is when a group of humans (X) thinks Y about any given
>> issue.
>> > >
>> > > Why is it ridiculous to give credence to what humans think?
>> >
>> > That wasn't my point at all.
>>
>> It's precisely what you said right above. "claims of morality are
>> ridiculous, when all we are really speaking of is when a group of humans
>> (X)
>> thinks Y about any given issue."
>>
>> You explicity said that claims of morality are ridiculous because they
>> involve what a group of humans think.
>
> Incorrect. What I was referring to again was the notion that people
> gravitate to what is popular or commonly held thinking about X and then
> label it as morality.

Why is it relevant that the thinking is commonly held? You appear to be
embracing a reverse version of "argumentum ad populum" and calling that
wisdom.

The Ron plan goes like this.. since people who simply accept popular ideas
willy-nilly are committing an error in thinking, I will avoid that error by
simply rejecting popular ideas out of hand.

The main difference between them and you is only that they are probably
right more of the time.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

>> > > -snip-
>> > >
>> > > The rest is such nonsense I can't bear to read it.
>> >
>> > The golden rule -- can we assume that you no longer wish me to read
>> > your
>> > remarks.
>>
>> That would be great.
>
> Good thing that we view moral codes differently.

It's definitely good for me that I don't think like you.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

>> > > -snip-
>> > >
>> > > The rest is such nonsense I can't bear to read it.
>> >
>> > The golden rule -- can we assume that you no longer wish me to read
>> > your
>> > remarks.
>>
>> That would be great.
>
> Good thing that we view moral codes differently.

It's definitely good for me that I don't think like you.

"Ron" > wrote

> Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law, the
> new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.

They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain food.

>> > The law becomes the
>> > sacred text. There are "prophets" that are quoted as being the
>> > authorities and so on. Beliefs, moral codes, rules of conduct (where
>> > our
>> > disagreement appears) are the requirements of the practice of the
>> > religion.
>>
>> Not convincing.
>
> I think it is quite convincing. What is being demanded of the vegan fits
> quite well with my observation of the law as a religion by function.

I don't understand what you're saying, but if it is that veganism resembles
a religion in some ways, I agree.

"Ron" > wrote

> Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law, the
> new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.

They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain food.

>> > The law becomes the
>> > sacred text. There are "prophets" that are quoted as being the
>> > authorities and so on. Beliefs, moral codes, rules of conduct (where
>> > our
>> > disagreement appears) are the requirements of the practice of the
>> > religion.
>>
>> Not convincing.
>
> I think it is quite convincing. What is being demanded of the vegan fits
> quite well with my observation of the law as a religion by function.

I don't understand what you're saying, but if it is that veganism resembles
a religion in some ways, I agree.

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article >,
> > usual suspect > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Twink Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
> >>>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >>>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
> >>>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce
> >>>>>>food
> >>>>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
> >>>>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
> >>>>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
> >>>>
> >>>>Drama queen.
> >>>
> >>>*bats eye lashes in flattered state*
> >>
> >>It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>I find you evasive.
> >>>>
> >>>>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
> >>>>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
> >>>
> >>>Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
> >>>elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
> >>
> >>Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
> >>>>>vegan is violating.
> >>>>
> >>>>Easy: *their own*.
> >>>
> >>>I'll clarify,
> >>
> >>You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
> >>prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
> >>to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
> >>suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
> >>animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
> >>minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
> >>meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
> >>parts.
> >>
> >>
> >>>what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
> >>>violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
> >>>code.
> >>
> >>It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
> >>of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
> >>>code?
> >>
> >>It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."
> >
> >
> > Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
> > some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.
>
> He doesn't believe that "vegans" are responsible for
> the actions of other. He believes, quite rightly, that
> they share in responsibility for the deaths of animals
> that are caused to produced the food they eat.

What principle causes shared responsibility for another's actions. I can
attribute as much responsibility as I care to others, but the reality of
the situation is that when I type my response I am in complete control
of my actions. I could blame you. I wouldn't respond if you didn't type
your response. But again, I am the one operating my body and the
keyboard. I can attribute responsibility to any other poster here.
Again, I am the one operating my computer and deciding which words will
be entered into the appropriate screen and clicking "send".

> I suspect you *could* know that if you wanted to, but
> because you're a snarky little sophist interested
> solely in the appearance of cleverness rather than the
> substance of learning, you choose to keep your eyes
> firmly shut. Nice.

*sniffles in mock hurt*

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article >,
> > usual suspect > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Twink Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
> >>>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >>>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
> >>>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce
> >>>>>>food
> >>>>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
> >>>>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
> >>>>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
> >>>>
> >>>>Drama queen.
> >>>
> >>>*bats eye lashes in flattered state*
> >>
> >>It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>I find you evasive.
> >>>>
> >>>>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
> >>>>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
> >>>
> >>>Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
> >>>elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
> >>
> >>Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
> >>>>>vegan is violating.
> >>>>
> >>>>Easy: *their own*.
> >>>
> >>>I'll clarify,
> >>
> >>You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
> >>prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
> >>to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
> >>suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
> >>animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
> >>minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
> >>meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
> >>parts.
> >>
> >>
> >>>what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
> >>>violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
> >>>code.
> >>
> >>It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
> >>of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
> >>>code?
> >>
> >>It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."
> >
> >
> > Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
> > some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.
>
> He doesn't believe that "vegans" are responsible for
> the actions of other. He believes, quite rightly, that
> they share in responsibility for the deaths of animals
> that are caused to produced the food they eat.

What principle causes shared responsibility for another's actions. I can
attribute as much responsibility as I care to others, but the reality of
the situation is that when I type my response I am in complete control
of my actions. I could blame you. I wouldn't respond if you didn't type
your response. But again, I am the one operating my body and the
keyboard. I can attribute responsibility to any other poster here.
Again, I am the one operating my computer and deciding which words will
be entered into the appropriate screen and clicking "send".

> I suspect you *could* know that if you wanted to, but
> because you're a snarky little sophist interested
> solely in the appearance of cleverness rather than the
> substance of learning, you choose to keep your eyes
> firmly shut. Nice.

*sniffles in mock hurt*

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> usual suspect > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Twink Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce
>>>>>>>>food
>>>>>>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>>>>>>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>>>>>>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Drama queen.
>>>>>
>>>>>*bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>>>>
>>>>It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>I find you evasive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>>>>>>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>>>>>
>>>>>Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
>>>>>elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>>>>
>>>>Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>>>>>>>vegan is violating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Easy: *their own*.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'll clarify,
>>>>
>>>>You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
>>>>prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
>>>>to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
>>>>suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
>>>>animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
>>>>minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
>>>>meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
>>>>parts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
>>>>>violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
>>>>>code.
>>>>
>>>>It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
>>>>of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
>>>>>code?
>>>>
>>>>It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
>>>some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.
>>
>>He doesn't believe that "vegans" are responsible for
>>the actions of other. He believes, quite rightly, that
>>they share in responsibility for the deaths of animals
>>that are caused to produced the food they eat.
>
>
> What principle causes shared responsibility for another's actions.

Get it right first - learn to read first - and you
might get a better response. No one is positing
"shared responsibility" for another's ACTIONS. Reread
it, dummy.

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> usual suspect > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Twink Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce
>>>>>>>>food
>>>>>>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>>>>>>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>>>>>>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Drama queen.
>>>>>
>>>>>*bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>>>>
>>>>It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>I find you evasive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>>>>>>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>>>>>
>>>>>Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
>>>>>elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>>>>
>>>>Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>>>>>>>vegan is violating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Easy: *their own*.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'll clarify,
>>>>
>>>>You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
>>>>prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
>>>>to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
>>>>suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
>>>>animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
>>>>minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
>>>>meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
>>>>parts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
>>>>>violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
>>>>>code.
>>>>
>>>>It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
>>>>of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
>>>>>code?
>>>>
>>>>It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
>>>some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.
>>
>>He doesn't believe that "vegans" are responsible for
>>the actions of other. He believes, quite rightly, that
>>they share in responsibility for the deaths of animals
>>that are caused to produced the food they eat.
>
>
> What principle causes shared responsibility for another's actions.

Get it right first - learn to read first - and you
might get a better response. No one is positing
"shared responsibility" for another's ACTIONS. Reread
it, dummy.

Ron wrote:
> In article >,
> usual suspect > wrote:
>
>
>>Twink Ron wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
>>>>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>>>>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>>>>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>>>>
>>>>Drama queen.
>>>
>>>*bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>>
>>It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
>>
>>
>>>>>I find you evasive.
>>>>
>>>>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>>>>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>>>
>>>Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
>>>elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>>
>>Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
>>
>>
>>>>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>>>>>vegan is violating.
>>>>
>>>>Easy: *their own*.
>>>
>>>I'll clarify,
>>
>>You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
>>prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
>>to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
>>suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
>>animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
>>minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
>>meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
>>parts.
>>
>>
>>>what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
>>>violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
>>>code.
>>
>>It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
>>of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
>>
>>
>>>Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
>>>code?
>>
>>It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."
>
> Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
> some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.

Vegans are responsible for their own consumption and the manner in which
their own food is produced. They have a variety of options -- including
growing their own food or paying farmers to grow in a manner consistent
with "vegan ethics" -- but they choose instead to operate under the
delusion that their diet is cruelty-free merely because they don't eat
meat. Their consumption is as slothful as your abhorrent attempts to use
logic, Ron.

Twink Ron wrote:
<...>
>>I suspect you *could* know that if you wanted to, but
>>because you're a snarky little sophist interested
>>solely in the appearance of cleverness rather than the
>>substance of learning, you choose to keep your eyes
>>firmly shut. Nice.
>
> *sniffles in mock hurt*

Drama queen.

Let's see if we can move this to some other
kind of arena... how about charitable donations?

Ok, so once upon a time there was this very
greedy miser. He liked to get everything for
himself. He heard about these charitable donations,
and was very skeptical. But then he heard somebody
mention that giving to charity made them feel
good about themselves.

Now he was all about feeling good about himself.
So he decided to give it a try, and wrote and sent
out a $5 check to a charity he had heard about.

But that night, he tossed and turned in bed many
times. He kept thinking of his bank balance
of several millions, and how the $5 would
be gone _forever_ from it. He even got up
around 1 AM to try to raise his banker to
put a stop payment on the check, but then
he realized the bank would charge for
the stop payment.

So he decided he didn't like this charity
thing too much. But he didn't want to feel
bad about it, either.

So he argued thus: People who give charity
are evil. They give only a little bit of what
they have. If they gave everything they had, many more
people, whales and things could have been saved. But
because the charity givers gave only a little bit and
not everything they had, many people and whales and
so on that could be saved didn't get saved. They
even died, which was clearly a result of the
actions of the charity givers. Some of the money given
to charity even ended up in the wrong place or was
misused for the wrong things. So it was all the fault
of the charity givers. They were killers,
who simply didn't realize that the ultimate result
of their actions was evil.

There was no way he was going to join such
evil people.

Thus having come up with his clever argument,
he felt very good about not joining
the evil charity givers.

Others of his type liked his argument, and
rallied around him.

Though after a little bit of this, normal people
saw through him and decided he was worth only
ignoring, and thereby mostly ignored him.

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>> usual suspect > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Twink Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan"
> >>>>>>>>>>food
> >>>>>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >>>>>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than
> >>>>>>>>>>the
> >>>>>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce
> >>>>>>>>food
> >>>>>>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
> >>>>>>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for
> >>>>>>>>so
> >>>>>>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Drama queen.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>*bats eye lashes in flattered state*
> >>>>
> >>>>It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>I find you evasive.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
> >>>>>>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
> >>>>>elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
> >>>>
> >>>>Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
> >>>>>>>vegan is violating.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Easy: *their own*.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I'll clarify,
> >>>>
> >>>>You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
> >>>>prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
> >>>>to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
> >>>>suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
> >>>>animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
> >>>>minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
> >>>>meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
> >>>>parts.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
> >>>>>violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
> >>>>>code.
> >>>>
> >>>>It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
> >>>>of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
> >>>>>code?
> >>>>
> >>>>It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
> >>>some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.
> >>
> >>He doesn't believe that "vegans" are responsible for
> >>the actions of other. He believes, quite rightly, that
> >>they share in responsibility for the deaths of animals
> >>that are caused to produced the food they eat.
> >
> >
> > What principle causes shared responsibility for another's actions.
>
> Get it right first - learn to read first - and you
> might get a better response. No one is positing
> "shared responsibility" for another's ACTIONS. Reread
> it, dummy.

I limit my exposure to abusive individuals. Enjoy the discussion.

Ron wrote:
> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> >
> > >>He doesn't believe that "vegans" are responsible for
> > >>the actions of other. He believes, quite rightly, that
> > >>they share in responsibility for the deaths of animals
> > >>that are caused to produced the food they eat.
> > >
> > >
> > > What principle causes shared responsibility for another's
actions.
> >
> > Get it right first - learn to read first - and you
> > might get a better response. No one is positing
> > "shared responsibility" for another's ACTIONS. Reread
> > it, dummy.
>
> I limit my exposure to abusive individuals.
That's a lie. You seek it out. You're a mental defective.

In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article >,
> > usual suspect > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Twink Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
> >>>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >>>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
> >>>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce
> >>>>>>food
> >>>>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
> >>>>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
> >>>>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
> >>>>
> >>>>Drama queen.
> >>>
> >>>*bats eye lashes in flattered state*
> >>
> >>It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>I find you evasive.
> >>>>
> >>>>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
> >>>>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
> >>>
> >>>Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
> >>>elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
> >>
> >>Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
> >>>>>vegan is violating.
> >>>>
> >>>>Easy: *their own*.
> >>>
> >>>I'll clarify,
> >>
> >>You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
> >>prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
> >>to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
> >>suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
> >>animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
> >>minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
> >>meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
> >>parts.
> >>
> >>
> >>>what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
> >>>violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
> >>>code.
> >>
> >>It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
> >>of hypocrisy and sanctimony.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
> >>>code?
> >>
> >>It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."
> >
> > Oh, if only it were true that vegans believed as you did that they are
> > some hom responsible for the actions and outcomes of others.
>
> Vegans are responsible for their own consumption and the manner in which
> their own food is produced.

By what _moral_ principle are they responsible for the manner in which
their food is produced?

> They have a variety of options -- including
> growing their own food or paying farmers to grow in a manner consistent
> with "vegan ethics" -- but they choose instead to operate under the
> delusion that their diet is cruelty-free merely because they don't eat
> meat. Their consumption is as slothful as your abhorrent attempts to use
> logic, Ron.

In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Twink Ron wrote:
> <...>
> >>I suspect you *could* know that if you wanted to, but
> >>because you're a snarky little sophist interested
> >>solely in the appearance of cleverness rather than the
> >>substance of learning, you choose to keep your eyes
> >>firmly shut. Nice.
> >
> > *sniffles in mock hurt*
>
> Drama queen.

I'm not going to have sex with you -- continue to post if you must.