Ron wrote:
> 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

He wasn't asking you to do so, queen.

As usual, no substance from you. You have not posted anything of
substance in the entire time you've been here.

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > 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
>
> He wasn't asking you to do so, queen.
>
> As usual, no substance from you. You have not posted anything of
> substance in the entire time you've been here.

You do seem to be up on the lingo.

*sounds of gaydar going off, beep, beep, beep*

Twink Ron wrote:
> 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.

No you don't, freak.

Ron wrote:
> 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?

*Their own*. See their websites, you stupid fudgepacker. Read their
literature. They claim to live cruelty-free lives and they oppose the
death of animals. Their consumption of mechanically-harvested foods,
transported and stored foods, etc., proves otherwise.

>>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.

Ron wrote:
> 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?

*Their own*. See their websites, you stupid fudgepacker. Read their
literature. They claim to live cruelty-free lives and they oppose the
death of animals. Their consumption of mechanically-harvested foods,
transported and stored foods, etc., proves otherwise.

>>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:
> > 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.
>
> No you don't, freak.

*second blip on the gaydar screen seen*

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

I'm glad you understand that, fudgepacker.

Fudgepacker Ron wrote:
<...>
>>>I limit my exposure to abusive individuals.
>>
>>No you don't, freak.
>
> *second blip

Do you have anything of substance to add? No? I didn't think so.

"John Deere" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> 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.

More typical vegan self-promotion by demonization.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.

I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week

Just curious, what did you do to stop the sodomizing of children today?

> >> > 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.

Now, what I'm saying is that your approach is very similar to theists.
You just use a different bible -- the law and different prophets -- the
experts.

In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > 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?
>
> *Their own*. See their websites, you stupid fudgepacker. Read their
> literature. They claim to live cruelty-free lives and they oppose the
> death of animals. Their consumption of mechanically-harvested foods,
> transported and stored foods, etc., proves otherwise.
>
> >>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.

Which vegan killed what animal, my little stud muffin?

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
>
> I'm glad you understand that, fudgepacker.

*gaydar blips are increasing in intensity*

In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Fudgepacker Ron wrote:
> <...>
> >>>I limit my exposure to abusive individuals.
> >>
> >>No you don't, freak.
> >
> > *second blip
>
> Do you have anything of substance to add? No? I didn't think so.

I told you. I won't have sex with you. Stop setting off the gaydar. As I
told Dutch, you are powerless to refuse me -- just like the tomato
grower in Mexico. I command you. You have no choice but to respond -- I
am responsible for all that you do.

Ron wrote:
> In article >,
> usual suspect > wrote:
>
> > Ron the pathetic little homo wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>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?
> >
> > *Their own*. See their websites, you stupid fudgepacker. Read their

> > literature. They claim to live cruelty-free lives and they oppose
the
> > death of animals. Their consumption of mechanically-harvested
foods,
> > transported and stored foods, etc., proves otherwise.
> >
> > >>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.
>
> Which vegan killed what animal

It doesn't matter. Their behavior rewards the farmer for producing
food in a way that is lethal to animals. That's all you need to know.

The dead animals are not individually assignable to people, but then,
you already knew that; your question was not a serious question, merely
sophistry.

Ron wrote:
> In article >,
> usual suspect > wrote:
>
> > Fudgepacker Ron wrote:
> > <...>
> > >>>I limit my exposure to abusive individuals.
> > >>
> > >>No you don't, freak.
> > >
> > > *second blip
> >
> > Do you have anything of substance to add? No? I didn't think so.
>
> I told you. I won't have sex with you.
We told you: he wasn't inviting you to fantasize.

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article >,
> > usual suspect > wrote:
> >
> > > Ron the pathetic little homo wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>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?
> > >
> > > *Their own*. See their websites, you stupid fudgepacker. Read their
>
> > > literature. They claim to live cruelty-free lives and they oppose
> the
> > > death of animals. Their consumption of mechanically-harvested
> foods,
> > > transported and stored foods, etc., proves otherwise.
> > >
> > > >>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.
> >
> > Which vegan killed what animal
>
> It doesn't matter. Their behavior rewards the farmer for producing
> food in a way that is lethal to animals. That's all you need to know.

You are ignoring the question. Which vegan killed what animal.

Personally, my grocer is my slave. A wink and the sight of a bulge in my
pants (my wallet) and he is powerless to resist the temptation and act
to write an order. He is so entrhalled that he can't stop doing business
and keeps his entire operation alive, just to suit me. He just can't
say, "no" to me. (I'm kinda irrestible that way.) I have so much friggin
power over people, I am the bomb!

> The dead animals are not individually assignable to people, but then,
> you already knew that; your question was not a serious question, merely
> sophistry.

So then, we have dead animals with no identifiable killers. Hmmm, may
the folks who do crop circles are the ones killing the animals.

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article >,
> > usual suspect > wrote:
> >
> > > Fudgepacker Ron wrote:
> > > <...>
> > > >>>I limit my exposure to abusive individuals.
> > > >>
> > > >>No you don't, freak.
> > > >
> > > > *second blip
> > >
> > > Do you have anything of substance to add? No? I didn't think so.
> >
> > I told you. I won't have sex with you.
> We told you: he wasn't inviting you to fantasize.

*the gaydar can't take much more*

Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > Fudgepacker wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > usual suspect > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ron the pathetic little homo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>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?
> > > >
> > > > *Their own*. See their websites, you stupid fudgepacker. Read
their
> >
> > > > literature. They claim to live cruelty-free lives and they
oppose
> > the
> > > > death of animals. Their consumption of mechanically-harvested
> > foods,
> > > > transported and stored foods, etc., proves otherwise.
> > > >
> > > > >>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.
> > >
> > > Which vegan killed what animal
> >
> > It doesn't matter. Their behavior rewards the farmer for producing
> > food in a way that is lethal to animals. That's all you need to
know.
>
> You are ignoring the question.

Right: because it isn't a serious question. It's a weak attempt at
sophistry.

> Which vegan killed what animal.

See above.

>
> > The dead animals are not individually assignable to people, but
then,
> > you already knew that; your question was not a serious question,
merely
> > sophistry.
>
> So then, we have dead animals with no identifiable killers

No. Once again, you have deliberately misrepresented what was written,
because you imagine yourself to be clever. Try again.

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

I know, it is good for you. Being one of those who accepts every piece
of information thrown their way with no thought or consideration is
exactly what makes you better than me. You rock, Dutch.

No please respond to the latest question, if it isn't too much trouble.

When I advocate for the removal of a law (legalization) am I, or am I
not advocating for that action or behaviour?

Ron wrote:
> In article >, "Dutch"
>
> wrote:
>
> > Fudgepacker > wrote
> > > "Dutch" > wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Ron" > wrote
> > >>
> > >> > The question was who taught you that you or I was responsible
for the
> > >> > outcomes of other people's actions.
> > >>
> > >> It's called complicity. In legal jargon it's "accessory".
> > >
> > > And again, you avoided the question.
> > >
> > > Who taught the pharoahs that they were responsible for the
outcomes of
> > > other people's actions?
> >
> > Assuming that you're talking about actions in which you have
aideding or
> > abeted, since it's common sense, their fathers and mothers
probably.
>
> 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.

If that's really what you stated, then you're an even more moronic
fudgepacker than previously thought, because that is COMPLETELY wrong.
As a fudgepacker, all you know about children is how to bugger the
boys.
Children think they're reponsible for NOTHING, you ignorant fat ****.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.

How can you claim goodness, Dutch. The amount of time that you've spent
responding to me is time that you could have been using against those
who sodomize children.

How can you claim yourself as good, by tolerating the sodomizing of
children in our society? I guess as long as the children get used as
food, the sodomizing of them is acceptable.

> >> > > > 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.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.

Who is being threatened and by whom? Sorry, dutch, the paranoia meter is
just going off the scale.

Responding to a real threat is different than responding to an imagine
threats. (Oops, there's my shadow.)

> >> > 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 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.
> >
> > It's definitely good for me that I don't think like you.
>
> I know, it is good for you.

ANYTHING that establishes a difference between him and you is good for
him. NO sensible person would want to be like you in any way.

Ron wrote:
> In article >, "Dutch"
>
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, "Dutch"
>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> 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.
>
> How can you claim goodness, Dutch.

He didn't.

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> > > Fudgepacker wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > usual suspect > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ron the pathetic little homo wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>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?
> > > > >
> > > > > *Their own*. See their websites, you stupid fudgepacker. Read
> their
> > >
> > > > > literature. They claim to live cruelty-free lives and they
> oppose
> > > the
> > > > > death of animals. Their consumption of mechanically-harvested
> > > foods,
> > > > > transported and stored foods, etc., proves otherwise.
> > > > >
> > > > > >>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.
> > > >
> > > > Which vegan killed what animal
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter. Their behavior rewards the farmer for producing
> > > food in a way that is lethal to animals. That's all you need to
> know.
> >
> > You are ignoring the question.
>
> Right: because it isn't a serious question. It's a weak attempt at
> sophistry.
>
> > Which vegan killed what animal.
>
> See above.
>
> >
> > > The dead animals are not individually assignable to people, but
> then,
> > > you already knew that; your question was not a serious question,
> merely
> > > sophistry.
> >
> > So then, we have dead animals with no identifiable killers
>
> No. Once again, you have deliberately misrepresented what was written,
> because you imagine yourself to be clever. Try again.

Further editing and avoidance of the question.

I am in the usenet version of "Clue". Who killed the amphibian in the
Mexican parlor with the candlestick?

In article . com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article >, "Dutch"
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Fudgepacker > wrote
> > > > "Dutch" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> "Ron" > wrote
> > > >>
> > > >> > The question was who taught you that you or I was responsible
> for the
> > > >> > outcomes of other people's actions.
> > > >>
> > > >> It's called complicity. In legal jargon it's "accessory".
> > > >
> > > > And again, you avoided the question.
> > > >
> > > > Who taught the pharoahs that they were responsible for the
> outcomes of
> > > > other people's actions?
> > >
> > > Assuming that you're talking about actions in which you have
> aideding or
> > > abeted, since it's common sense, their fathers and mothers
> probably.
> >
> > 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.
>
> If that's really what you stated, then you're an even more moronic
> fudgepacker than previously thought, because that is COMPLETELY wrong.
> As a fudgepacker, all you know about children is how to bugger the
> boys.
> Children think they're reponsible for NOTHING, you ignorant fat ****.

Fat? Ya might want to tone down the projection, sweetcheecks.

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > 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.
> > >
> > > It's definitely good for me that I don't think like you.
> >
> > I know, it is good for you.
>
> ANYTHING that establishes a difference between him and you is good for
> him. NO sensible person would want to be like you in any way.

The continued intellectually dishonest practice of editing, Rud? (Oops,
there goes that gaydar again.)

In article . com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article >, "Dutch"
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Ron" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >, "Dutch"
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> 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.
> >
> > How can you claim goodness, Dutch.
>
> He didn't.

He wrote, "demonizing good people for doing the same thing." Who are the
good people he was referring to then, Rudy?

Ron wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> > > In article >, "Dutch"
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Assuming that you're talking about actions in which you have
> > aideding or
> > > > abeted, since it's common sense, their fathers and mothers
> > probably.
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > If that's really what you stated, then you're an even more moronic
> > fudgepacker than previously thought, because that is COMPLETELY
wrong.
> > As a fudgepacker, all you know about children is how to bugger the
> > boys. Children think they're reponsible for NOTHING, you ignorant
fat ****.
>
> Fat?

Fat ****.

As usual, no substance. The pattern is clear. Whenever you are proved
wrong, your ego won't let you do either of the two correct responses -
admit your error, or say nothing. Instead, you are driven to make a
substance-free snarky response.

The fact remains that your belief about what is "consistent" with the
thinking of a child is wrong, and a stupid thing for anyone to believe.

Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > Fudgepacker wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > usual suspect > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fudgepacker Ron wrote:
> > > > <...>
> > > > >>>I limit my exposure to abusive individuals.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>No you don't, freak.
> > > > >
> > > > > *second blip
> > > >
> > > > Do you have anything of substance to add? No? I didn't think
so.
> > >
> > > I told you. I won't have sex with you.
> > We told you: he wasn't inviting you to fantasize.
>
> *the gaydar
Another substance-free post from the pathetic little fudgepacker.

Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> > > In article
.com>,
> > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fudgepacker wrote:
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > usual suspect > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ron the pathetic little homo wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>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?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Their own*. See their websites, you stupid fudgepacker.
Read
> > their
> > > >
> > > > > > literature. They claim to live cruelty-free lives and they
> > oppose
> > > > the
> > > > > > death of animals. Their consumption of
mechanically-harvested
> > > > foods,
> > > > > > transported and stored foods, etc., proves otherwise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>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.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which vegan killed what animal
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't matter. Their behavior rewards the farmer for
producing
> > > > food in a way that is lethal to animals. That's all you need
to
> > know.
> > >
> > > You are ignoring the question.
> >
> > Right: because it isn't a serious question. It's a weak attempt
at
> > sophistry.
> >
> > > Which vegan killed what animal.
> >
> > See above.
> >
> > >
> > > > The dead animals are not individually assignable to people, but
> > then,
> > > > you already knew that; your question was not a serious
question,
> > merely
> > > > sophistry.
> > >
> > > So then, we have dead animals with no identifiable killers
> >
> > No. Once again, you have deliberately misrepresented what was
written,
> > because you imagine yourself to be clever. Try again.
>
> Further editing and avoidance of the question.
The question is illegitimate, and posed in bad faith.

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> > > Ron wrote:
> > > > In article >, "Dutch"
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Assuming that you're talking about actions in which you have
> > > aideding or
> > > > > abeted, since it's common sense, their fathers and mothers
> > > probably.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > If that's really what you stated, then you're an even more moronic
> > > fudgepacker than previously thought, because that is COMPLETELY
> wrong.
> > > As a fudgepacker, all you know about children is how to bugger the
> > > boys. Children think they're reponsible for NOTHING, you ignorant
> fat ****.
> >
> > Fat?
>
> Fat ****.

What is my weight, Hector the Projector?

> As usual, no substance. The pattern is clear. Whenever you are proved
> wrong, your ego won't let you do either of the two correct responses -
> admit your error, or say nothing. Instead, you are driven to make a
> substance-free snarky response.

Which vegan killed what animal, Mr. Ego?

> The fact remains that your belief about what is "consistent" with the
> thinking of a child is wrong, and a stupid thing for anyone to believe.

Where is that substantive argument that you keep insisting I never make,
but assumes that you do. Please demonstrate that this thinking is
different or more adult than the child's.

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> > > Fudgepacker wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > usual suspect > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Fudgepacker Ron wrote:
> > > > > <...>
> > > > > >>>I limit my exposure to abusive individuals.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>No you don't, freak.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *second blip
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you have anything of substance to add? No? I didn't think
> so.
> > > >
> > > > I told you. I won't have sex with you.
> > > We told you: he wasn't inviting you to fantasize.
> >
> > *the gaydar
> Another substance-free post from the pathetic little fudgepacker.

Yes, Hector. That must be it.

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> > > Ron wrote:
> > > > In article
> .com>,
> > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Fudgepacker wrote:
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > usual suspect > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ron the pathetic little homo wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>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?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *Their own*. See their websites, you stupid fudgepacker.
> Read
> > > their
> > > > >
> > > > > > > literature. They claim to live cruelty-free lives and they
> > > oppose
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > death of animals. Their consumption of
> mechanically-harvested
> > > > > foods,
> > > > > > > transported and stored foods, etc., proves otherwise.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which vegan killed what animal
> > > > >
> > > > > It doesn't matter. Their behavior rewards the farmer for
> producing
> > > > > food in a way that is lethal to animals. That's all you need
> to
> > > know.
> > > >
> > > > You are ignoring the question.
> > >
> > > Right: because it isn't a serious question. It's a weak attempt
> at
> > > sophistry.
> > >
> > > > Which vegan killed what animal.
> > >
> > > See above.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > The dead animals are not individually assignable to people, but
> > > then,
> > > > > you already knew that; your question was not a serious
> question,
> > > merely
> > > > > sophistry.
> > > >
> > > > So then, we have dead animals with no identifiable killers
> > >
> > > No. Once again, you have deliberately misrepresented what was
> written,
> > > because you imagine yourself to be clever. Try again.
> >
> > Further editing and avoidance of the question.
> The question is illegitimate, and posed in bad faith.

The question remains, which vegan killed what animal?

To see the humbling of such "great minds".

Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> > > In article
.com>,
> > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fudgepacker wrote:
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > usual suspect > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Fudgepacker Ron wrote:
> > > > > > <...>
> > > > > > >>>I limit my exposure to abusive individuals.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>No you don't, freak.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *second blip
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you have anything of substance to add? No? I didn't
think
> > so.
> > > > >
> > > > > I told you. I won't have sex with you.
> > > > We told you: he wasn't inviting you to fantasize.
> > >
> > > *the gaydar
> > Another substance-free post from the pathetic little fudgepacker.
>
> Yes,

Yes, it is.

Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> > > > > > > As a fudgepacker, all you know about children is how to
bugger the
> > > > boys. Children think they're reponsible for NOTHING, you
ignorant
> > fat ****.
> > >
> > > Fat?
> >
> > Fat ****.
>
> What is my weight,

No one cares, fat ****.

>
> > As usual, no substance. The pattern is clear. Whenever you are
proved
> > wrong, your ego won't let you do either of the two correct
responses -
> > admit your error, or say nothing. Instead, you are driven to make
a
> > substance-free snarky response.
>
> Which vegan killed what animal

It doesn't matter.

>
> > The fact remains that your belief about what is "consistent" with
the
> > thinking of a child is wrong, and a stupid thing for anyone to
believe.
>
> Where is that substantive argument that you keep insisting I never
make

Reread that. What a moron you are. If you never make it, it doesn't
exist, so I can't know where "it" is, because "it isn't".

In article . com>,
"Jay Santos" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> > > Ron wrote:
> > > > > > > > As a fudgepacker, all you know about children is how to
> bugger the
> > > > > boys. Children think they're reponsible for NOTHING, you
> ignorant
> > > fat ****.
> > > >
> > > > Fat?
> > >
> > > Fat ****.
> >
> > What is my weight,
>
> No one cares, fat ****.
>
> >
> > > As usual, no substance. The pattern is clear. Whenever you are
> proved
> > > wrong, your ego won't let you do either of the two correct
> responses -
> > > admit your error, or say nothing. Instead, you are driven to make
> a
> > > substance-free snarky response.
> >
> > Which vegan killed what animal
>
> It doesn't matter.

I think it does matter. Which vegan killed what animal?

> > > The fact remains that your belief about what is "consistent" with
> the
> > > thinking of a child is wrong, and a stupid thing for anyone to
> believe.
> >
> > Where is that substantive argument that you keep insisting I never
> make
>
> Reread that. What a moron you are. If you never make it, it doesn't
> exist, so I can't know where "it" is, because "it isn't".

More of that dishonest editing.

Ron wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "Jay Santos" > wrote:
>
> > dribbling homo wrote:
> > > In article
.com>,
> > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > As usual, no substance. The pattern is clear. Whenever you
are proved
> > > > wrong, your ego won't let you do either of the two correct
responses -
> > > > admit your error, or say nothing. Instead, you are driven to
make a
> > > > substance-free snarky response.
> > >
> > > Which vegan killed what animal
> >
> > It doesn't matter.
>
> I think it does matter.

It doesn't, I don't even think you believe it does; you're just taking
a shit.

> Which vegan killed what animal?

It doesn't matter.

>
> > > > The fact remains that your belief about what is "consistent"
with
> > the
> > > > thinking of a child is wrong, and a stupid thing for anyone to
> > believe.
> > >
> > > Where is that substantive argument that you keep insisting I
never make
> >
> > Reread that. What a moron you are. If you never make it, it
doesn't
> > exist, so I can't know where "it" is, because "it isn't".
>
> More of that dishonest editing.
No, no editing at all. You wrote an absurd piece of nonsense.

In article .com>,
"Jay Santos" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > "Jay Santos" > wrote:
> >
> > > dribbling homo wrote:
> > > > In article
> .com>,
> > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As usual, no substance. The pattern is clear. Whenever you
> are proved
> > > > > wrong, your ego won't let you do either of the two correct
> responses -
> > > > > admit your error, or say nothing. Instead, you are driven to
> make a
> > > > > substance-free snarky response.
> > > >
> > > > Which vegan killed what animal
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter.
> >
> > I think it does matter.
>
> It doesn't, I don't even think you believe it does; you're just taking
> a shit.
>
> > Which vegan killed what animal?
>
> It doesn't matter.

I notice your objection to responding to a simple question. How the
great minds of the world seem so less than great at this moment.

> > > > > The fact remains that your belief about what is "consistent"
> with
> > > the
> > > > > thinking of a child is wrong, and a stupid thing for anyone to
> > > believe.
> > > >
> > > > Where is that substantive argument that you keep insisting I
> never make
> > >
> > > Reread that. What a moron you are. If you never make it, it
> doesn't
> > > exist, so I can't know where "it" is, because "it isn't".
> >
> > More of that dishonest editing.
> No, no editing at all. You wrote an absurd piece of nonsense.

Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Jay Santos" > wrote:
>
> > anal leakage wrote:
> > > In article
. com>,
> > > "Jay Santos" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > dribbling homo wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > .com>,
> > > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As usual, no substance. The pattern is clear. Whenever
you
> > are proved
> > > > > > wrong, your ego won't let you do either of the two correct
> > responses -
> > > > > > admit your error, or say nothing. Instead, you are driven
to
> > make a
> > > > > > substance-free snarky response.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which vegan killed what animal
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't matter.
> > >
> > > I think it does matter.
> >
> > It doesn't, I don't even think you believe it does; you're just
taking
> > a shit.
> >
> > > Which vegan killed what animal?
> >
> > It doesn't matter.
>
> I notice your objection to

You notice my refusal to let you waste my time on your terms. I may
waste some time on you, but it will always be on my terms, you impotent
self-loathing little homo.

How's your HIV doing?

>
> > > > > > The fact remains that your belief about what is
"consistent"
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > thinking of a child is wrong, and a stupid thing for anyone
to
> > > > believe.
> > > > >
> > > > > Where is that substantive argument that you keep insisting I
> > never make
> > > >
> > > > Reread that. What a moron you are. If you never make it, it
> > doesn't
> > > > exist, so I can't know where "it" is, because "it isn't".
> > >
> > > More of that dishonest editing.
> > No, no editing at all. You wrote an absurd piece of nonsense.