On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 03:52:14 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> "rick etter" > wrote:
>> "Ron" > wrote in message ...
[..]
>> > I'm glad that you are venting your hostility and aggression on a
>> > keyboard and not on some unsuspecting person near to you. I hope there
>> > aren't children in your vicinity.
>> >
>> > The vegan can't be responsible for their action, just as the farmer
>> > can't be responsible for their own action. Your theory thus far has made
>> > that clear. The farmer can't control their actions, they are powerless
>> > before me. One word from me and they must kill. I command them. They are
>> > my slaves. I throw in the promise of a few bucks and my minions respond.
>> ===============
>> Lack of any logical response noted, fool. Keep up the good work proving
>> your ignorance and stupidity....
>
>Ah, rick! Hello! It is you that didn't respond. You have argued that the
>killers of animals are not responsible and that the consumer is
>responsible. I asked then, who is responsible for the consumer's
>actions? How can you logically state that one is responsible for the
>other, but not vice versa.
>
>I'm sorry you're looking foolish, rick. But this is the outcome of the
>beliefs that you are advocating here in your attempt to make vegans look
>bad.

Rick, like all the other buck-passers here insists that
the vegan must falsely take on the responsibility for
the wrong actions of others, thereby enabling those
wrong actions to continue and to make themselves
fellow enablers of those wrong actions. In my view,
his argument aims to recruit vegan apologists and
enablers so he can then go on to insist that they are
showing a contempt for the rights of animals when
buying vegetables.