Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> "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
>>>>
>>>>How do you know?
>>>
>>>Please identify the animals that I killed.
>>
>>Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
>>posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
>
>
> If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
> killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
> of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name of
> the person who was killed as a result.

We aren't talking about legal liability for murder or
complicity to murder. We're talking about moral
liability for deaths of animals, where those deaths are
not considered illegal. It is the *principle* of
complicity that is demonstrated by reference to the
criminal law. No one is suggesting that "vegans'"
complicity in the deaths of animals is illegal; just
that it is immoral, according to *their* alleged
"ethics". It IS immoral with respect to their alleged
"ethics", and it is not necessary to know which
"vegans" killed which animals.