If you believe that something is absolutely morally
wrong, then the ONLY coherently explicable amount of it
you may do, and remain consistent with your belief, is
zero. If you do any of it, then you clearly do not
believe it to be absolutely wrong.

If you genuinely believe it to be absolutely wrong to
kill animals other than in provable self defense, then
you may not morally participate in any activity or
process that kills animals. If you do so participate,
then clearly you do not believe killing animals to be
absolutely wrong.

Once you've admitted that it isn't absolutely wrong,
then you're going to have a very difficult time
explaining in what way it is relatively wrong. In
particular, you're going to have an all but impossible
task to explain why the amount in which you engage or
indirectly participate is in any sense "better" than
what someone else does.

In article . net>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> If you believe that something is absolutely morally
> wrong, then the ONLY coherently explicable amount of it
> you may do, and remain consistent with your belief, is
> zero. If you do any of it, then you clearly do not
> believe it to be absolutely wrong.
>
> If you genuinely believe it to be absolutely wrong to
> kill animals other than in provable self defense, then
> you may not morally participate in any activity or
> process that kills animals. If you do so participate,
> then clearly you do not believe killing animals to be
> absolutely wrong.
>
> Once you've admitted that it isn't absolutely wrong,
> then you're going to have a very difficult time
> explaining in what way it is relatively wrong. In
> particular, you're going to have an all but impossible
> task to explain why the amount in which you engage or
> indirectly participate is in any sense "better" than
> what someone else does.

that makes you complicit in rape, child molestation, murder and so on.

And you're gonna gripe to her a bout doing a doobie and eating a plate
of veggies.

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>If you believe that something is absolutely morally
>>wrong, then the ONLY coherently explicable amount of it
>>you may do, and remain consistent with your belief, is
>>zero. If you do any of it, then you clearly do not
>>believe it to be absolutely wrong.
>>
>>If you genuinely believe it to be absolutely wrong to
>>kill animals other than in provable self defense, then
>>you may not morally participate in any activity or
>>process that kills animals. If you do so participate,
>>then clearly you do not believe killing animals to be
>>absolutely wrong.
>>
>>Once you've admitted that it isn't absolutely wrong,
>>then you're going to have a very difficult time
>>explaining in what way it is relatively wrong. In
>>particular, you're going to have an all but impossible
>>task to explain why the amount in which you engage or
>>indirectly participate is in any sense "better" than
>>what someone else does.
>
>
> that makes you complicit in rape, child molestation, murder and so on.

Nope. I don't do any of those, and I do not
participate in any process that leads to any as an
intrinsic part of the process.

You're just ****ed, sophomore.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
8<
> that makes you complicit in rape, child molestation, murder and so on.

Morality is such a subjective issue - some people seem to think that their
religion justifies meat eating, and how can you argue with that logically?

John

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 19:50:10 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:

>If you believe that something is absolutely morally
>wrong, then the ONLY coherently explicable amount of it
>you may do, and remain consistent with your belief, is
>zero. If you do any of it, then you clearly do not
>believe it to be absolutely wrong.

Then why do you continue to buy meat, coal, coffee,
chocolate and other such items while knowing of the
harms and deaths they cause to humans, often under
slave-like conditions?

[According to the National Safety Council, agriculture
and mining are the two most hazardous occupations in
the country. In 1996, 21 accidental deaths occurred per
100,000 agricultural workers, compared with a national
average of 4 deaths per 100,000 workers for all industries.
A recent survey of 2,000 Kentucky farmers found that
each year one of every eight farm families experiences
an accident requiring medical attention.]
http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/yf/famsci/he282.htm

According to your logic, people who don't seek out zero-
human death foods are guilty of showing a contempt for
their belief in human rights. How much coal are you
directly and indirectly responsible for, Jon? And there's
the meat packers to consider as well. The harms accrued
in this industry are a direct result of your diet, yet you do
nothing to stop them. In fact, you reward the meat packing
industry for the harms you intentionally cause.

[In 1999, more than one-quarter of America's nearly
150,000 meat packing workers suffered a job-related
injury or illness. The meat packing industry not only has
the highest injury rate, but also has by far the highest
rate of serious injury-more than five times the national
average, as measured in lost workdays.]
http://www.motherjones.com/magazine/...atpacking.html

Those numbers might be even greater than those given
in that example, but if you go to this link
http://146.142.4.24/labjava/outside.jsp?survey=sh
and add up all the injuries in the meat, poultry and dairy
trades you'll find that the numbers of human collateral
harms in the meat trade exceed all others.

Being that you hold all vegans responsible, in fact causal
to the collateral deaths accrued during the production of
their food, it is only reasonable to insist that you take full
responsibility for the collateral harms you cause to humans
by your diet and conclude that you are showing a contempt
for the rights of humans. How much coffee and chocolate
do you buy from child slave labour?

>If you genuinely believe it to be absolutely wrong to
>kill animals other than in provable self defense, then
>you may not morally participate in any activity or
>process that kills animals. If you do so participate,
>then clearly you do not believe killing animals to be
>absolutely wrong.

So when are you going to stop buying products which are
known to kill and violate the rights of humans? If your rule
is to be consistent, you cannot even use certain bridges
and buildings if humans were killed during their construction.

Jay Santos > wrote:

> If you believe that something is absolutely morally
> wrong, then the ONLY coherently explicable amount of it
> you may do, and remain consistent with your belief, is
> zero. If you do any of it, then you clearly do not
> believe it to be absolutely wrong.

My wife asks, "Honey, which of these blouses are more black?"
"Neither of them are black."
"Yes, I know that but I have to wear black tonight and these are all I
have. So which is more black?"

In other words, despite the fact that one may consider something
absolutely morally wrong, there are degrees.

> If you genuinely believe it to be absolutely wrong to
> kill animals other than in provable self defense, then
> you may not morally participate in any activity or
> process that kills animals.

If you also believe that it is absolutely wrong to end your own life,
then you are forced to pick the lesser of evils. After all, you pretty
much cannot sustain yourself without killing some animals, so you kill
as few as you can.

John Coleman wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> 8<
>
>>that makes you complicit in rape, child molestation, murder and so on.
>
>
> Morality is such a subjective issue - some people seem to think that their
> religion justifies meat eating

"vegans" abstain from meat based on weird, incoherent
religious beliefs.

"Reynard" > wrote in message
...

Thanks for the support Reynard, I have been pointing this fallacy out for
weeks. I wonder if they will "get it" now?

John

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:49:52 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:

>
>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>
>Thanks for the support Reynard, I have been pointing this fallacy out for
>weeks. I wonder if they will "get it" now?

It isn't in their interest to "get it", especially and because
it ruins their argument here. They're determined to remain
ignorant.

Jay Santos wrote:
> If you believe that something is absolutely morally wrong, then the ONLY
> coherently explicable amount of it you may do, and remain consistent
> with your belief, is zero. If you do any of it, then you clearly do not
> believe it to be absolutely wrong.

True.

> If you genuinely believe it to be absolutely wrong to kill animals other
> than in provable self defense, then you may not morally participate in
> any activity or process that kills animals.

I can live with that: I do not believe it would be wrong to kill animals
other than in self defense. For example I think it is absolutely correct
to kill the animals I want to eat :-)

Indeed there are countless other cases in which it is acceptable to kill
animals - for example to kill them when they are going to eat the
vegetables I want to eat - or when they are damaging my property otherwise.

It's as well allright to kill them to produce leather.

As well for scientific purposes animals may be killed - I've done animal
experiments in the past ...

> If you do so participate,
> then clearly you do not believe killing animals to be absolutely wrong.

True.

> Once you've admitted that it isn't absolutely wrong, then you're going
> to have a very difficult time explaining in what way it is relatively
> wrong.

Not at all. There are two reasons for me not to kill animals:

1) I need them, because later I need their meat, leather, whatever, need
them for my experiments or need them to carry me (a horse I might want
to ride) or as guardian (watchdogs), or I want them because I like
seeing or hearing them - birds, for example. In that case it's pure
self-interest to have them alive.

2) I'm following the Rede. I'm doing harm only if necessary. As you
might have seen above I'm willing to do harm to animals if their
interests are in conflict with mine. But I'm not going to harm them if
this conflict does not exist.

> In particular, you're going to have an all but impossible task
> to explain why the amount in which you engage or indirectly participate
> is in any sense "better" than what someone else does.

Where's the problem?

"John Coleman" > wrote
>
> "Reynard" > wrote
>
> Thanks for the support Reynard, I have been pointing this fallacy out for
> weeks. I wonder if they will "get it" now?

It's not a fallacy, it's YOU who doesn't get it. The analogy is absurd. The
fact that this argument keeps resurfacing illustrates what shaky ground
vegans are on.

We ARE connected to the deaths of humans in industry when we use those
products. That is why many trade unions and other groups boycotted
California grapes, because migrant workers were being subjected to unsafe
levels of pesticides (which incidentally also kill animals) Once legislation
was introduced to correct those abuses, and the level of safety was raised
to an acceptable level the boycotts were lifted. This is called
"mitigation". People are still harmed, as in any situation where humans,
chemicals and machinery collide, it is inevitable, but the danger is
"mitigated" to a degree that makes the consumption of those products no
longer a complicity in immoral acts. In other words, it was the failure to
provide safety measures (mitigation) that made people boycott the products.

When you kill another person in an auto accident, one looks at to what
degree you mitigated to prevent the accident. Did you drive in accordance
with the laws? Did you use all due care and attention? If so, then you did
nothing wrong, even though you killed someone.

No such mitigation exists in the vast majority of agriculture, in fact the
very purpose of chemical sprays is to kill, and it is implausible to think
you can protect all field animals from harm by machinery.

"Reynard" > wrote ...
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:49:52 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Reynard" > wrote
>>
>>Thanks for the support Reynard, I have been pointing this fallacy out for
>>weeks. I wonder if they will "get it" now?
>
> It isn't in their interest to "get it", especially and because
> it ruins their argument here. They're determined to remain
> ignorant.

The analogy is bogus.

Dutch wrote:

> "John Coleman" > wrote
>
>>"Reynard" > wrote
>>
>>Thanks for the support Reynard, I have been pointing this fallacy out for
>>weeks. I wonder if they will "get it" now?
>
>
> It's not a fallacy, it's YOU who doesn't get it. The analogy is absurd. The
> fact that this argument keeps resurfacing illustrates what shaky ground
> vegans are on.
>
> We ARE connected to the deaths of humans in industry when we use those
> products. That is why many trade unions and other groups boycotted
> California grapes, because migrant workers were being subjected to unsafe
> levels of pesticides (which incidentally also kill animals)

That wasn't really the motivation for the boycott. It
was garden-variety wage-based labor strife. The
original (1960s) boycott occurred because the workers
were non-union, and the unions wanted a piece of the
action. Alleged environmental risks for the workers
was only the pretext.

> Once legislation
> was introduced to correct those abuses, and the level of safety was raised
> to an acceptable level the boycotts were lifted.

No. It was once the growers capitulated and signed a
contract with Cesar Chavez's UFW.

Dutch wrote:

> "John Coleman" > wrote
>
>>"Reynard" > wrote
>>
>>Thanks for the support Reynard, I have been pointing this fallacy out for
>>weeks. I wonder if they will "get it" now?
>
>
> It's not a fallacy, it's YOU who doesn't get it. The analogy is absurd. The
> fact that this argument keeps resurfacing illustrates what shaky ground
> vegans are on.
>
> We ARE connected to the deaths of humans in industry when we use those
> products. That is why many trade unions and other groups boycotted
> California grapes, because migrant workers were being subjected to unsafe
> levels of pesticides (which incidentally also kill animals)

That wasn't really the motivation for the boycott. It
was garden-variety wage-based labor strife. The
original (1960s) boycott occurred because the workers
were non-union, and the unions wanted a piece of the
action. Alleged environmental risks for the workers
was only the pretext.

> Once legislation
> was introduced to correct those abuses, and the level of safety was raised
> to an acceptable level the boycotts were lifted.

No. It was once the growers capitulated and signed a
contract with Cesar Chavez's UFW.

Jay Santos wrote:
>>> Thanks for the support Retard, I have been pointing this fallacy out
>>> for
>>> weeks. I wonder if they will "get it" now?
>>
>> It's not a fallacy, it's YOU who doesn't get it. The analogy is
>> absurd. The fact that this argument keeps resurfacing illustrates what
>> shaky ground vegans are on.
>>
>> We ARE connected to the deaths of humans in industry when we use those
>> products. That is why many trade unions and other groups boycotted
>> California grapes, because migrant workers were being subjected to
>> unsafe levels of pesticides (which incidentally also kill animals)
>
> That wasn't really the motivation for the boycott. It was
> garden-variety wage-based labor strife.

It still IS. The UFW boycott against grapes continues:
http://www.ufw.org/GB.html

> The original (1960s) boycott
> occurred because the workers were non-union, and the unions wanted a
> piece of the action. Alleged environmental risks for the workers was
> only the pretext.

It wasn't even a major pretext:
It was in response to these deteriorating [economic and work]
conditions, along with the discovery that toxic pesticides
sprayed on grapes threaten farm workers and their children, that
in 1984, Cesar Chavez called on consumers to return to the
boycott of all non-UFW California table grapes-including
"organic" grapes.

>> Once legislation was introduced to correct those abuses, and the level
>> of safety was raised to an acceptable level the boycotts were lifted.
>
> No. It was once the growers capitulated and signed a contract with
> Cesar Chavez's UFW.

They're still trying to shake-down farmers.

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> "John Coleman" > wrote
>>
>>>"Reynard" > wrote
>>>
>>>Thanks for the support Reynard, I have been pointing this fallacy out for
>>>weeks. I wonder if they will "get it" now?
>>
>>
>> It's not a fallacy, it's YOU who doesn't get it. The analogy is absurd.
>> The fact that this argument keeps resurfacing illustrates what shaky
>> ground vegans are on.
>>
>> We ARE connected to the deaths of humans in industry when we use those
>> products. That is why many trade unions and other groups boycotted
>> California grapes, because migrant workers were being subjected to unsafe
>> levels of pesticides (which incidentally also kill animals)
>
> That wasn't really the motivation for the boycott. It was garden-variety
> wage-based labor strife. The original (1960s) boycott occurred because
> the workers were non-union, and the unions wanted a piece of the action.
> Alleged environmental risks for the workers was only the pretext.

Even so, the principle is the same. *If* you believe that the pay rates for
migrant workers is unconscionably low, *if* that is seen as a wrong, then
buying those products perpetuates the wrong, and the correct response is to
remove one's complicity with a boycott. It is precisely what vegans do not
do, as we see, instead they wriggle and squirm, anything to pretend they are
not complicit.

>
>> Once legislation was introduced to correct those abuses, and the level of
>> safety was raised to an acceptable level the boycotts were lifted.
>
> No. It was once the growers capitulated and signed a contract with Cesar
> Chavez's UFW.

Daniel T. wrote:
> Jay Santos > wrote:
>
> > If you believe that something is absolutely morally
> > wrong, then the ONLY coherently explicable amount of it
> > you may do, and remain consistent with your belief, is
> > zero. If you do any of it, then you clearly do not
> > believe it to be absolutely wrong.
>
> My wife asks, "Honey, which of these blouses are more black?"
> "Neither of them are black."
> "Yes, I know that but I have to wear black tonight and these are all
I
> have. So which is more black?"
>
> In other words, despite the fact that one may consider something
> absolutely morally wrong, there are degrees.

No moral issue in your amusing wife story.

>
> > If you genuinely believe it to be absolutely wrong to
> > kill animals other than in provable self defense, then
> > you may not morally participate in any activity or
> > process that kills animals.
>
> If you also believe that it is absolutely wrong to end your own life,

> then you are forced to pick the lesser of evils. After all, you
pretty
> much cannot sustain yourself without killing some animals, so you
kill
> as few as you can.

It seems the thinking person ought to reconsider his belief that it is
absolutely wrong to kill animals except in provable self defense.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > Dutch wrote:
> >
> >> "John Coleman" > wrote
> >>
> >>>"Reynard" > wrote
> >>>
> >>>Thanks for the support Reynard, I have been pointing this fallacy out for
> >>>weeks. I wonder if they will "get it" now?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not a fallacy, it's YOU who doesn't get it. The analogy is absurd.
> >> The fact that this argument keeps resurfacing illustrates what shaky
> >> ground vegans are on.
> >>
> >> We ARE connected to the deaths of humans in industry when we use those
> >> products. That is why many trade unions and other groups boycotted
> >> California grapes, because migrant workers were being subjected to unsafe
> >> levels of pesticides (which incidentally also kill animals)
> >
> > That wasn't really the motivation for the boycott. It was garden-variety
> > wage-based labor strife. The original (1960s) boycott occurred because
> > the workers were non-union, and the unions wanted a piece of the action.
> > Alleged environmental risks for the workers was only the pretext.
>
> Even so, the principle is the same. *If* you believe that the pay rates for
> migrant workers is unconscionably low, *if* that is seen as a wrong, then
> buying those products perpetuates the wrong, and the correct response is to
> remove one's complicity with a boycott. It is precisely what vegans do not
> do, as we see, instead they wriggle and squirm, anything to pretend they are
> not complicit.

Please, Dutch. If one believes the exploitation of migrant workers is
wrong, not buying those products is the appoaching the absolute minimum
that one could do to deal with the wrong.

Of our vegan, you require absoluteness in her efforts. For those who
migrant worker exploitation, you require bare bones responses. What's
that about.

Is it wrong to exploit migrant workers with low wages? This only
requires a logical response of True or False.


> >> Once legislation was introduced to correct those abuses, and the level of
> >> safety was raised to an acceptable level the boycotts were lifted.
> >
> > No. It was once the growers capitulated and signed a contract with Cesar
> > Chavez's UFW.

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...

> Morality is such a subjective issue - some people seem to think that their
> religion justifies meat eating, and how can you argue with that logically?
Also, given the Holy Wars, Crusades, witch hunting, Inquisitions, ...
some think religion justifies widespread killing and/or torture of humans,
all of which while feeling superior to the "savages".

Laurie

Laurie wrote:
> "John Coleman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Morality is such a subjective issue - some people seem to think that their
>>religion justifies meat eating, and how can you argue with that logically?
>
> Also, given the Holy Wars, Crusades, witch hunting, Inquisitions, ...

Not to mention the terrorism perpetrated by vegan groups and AR groups!
Intolerance knows no bounds.

> some think religion justifies widespread killing and/or torture of humans,
> all of which while feeling superior to the "savages".

That's precisely what vegans do when they seek to force their agenda on
others through the use of terrorism:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals provides aid and comfort for
the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).
The two groups are responsible for more than 600 crimes since 1996,
causing (by a very conservative FBI estimate) more than $43 million in
damage. ALF's "press office" brags that in 2002, the two groups
committed "100 illegal direct actions" -- like blowing up SUVs,
destroying the brakes on seafood delivery trucks, and planting firebombs
in restaurants.

The FBI calls ALF and ELF the nation's "most serious domestic terrorism
threat." Bruce Friedrich, PETA's "vegan campaign director" and
third-in-command, didn't seem to care when he addressed the Animal
Rights 2001 convention in Virginia, telling a crowd of over 1,000
activists that "blowing stuff up and smashing windows" is "a great way
to bring about animal liberation."

"It would be great," he added, "if all the fast-food outlets,
slaughterhouses, these laboratories and the banks who fund them exploded
tomorrow."

PETA's connections to ALF and ELF are indisputable. "We did it, we did
it. We gave $1,500 to the ELF for a specific program," PETA's Lisa Lange
admitted on the Fox News Channel. PETA has offered no fewer than eight
different explanations of what the "specific program" was, but law
enforcement leaders have noted that since the Earth Liberation Front is
a criminal enterprise, it has absolutely no legal "programs" of any kind.

PETA also has given $2,000 to David Wilson, then a national ALF
"spokesperson." The group paid $27,000 for the legal defense of Roger
Troen, who was arrested for taking part in an October 1986 burglary and
arson at the University of Oregon. It gave $7,500 to Fran Stephanie
Trutt, who tried to murder the president of a medical laboratory. It
gave $5,000 to Josh Harper, who attacked Native Americans on a whale
hunt by throwing smoke bombs, shooting flares, and spraying their faces
with chemical fire extinguishers. All of these monies were paid out of
tax-exempt funds, the same pot of money constantly enlarged by donations
from an unsuspecting general public.

Most ominously, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk was involved in the
multi-million-dollar arson at Michigan State University that resulted in
a 57-month prison term for Animal Liberation Front bomber Rodney
Coronado. At Coronado's sentencing hearing, U.S. Attorney Michael
Dettmer said that PETA's Ingrid Newkirk arranged ahead of time to have
Coronado send her a pair of FedEx packages from Michigan -- one on the
day before he burned the lab down, and the other shortly afterward.

The first FedEx, according to the Sentencing Memorandum, was delivered
to a woman named Maria Blanton, "a longtime PETA member who had agreed
to accept the first Federal Express package from Coronado after being
asked to do so by Ingrid Newkirk." The FBI intercepted the second
package, which had been sent to the same address. It contained documents
that Coronado stole before lighting his firebombs, as well as "a
videotape of the perpetrator of the MSU crime, disguised in a ski mask."
Since Coronado was convicted of the arson, we now know that he himself
was that masked man. "Significantly," wrote U.S. Attorney Dettmer,
"Newkirk had arranged to have the package[s] delivered to her days
before the MSU arson occurred." (emphasis in the original)

A search warrant executed at Blanton's home turned up evidence that
PETA's other co-founder, Alex Pacheco, had also been planning burglaries
and break-ins along with Rodney Coronado. The feds seized "surveillance
logs; code names for Coronado, Pacheco, and others; burglary tools;

two-way radios; night vision goggles; [and] phony identification for

Coronado and Pacheco."

Shortly after Coronado's arrest, PETA gave $45,200 to his "support
committee" and "loaned" $25,000 to his father (the loan was never repaid
and PETA hasn't complained). Now free from jail, with an expired parole,
and with the benefit of an expired Statute of Limitations on his many
earlier arsons (to which he readily confesses in his standard stump
speech), Coronado stood before a crowd of hundreds of young people at
American University in January 2003 and demonstrated how to turn a milk
jug into a bomb. A few days later, ALF criminals tried to burn down a
McDonald's restaurant in Chico, California, using a firebomb that
matched Coronado's recipe.

The following month, Ingrid Newkirk told ABC News that Rodney Coronado
is "a fine young man."

Newkirk wrote a book called Free the Animals! The Untold Story of the
U.S. Animal Liberation Front and Its Founder, ‘Valerie.' In it she
writes: "The ALF has, over the years, trusted People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA) to receive copies of the evidence of
wrongdoing … I have also become somewhat used to jumping on a plane with
copies of freshly purloined documents and hurriedly calling news
conferences to discuss the ALF's findings." Indeed, PETA has held such
press conferences just hours after ALF arsons and other break-ins.

PETA has published a leaflet called "Animal Liberation Front: the Army
of the Kind." In another pamphlet, "Activism and the Law," PETA openly
offers advice on "burning a laboratory building."

"I will be the last person to condemn ALF," says Newkirk. And in another
interview: "I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren't all
burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I'd light a match." In ALF's
publication Bite Back (yes, this terrorist group has a newsletter),
Newkirk has said: "You can't have all politeness and patience, all
potlucks and epistles … Some people will never budge unless [they are]
pushed to budge."

Perhaps Newkirk's most telling comment, though, came in a 2002 U.S. News
& World Report feature. "Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective,"
she admitted. "We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a
threat, and it works."

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/activ....cfm?ORG_ID=21

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> [..]
> >> Even so, the principle is the same. *If* you believe that the pay rates
> >> for
> >> migrant workers is unconscionably low, *if* that is seen as a wrong, then
> >> buying those products perpetuates the wrong, and the correct response is
> >> to
> >> remove one's complicity with a boycott. It is precisely what vegans do
> >> not
> >> do, as we see, instead they wriggle and squirm, anything to pretend they
> >> are
> >> not complicit.
> >
> > Please, Dutch. If one believes the exploitation of migrant workers is
> > wrong, not buying those products is the appoaching the absolute minimum
> > that one could do to deal with the wrong.
>
> > Of our vegan, you require absoluteness in her efforts. For those who
> > migrant worker exploitation, you require bare bones responses. What's
> > that about.
>
> Think about it, I require the exact same bare-bones response from the vegan,
> to boycott the offending product. They refuse, because walking the walk is a
> lot harder than talking the talk.

Decriminalizing a product is not a boycott of it. Decriminalizing pot is
not boycotting pot. Quite the contrary.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

> > Is it wrong to exploit migrant workers with low wages? This only
> > requires a logical response of True or False.
>
> It's not relevant if it's wrong, IF you believe it's wrong then you must not
> subsidize it.

You've claimed pot use as harmful. Can you clarify if you think it
wrong. Since you used "responsible" pot use, can you clarify when pot
use is wrong, a bit wrong and right.

Paying for health care for pot users is subsidizing their pot use.
Paying for the problems of an pot user, such as their person and social
problems is subsidizing it.

You are complicit. You are what you despise in our vegan friend.

"Ron" > wrote

>> > Please, Dutch. If one believes the exploitation of migrant workers is
>> > wrong, not buying those products is the appoaching the absolute minimum
>> > that one could do to deal with the wrong.
>>
>> > Of our vegan, you require absoluteness in her efforts. For those who
>> > migrant worker exploitation, you require bare bones responses. What's
>> > that about.
>>
>> Think about it, I require the exact same bare-bones response from the
>> vegan,
>> to boycott the offending product. They refuse, because walking the walk
>> is a
>> lot harder than talking the talk.
>
> Decriminalizing a product is not a boycott of it. Decriminalizing pot is
> not boycotting pot. Quite the contrary.

Oops! bait and switch

> Oh, the hypocrisy.

Troll, troll, troll, troll gently down the stream... pretty good at it too,
had me going. So what's the kick? Do you report back to a group? Are you a
clique like hackers?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> >> > Please, Dutch. If one believes the exploitation of migrant workers is
> >> > wrong, not buying those products is the appoaching the absolute minimum
> >> > that one could do to deal with the wrong.
> >>
> >> > Of our vegan, you require absoluteness in her efforts. For those who
> >> > migrant worker exploitation, you require bare bones responses. What's
> >> > that about.
> >>
> >> Think about it, I require the exact same bare-bones response from the
> >> vegan,
> >> to boycott the offending product. They refuse, because walking the walk
> >> is a
> >> lot harder than talking the talk.
> >
> > Decriminalizing a product is not a boycott of it. Decriminalizing pot is
> > not boycotting pot. Quite the contrary.
>
> Oops! bait and switch
>
> > Oh, the hypocrisy.
>
> Troll, troll, troll, troll gently down the stream... pretty good at it too,
> had me going. So what's the kick? Do you report back to a group? Are you a
> clique like hackers?

More diversion. But do report to *your* group.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> >> > Please, Dutch. If one believes the exploitation of migrant workers is
> >> > wrong, not buying those products is the appoaching the absolute minimum
> >> > that one could do to deal with the wrong.
> >>
> >> > Of our vegan, you require absoluteness in her efforts. For those who
> >> > migrant worker exploitation, you require bare bones responses. What's
> >> > that about.
> >>
> >> Think about it, I require the exact same bare-bones response from the
> >> vegan,
> >> to boycott the offending product. They refuse, because walking the walk
> >> is a
> >> lot harder than talking the talk.
> >
> > Decriminalizing a product is not a boycott of it. Decriminalizing pot is
> > not boycotting pot. Quite the contrary.
>
> Oops! bait and switch
>
> > Oh, the hypocrisy.
>
> Troll, troll, troll, troll gently down the stream... pretty good at it too,
> had me going. So what's the kick? Do you report back to a group? Are you a
> clique like hackers?

More diversion. But do report to *your* group.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> >> > Please, Dutch. If one believes the exploitation of migrant workers
>> >> > is
>> >> > wrong, not buying those products is the appoaching the absolute
>> >> > minimum
>> >> > that one could do to deal with the wrong.
>> >>
>> >> > Of our vegan, you require absoluteness in her efforts. For those who
>> >> > migrant worker exploitation, you require bare bones responses.
>> >> > What's
>> >> > that about.
>> >>
>> >> Think about it, I require the exact same bare-bones response from the
>> >> vegan,
>> >> to boycott the offending product. They refuse, because walking the
>> >> walk
>> >> is a
>> >> lot harder than talking the talk.
>> >
>> > Decriminalizing a product is not a boycott of it. Decriminalizing pot
>> > is
>> > not boycotting pot. Quite the contrary.
>>
>> Oops! bait and switch
>>
>> > Oh, the hypocrisy.
>>
>> Troll, troll, troll, troll gently down the stream... pretty good at it
>> too,
>> had me going. So what's the kick? Do you report back to a group? Are you
>> a
>> clique like hackers?
>
> More diversion. But do report to *your* group.

No diversion, I'm on to you Ronny. You're not even *** are you?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >>
> >> >> > Please, Dutch. If one believes the exploitation of migrant workers
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > wrong, not buying those products is the appoaching the absolute
> >> >> > minimum
> >> >> > that one could do to deal with the wrong.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Of our vegan, you require absoluteness in her efforts. For those who
> >> >> > migrant worker exploitation, you require bare bones responses.
> >> >> > What's
> >> >> > that about.
> >> >>
> >> >> Think about it, I require the exact same bare-bones response from the
> >> >> vegan,
> >> >> to boycott the offending product. They refuse, because walking the
> >> >> walk
> >> >> is a
> >> >> lot harder than talking the talk.
> >> >
> >> > Decriminalizing a product is not a boycott of it. Decriminalizing pot
> >> > is
> >> > not boycotting pot. Quite the contrary.
> >>
> >> Oops! bait and switch
> >>
> >> > Oh, the hypocrisy.
> >>
> >> Troll, troll, troll, troll gently down the stream... pretty good at it
> >> too,
> >> had me going. So what's the kick? Do you report back to a group? Are you
> >> a
> >> clique like hackers?
> >
> > More diversion. But do report to *your* group.
>
> No diversion, I'm on to you Ronny. You're not even *** are you?

More diversion. We were discussing pot use. I'll disengage if you are
refusing to address the issues that were raised.

the comments that do remain clearly show that we were discussing the
merit of legalizing from your perspective versus my own.

"Ron" > wrote

> More diversion. We were discussing pot use. I'll disengage if you are
> refusing to address the issues that were raised.

You're not discussing issues, issues are irrelevant to your trolling. Your
ego is bruised and since you can't compete on reason you're attempting to
even the score using brute force. You think if you shovel it thick and deep
enough your antagonists will eventually succumb through sheer exhaustion.

You're a featherweight with a supersize shovel.

"Ron" > wrote

> More diversion. We were discussing pot use. I'll disengage if you are
> refusing to address the issues that were raised.

You're not discussing issues, issues are irrelevant to your trolling. Your
ego is bruised and since you can't compete on reason you're attempting to
even the score using brute force. You think if you shovel it thick and deep
enough your antagonists will eventually succumb through sheer exhaustion.

You're a featherweight with a supersize shovel.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> > More diversion. We were discussing pot use. I'll disengage if you are
> > refusing to address the issues that were raised.
>
> You're not discussing issues, issues are irrelevant to your trolling. Your
> ego is bruised and since you can't compete on reason you're attempting to
> even the score using brute force. You think if you shovel it thick and deep
> enough your antagonists will eventually succumb through sheer exhaustion.
>
> You're a featherweight with a supersize shovel.

I offered to discussed several issues including reviewing the Baltimore
study that you offered as evidence to support your claims. Whose shovel
are we discussing?

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>More diversion. We were discussing pot use. I'll disengage if you are
>>>refusing to address the issues that were raised.
>>
>>You're not discussing issues, issues are irrelevant to your trolling. Your
>>ego is bruised and since you can't compete on reason you're attempting to
>>even the score using brute force. You think if you shovel it thick and deep
>>enough your antagonists will eventually succumb through sheer exhaustion.
>>
>>You're a featherweight with a supersize shovel.
>
>
> I offered to discussed

"offered to discussed"? Are you not a native English
speaker?

**** off, worthless little alt.philosophy troll/homo

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

>> > More diversion. We were discussing pot use. I'll disengage if you are
>> > refusing to address the issues that were raised.
>>
>> You're not discussing issues, issues are irrelevant to your trolling.
>> Your
>> ego is bruised and since you can't compete on reason you're attempting to
>> even the score using brute force. You think if you shovel it thick and
>> deep
>> enough your antagonists will eventually succumb through sheer exhaustion.
>>
>> You're a featherweight with a supersize shovel.
>
> I offered to discussed several issues including reviewing the Baltimore
> study that you offered as evidence to support your claims. Whose shovel
> are we discussing?

You have NOT attempted to "discuss" anything, your knee jerks, then you make
some nonsensical objection, sometimes piling some totally useless rhetoric
on top of it. Until you wise up, you're a joke, a fluffball. Unless you are
actually a troll as I thought, then you're pretty good.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> > More diversion. We were discussing pot use. I'll disengage if you are
> >> > refusing to address the issues that were raised.
> >>
> >> You're not discussing issues, issues are irrelevant to your trolling.
> >> Your
> >> ego is bruised and since you can't compete on reason you're attempting to
> >> even the score using brute force. You think if you shovel it thick and
> >> deep
> >> enough your antagonists will eventually succumb through sheer exhaustion.
> >>
> >> You're a featherweight with a supersize shovel.
> >
> > I offered to discussed several issues including reviewing the Baltimore
> > study that you offered as evidence to support your claims. Whose shovel
> > are we discussing?
>
> You have NOT attempted to "discuss" anything, your knee jerks, then you make
> some nonsensical objection, sometimes piling some totally useless rhetoric
> on top of it. Until you wise up, you're a joke, a fluffball. Unless you are
> actually a troll as I thought, then you're pretty good.

I'll take that as a "no". It seems despite cutting and pasting that
information that you are unwilling to defend it as accurate.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> > More diversion. We were discussing pot use. I'll disengage if you are
> >> > refusing to address the issues that were raised.
> >>
> >> You're not discussing issues, issues are irrelevant to your trolling.
> >> Your
> >> ego is bruised and since you can't compete on reason you're attempting to
> >> even the score using brute force. You think if you shovel it thick and
> >> deep
> >> enough your antagonists will eventually succumb through sheer exhaustion.
> >>
> >> You're a featherweight with a supersize shovel.
> >
> > I offered to discussed several issues including reviewing the Baltimore
> > study that you offered as evidence to support your claims. Whose shovel
> > are we discussing?
>
> You have NOT attempted to "discuss" anything, your knee jerks, then you make
> some nonsensical objection, sometimes piling some totally useless rhetoric
> on top of it. Until you wise up, you're a joke, a fluffball. Unless you are
> actually a troll as I thought, then you're pretty good.

I'll take that as a "no". It seems despite cutting and pasting that
information that you are unwilling to defend it as accurate.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >> > More diversion. We were discussing pot use. I'll disengage if you
>> >> > are
>> >> > refusing to address the issues that were raised.
>> >>
>> >> You're not discussing issues, issues are irrelevant to your trolling.
>> >> Your
>> >> ego is bruised and since you can't compete on reason you're attempting
>> >> to
>> >> even the score using brute force. You think if you shovel it thick and
>> >> deep
>> >> enough your antagonists will eventually succumb through sheer
>> >> exhaustion.
>> >>
>> >> You're a featherweight with a supersize shovel.
>> >
>> > I offered to discussed several issues including reviewing the Baltimore
>> > study that you offered as evidence to support your claims. Whose shovel
>> > are we discussing?
>>
>> You have NOT attempted to "discuss" anything, your knee jerks, then you
>> make
>> some nonsensical objection, sometimes piling some totally useless
>> rhetoric
>> on top of it. Until you wise up, you're a joke, a fluffball. Unless you
>> are
>> actually a troll as I thought, then you're pretty good.
>
> I'll take that as a "no".

Take it as a **** off

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
8<
> We ARE connected to the deaths of humans in industry when we use those
> products. That is why many trade unions and other groups boycotted
> California grapes, because migrant workers were being subjected to unsafe
> levels of pesticides (which incidentally also kill animals) Once
legislation
> was introduced to correct those abuses, and the level of safety was raised
> to an acceptable level the boycotts were lifted. This is called
> "mitigation". People are still harmed, as in any situation where humans,
> chemicals and machinery collide, it is inevitable, but the danger is
> "mitigated" to a degree that makes the consumption of those products no
> longer a complicity in immoral acts. In other words, it was the failure to
> provide safety measures (mitigation) that made people boycott the
products.

Are not vegans acting rather like trade unions by protecting the interests
of beings who cannot do so themselves, as is often the case with poor
workers?

> When you kill another person in an auto accident, one looks at to what
> degree you mitigated to prevent the accident. Did you drive in accordance
> with the laws? Did you use all due care and attention? If so, then you did
> nothing wrong, even though you killed someone.

Veganism is an attempt to mitigate against animal abuse and exploitation.

> No such mitigation exists in the vast majority of agriculture, in fact the
> very purpose of chemical sprays is to kill, and it is implausible to think
> you can protect all field animals from harm by machinery.

Yes, it was California grapes who were abusing people with pesticides, and
had their abuses legislated away, the consumers of Calfornia grapes were not
in judegment. This is a good example of how the law tells _the abuser_ to
fix his crap.

Humans have to compete with other herbivores to eat plants, and use natural
resources. This is a survival issue and a fact of life.

John

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
> 8<
>> We ARE connected to the deaths of humans in industry when we use those
>> products. That is why many trade unions and other groups boycotted
>> California grapes, because migrant workers were being subjected to unsafe
>> levels of pesticides (which incidentally also kill animals) Once
> legislation
>> was introduced to correct those abuses, and the level of safety was
>> raised
>> to an acceptable level the boycotts were lifted. This is called
>> "mitigation". People are still harmed, as in any situation where humans,
>> chemicals and machinery collide, it is inevitable, but the danger is
>> "mitigated" to a degree that makes the consumption of those products no
>> longer a complicity in immoral acts. In other words, it was the failure
>> to
>> provide safety measures (mitigation) that made people boycott the
> products.
>
> Are not vegans acting rather like trade unions by protecting the interests
> of beings who cannot do so themselves, as is often the case with poor
> workers?
===========
No. You're oppressing and killing even more animals for nothing more than
your selfish conveniences, and entertainment.

>
>> When you kill another person in an auto accident, one looks at to what
>> degree you mitigated to prevent the accident. Did you drive in accordance
>> with the laws? Did you use all due care and attention? If so, then you
>> did
>> nothing wrong, even though you killed someone.
>
> Veganism is an attempt to mitigate against animal abuse and exploitation.
=================
No, it is not. It's a religion based on the faith that the practitioners
'feel' good about themselves for following only a simple rule for their
simple minds.


>
>> No such mitigation exists in the vast majority of agriculture, in fact
>> the
>> very purpose of chemical sprays is to kill, and it is implausible to
>> think
>> you can protect all field animals from harm by machinery.
>
> Yes, it was California grapes who were abusing people with pesticides, and
> had their abuses legislated away, the consumers of Calfornia grapes were
> not
> in judegment. This is a good example of how the law tells _the abuser_ to
> fix his crap.
>
> Humans have to compete with other herbivores to eat plants, and use
> natural
> resources. This is a survival issue and a fact of life.
>
> John
>
>