Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The
>>>>>
>>>>>vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
>>>>>animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it
>>>>>is
>>>>>acceptable to kill some animals for their food.
>>>>
>>>>That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
>>>>hypocrisy
>>>>is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
>>>>kill
>>>>animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
>>>>people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
>>>>cheap
>>>>food.
>>>
>>>Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
>>>tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?
>>
>>The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal was
>>Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.
>>
>>Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?
>
>
> Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
> reasonable to me.

No one is attempting to hold any "vegan" responsible
for the *actions* of anyone else. It is the moral
outcome for which "vegans" share responsibility, not
the actions.

This has been explained to you dozens of times, over
the course of several weeks. You either are being
deliberately obtuse, or you are very stupid and unable
to see the distinction. Those are the only two
possible explanations.

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The
>>>>>
>>>>>vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
>>>>>animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it
>>>>>is
>>>>>acceptable to kill some animals for their food.
>>>>
>>>>That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
>>>>hypocrisy
>>>>is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
>>>>kill
>>>>animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
>>>>people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
>>>>cheap
>>>>food.
>>>
>>>Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
>>>tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?
>>
>>The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal was
>>Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.
>>
>>Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?
>
>
> Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
> reasonable to me.

No one is attempting to hold any "vegan" responsible
for the *actions* of anyone else. It is the moral
outcome for which "vegans" share responsibility, not
the actions.

This has been explained to you dozens of times, over
the course of several weeks. You either are being
deliberately obtuse, or you are very stupid and unable
to see the distinction. Those are the only two
possible explanations.

In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Ron" > wrote
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The
> >>>>>
> >>>>>vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
> >>>>>animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it
> >>>>>is
> >>>>>acceptable to kill some animals for their food.
> >>>>
> >>>>That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
> >>>>hypocrisy
> >>>>is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
> >>>>kill
> >>>>animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
> >>>>people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
> >>>>cheap
> >>>>food.
> >>>
> >>>Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
> >>>tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?
> >>
> >>The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal was
> >>Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.
> >>
> >>Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?
> >
> >
> > Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
> > reasonable to me.
>
> No one is attempting to hold any "vegan" responsible
> for the *actions* of anyone else. It is the moral
> outcome for which "vegans" share responsibility, not
> the actions.
>
> This has been explained to you dozens of times, over
> the course of several weeks. You either are being
> deliberately obtuse, or you are very stupid and unable
> to see the distinction. Those are the only two
> possible explanations.

That is really interesting. In my family and in my culture we are taught
that we are responsible for our actions. Your theory requires that I be
responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions.

Whose action caused the death of the animal in question?

In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Ron" > wrote
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The
> >>>>>
> >>>>>vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
> >>>>>animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it
> >>>>>is
> >>>>>acceptable to kill some animals for their food.
> >>>>
> >>>>That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
> >>>>hypocrisy
> >>>>is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
> >>>>kill
> >>>>animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
> >>>>people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
> >>>>cheap
> >>>>food.
> >>>
> >>>Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
> >>>tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?
> >>
> >>The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal was
> >>Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.
> >>
> >>Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?
> >
> >
> > Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
> > reasonable to me.
>
> No one is attempting to hold any "vegan" responsible
> for the *actions* of anyone else. It is the moral
> outcome for which "vegans" share responsibility, not
> the actions.
>
> This has been explained to you dozens of times, over
> the course of several weeks. You either are being
> deliberately obtuse, or you are very stupid and unable
> to see the distinction. Those are the only two
> possible explanations.

That is really interesting. In my family and in my culture we are taught
that we are responsible for our actions. Your theory requires that I be
responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions.

Whose action caused the death of the animal in question?

Ron wrote:

> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
>>>>>>>animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>acceptable to kill some animals for their food.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
>>>>>>hypocrisy
>>>>>>is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
>>>>>>kill
>>>>>>animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
>>>>>>people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
>>>>>>cheap
>>>>>>food.
>>>>>
>>>>>Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
>>>>>tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?
>>>>
>>>>The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal was
>>>>Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.
>>>>
>>>>Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?
>>>
>>>
>>>Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
>>>reasonable to me.
>>
>>No one is attempting to hold any "vegan" responsible
>>for the *actions* of anyone else. It is the moral
>>outcome for which "vegans" share responsibility, not
>>the actions.
>>
>>This has been explained to you dozens of times, over
>>the course of several weeks. You either are being
>>deliberately obtuse, or you are very stupid and unable
>>to see the distinction. Those are the only two
>>possible explanations.
>
>
> That is really interesting. In my family and in my culture we are taught
> that we are responsible for our actions. Your theory requires that I be
> responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions.

You share responsibility for the outcomes of other
people's actions when those actions are done on your
behalf, and when you are fully aware of the likelihood
of the outcomes.

Ron wrote:

> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
>>>>>>>animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>acceptable to kill some animals for their food.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
>>>>>>hypocrisy
>>>>>>is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
>>>>>>kill
>>>>>>animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
>>>>>>people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
>>>>>>cheap
>>>>>>food.
>>>>>
>>>>>Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
>>>>>tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?
>>>>
>>>>The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal was
>>>>Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.
>>>>
>>>>Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?
>>>
>>>
>>>Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
>>>reasonable to me.
>>
>>No one is attempting to hold any "vegan" responsible
>>for the *actions* of anyone else. It is the moral
>>outcome for which "vegans" share responsibility, not
>>the actions.
>>
>>This has been explained to you dozens of times, over
>>the course of several weeks. You either are being
>>deliberately obtuse, or you are very stupid and unable
>>to see the distinction. Those are the only two
>>possible explanations.
>
>
> That is really interesting. In my family and in my culture we are taught
> that we are responsible for our actions. Your theory requires that I be
> responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions.

You share responsibility for the outcomes of other
people's actions when those actions are done on your
behalf, and when you are fully aware of the likelihood
of the outcomes.

In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously.
> >>>>>>>>The
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
> >>>>>>>animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it
> >>>>>>>is
> >>>>>>>acceptable to kill some animals for their food.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
> >>>>>>hypocrisy
> >>>>>>is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
> >>>>>>kill
> >>>>>>animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
> >>>>>>people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
> >>>>>>cheap
> >>>>>>food.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
> >>>>>tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?
> >>>>
> >>>>The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal
> >>>>was
> >>>>Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.
> >>>>
> >>>>Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
> >>>reasonable to me.
> >>
> >>No one is attempting to hold any "vegan" responsible
> >>for the *actions* of anyone else. It is the moral
> >>outcome for which "vegans" share responsibility, not
> >>the actions.
> >>
> >>This has been explained to you dozens of times, over
> >>the course of several weeks. You either are being
> >>deliberately obtuse, or you are very stupid and unable
> >>to see the distinction. Those are the only two
> >>possible explanations.
> >
> >
> > That is really interesting. In my family and in my culture we are taught
> > that we are responsible for our actions. Your theory requires that I be
> > responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions.
>
> You share responsibility for the outcomes of other
> people's actions when those actions are done on your
> behalf,

Who taught you such nonsense?

> and when you are fully aware of the likelihood
> of the outcomes.

Ron wrote:

> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>anal leakage wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>anal leakage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
>>>>>reasonable to me.
>>>>
>>>>No one is attempting to hold any "vegan" responsible
>>>>for the *actions* of anyone else. It is the moral
>>>>outcome for which "vegans" share responsibility, not
>>>>the actions.
>>>>
>>>>This has been explained to you dozens of times, over
>>>>the course of several weeks. You either are being
>>>>deliberately obtuse, or you are very stupid and unable
>>>>to see the distinction. Those are the only two
>>>>possible explanations.
>>>
>>>
>>>That is really interesting. In my family and in my culture we are taught
>>>that we are responsible for our actions. Your theory requires that I be
>>>responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions.
>>
>>You share responsibility for the outcomes of other
>>people's actions when those actions are done on your
>>behalf,
>
>
> Who taught you such nonsense?

It isn't nonsense.

Once again: if you drive the getaway car in a bank
robbery in which some innocent person in the bank is
shot and killed, you share in the legal AND moral
responsibility for that death (the legal responsibility
is based on the moral responsibility), and you face a
punishment greater than you would if no one had been
killed. This is not nonsense. You are a participant
in the event, even though you didn't pull the trigger.
This is moral, just, and as it should be.

Deal with it. Or, instead of sitting there effetely
trying to be clever, try to explain, in detail and
without resorting to faggy sarcasm, exactly where the
flaw is.

>
>
>>and when you are fully aware of the likelihood
>>of the outcomes.

Ron wrote:

> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>anal leakage wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>anal leakage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
>>>>>reasonable to me.
>>>>
>>>>No one is attempting to hold any "vegan" responsible
>>>>for the *actions* of anyone else. It is the moral
>>>>outcome for which "vegans" share responsibility, not
>>>>the actions.
>>>>
>>>>This has been explained to you dozens of times, over
>>>>the course of several weeks. You either are being
>>>>deliberately obtuse, or you are very stupid and unable
>>>>to see the distinction. Those are the only two
>>>>possible explanations.
>>>
>>>
>>>That is really interesting. In my family and in my culture we are taught
>>>that we are responsible for our actions. Your theory requires that I be
>>>responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions.
>>
>>You share responsibility for the outcomes of other
>>people's actions when those actions are done on your
>>behalf,
>
>
> Who taught you such nonsense?

It isn't nonsense.

Once again: if you drive the getaway car in a bank
robbery in which some innocent person in the bank is
shot and killed, you share in the legal AND moral
responsibility for that death (the legal responsibility
is based on the moral responsibility), and you face a
punishment greater than you would if no one had been
killed. This is not nonsense. You are a participant
in the event, even though you didn't pull the trigger.
This is moral, just, and as it should be.

Deal with it. Or, instead of sitting there effetely
trying to be clever, try to explain, in detail and
without resorting to faggy sarcasm, exactly where the
flaw is.

>
>
>>and when you are fully aware of the likelihood
>>of the outcomes.

In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>anal leakage wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>anal leakage wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
> >>>>>reasonable to me.
> >>>>
> >>>>No one is attempting to hold any "vegan" responsible
> >>>>for the *actions* of anyone else. It is the moral
> >>>>outcome for which "vegans" share responsibility, not
> >>>>the actions.
> >>>>
> >>>>This has been explained to you dozens of times, over
> >>>>the course of several weeks. You either are being
> >>>>deliberately obtuse, or you are very stupid and unable
> >>>>to see the distinction. Those are the only two
> >>>>possible explanations.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That is really interesting. In my family and in my culture we are taught
> >>>that we are responsible for our actions. Your theory requires that I be
> >>>responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions.
> >>
> >>You share responsibility for the outcomes of other
> >>people's actions when those actions are done on your
> >>behalf,
> >
> >
> > Who taught you such nonsense?
>
> It isn't nonsense.
>
> Once again: if you drive the getaway car in a bank
> robbery in which some innocent person in the bank is
> shot and killed, you share in the legal AND moral
> responsibility for that death (the legal responsibility
> is based on the moral responsibility), and you face a
> punishment greater than you would if no one had been
> killed. This is not nonsense. You are a participant
> in the event, even though you didn't pull the trigger.
> This is moral, just, and as it should be.
>
> Deal with it. Or, instead of sitting there effetely
> trying to be clever, try to explain, in detail and
> without resorting to faggy sarcasm, exactly where the
> flaw is.

Ah, you blew it with this paragraph.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> >> Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously.
>> >> >> The
>> >> > vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
>> >> > animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_
>> >> > it
>> >> > is
>> >> > acceptable to kill some animals for their food.
>> >>
>> >> That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
>> >> hypocrisy
>> >> is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
>> >> kill
>> >> animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans
>> >> pay
>> >> people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
>> >> cheap
>> >> food.
>> >
>> > Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
>> > tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?
>>
>> The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal
>> was
>> Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.
>>
>> Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?
>
> Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
> reasonable to me.

Dolores is accountable for her own action, paying Pedro.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> >> Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously.
>> >> >> The
>> >> > vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
>> >> > animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_
>> >> > it
>> >> > is
>> >> > acceptable to kill some animals for their food.
>> >>
>> >> That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
>> >> hypocrisy
>> >> is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
>> >> kill
>> >> animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans
>> >> pay
>> >> people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
>> >> cheap
>> >> food.
>> >
>> > Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
>> > tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?
>>
>> The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal
>> was
>> Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.
>>
>> Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?
>
> Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
> reasonable to me.

Dolores is accountable for her own action, paying Pedro.

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> om...
>>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> <snip>
>> > From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that
>> > when
>> > others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
>> > obligation to protect them.
>>
>> It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.
>
> So why do you continue to eat meat?

Because it's so darn good.

-Rubystars

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Rubystars" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> <snip>
>> > From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that
>> > when
>> > others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
>> > obligation to protect them.
>>
>> It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.
>>
>> >If you've been following my conversation
>> > with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
>> > in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
>> > (animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.
>>
>> I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to
>> animals
>> for no good reason.
>
> This is typically the crux of the matter in any dispute between two or
> more parties -- what is deemed as a good reason to do X. The second
> condition of your position is a requirement for less pain, not no pain.
>
> The lack of logic emerges when the inconsistencies emerge. If it is
> acceptable to inflict suffering on a cow as a food source then it ought
> to be okay to inflict suffering on any animal as a food source. That
> would be consistent. Clearly we don't do that so, I tend to view this
> argument as being an excuse and not the 'true' reason or motivation for
> the behaviour.
>
> My question of you would be what is "a lot of pain"? Your statement is
> very subjective and that can be interpreted in many ways. for example,
> if we were to be more humane in the killing of animals (read some
> animals that are used) as a food source does this satisfy your
> requirement for less or minimal infliction of pain?

I left my statements open because the whole point of this group is about
debating what constitutes bad things and what constitutes acceptable use
(unless you're a hardcore ARA, then no use of animals is acceptable).

I also think there's such a thing as consistency going too far. Should we
treat every species exactly the same? Probably not.

-Rubystars

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Rubystars" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> <snip>
>> > From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that
>> > when
>> > others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
>> > obligation to protect them.
>>
>> It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.
>>
>> >If you've been following my conversation
>> > with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
>> > in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
>> > (animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.
>>
>> I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to
>> animals
>> for no good reason.
>
> This is typically the crux of the matter in any dispute between two or
> more parties -- what is deemed as a good reason to do X. The second
> condition of your position is a requirement for less pain, not no pain.
>
> The lack of logic emerges when the inconsistencies emerge. If it is
> acceptable to inflict suffering on a cow as a food source then it ought
> to be okay to inflict suffering on any animal as a food source. That
> would be consistent. Clearly we don't do that so, I tend to view this
> argument as being an excuse and not the 'true' reason or motivation for
> the behaviour.
>
> My question of you would be what is "a lot of pain"? Your statement is
> very subjective and that can be interpreted in many ways. for example,
> if we were to be more humane in the killing of animals (read some
> animals that are used) as a food source does this satisfy your
> requirement for less or minimal infliction of pain?

I left my statements open because the whole point of this group is about
debating what constitutes bad things and what constitutes acceptable use
(unless you're a hardcore ARA, then no use of animals is acceptable).

I also think there's such a thing as consistency going too far. Should we
treat every species exactly the same? Probably not.

-Rubystars

Ron wrote:

> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>anal leakage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>anal leakage wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
>>>>>>>reasonable to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No one is attempting to hold any "vegan" responsible
>>>>>>for the *actions* of anyone else. It is the moral
>>>>>>outcome for which "vegans" share responsibility, not
>>>>>>the actions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This has been explained to you dozens of times, over
>>>>>>the course of several weeks. You either are being
>>>>>>deliberately obtuse, or you are very stupid and unable
>>>>>>to see the distinction. Those are the only two
>>>>>>possible explanations.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That is really interesting. In my family and in my culture we are taught
>>>>>that we are responsible for our actions. Your theory requires that I be
>>>>>responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions.
>>>>
>>>>You share responsibility for the outcomes of other
>>>>people's actions when those actions are done on your
>>>>behalf,
>>>
>>>
>>>Who taught you such nonsense?
>>
>>It isn't nonsense.
>>
>>Once again: if you drive the getaway car in a bank
>>robbery in which some innocent person in the bank is
>>shot and killed, you share in the legal AND moral
>>responsibility for that death (the legal responsibility
>>is based on the moral responsibility), and you face a
>>punishment greater than you would if no one had been
>>killed. This is not nonsense. You are a participant
>>in the event, even though you didn't pull the trigger.
>> This is moral, just, and as it should be.
>>
>>Deal with it. Or, instead of sitting there effetely
>>trying to be clever, try to explain, in detail and
>>without resorting to faggy sarcasm, exactly where the
>>flaw is.
>
>
> Ah, you blew it with this paragraph.

No, you do all the blowing.

Ron wrote:

> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>anal leakage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>anal leakage wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
>>>>>>>reasonable to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No one is attempting to hold any "vegan" responsible
>>>>>>for the *actions* of anyone else. It is the moral
>>>>>>outcome for which "vegans" share responsibility, not
>>>>>>the actions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This has been explained to you dozens of times, over
>>>>>>the course of several weeks. You either are being
>>>>>>deliberately obtuse, or you are very stupid and unable
>>>>>>to see the distinction. Those are the only two
>>>>>>possible explanations.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That is really interesting. In my family and in my culture we are taught
>>>>>that we are responsible for our actions. Your theory requires that I be
>>>>>responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions.
>>>>
>>>>You share responsibility for the outcomes of other
>>>>people's actions when those actions are done on your
>>>>behalf,
>>>
>>>
>>>Who taught you such nonsense?
>>
>>It isn't nonsense.
>>
>>Once again: if you drive the getaway car in a bank
>>robbery in which some innocent person in the bank is
>>shot and killed, you share in the legal AND moral
>>responsibility for that death (the legal responsibility
>>is based on the moral responsibility), and you face a
>>punishment greater than you would if no one had been
>>killed. This is not nonsense. You are a participant
>>in the event, even though you didn't pull the trigger.
>> This is moral, just, and as it should be.
>>
>>Deal with it. Or, instead of sitting there effetely
>>trying to be clever, try to explain, in detail and
>>without resorting to faggy sarcasm, exactly where the
>>flaw is.
>
>
> Ah, you blew it with this paragraph.

No, you do all the blowing.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously.
> >> >> >> The
> >> >> > vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
> >> >> > animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_
> >> >> > it
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > acceptable to kill some animals for their food.
> >> >>
> >> >> That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
> >> >> hypocrisy
> >> >> is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
> >> >> kill
> >> >> animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans
> >> >> pay
> >> >> people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
> >> >> cheap
> >> >> food.
> >> >
> >> > Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
> >> > tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?
> >>
> >> The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal
> >> was
> >> Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.
> >>
> >> Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?
> >
> > Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
> > reasonable to me.
>
> Dolores is accountable for her own action, paying Pedro.

Giving a person money is not immoral. I did it several times today.

In article > ,
"Rubystars" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Rubystars" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> <snip>
> >> > From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that
> >> > when
> >> > others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
> >> > obligation to protect them.
> >>
> >> It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.
> >>
> >> >If you've been following my conversation
> >> > with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
> >> > in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
> >> > (animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.
> >>
> >> I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to
> >> animals
> >> for no good reason.
> >
> > This is typically the crux of the matter in any dispute between two or
> > more parties -- what is deemed as a good reason to do X. The second
> > condition of your position is a requirement for less pain, not no pain.
> >
> > The lack of logic emerges when the inconsistencies emerge. If it is
> > acceptable to inflict suffering on a cow as a food source then it ought
> > to be okay to inflict suffering on any animal as a food source. That
> > would be consistent. Clearly we don't do that so, I tend to view this
> > argument as being an excuse and not the 'true' reason or motivation for
> > the behaviour.
> >
> > My question of you would be what is "a lot of pain"? Your statement is
> > very subjective and that can be interpreted in many ways. for example,
> > if we were to be more humane in the killing of animals (read some
> > animals that are used) as a food source does this satisfy your
> > requirement for less or minimal infliction of pain?
>
> I left my statements open because the whole point of this group is about
> debating what constitutes bad things and what constitutes acceptable use
> (unless you're a hardcore ARA, then no use of animals is acceptable).
>
> I also think there's such a thing as consistency going too far. Should we
> treat every species exactly the same? Probably not.

Animals can be killed essentially without pain. If this is the only
obstacle then I find the objection can be easily addressed and the need
for veganism can be avoided.

Further, can we clarify which species it is acceptable to inflict pain
and suffering on and which species it is not acceptable to inflict pain
and suffering on?

In article > ,
"Rubystars" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Rubystars" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> <snip>
> >> > From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that
> >> > when
> >> > others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
> >> > obligation to protect them.
> >>
> >> It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.
> >>
> >> >If you've been following my conversation
> >> > with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
> >> > in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
> >> > (animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.
> >>
> >> I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to
> >> animals
> >> for no good reason.
> >
> > This is typically the crux of the matter in any dispute between two or
> > more parties -- what is deemed as a good reason to do X. The second
> > condition of your position is a requirement for less pain, not no pain.
> >
> > The lack of logic emerges when the inconsistencies emerge. If it is
> > acceptable to inflict suffering on a cow as a food source then it ought
> > to be okay to inflict suffering on any animal as a food source. That
> > would be consistent. Clearly we don't do that so, I tend to view this
> > argument as being an excuse and not the 'true' reason or motivation for
> > the behaviour.
> >
> > My question of you would be what is "a lot of pain"? Your statement is
> > very subjective and that can be interpreted in many ways. for example,
> > if we were to be more humane in the killing of animals (read some
> > animals that are used) as a food source does this satisfy your
> > requirement for less or minimal infliction of pain?
>
> I left my statements open because the whole point of this group is about
> debating what constitutes bad things and what constitutes acceptable use
> (unless you're a hardcore ARA, then no use of animals is acceptable).
>
> I also think there's such a thing as consistency going too far. Should we
> treat every species exactly the same? Probably not.

Animals can be killed essentially without pain. If this is the only
obstacle then I find the objection can be easily addressed and the need
for veganism can be avoided.

Further, can we clarify which species it is acceptable to inflict pain
and suffering on and which species it is not acceptable to inflict pain
and suffering on?

"Ron" > wrote in message
<snip>
> Animals can be killed essentially without pain. If this is the only
> obstacle then I find the objection can be easily addressed and the need
> for veganism can be avoided.

It's not the only objection, but I think it's the major one.

> Further, can we clarify which species it is acceptable to inflict pain
> and suffering on and which species it is not acceptable to inflict pain
> and suffering on?

Opinions vary wildly on this, but I think humans should be given first
priority.

-Rubystars

"Ron" > wrote in message
<snip>
> Animals can be killed essentially without pain. If this is the only
> obstacle then I find the objection can be easily addressed and the need
> for veganism can be avoided.

It's not the only objection, but I think it's the major one.

> Further, can we clarify which species it is acceptable to inflict pain
> and suffering on and which species it is not acceptable to inflict pain
> and suffering on?

Opinions vary wildly on this, but I think humans should be given first
priority.

-Rubystars

"Ron" > wrote

> Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>> > Who taught you such nonsense?
>>
>> It isn't nonsense.
>>
>> Once again: if you drive the getaway car in a bank
>> robbery in which some innocent person in the bank is
>> shot and killed, you share in the legal AND moral
>> responsibility for that death (the legal responsibility
>> is based on the moral responsibility), and you face a
>> punishment greater than you would if no one had been
>> killed. This is not nonsense. You are a participant
>> in the event, even though you didn't pull the trigger.
>> This is moral, just, and as it should be.
>>
>> Deal with it. Or, instead of sitting there effetely
>> trying to be clever, try to explain, in detail and
>> without resorting to faggy sarcasm, exactly where the
>> flaw is.
>
> Ah, you blew it with this paragraph.

I agree, he gave you an out, you can cry foul and slink away.

"Ron" > wrote

> Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>> > Who taught you such nonsense?
>>
>> It isn't nonsense.
>>
>> Once again: if you drive the getaway car in a bank
>> robbery in which some innocent person in the bank is
>> shot and killed, you share in the legal AND moral
>> responsibility for that death (the legal responsibility
>> is based on the moral responsibility), and you face a
>> punishment greater than you would if no one had been
>> killed. This is not nonsense. You are a participant
>> in the event, even though you didn't pull the trigger.
>> This is moral, just, and as it should be.
>>
>> Deal with it. Or, instead of sitting there effetely
>> trying to be clever, try to explain, in detail and
>> without resorting to faggy sarcasm, exactly where the
>> flaw is.
>
> Ah, you blew it with this paragraph.

I agree, he gave you an out, you can cry foul and slink away.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote
> Ron wrote:

>> Ah, you blew it with this paragraph.
>
> No, you do all the blowing.

ROTFL!

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote
> Ron wrote:

>> Ah, you blew it with this paragraph.
>
> No, you do all the blowing.

ROTFL!

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:

> Giving a person money is not immoral. I did it several times today.

Paying someone to do something immoral is itself immoral.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:

> Giving a person money is not immoral. I did it several times today.

Paying someone to do something immoral is itself immoral.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...

> Animals can be killed essentially without pain. If this is the only
> obstacle then I find the objection can be easily addressed and the need
> for veganism can be avoided.

Veganism is not primarily about pain.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...

> Animals can be killed essentially without pain. If this is the only
> obstacle then I find the objection can be easily addressed and the need
> for veganism can be avoided.

Veganism is not primarily about pain.

In article > ,
"Rubystars" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> <snip>
> > Animals can be killed essentially without pain. If this is the only
> > obstacle then I find the objection can be easily addressed and the need
> > for veganism can be avoided.
>
> It's not the only objection, but I think it's the major one.

What are the other objections.

I would support 'euthanizing' animals in a pain free manner as opposed
to slaughtering as a compromise position.

> > Further, can we clarify which species it is acceptable to inflict pain
> > and suffering on and which species it is not acceptable to inflict pain
> > and suffering on?
>
> Opinions vary wildly on this, but I think humans should be given first
> priority.

There are some positive outcomes of human deaths though, so I wouldn't
make this an absolute.

In article > ,
"Rubystars" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> <snip>
> > Animals can be killed essentially without pain. If this is the only
> > obstacle then I find the objection can be easily addressed and the need
> > for veganism can be avoided.
>
> It's not the only objection, but I think it's the major one.

What are the other objections.

I would support 'euthanizing' animals in a pain free manner as opposed
to slaughtering as a compromise position.

> > Further, can we clarify which species it is acceptable to inflict pain
> > and suffering on and which species it is not acceptable to inflict pain
> > and suffering on?
>
> Opinions vary wildly on this, but I think humans should be given first
> priority.

There are some positive outcomes of human deaths though, so I wouldn't
make this an absolute.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
>
> > Giving a person money is not immoral. I did it several times today.
>
> Paying someone to do something immoral is itself immoral.

Then we are back at square one as they say.

The fundamental question of what you consider immoral is in question. I
still disagree with your perspective that we are hardwired for survival
or that we are about harm-avoidance. The death of humans can have
positive outcomes. The seeking of harmful activities can have positive
effects.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "Rubystars" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> <snip>
>> > Animals can be killed essentially without pain. If this is the only
>> > obstacle then I find the objection can be easily addressed and the need
>> > for veganism can be avoided.
>>
>> It's not the only objection, but I think it's the major one.
>
> What are the other objections.

Killing for the sake of killing wouldn't be a good thing. Let's say you
adopt a puppy from a shelter and go home and shoot it dead with a rifle.
That's cruelty even if the death is instant.

> I would support 'euthanizing' animals in a pain free manner as opposed
> to slaughtering as a compromise position.

Slaughter should be done as painlessly as possible. Unfortunately I don't
think most meat producers do the best job they can.

>> > Further, can we clarify which species it is acceptable to inflict pain
>> > and suffering on and which species it is not acceptable to inflict pain
>> > and suffering on?
>>
>> Opinions vary wildly on this, but I think humans should be given first
>> priority.
>
> There are some positive outcomes of human deaths though, so I wouldn't
> make this an absolute.

Well some people deserve to die. For recent examples, Arafat or Uday and
Qusay.

-Rubystars

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Animals can be killed essentially without pain. If this is the only
>> obstacle then I find the objection can be easily addressed and the need
>> for veganism can be avoided.
>
> Veganism is not primarily about pain.

True, veganism is about complete non-use of animals, at least in principle.
As PETA puts forth, they believe animals are not ours to use for food,
clothing, entertainment, or any other purpose. Of course, this never
actually works in practice.

-Rubystars

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Animals can be killed essentially without pain. If this is the only
>> obstacle then I find the objection can be easily addressed and the need
>> for veganism can be avoided.
>
> Veganism is not primarily about pain.

True, veganism is about complete non-use of animals, at least in principle.
As PETA puts forth, they believe animals are not ours to use for food,
clothing, entertainment, or any other purpose. Of course, this never
actually works in practice.

-Rubystars

In article >,
"Rubystars" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article > ,
> > "Rubystars" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> <snip>
> >> > Animals can be killed essentially without pain. If this is the only
> >> > obstacle then I find the objection can be easily addressed and the need
> >> > for veganism can be avoided.
> >>
> >> It's not the only objection, but I think it's the major one.
> >
> > What are the other objections.
>
> Killing for the sake of killing wouldn't be a good thing. Let's say you
> adopt a puppy from a shelter and go home and shoot it dead with a rifle.
> That's cruelty even if the death is instant.

I don't see the problem. What is the difference if the killing of the
puppy is intentionally cruel or accidentally cruel? The outcome is the
same -- a dead puppy.

> > I would support 'euthanizing' animals in a pain free manner as opposed
> > to slaughtering as a compromise position.
>
> Slaughter should be done as painlessly as possible. Unfortunately I don't
> think most meat producers do the best job they can.

It seems that the infliction of pain and suffering isn't the issue so to
me then, it really doesn't matter how it is accomplished. Based on your
comments above, it seems that intentionality is the driving issue.

> >> > Further, can we clarify which species it is acceptable to inflict pain
> >> > and suffering on and which species it is not acceptable to inflict pain
> >> > and suffering on?
> >>
> >> Opinions vary wildly on this, but I think humans should be given first
> >> priority.
> >
> > There are some positive outcomes of human deaths though, so I wouldn't
> > make this an absolute.
>
> Well some people deserve to die. For recent examples, Arafat or Uday and
> Qusay.

Those are some, but there are other 'positive outcomes' to the death of
humans.

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

>> > Giving a person money is not immoral. I did it several times today.
>>
>> Paying someone to do something immoral is itself immoral.
>
> Then we are back at square one as they say.

I fail to see any logic behind your objection to this principle. If I aid or
entice someone into commission of an immoral act that seems immoral to me.
If blame shifted away from the person committing the actual act then I
perhaps could see your point, but it doesn't, another entire layer of
responsibility is added.

> The fundamental question of what you consider immoral is in question.

*Fundamentally* it comes down to deliberately causing harm to another
without a valid justification. What follows is a complex evaluation of the
circumstances, such as self-defense, and which may include some arbitrary
criteria such as cultural taboos.

> I
> still disagree with your perspective that we are hardwired for survival
> or that we are about harm-avoidance. The death of humans can have
> positive outcomes.

True, but even so we still kill humans only with great reluctance. Medical
research arguably could make great strides if we used human subjects in
critical areas, but we don't even consider using imprisoned murders without
their consent. Even in war, we are killing "the enemy", not attempting to
attract harm to ourselves.

> The seeking of harmful activities can have positive
> effects.

Only to the extent that they are a roundabout means to achieving a benefit,
not for the harm itself.

Even the most basic animals recoil from harm, so you have an uphill battle
establishing this point.

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

>> > Giving a person money is not immoral. I did it several times today.
>>
>> Paying someone to do something immoral is itself immoral.
>
> Then we are back at square one as they say.

I fail to see any logic behind your objection to this principle. If I aid or
entice someone into commission of an immoral act that seems immoral to me.
If blame shifted away from the person committing the actual act then I
perhaps could see your point, but it doesn't, another entire layer of
responsibility is added.

> The fundamental question of what you consider immoral is in question.

*Fundamentally* it comes down to deliberately causing harm to another
without a valid justification. What follows is a complex evaluation of the
circumstances, such as self-defense, and which may include some arbitrary
criteria such as cultural taboos.

> I
> still disagree with your perspective that we are hardwired for survival
> or that we are about harm-avoidance. The death of humans can have
> positive outcomes.

True, but even so we still kill humans only with great reluctance. Medical
research arguably could make great strides if we used human subjects in
critical areas, but we don't even consider using imprisoned murders without
their consent. Even in war, we are killing "the enemy", not attempting to
attract harm to ourselves.

> The seeking of harmful activities can have positive
> effects.

Only to the extent that they are a roundabout means to achieving a benefit,
not for the harm itself.

Even the most basic animals recoil from harm, so you have an uphill battle
establishing this point.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> > Giving a person money is not immoral. I did it several times today.
> >>
> >> Paying someone to do something immoral is itself immoral.
> >
> > Then we are back at square one as they say.
>
> I fail to see any logic behind your objection to this principle. If I aid or
> entice someone into commission of an immoral act that seems immoral to me.
> If blame shifted away from the person committing the actual act then I
> perhaps could see your point, but it doesn't, another entire layer of
> responsibility is added.

The first issue to resolving this dispute is in how we use terminology.
I use responsibility, fault and blame differently. I use the term
responsibility to indicate who has the power to affect an action. I use
the term fault to determine liability such as a legal matter and I use
term blame to indicate a moral indiscretion. I tend to find that people
use these terms interchangeably.

> > The fundamental question of what you consider immoral is in question.
>
> *Fundamentally* it comes down to deliberately causing harm to another
> without a valid justification. What follows is a complex evaluation of the
> circumstances, such as self-defense, and which may include some arbitrary
> criteria such as cultural taboos.

Morality is a flawed system. The outcome of killing someone for fun and
killing someone in self-defense is the same -- a dead body. Morality is
a device to avoid responsibility and the perceptions of the self as
being bad, wrong, evil, etc.

If one believes that one is evil, bad or wrong for killing another then
they must construct a dichotomy to separate themselves from the others
who they would otherwise be associated with. To become the one who would
not be demonized.

In my view, the person who kills and the result is a dead body is a
killer. A person can attempt whatever manipulation that they like to
remove those feelings and distance themselves from "other" killers is
free to do so.

> > I
> > still disagree with your perspective that we are hardwired for survival
> > or that we are about harm-avoidance. The death of humans can have
> > positive outcomes.
>
> True, but even so we still kill humans only with great reluctance. Medical
> research arguably could make great strides if we used human subjects in
> critical areas, but we don't even consider using imprisoned murders without
> their consent. Even in war, we are killing "the enemy", not attempting to
> attract harm to ourselves.

****ing off an enemy is a sure way to escalate a situation.

> > The seeking of harmful activities can have positive
> > effects.
>
> Only to the extent that they are a roundabout means to achieving a benefit,
> not for the harm itself.

No, for the harm itself. If a skier fear that he will fall and break a
leg and continues to ski then he is inviting the outcome. Fears are
self-fulfilling. The desired outcome may be death, sympathy, pity or any
range of desired outcomes specific to the individual.

> Even the most basic animals recoil from harm, so you have an uphill battle
> establishing this point.

I pick and choose my battles. I've given my opinion. There is
substantial research and reasoning to support it. If you don't want to
believe it then you won't. Some lessons in life people just have to
learn on their own.

I refuse to accept your argument that I should be responsible for the
outcome of other people's action. Unless you enjoy feeling guilty and/or
powerful, I would recommend against that line of thinking.

The reality of the situation is that I accept some of the commonly held
morals and abide by some of the rules and dismiss other morals and codes
of conduct. It is then your/their difficulty if that causes you/them
discomfort in some way.