Ron wrote:

> 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.

That's sophistry, and you know it. You HAVE the power
not to be involved in the PROCESS that leads to the
supposedly wrong outcome. By voluntarily participating
in the process, knowing that it leads to the outcome,
you share in the responsibility for the outcome.
Without your participation, the action isn't done, and
the outcome doesn't occur. Your participation is
INTEGRAL to the outcome. Therefore, when you KNOW what
the outcome is, and still voluntarily choose to
participate, you share responsibility.


>
>> > 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.

Ipse dixit.

> The outcome of killing someone for fun and
> killing someone in self-defense is the same -- a dead body.

The moral outcome is not the same.

> Morality is
> a device to avoid responsibility

Ipse dixit, and utterly false.


>>>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.

non sequitur

>
>
>>>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.

non sequitur

> Fears are
> self-fulfilling.

1. ipse dixit
2. bullshit


>
>>Even the most basic animals recoil from harm, so you have an uphill battle
>>establishing this point.
>
>
> I pick and choose my battles.

You are a sophist. You don't actually believe, in the
normal sense of that word, a thing you write. You
merely are trying to construct and win arguments, and
you'll say anything to do so.

"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.

n/a

>
>> > 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.

Not the point at all.

> Morality is
> a device to avoid responsibility and the perceptions of the self as
> being bad, wrong, evil, etc.

You are a joke if you believe that for more than a moment.

> 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.

Fantasy

> 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.

Irrelevant

>> > 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.

Non-sequitor

>> > 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.

No, he is risking the outcome, not inviting it.

> Fears are
> self-fulfilling. The desired outcome may be death, sympathy, pity or any
> range of desired outcomes specific to the individual.

Irrelevant

>> 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.

Your opinion is misguided and laughable, based on the sum of your
contributions here, which is nil.

> I refuse to accept your argument that I should be responsible for the
> outcome of other people's action.

No, you refuse to accept my argument that you are responsible for the
consequences of your own actions.

> Unless you enjoy feeling guilty and/or
> powerful, I would recommend against that line of thinking.

Your recommendations are less than worthless.

> 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.

It's irrelevant how you justify what you believe and don't believe, what is
material is that your arguments are very unsound.

You are not really thinking, you're posing as a thinker.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> No, you refuse to accept my argument that you are responsible for the
> consequences of your own actions.

That's right and you wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:

As an adult at the age of majority, a moral actor, you are assumed to
have free will, therefore you can't blame anyone else for your
decisions. For a person who claims to advocate personal responsibility
you make odd arguments.

**********************

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

The problem is that the puppy was an innocent being with a mind of his or
her own and was killed for no justifiable reason.

>> > 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.

Pain and suffering is the number one issue, but you were asking me to list
some of the other ones that were important. I think killing without any
valid justification isn't a good thing.

>> >> > 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.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at so you'll have to say more
directly what it is that you mean.

-Rubystars

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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.

Seems like they wouldn't argue with you about this. I mean, if paying
someone for a fur coat isn't immoral then why don't they go and do it? If
paying someone for a hamburger doesn't implicate them in the cow's death
then why don't they eat hamburgers? If crop production results in animal
deaths then they're paying for those deaths just as if they were paying for
the fur coat or the hamburger.

I mean, all they have to do is think in analogy:"I didn't ask for that
furrier to kill the mink, I'm just buying the end product. How he produces
the fur coats isn't my problem, it's his moral responsibility not mine." *L*

Then again there's a separate question that I don't think is really focused
on enough. Is it necessarily immoral to cause animal CDs to produce human
food? I'd say producing food for humans (meat or vegetarian) that they need
to keep themselves alive outweighs the needs of field mice.

-Rubystars

Ron wrote:

> In article >,
> "Rubystars" > wrote:
>
>
>>shit-stained little homo > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article > ,
>>>"Rubystars" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>the felcher > 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.

You're making some serious progress, homo Ron. What is
the difference if animals are intentionally killed to
be eaten by humans, or are killed collaterally in the
course of producing vegetables and left to rot in the
fields? Dead animals are dead animals.

If you believe the killing of animals other than in
self defense to be wrong, and if you knowingly and
voluntarily participate in an ongoing process that
leads to animal deaths, then you either have to abandon
the belief, or stop participating. Those are the only
choices. Something has to stop: the poorly thought
out belief, or the participation in the process leading
to death.

Rubystars wrote:

> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"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.
>
>
> Seems like they wouldn't argue with you about this. I mean, if paying
> someone for a fur coat isn't immoral then why don't they go and do it?

The "vegans" themselves *wouldn't* argue with this.
It's only the leaky little homo Ron who is trying,
unuccessfully, to argue with it.

> If paying someone for a hamburger doesn't implicate them in the cow's death
> then why don't they eat hamburgers?

This is why Skanky Carpetmuncher has brought in aesthetics.

> If crop production results in animal
> deaths then they're paying for those deaths just as if they were paying for
> the fur coat or the hamburger.

Exactly right. Skanky Carpetmuncher tries to downplay
her condemnation of meat eaters, but to most "vegans"
it isn't a problem to accept the idea of complicity.
For some strange reason, homo Ron - allegedly a meat
eater - is trying to get "vegans" off a hook that
"vegans" themselves don't particularly object to being
impaled upon. "vegans" *accept* that there is
responsibility; they just try to excuse themselves by
recourse to some bogus "need" to eat produce, and being
unable to find "CD-free" food. They think that produce
*could* be produced without killing any animals, while
meat necessitates killing animals, they somehow can
wriggle off the hook. They can't.

They can't get off the hook because:

1. they accept the notion of shared responsibility
2. they are CORRECT in their observation that it isn't
necessary to kill animals to produce vegetables
3. they believe the deaths to be absolutely wrong


> I mean, all they have to do is think in analogy:"I didn't ask for that
> furrier to kill the mink, I'm just buying the end product. How he produces
> the fur coats isn't my problem, it's his moral responsibility not mine." *L*

Right. I think Skanky Carpetmuncher probably wears
some fur (I mean, other than her unshaved legs.) It
seems that only *eating* animals is disgusting to her;
wearing them isn't a problem.

>
> Then again there's a separate question that I don't think is really focused
> on enough. Is it necessarily immoral to cause animal CDs to produce human
> food?

"vegans" are going to have to amend their so-called
ethical beliefs drastically if they're going to try to
carve out an exemption. The amending process will
destroy it.

> I'd say producing food for humans (meat or vegetarian) that they need
> to keep themselves alive outweighs the needs of field mice.

This doesn't work. What if, rather than collateral
deaths of seemingly insignificant animals, the thing
they felt they "needed" to keep themselves alive was
"Persian" rugs woven only by Pakistani children for
less-than-subsistence wages in brutal working
conditions? Would their so-called "need" for the rugs
justify the appalling treatment of the rug weavers?

Clearly, no. If some process yields an outcome that
you believe to be ABSOLUTELY wrong, then you simply may
not participate in that process in any way, except
perhaps to stamp it out.

"vegans" may stupidly believe they "need" vegetables,
but that cannot excuse their participation in a process
that yields an outcome they believe to be fundamentally
and ABSOLUTELY wrong: the killing of animals other
than in self defense (and contrary to what that foul
**** Peril said, wanting food is not "self defense";
the animal killed must be DIRECTLY threatening your
physical safety for your killing of it to enjoy a self
defense exemption.)

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> No, you refuse to accept my argument that you are responsible for the
>> consequences of your own actions.
>
> That's right and you wrote:
>
>> In article >, "Dutch" >
>> wrote:
>
> As an adult at the age of majority, a moral actor, you are assumed to
> have free will, therefore you can't blame anyone else for your
> decisions. For a person who claims to advocate personal responsibility
> you make odd arguments.
>
> **********************

In your twisted mind that proves your point???

YOU pay for meat.

YOU are responsible for the consequences of that act.

And so it goes.. there's no way out of it.

"Rubystars" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "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.
>
> Seems like they wouldn't argue with you about this.

You'd think... but Derek did it, and Ron now. boggles the mind

[..]

"Rubystars" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "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.
>
> Seems like they wouldn't argue with you about this.

You'd think... but Derek did it, and Ron now. boggles the mind

[..]

Dutch wrote:

> "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
>>"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"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.
>>
>>Seems like they wouldn't argue with you about this.
>
>
> You'd think... but Derek did it, and Ron now. boggles the mind

Shitworm Dreck did it because he claims to be "vegan",
and he saw right away where the notion leads. His
rejection of shared responsibility was laughable and
laughably self serving.

Ron the homo was genuinely surprised by the concept.
His first writings on it here demonstrated he was
utterly flabbergasted by it.

BTW, homo Ron and Skanky Carpetmuncher almost certainly
know one another. They both are homos, they both live
in Toronto, they both subscribe to Rogers, they showed
up in t.p.a. and a.a.e.v. at the same time, and homo
sophist Ron is passionate about trying to get Skanky
Carpetmuncher off the hook.

Dutch wrote:

> "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
>>"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"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.
>>
>>Seems like they wouldn't argue with you about this.
>
>
> You'd think... but Derek did it, and Ron now. boggles the mind

Shitworm Dreck did it because he claims to be "vegan",
and he saw right away where the notion leads. His
rejection of shared responsibility was laughable and
laughably self serving.

Ron the homo was genuinely surprised by the concept.
His first writings on it here demonstrated he was
utterly flabbergasted by it.

BTW, homo Ron and Skanky Carpetmuncher almost certainly
know one another. They both are homos, they both live
in Toronto, they both subscribe to Rogers, they showed
up in t.p.a. and a.a.e.v. at the same time, and homo
sophist Ron is passionate about trying to get Skanky
Carpetmuncher off the hook.

> Exactly right. Skanky Carpetmuncher tries to downplay
> her condemnation of meat eaters, but to most "vegans"

Your paranoia is showing. Some of my best friends
are meat eaters, they just don't try to force their ways
on me like you do.

> it isn't a problem to accept the idea of complicity.
> For some strange reason, homo Ron - allegedly a meat
> eater - is trying to get "vegans" off a hook that
> "vegans" themselves don't particularly object to being
> impaled upon. "vegans" *accept* that there is
> responsibility; they just try to excuse themselves by
> recourse to some bogus "need" to eat produce, and being

If you find the need to eat food, in order to live, to be
bogus, then why do you eat?

> unable to find "CD-free" food. They think that produce

It's difficult to find, sometimes impossible. A person
can only do their best. If the best is some commercially
grown food, then that's life.

> 1. they accept the notion of shared responsibility

I don't. When I don't have any alternative but to buy
some non-veganically grown foods, that's not shared
responsibility. That's called no other choice.

> 2. they are CORRECT in their observation that it isn't
> necessary to kill animals to produce vegetables

But unfortunately it isn't done enough to live on
completely. There's not enough veganic foods
available in the marketplace.

> 3. they believe the deaths to be absolutely wrong

I don't put the word absolutely there. You keep doing
that.

> Right. I think Skanky Carpetmuncher probably wears
> some fur (I mean, other than her unshaved legs.) It
> seems that only *eating* animals is disgusting to her;
> wearing them isn't a problem.

Ah, sweetie, last night you said you adored my leg
stubbles!!! ))

Actually I wear no fur or leather. I find them to be
aesthetically yucky. Fur feels like touching a dead
animal and leather has a smell I don't like. Just as
well, since it's not like those things are good for
animalkind.

> > Then again there's a separate question that I don't think is really
focused
> > on enough. Is it necessarily immoral to cause animal CDs to produce
human
> > food?
>
> "vegans" are going to have to amend their so-called
> ethical beliefs drastically if they're going to try to
> carve out an exemption. The amending process will
> destroy it.

What amendment. We're already having to eat
non-veganically grown food some of the time.
It doesn't matter what one ethically believes.
The fact is the choice just isn't there to make.
If there was a choice then you could stick ethics
to one's choice.

> > I'd say producing food for humans (meat or vegetarian) that they
need
> > to keep themselves alive outweighs the needs of field mice.
>
> This doesn't work. What if, rather than collateral
> deaths of seemingly insignificant animals, the thing
> they felt they "needed" to keep themselves alive was
> "Persian" rugs woven only by Pakistani children for
> less-than-subsistence wages in brutal working
> conditions? Would their so-called "need" for the rugs
> justify the appalling treatment of the rug weavers?

If those were the only rugs availlable, and if rugs
were necessary to live, then, like the food above,
there is no justification needed. You can't put an
ethics on it if there's no choice.

> Clearly, no. If some process yields an outcome that
> you believe to be ABSOLUTELY wrong, then you simply may
> not participate in that process in any way, except
> perhaps to stamp it out.

YOU use the word absolutely just so you can make
the above argument. I've not seen anyone else keep
saying it like you do. I will remind you once again,
that's your word not mine.

> "vegans" may stupidly believe they "need" vegetables,

Now the need for food to live is stupid?




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>Exactly right. Skanky Carpetmuncher tries to downplay
>>her condemnation of meat eaters, but to most "vegans"
>>it isn't a problem to accept the idea of complicity.
>>For some strange reason, homo Ron - allegedly a meat
>>eater - is trying to get "vegans" off a hook that
>>"vegans" themselves don't particularly object to being
>>impaled upon. "vegans" *accept* that there is
>>responsibility; they just try to excuse themselves by
>>recourse to some bogus "need" to eat produce, and being
>
>
> If you find the need to eat food, in order to live, to be
> bogus, then why do you eat?

There is no such thing as a "need vs. want"
distinction. You WANT food. So do I.

>
>
>>unable to find "CD-free" food. They think that produce
>
>
> It's difficult to find, sometimes impossible.

Then grow it yourself.

> A person can only do their best.

You're not doing your best; not even close.


>
>>1. they accept the notion of shared responsibility
>
>
> I don't.

Yes, you do. It's why you feel some (weak) impulse to
"reduce" the animal deaths you cause in the first
place. If you're not responsible, why else would you
bother?

> When I don't have any alternative but to buy
> some non-veganically grown foods,

Understand this, ****: "veganically" grown does not
exist, and "organically" grown kills LOTS of animals.
There is no such thing as "veganic" farming. It's just
a bullshit expression.

> that's not shared
> responsibility.

No, your weak wish to reduce CDs is based on an
acknowledgment of responsibility.

> That's called no other choice.

You always have the choice of growing all your own, or
dying.

>
>
>>2. they are CORRECT in their observation that it isn't
>> necessary to kill animals to produce vegetables
>
>
> But unfortunately it isn't done enough to live on
> completely.

It isn't done AT ALL. But your WISH for it to be done,
so you can buy them, reflects your acknowledgment of
shared responsibility. If you didn't feel you shared
responsibility for the deaths, you wouldn't bother with
your search.

> There's not enough veganic foods
> available in the marketplace.

There is NONE. The term doesn't exist, and NO ONE,
anyplace, sells food claimed to be "death-free".

>
>
>>3. they believe the deaths to be absolutely wrong
>
>
> I don't put the word absolutely there. You keep doing
> that.

It's there in your belief whether you use the word
explicitly or not. You don't believe it's "a little
bit" or "somewhat" or "kinda" wrong to kill animals
other than in self defense; you believe it's wrong,
full stop. That MEANS absolute.

>
>
>>Right. I think Skanky Carpetmuncher probably wears
>>some fur (I mean, other than her unshaved legs.) It
>>seems that only *eating* animals is disgusting to her;
>>wearing them isn't a problem.
>
> Actually I wear no fur or leather.

You're lying about the leather.

>
>>>Then again there's a separate question that I don't think is really focused
>>>on enough. Is it necessarily immoral to cause animal CDs to produce human
>>>food?
>>
>>"vegans" are going to have to amend their so-called
>>ethical beliefs drastically if they're going to try to
>>carve out an exemption. The amending process will
>>destroy it.
>
>
> What amendment. We're already having to eat
> non-veganically grown food some of the time.

That's ALL you ever eat. There is no such thing as
"veganically" grown.

The amendment is that if you're going to try to claim
an exemption on the wrongness of killing animals where
your food is concerned, you will destroy your statement
of your belief that it is wrong to kill animals.

> It doesn't matter what one ethically believes.

THERE is a choice quote!

>
>>>I'd say producing food for humans (meat or vegetarian) that they need
>>>to keep themselves alive outweighs the needs of field mice.
>>
>>This doesn't work. What if, rather than collateral
>>deaths of seemingly insignificant animals, the thing
>>they felt they "needed" to keep themselves alive was
>>"Persian" rugs woven only by Pakistani children for
>>less-than-subsistence wages in brutal working
>>conditions? Would their so-called "need" for the rugs
>>justify the appalling treatment of the rug weavers?
>
>
> If those were the only rugs availlable, and if rugs
> were necessary to live, then, like the food above,
> there is no justification needed. You can't put an
> ethics on it if there's no choice.

Yes, you can. "No choice" does not change ethics. If
you and your skanky lesbo muncher Karen were stuck in a
cabin in the mountains and ran out of food, and the
choice was one of you killed the other in order to eat
her (I mean REALLY eat her) or you both die, then the
killer would be prosecuted for murder if rescued.

Note that the person who sodomizes small children with
a broom handle also claims to feel some "need" to do
so. "No choice", aka "Need", does not grant an ethical
exemption.

>
>
>>Clearly, no. If some process yields an outcome that
>>you believe to be ABSOLUTELY wrong, then you simply may
>>not participate in that process in any way, except
>>perhaps to stamp it out.
>
>
> YOU use the word absolutely

YOU use it; you just don't utter or write the word. It
is ALWAYS present in your belief that it is wrong to
kill animals except in self defense.

>
>>"vegans" may stupidly believe they "need" vegetables,
>
>
> Now the need for food to live is stupid?

You don't need to live.

In article > ,
"Rubystars" > wrote:

> I mean, all they have to do is think in analogy:"I didn't ask for that
> furrier to kill the mink, I'm just buying the end product. How he produces
> the fur coats isn't my problem, it's his moral responsibility not mine." *L*

If we follow the reasoning of accountability or shared responsibility
then, you are responsible for other outcomes as well.

As the fur industry dies off you are responsible for putting furriers
out of business, their inability to pay their bills and to educate their
children. As the deforestation declines in parts of the world, you are
responsible for families that are gonna die because they have no other
means of buying food or medicine.

As the meat industry dies, the same thing. People will be unable to
afford their basic needs. Children and adults will go without the
basics, or health care. They will get sicker and die.

As the population of rodents, amphibians and other mammals increases,
you are now responsible for larger numbers of animals who will die
because of the increased demand for their natural food sources and
territory. As the animals become more aggressive to fight for the
resources to stay alive other animals will be killed.

Shared responsibility, right? If you truly believe in the concept then
you are also responsible for all of these things as your actions set a
chain of events in motions.

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "Rubystars" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>shit-stained little homo > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>In article > ,
> >>>"Rubystars" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>the felcher > 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.
>
> You're making some serious progress, homo Ron. What is
> the difference if animals are intentionally killed to
> be eaten by humans, or are killed collaterally in the
> course of producing vegetables and left to rot in the
> fields? Dead animals are dead animals.

No conflict. A dead animal is a dead animal. What is in question is this
silly notion of shared responsibility.

> If you believe the killing of animals other than in
> self defense to be wrong, and if you knowingly and
> voluntarily participate in an ongoing process that
> leads to animal deaths, then you either have to abandon
> the belief, or stop participating. Those are the only
> choices. Something has to stop: the poorly thought
> out belief, or the participation in the process leading
> to death.

Two choices is the logical fallacy of a false dilemma.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> No, you refuse to accept my argument that you are responsible for the
> >> consequences of your own actions.
> >
> > That's right and you wrote:
> >
> >> In article >, "Dutch" >
> >> wrote:
> >
> > As an adult at the age of majority, a moral actor, you are assumed to
> > have free will, therefore you can't blame anyone else for your
> > decisions. For a person who claims to advocate personal responsibility
> > you make odd arguments.
> >
> > **********************
>
> In your twisted mind that proves your point???
>
> YOU pay for meat.
>
> YOU are responsible for the consequences of that act.

No, I'm not.

As you write above, the responsibility lies with the moral agent who
made the decision to act. Blame shifting doesn't cut it for me.

The person who made the decision to kill the animal is the farmer.
Blaming me is for what they do is just pitiful.

> And so it goes.. there's no way out of it.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> . com...
> >
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "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.
> >
> > Seems like they wouldn't argue with you about this.
>
> You'd think... but Derek did it, and Ron now. boggles the mind
>
> [..]
Other people are their own moral agents. They make the decision to do X
they are therefore responsible for X.

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> "Rubystars" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>shit-stained little homo > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article > ,
>>>>>"Rubystars" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>the felcher > 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.
>>
>>You're making some serious progress, homo Ron. What is
>>the difference if animals are intentionally killed to
>>be eaten by humans, or are killed collaterally in the
>>course of producing vegetables and left to rot in the
>>fields? Dead animals are dead animals.
>
>
> No conflict. A dead animal is a dead animal. What is in question is this
> silly notion of shared responsibility.

No, that's not in question at all, at least not by the
"vegan" themselves: their sense of shared
responsibility is PRECISELY why they are "vegan", you
****ing moron.

>
>
>>If you believe the killing of animals other than in
>>self defense to be wrong, and if you knowingly and
>>voluntarily participate in an ongoing process that
>>leads to animal deaths, then you either have to abandon
>>the belief, or stop participating. Those are the only
>>choices. Something has to stop: the poorly thought
>>out belief, or the participation in the process leading
>>to death.
>
>
> Two choices is the logical fallacy of a false dilemma.

No: not if you can show that there ARE only two
options from which to choose. "A" and "not A" is not a
false dilemma.

You're in way over your head.

> > If you find the need to eat food, in order to live, to be
> > bogus, then why do you eat?
>
> There is no such thing as a "need vs. want"
> distinction. You WANT food. So do I.

Wrong. Eating is a need. You can want food
too, but it's still a need.

> >>unable to find "CD-free" food. They think that produce
> >
> >
> > It's difficult to find, sometimes impossible.
>
> Then grow it yourself.

If I had land, I would. Being realistic, that will only
become an opportunity when I retire.

> > A person can only do their best.
>
> You're not doing your best; not even close.

I am too. I decide that, not you.

> Yes, you do. It's why you feel some (weak) impulse to
> "reduce" the animal deaths you cause in the first
> place. If you're not responsible, why else would you
> bother?

Health mainly. The reduction in animal deaths
is a secondary bonus for me. Health first. If I
believed that we are healthiest eating meat,
then I would, possibly even choosing your
sacred game or grass fed meat. However,
it's my belief that a vegan diet is healthiest.
As a side effect, it gives me a lot of pleasure
to know that I'm connected to less harm than I
used to be.

> > When I don't have any alternative but to buy
> > some non-veganically grown foods,
>
> Understand this, ****: "veganically" grown does not
> exist, and "organically" grown kills LOTS of animals.
> There is no such thing as "veganic" farming. It's just
> a bullshit expression.

Ooo, the C word. You must be getting riled up or
something. Thanks for admitting though, that there's
not any other choice for most people but to buy
at least some commercial foods.

> > That's called no other choice.
>
> You always have the choice of growing all your own, or
> dying.

Be realistic. I realistically know it's going to be
quite a while before I have some land to farm.
Currently that's not a possibility. Dying is not
an option either. It's silly for you to even suggest
that. What were you thinking?

> > But unfortunately it isn't done enough to live on
> > completely.
>
> It isn't done AT ALL. But your WISH for it to be done,
> so you can buy them, reflects your acknowledgment of
> shared responsibility. If you didn't feel you shared
> responsibility for the deaths, you wouldn't bother with
> your search.

I'm not responsible when there's no choice involved.
However, if the choice to buy veganic foods was
there and was varied enough to maintain health,
then there would be that as a valid choice. As far
as you saying it's not done at all, you're wrong. It's
very little, but it's done by some people growing their
own foods. Unfortunately, it doesn't tend to reach
the marketplace for anyone else to choose it too.

> >>3. they believe the deaths to be absolutely wrong
> >
> >
> > I don't put the word absolutely there. You keep doing
> > that.
>
> It's there in your belief whether you use the word
> explicitly or not. You don't believe it's "a little
> bit" or "somewhat" or "kinda" wrong to kill animals
> other than in self defense; you believe it's wrong,
> full stop. That MEANS absolute.

You're going to have to accept that my belief is
not as absolute as you think.

> > Actually I wear no fur or leather.
>
> You're lying about the leather.

You wish, maybe. No, as far as I know, I don't
wear any leather. Unless there is some in my
shoes somewhere, but I don't think so.

> > What amendment. We're already having to eat
> > non-veganically grown food some of the time.
>
> That's ALL you ever eat. There is no such thing as
> "veganically" grown.
>
> The amendment is that if you're going to try to claim
> an exemption on the wrongness of killing animals where
> your food is concerned, you will destroy your statement
> of your belief that it is wrong to kill animals.

Having no choice in having to buy commercial
foods does not equal exempting a wrongness.
One can feel it's wrong, but still have to do it
because there's no choice.

> > It doesn't matter what one ethically believes.
>
> THERE is a choice quote!

Um, you forgot to add the quote you're
referring to.

> > If those were the only rugs availlable, and if rugs
> > were necessary to live, then, like the food above,
> > there is no justification needed. You can't put an
> > ethics on it if there's no choice.
>
> Yes, you can. "No choice" does not change ethics. If
> you and your skanky lesbo muncher Karen were stuck in a
> cabin in the mountains and ran out of food, and the
> choice was one of you killed the other in order to eat
> her (I mean REALLY eat her) or you both die, then the
> killer would be prosecuted for murder if rescued.

Karen says "Oh my god, I am NOT skanky!" Thank
you for the telephone giggle. ))

> Note that the person who sodomizes small children with
> a broom handle also claims to feel some "need" to do
> so. "No choice", aka "Need", does not grant an ethical
> exemption.

Nonsense. It does not threaten their lives if
they don't do it. No one NEEDS to be a child
abuser. They do it because they want to.
Trying to call it a need is trying to shift away
from being responsible for the abuse.

True needs are things like air, water, food, shelter,
etc.

> > YOU use the word absolutely
>
> YOU use it; you just don't utter or write the word. It
> is ALWAYS present in your belief that it is wrong to
> kill animals except in self defense.

How can it be present when I'm telling you the
exact opposite? Are you going to tell me that
I don't really mean what I say?

> > Now the need for food to live is stupid?
>
> You don't need to live.

I definitely disagree with you there. If I was
to follow your prescribed morals for me, I'd
be killing myself for no better reason than my
farts are contributing to the greenhouse effect!


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

> > If you find the need to eat food, in order to live, to be
> > bogus, then why do you eat?
>
> There is no such thing as a "need vs. want"
> distinction. You WANT food. So do I.

Wrong. Eating is a need. You can want food
too, but it's still a need.

> >>unable to find "CD-free" food. They think that produce
> >
> >
> > It's difficult to find, sometimes impossible.
>
> Then grow it yourself.

If I had land, I would. Being realistic, that will only
become an opportunity when I retire.

> > A person can only do their best.
>
> You're not doing your best; not even close.

I am too. I decide that, not you.

> Yes, you do. It's why you feel some (weak) impulse to
> "reduce" the animal deaths you cause in the first
> place. If you're not responsible, why else would you
> bother?

Health mainly. The reduction in animal deaths
is a secondary bonus for me. Health first. If I
believed that we are healthiest eating meat,
then I would, possibly even choosing your
sacred game or grass fed meat. However,
it's my belief that a vegan diet is healthiest.
As a side effect, it gives me a lot of pleasure
to know that I'm connected to less harm than I
used to be.

> > When I don't have any alternative but to buy
> > some non-veganically grown foods,
>
> Understand this, ****: "veganically" grown does not
> exist, and "organically" grown kills LOTS of animals.
> There is no such thing as "veganic" farming. It's just
> a bullshit expression.

Ooo, the C word. You must be getting riled up or
something. Thanks for admitting though, that there's
not any other choice for most people but to buy
at least some commercial foods.

> > That's called no other choice.
>
> You always have the choice of growing all your own, or
> dying.

Be realistic. I realistically know it's going to be
quite a while before I have some land to farm.
Currently that's not a possibility. Dying is not
an option either. It's silly for you to even suggest
that. What were you thinking?

> > But unfortunately it isn't done enough to live on
> > completely.
>
> It isn't done AT ALL. But your WISH for it to be done,
> so you can buy them, reflects your acknowledgment of
> shared responsibility. If you didn't feel you shared
> responsibility for the deaths, you wouldn't bother with
> your search.

I'm not responsible when there's no choice involved.
However, if the choice to buy veganic foods was
there and was varied enough to maintain health,
then there would be that as a valid choice. As far
as you saying it's not done at all, you're wrong. It's
very little, but it's done by some people growing their
own foods. Unfortunately, it doesn't tend to reach
the marketplace for anyone else to choose it too.

> >>3. they believe the deaths to be absolutely wrong
> >
> >
> > I don't put the word absolutely there. You keep doing
> > that.
>
> It's there in your belief whether you use the word
> explicitly or not. You don't believe it's "a little
> bit" or "somewhat" or "kinda" wrong to kill animals
> other than in self defense; you believe it's wrong,
> full stop. That MEANS absolute.

You're going to have to accept that my belief is
not as absolute as you think.

> > Actually I wear no fur or leather.
>
> You're lying about the leather.

You wish, maybe. No, as far as I know, I don't
wear any leather. Unless there is some in my
shoes somewhere, but I don't think so.

> > What amendment. We're already having to eat
> > non-veganically grown food some of the time.
>
> That's ALL you ever eat. There is no such thing as
> "veganically" grown.
>
> The amendment is that if you're going to try to claim
> an exemption on the wrongness of killing animals where
> your food is concerned, you will destroy your statement
> of your belief that it is wrong to kill animals.

Having no choice in having to buy commercial
foods does not equal exempting a wrongness.
One can feel it's wrong, but still have to do it
because there's no choice.

> > It doesn't matter what one ethically believes.
>
> THERE is a choice quote!

Um, you forgot to add the quote you're
referring to.

> > If those were the only rugs availlable, and if rugs
> > were necessary to live, then, like the food above,
> > there is no justification needed. You can't put an
> > ethics on it if there's no choice.
>
> Yes, you can. "No choice" does not change ethics. If
> you and your skanky lesbo muncher Karen were stuck in a
> cabin in the mountains and ran out of food, and the
> choice was one of you killed the other in order to eat
> her (I mean REALLY eat her) or you both die, then the
> killer would be prosecuted for murder if rescued.

Karen says "Oh my god, I am NOT skanky!" Thank
you for the telephone giggle. ))

> Note that the person who sodomizes small children with
> a broom handle also claims to feel some "need" to do
> so. "No choice", aka "Need", does not grant an ethical
> exemption.

Nonsense. It does not threaten their lives if
they don't do it. No one NEEDS to be a child
abuser. They do it because they want to.
Trying to call it a need is trying to shift away
from being responsible for the abuse.

True needs are things like air, water, food, shelter,
etc.

> > YOU use the word absolutely
>
> YOU use it; you just don't utter or write the word. It
> is ALWAYS present in your belief that it is wrong to
> kill animals except in self defense.

How can it be present when I'm telling you the
exact opposite? Are you going to tell me that
I don't really mean what I say?

> > Now the need for food to live is stupid?
>
> You don't need to live.

I definitely disagree with you there. If I was
to follow your prescribed morals for me, I'd
be killing myself for no better reason than my
farts are contributing to the greenhouse effect!


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > If you find the need to eat food, in order to live, to be
>> > bogus, then why do you eat?
>>
>> There is no such thing as a "need vs. want"
>> distinction. You WANT food. So do I.
>
> Wrong. Eating is a need. You can want food
> too, but it's still a need.
======================
A need that can be satified with a small number of foods. there is no
"need" for exotic imported foods and spices. You want them, because
ultimately, you care nothing about the animals you claim you want to save.


>
>> >>unable to find "CD-free" food. They think that produce
>> >
>> >
>> > It's difficult to find, sometimes impossible.
>>
>> Then grow it yourself.
>
> If I had land, I would. Being realistic, that will only
> become an opportunity when I retire.
===============
And you still won't, killer. Too much of an inconvience for you. You've
already [proven that you are really all about your selfishness and
convience, not doing anything to save animals, hypocrite.


>
>> > A person can only do their best.
>>
>> You're not doing your best; not even close.
>
> I am too. I decide that, not you.
==================
No, you have decided only what makes you 'feel good', not what saves any
animals. ou've proven that time and again with your posts, killer.


>
>> Yes, you do. It's why you feel some (weak) impulse to
>> "reduce" the animal deaths you cause in the first
>> place. If you're not responsible, why else would you
>> bother?
>
> Health mainly. The reduction in animal deaths
> is a secondary bonus for me. Health first.
==================
Then you're not vegan, nor will you ever be. But then, we already know
that, don't we, hypocrite?

If I
> believed that we are healthiest eating meat,
> then I would, possibly even choosing your
> sacred game or grass fed meat.
======================
Then you need to learn about nutrition, fool. vegan diets are not the
healthiest.


However,
> it's my belief that a vegan diet is healthiest.
=================
And you'd be wrong, as usual. Just another in a long line of claims you
cannot back up.


> As a side effect, it gives me a lot of pleasure
> to know that I'm connected to less harm than I
> used to be.
====================
No, you are connected to more than necessary, killer. You've made *no*
atttempt at reduction. You follow only a simple rule for your very simple
mind.

>
>> > When I don't have any alternative but to buy
>> > some non-veganically grown foods,
>>
>> Understand this, ****: "veganically" grown does not
>> exist, and "organically" grown kills LOTS of animals.
>> There is no such thing as "veganic" farming. It's just
>> a bullshit expression.
>
> Ooo, the C word. You must be getting riled up or
> something. Thanks for admitting though, that there's
> not any other choice for most people but to buy
> at least some commercial foods.
=====================
It's "all" you buy, hypocrite. There are no veganic foods....

>
>> > That's called no other choice.
>>
>> You always have the choice of growing all your own, or
>> dying.
>
> Be realistic. I realistically know it's going to be
> quite a while before I have some land to farm.
> Currently that's not a possibility.
==================
Only because you are too selfish. You don't care about the animals you
claim to want to save.

Dying is not
> an option either. It's silly for you to even suggest
> that. What were you thinking?
====================
Just that you are too stupid to ever grow your own foods. You'd never make
it...


>
>> > But unfortunately it isn't done enough to live on
>> > completely.
>>
>> It isn't done AT ALL. But your WISH for it to be done,
>> so you can buy them, reflects your acknowledgment of
>> shared responsibility. If you didn't feel you shared
>> responsibility for the deaths, you wouldn't bother with
>> your search.
>
> I'm not responsible when there's no choice involved.
=================
You have choices. You just don't want to make them, killer.

> However, if the choice to buy veganic foods was
> there and was varied enough to maintain health,
> then there would be that as a valid choice. As far
> as you saying it's not done at all, you're wrong. It's
> very little, but it's done by some people growing their
> own foods. Unfortunately, it doesn't tend to reach
> the marketplace for anyone else to choose it too.
================
Then why aren't you growing your own? Oh, yeah, that selfishness thing
again, isn't it?

>
>> >>3. they believe the deaths to be absolutely wrong
>> >
>> >
>> > I don't put the word absolutely there. You keep doing
>> > that.
>>
>> It's there in your belief whether you use the word
>> explicitly or not. You don't believe it's "a little
>> bit" or "somewhat" or "kinda" wrong to kill animals
>> other than in self defense; you believe it's wrong,
>> full stop. That MEANS absolute.
>
> You're going to have to accept that my belief is
> not as absolute as you think.
>
>> > Actually I wear no fur or leather.
>>
>> You're lying about the leather.
>
> You wish, maybe. No, as far as I know, I don't
> wear any leather. Unless there is some in my
> shoes somewhere, but I don't think so.
======================
LOL So, again you rely on the petro-chemical industry. Are you sure you're
not a shill for exxon, or something? You sure seem to like to pollute the
earth and kill animals unnecessisarily, hypocrite.

>
>> > What amendment. We're already having to eat
>> > non-veganically grown food some of the time.
>>
>> That's ALL you ever eat. There is no such thing as
>> "veganically" grown.
>>
>> The amendment is that if you're going to try to claim
>> an exemption on the wrongness of killing animals where
>> your food is concerned, you will destroy your statement
>> of your belief that it is wrong to kill animals.
>
> Having no choice in having to buy commercial
> foods does not equal exempting a wrongness.
> One can feel it's wrong, but still have to do it
> because there's no choice.
=====================
Yes, there is. YOU are too stupid, ignorant, lazy, selfish, convience
oriented... take your pick, any or all....

>
>> > It doesn't matter what one ethically believes.
>>
>> THERE is a choice quote!
>
> Um, you forgot to add the quote you're
> referring to.
>
>> > If those were the only rugs availlable, and if rugs
>> > were necessary to live, then, like the food above,
>> > there is no justification needed. You can't put an
>> > ethics on it if there's no choice.
>>
>> Yes, you can. "No choice" does not change ethics. If
>> you and your skanky lesbo muncher Karen were stuck in a
>> cabin in the mountains and ran out of food, and the
>> choice was one of you killed the other in order to eat
>> her (I mean REALLY eat her) or you both die, then the
>> killer would be prosecuted for murder if rescued.
>
> Karen says "Oh my god, I am NOT skanky!" Thank
> you for the telephone giggle. ))
>
>> Note that the person who sodomizes small children with
>> a broom handle also claims to feel some "need" to do
>> so. "No choice", aka "Need", does not grant an ethical
>> exemption.
>
> Nonsense. It does not threaten their lives if
> they don't do it. No one NEEDS to be a child
> abuser. They do it because they want to.
> Trying to call it a need is trying to shift away
> from being responsible for the abuse.
>
> True needs are things like air, water, food, shelter,
> etc.
==================
And exotic, imported foods are not in those categories, hypocrite.


>
>> > YOU use the word absolutely
>>
>> YOU use it; you just don't utter or write the word. It
>> is ALWAYS present in your belief that it is wrong to
>> kill animals except in self defense.
>
> How can it be present when I'm telling you the
> exact opposite? Are you going to tell me that
> I don't really mean what I say?
>
>> > Now the need for food to live is stupid?
>>
>> You don't need to live.
>
> I definitely disagree with you there. If I was
> to follow your prescribed morals for me, I'd
> be killing myself for no better reason than my
> farts are contributing to the greenhouse effect!
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
>
>

> > Wrong. Eating is a need. You can want food
> > too, but it's still a need.
> ======================
> A need that can be satified with a small number of foods. there is no
> "need" for exotic imported foods and spices. You want them, because
> ultimately, you care nothing about the animals you claim you want to
save.

I believe that a wide variety of foods is healthful.
As for exotic imports, well I say let's eat. Have
you ever tasted the fruit called Sugar Apple?
It's very delightful and good for you. Fresh
lichee nuts are heavenly. The flavour is so
delightful. As you can see, I feel that the
transportation of foods are equally good to
all the people involved. From up north here,
we can sell grains and northern fruits to the
tropics, and from the tropics they can sell
us exotic (or even common now like the
banana) fruits and veggies. If the
transportation industry itself causes cds,
then that's another matter. An unfortunate
one where one wishes there were other
choices. To eat a good variety of foods
one has to eat a bit of imported goods
usually. I know however, that there are
people who only eat local foods and if
they are getting enough nutrition, then
good for them. Maybe someday I'll
feel the same way. Or maybe I won't.
Who knows?

> > If I had land, I would. Being realistic, that will only
> > become an opportunity when I retire.
> ===============
> And you still won't, killer. Too much of an inconvience for you.
You've
> already [proven that you are really all about your selfishness and
> convience, not doing anything to save animals, hypocrite.

You're wrong. It's in my plans. I enjoy gardening a lot.
Meamwhile I just grow what my windows can handle.
including some exotic spices like 'curry leaf' and
'lemongrass'. One of my friends is growing all her own
lemons from a lemontree houseplant. One does what
one can.

> >> You're not doing your best; not even close.
> >
> > I am too. I decide that, not you.
> ==================
> No, you have decided only what makes you 'feel good', not what saves
any
> animals. ou've proven that time and again with your posts, killer.

But saving some animals makes me feel all warm
and fuzzy and good. What's wrong with that?

> ==================
> Then you're not vegan, nor will you ever be. But then, we already
know
> that, don't we, hypocrite?

By some definitions I must be called a vegetarian.
Actually by most definitions too. I have not yet made
the full transition to vegan from vegetarian. There
is still some traces of milk and cheese in some
of my food. I may be moving slowly on this, but
my movements are forward. That's the best
I can do. I'm happy with my progress. The next
thing is to fully veganize my work lunches. I'm
going to focus on sandwiches featuring Yves
slices and mustard and ketchup and maybe
some lettuce and fake cheese. And some
kind of fresh fruit for each lunch.

> If I
> > believed that we are healthiest eating meat,
> > then I would, possibly even choosing your
> > sacred game or grass fed meat.
> ======================
> Then you need to learn about nutrition, fool. vegan diets are not the
> healthiest.

They certainly can be. It depends on your choices of foods.

> > As a side effect, it gives me a lot of pleasure
> > to know that I'm connected to less harm than I
> > used to be.
> ====================
> No, you are connected to more than necessary, killer. You've made
*no*
> atttempt at reduction. You follow only a simple rule for your very
simple
> mind.

Reduce how? Where's the new Veganic Market
for me to shop at? Don't forget that going vegan
causes a huge reduction in crop need, therefore
less cds. So just being an average vegan, one
causes less cds than they did before turning
vegan.

> > Ooo, the C word. You must be getting riled up or
> > something. Thanks for admitting though, that there's
> > not any other choice for most people but to buy
> > at least some commercial foods.
> =====================
> It's "all" you buy, hypocrite. There are no veganic foods....

It's all I buy, but I'm lucky enough to eat veganic
foods grown by friends who DO have a bit of
land. One time, we had a huge meal of a
giant puffball mushroom. Absolutely
delicious. sliced and fried up with seasonings.
There's always people in Toronto who find
that zucchinis have taken over their garden
and ply you with as many as you'll accept!
There's a creole stew I make that uses
zucchinis and comes in handy come
harvest time.

> Dying is not
> > an option either. It's silly for you to even suggest
> > that. What were you thinking?
> ====================
> Just that you are too stupid to ever grow your own foods. You'd never
make
> it...

I have a very, very green thumb. I'm also a lifetime
amateur botanist who is fascinated by plants and
organic farming techniques.

> > However, if the choice to buy veganic foods was
> > there and was varied enough to maintain health,
> > then there would be that as a valid choice. As far
> > as you saying it's not done at all, you're wrong. It's
> > very little, but it's done by some people growing their
> > own foods. Unfortunately, it doesn't tend to reach
> > the marketplace for anyone else to choose it too.
> ================
> Then why aren't you growing your own? Oh, yeah, that selfishness
thing
> again, isn't it?

Having to wait to retire is selfish? What selfish
thing am I getting out of that? You think I want
to wait until I retire. I don't, but have no choice.

> > You wish, maybe. No, as far as I know, I don't
> > wear any leather. Unless there is some in my
> > shoes somewhere, but I don't think so.
> ======================
> LOL So, again you rely on the petro-chemical industry. Are you sure
you're
> not a shill for exxon, or something? You sure seem to like to pollute
the
> earth and kill animals unnecessisarily, hypocrite.

All that you've concluded comes from me not
wearing leather or fur? You are confusing me
Ricky.

> > True needs are things like air, water, food, shelter,
> > etc.
> ==================
> And exotic, imported foods are not in those categories, hypocrite.

True. It's a want. One I allow myself. I don't
believe it's any worse than local food.
Although foreign foods might use less
machinery, and therefore less cds, but
that's just a guess.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

> > Wrong. Eating is a need. You can want food
> > too, but it's still a need.
> ======================
> A need that can be satified with a small number of foods. there is no
> "need" for exotic imported foods and spices. You want them, because
> ultimately, you care nothing about the animals you claim you want to
save.

I believe that a wide variety of foods is healthful.
As for exotic imports, well I say let's eat. Have
you ever tasted the fruit called Sugar Apple?
It's very delightful and good for you. Fresh
lichee nuts are heavenly. The flavour is so
delightful. As you can see, I feel that the
transportation of foods are equally good to
all the people involved. From up north here,
we can sell grains and northern fruits to the
tropics, and from the tropics they can sell
us exotic (or even common now like the
banana) fruits and veggies. If the
transportation industry itself causes cds,
then that's another matter. An unfortunate
one where one wishes there were other
choices. To eat a good variety of foods
one has to eat a bit of imported goods
usually. I know however, that there are
people who only eat local foods and if
they are getting enough nutrition, then
good for them. Maybe someday I'll
feel the same way. Or maybe I won't.
Who knows?

> > If I had land, I would. Being realistic, that will only
> > become an opportunity when I retire.
> ===============
> And you still won't, killer. Too much of an inconvience for you.
You've
> already [proven that you are really all about your selfishness and
> convience, not doing anything to save animals, hypocrite.

You're wrong. It's in my plans. I enjoy gardening a lot.
Meamwhile I just grow what my windows can handle.
including some exotic spices like 'curry leaf' and
'lemongrass'. One of my friends is growing all her own
lemons from a lemontree houseplant. One does what
one can.

> >> You're not doing your best; not even close.
> >
> > I am too. I decide that, not you.
> ==================
> No, you have decided only what makes you 'feel good', not what saves
any
> animals. ou've proven that time and again with your posts, killer.

But saving some animals makes me feel all warm
and fuzzy and good. What's wrong with that?

> ==================
> Then you're not vegan, nor will you ever be. But then, we already
know
> that, don't we, hypocrite?

By some definitions I must be called a vegetarian.
Actually by most definitions too. I have not yet made
the full transition to vegan from vegetarian. There
is still some traces of milk and cheese in some
of my food. I may be moving slowly on this, but
my movements are forward. That's the best
I can do. I'm happy with my progress. The next
thing is to fully veganize my work lunches. I'm
going to focus on sandwiches featuring Yves
slices and mustard and ketchup and maybe
some lettuce and fake cheese. And some
kind of fresh fruit for each lunch.

> If I
> > believed that we are healthiest eating meat,
> > then I would, possibly even choosing your
> > sacred game or grass fed meat.
> ======================
> Then you need to learn about nutrition, fool. vegan diets are not the
> healthiest.

They certainly can be. It depends on your choices of foods.

> > As a side effect, it gives me a lot of pleasure
> > to know that I'm connected to less harm than I
> > used to be.
> ====================
> No, you are connected to more than necessary, killer. You've made
*no*
> atttempt at reduction. You follow only a simple rule for your very
simple
> mind.

Reduce how? Where's the new Veganic Market
for me to shop at? Don't forget that going vegan
causes a huge reduction in crop need, therefore
less cds. So just being an average vegan, one
causes less cds than they did before turning
vegan.

> > Ooo, the C word. You must be getting riled up or
> > something. Thanks for admitting though, that there's
> > not any other choice for most people but to buy
> > at least some commercial foods.
> =====================
> It's "all" you buy, hypocrite. There are no veganic foods....

It's all I buy, but I'm lucky enough to eat veganic
foods grown by friends who DO have a bit of
land. One time, we had a huge meal of a
giant puffball mushroom. Absolutely
delicious. sliced and fried up with seasonings.
There's always people in Toronto who find
that zucchinis have taken over their garden
and ply you with as many as you'll accept!
There's a creole stew I make that uses
zucchinis and comes in handy come
harvest time.

> Dying is not
> > an option either. It's silly for you to even suggest
> > that. What were you thinking?
> ====================
> Just that you are too stupid to ever grow your own foods. You'd never
make
> it...

I have a very, very green thumb. I'm also a lifetime
amateur botanist who is fascinated by plants and
organic farming techniques.

> > However, if the choice to buy veganic foods was
> > there and was varied enough to maintain health,
> > then there would be that as a valid choice. As far
> > as you saying it's not done at all, you're wrong. It's
> > very little, but it's done by some people growing their
> > own foods. Unfortunately, it doesn't tend to reach
> > the marketplace for anyone else to choose it too.
> ================
> Then why aren't you growing your own? Oh, yeah, that selfishness
thing
> again, isn't it?

Having to wait to retire is selfish? What selfish
thing am I getting out of that? You think I want
to wait until I retire. I don't, but have no choice.

> > You wish, maybe. No, as far as I know, I don't
> > wear any leather. Unless there is some in my
> > shoes somewhere, but I don't think so.
> ======================
> LOL So, again you rely on the petro-chemical industry. Are you sure
you're
> not a shill for exxon, or something? You sure seem to like to pollute
the
> earth and kill animals unnecessisarily, hypocrite.

All that you've concluded comes from me not
wearing leather or fur? You are confusing me
Ricky.

> > True needs are things like air, water, food, shelter,
> > etc.
> ==================
> And exotic, imported foods are not in those categories, hypocrite.

True. It's a want. One I allow myself. I don't
believe it's any worse than local food.
Although foreign foods might use less
machinery, and therefore less cds, but
that's just a guess.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "Rubystars" > wrote:
>
>> I mean, all they have to do is think in analogy:"I didn't ask for that
>> furrier to kill the mink, I'm just buying the end product. How he
>> produces
>> the fur coats isn't my problem, it's his moral responsibility not mine."
>> *L*
>
> If we follow the reasoning of accountability or shared responsibility
> then, you are responsible for other outcomes as well.
>
> As the fur industry dies off you are responsible for putting furriers
> out of business, their inability to pay their bills and to educate their
> children. As the deforestation declines in parts of the world, you are
> responsible for families that are gonna die because they have no other
> means of buying food or medicine.
>
> As the meat industry dies, the same thing. People will be unable to
> afford their basic needs. Children and adults will go without the
> basics, or health care. They will get sicker and die.
>
> As the population of rodents, amphibians and other mammals increases,
> you are now responsible for larger numbers of animals who will die
> because of the increased demand for their natural food sources and
> territory. As the animals become more aggressive to fight for the
> resources to stay alive other animals will be killed.
>
> Shared responsibility, right? If you truly believe in the concept then
> you are also responsible for all of these things as your actions set a
> chain of events in motions.

You really know how to blow things out of proportion, don't you. *L*

All I'm saying is that people vote with their dollars, and shouldn't try to
pretend otherwise.

-Rubystars

"Ron" > wrote

>> > Those are some, but there are other 'positive outcomes' to the death of
>> > humans.
>>
>> I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at so you'll have to say more
>> directly what it is that you mean.
>
> My existence is the result of the death of others. My professional life
> allows me to help many, many people.

I don't believe you. You are too stupid to help anyone. You're too stupid to
be called a "professional".

You are not reluctant to give personal details about yourself when you think
we'll be impressed.

> Actions that are perceived as
> socially good. That wouldn't have been possible if there wasn't rape and
> murder many years ago that caused my grandparent to flee their country
> of origin. If they hadn't seen women raped and babies caught on
> bayonettes, they would likely have not made the journey. My mother may
> not have born. It is unlikely that she would have met my father. When
> someone thanks me today, I should point out that they ought to be thank
> the civilians who were killing one another. I wouldn't be helping them
> otherwise.

That would undoubtedly be beneficial to them, I would not want anyone to be
"helped" by you.

What you wrote above is convoluted, nihilistic thinking. A violent rape may
result in the birth of a great person, that does not change the immoral
nature of a violent rape one iota. Acts just change things, life goes on and
people survive, this does not alter the morality of the act. If the act had
NOT occurred an alternate reality would have unfolded that may have been
much better.

You have probably decided to withhold help from Tsunami victims because you
think it would be better if disease sets in and more people die to reduce
the population. That's not moral bankruptcy, it's moral rationalization.

"Ron" > wrote

>> > Those are some, but there are other 'positive outcomes' to the death of
>> > humans.
>>
>> I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at so you'll have to say more
>> directly what it is that you mean.
>
> My existence is the result of the death of others. My professional life
> allows me to help many, many people.

I don't believe you. You are too stupid to help anyone. You're too stupid to
be called a "professional".

You are not reluctant to give personal details about yourself when you think
we'll be impressed.

> Actions that are perceived as
> socially good. That wouldn't have been possible if there wasn't rape and
> murder many years ago that caused my grandparent to flee their country
> of origin. If they hadn't seen women raped and babies caught on
> bayonettes, they would likely have not made the journey. My mother may
> not have born. It is unlikely that she would have met my father. When
> someone thanks me today, I should point out that they ought to be thank
> the civilians who were killing one another. I wouldn't be helping them
> otherwise.

That would undoubtedly be beneficial to them, I would not want anyone to be
"helped" by you.

What you wrote above is convoluted, nihilistic thinking. A violent rape may
result in the birth of a great person, that does not change the immoral
nature of a violent rape one iota. Acts just change things, life goes on and
people survive, this does not alter the morality of the act. If the act had
NOT occurred an alternate reality would have unfolded that may have been
much better.

You have probably decided to withhold help from Tsunami victims because you
think it would be better if disease sets in and more people die to reduce
the population. That's not moral bankruptcy, it's moral rationalization.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "Rubystars" > wrote:
>
>> I mean, all they have to do is think in analogy:"I didn't ask for that
>> furrier to kill the mink, I'm just buying the end product. How he
>> produces
>> the fur coats isn't my problem, it's his moral responsibility not mine."
>> *L*
>
> If we follow the reasoning of accountability or shared responsibility
> then, you are responsible for other outcomes as well.

That's right, every act has a ripple effect for which you are accountable.

> As the fur industry dies off you are responsible for putting furriers
> out of business, their inability to pay their bills and to educate their
> children.

Naturally, how can you deny it?

> As the deforestation declines in parts of the world, you are
> responsible for families that are gonna die because they have no other
> means of buying food or medicine.

That's true, how can you say that it is NOT an effect?

> As the meat industry dies, the same thing. People will be unable to
> afford their basic needs. Children and adults will go without the
> basics, or health care. They will get sicker and die.

Probably carrying it a bit far, but yes, again a ripple effect. The "Mad
Cow" incidents have had a devastating effect on western livestock producers.
Some irresponsible greedy producers fed animal feed back to cattle causing
the outbreak. You are arguing against your own argument.

> As the population of rodents, amphibians and other mammals increases,
> you are now responsible for larger numbers of animals who will die
> because of the increased demand for their natural food sources and
> territory. As the animals become more aggressive to fight for the
> resources to stay alive other animals will be killed.
>
> Shared responsibility, right? If you truly believe in the concept then
> you are also responsible for all of these things as your actions set a
> chain of events in motions.

There is no "believing in" the concept, it is a physical reality. The
earthquake was responsible for the tsunami was responsible for the
devastation which resulted in... you get the picture.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "Rubystars" > wrote:
>
>> I mean, all they have to do is think in analogy:"I didn't ask for that
>> furrier to kill the mink, I'm just buying the end product. How he
>> produces
>> the fur coats isn't my problem, it's his moral responsibility not mine."
>> *L*
>
> If we follow the reasoning of accountability or shared responsibility
> then, you are responsible for other outcomes as well.

That's right, every act has a ripple effect for which you are accountable.

> As the fur industry dies off you are responsible for putting furriers
> out of business, their inability to pay their bills and to educate their
> children.

Naturally, how can you deny it?

> As the deforestation declines in parts of the world, you are
> responsible for families that are gonna die because they have no other
> means of buying food or medicine.

That's true, how can you say that it is NOT an effect?

> As the meat industry dies, the same thing. People will be unable to
> afford their basic needs. Children and adults will go without the
> basics, or health care. They will get sicker and die.

Probably carrying it a bit far, but yes, again a ripple effect. The "Mad
Cow" incidents have had a devastating effect on western livestock producers.
Some irresponsible greedy producers fed animal feed back to cattle causing
the outbreak. You are arguing against your own argument.

> As the population of rodents, amphibians and other mammals increases,
> you are now responsible for larger numbers of animals who will die
> because of the increased demand for their natural food sources and
> territory. As the animals become more aggressive to fight for the
> resources to stay alive other animals will be killed.
>
> Shared responsibility, right? If you truly believe in the concept then
> you are also responsible for all of these things as your actions set a
> chain of events in motions.

There is no "believing in" the concept, it is a physical reality. The
earthquake was responsible for the tsunami was responsible for the
devastation which resulted in... you get the picture.

"Ron" > wrote >
> No conflict. A dead animal is a dead animal. What is in question is this
> silly notion of shared responsibility.

You keep asserting that it's a silly notion but present no coherent evidence
that it is. In fact your last post confirms that it's not. Good work.

"Ron" > wrote >
> No conflict. A dead animal is a dead animal. What is in question is this
> silly notion of shared responsibility.

You keep asserting that it's a silly notion but present no coherent evidence
that it is. In fact your last post confirms that it's not. Good work.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> No, you refuse to accept my argument that you are responsible for the
>> >> consequences of your own actions.
>> >
>> > That's right and you wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article >, "Dutch"
>> >> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> > As an adult at the age of majority, a moral actor, you are assumed to
>> > have free will, therefore you can't blame anyone else for your
>> > decisions. For a person who claims to advocate personal responsibility
>> > you make odd arguments.
>> >
>> > **********************
>>
>> In your twisted mind that proves your point???
>>
>> YOU pay for meat.
>>
>> YOU are responsible for the consequences of that act.
>
> No, I'm not.

You are irrevocably accountable for every conscious act you make. There are
no exceptions when you dislike the outcomes.

> As you write above, the responsibility lies with the moral agent who
> made the decision to act. Blame shifting doesn't cut it for me.

Then stop shifting the blame for your choice to pay for meat.

> The person who made the decision to kill the animal is the farmer.
> Blaming me is for what they do is just pitiful.

I'm blaming you for hiring someone to hire a killer, because you did it.

>> And so it goes.. there's no way out of it.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> No, you refuse to accept my argument that you are responsible for the
>> >> consequences of your own actions.
>> >
>> > That's right and you wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article >, "Dutch"
>> >> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> > As an adult at the age of majority, a moral actor, you are assumed to
>> > have free will, therefore you can't blame anyone else for your
>> > decisions. For a person who claims to advocate personal responsibility
>> > you make odd arguments.
>> >
>> > **********************
>>
>> In your twisted mind that proves your point???
>>
>> YOU pay for meat.
>>
>> YOU are responsible for the consequences of that act.
>
> No, I'm not.

You are irrevocably accountable for every conscious act you make. There are
no exceptions when you dislike the outcomes.

> As you write above, the responsibility lies with the moral agent who
> made the decision to act. Blame shifting doesn't cut it for me.

Then stop shifting the blame for your choice to pay for meat.

> The person who made the decision to kill the animal is the farmer.
> Blaming me is for what they do is just pitiful.

I'm blaming you for hiring someone to hire a killer, because you did it.

>> And so it goes.. there's no way out of it.

"Ron" > wrote
[..]
> Other people are their own moral agents. They make the decision to do X
> they are therefore responsible for X.

Stop shifting the blame for the outcomes of your choices to other people.

"Ron" > wrote
[..]
> Other people are their own moral agents. They make the decision to do X
> they are therefore responsible for X.

Stop shifting the blame for the outcomes of your choices to other people.

"Ron" > wrote
> Or 3, the acceptance that a moral agent is responsible for their own
> actions.

Yet you doggedly refuse to accept responsibility for the inevitable outcome
of your decision to consume meat.

What did your daddy do to you to make you like this?

"Ron" > wrote
> Or 3, the acceptance that a moral agent is responsible for their own
> actions.

Yet you doggedly refuse to accept responsibility for the inevitable outcome
of your decision to consume meat.

What did your daddy do to you to make you like this?

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > Wrong. Eating is a need. You can want food
>> > too, but it's still a need.
>> ======================
>> A need that can be satified with a small number of foods. there is no
>> "need" for exotic imported foods and spices. You want them, because
>> ultimately, you care nothing about the animals you claim you want to
> save.
>
> I believe that a wide variety of foods is healthful.
> As for exotic imports, well I say let's eat. Have
> you ever tasted the fruit called Sugar Apple?
> It's very delightful and good for you. Fresh
> lichee nuts are heavenly. The flavour is so
> delightful. As you can see, I feel that the
> transportation of foods are equally good to
> all the people involved.
========================
ROTFLMAO The discussion is about the animals that die unnecessarily for
your selfish tastes, killer. You really are just too stupid...


From up north here,
> we can sell grains and northern fruits to the
> tropics, and from the tropics they can sell
> us exotic (or even common now like the
> banana) fruits and veggies.
=======================
Yes, we can, and do. The problem for you is that raises yet again the
number of animals you kill unnecessarily for your diet. thanks for
admitting yet again that the animals you kill mean absolutly nothing to you,
hypocrite.


If the
> transportation industry itself causes cds,
> then that's another matter. An unfortunate
> one where one wishes there were other
> choices.
==================
Again, there are other choices. You just CHOOSE to cause more death and
suffering than necessary, killer.


To eat a good variety of foods
> one has to eat a bit of imported goods
> usually. I know however, that there are
> people who only eat local foods and if
> they are getting enough nutrition, then
> good for them. Maybe someday I'll
> feel the same way. Or maybe I won't.
> Who knows?
=================
You'll never 'know' anything, idiot. You're too stupid to understand the
impact of your choices...

>
>> > If I had land, I would. Being realistic, that will only
>> > become an opportunity when I retire.
>> ===============
>> And you still won't, killer. Too much of an inconvience for you.
> You've
>> already [proven that you are really all about your selfishness and
>> convience, not doing anything to save animals, hypocrite.
>
> You're wrong. It's in my plans. I enjoy gardening a lot.
> Meamwhile I just grow what my windows can handle.
> including some exotic spices like 'curry leaf' and
> 'lemongrass'. One of my friends is growing all her own
> lemons from a lemontree houseplant. One does what
> one can.
=================
In your case, nothing.



>
>> >> You're not doing your best; not even close.
>> >
>> > I am too. I decide that, not you.
>> ==================
>> No, you have decided only what makes you 'feel good', not what saves
> any
>> animals. ou've proven that time and again with your posts, killer.
>
> But saving some animals makes me feel all warm
> and fuzzy and good. What's wrong with that?
=====================
It's the killing of other animals in place of those that make you the
hypocritical killer, fool.


>
>> ==================
>> Then you're not vegan, nor will you ever be. But then, we already
> know
>> that, don't we, hypocrite?
>
> By some definitions I must be called a vegetarian.
> Actually by most definitions too. I have not yet made
> the full transition to vegan from vegetarian.
====================
If it's for health, then you will never be vegan, fool.


There
> is still some traces of milk and cheese in some
> of my food.
====================
LOL Then you aren't even vegetarian!! What an ignorant hypocrite!


I may be moving slowly on this, but
> my movements are forward. That's the best
> I can do. I'm happy with my progress. The next
> thing is to fully veganize my work lunches. I'm
> going to focus on sandwiches featuring Yves
> slices and mustard and ketchup and maybe
> some lettuce and fake cheese.
========================
ROTFLMAO Again, you've been shown where those products have worse 'ratios'
of grain to product than meat does! You truly are just an ignorant
hypocrite, killer. You just love to cause as much death and suffering as
you possibly can!


And some
> kind of fresh fruit for each lunch.
==================
Fine. Again, I'll bet I eat more of than than you do. What with apple,
pear, peach trees, grapes, blackberries, I'm sure of it...


>
>> If I
>> > believed that we are healthiest eating meat,
>> > then I would, possibly even choosing your
>> > sacred game or grass fed meat.
>> ======================
>> Then you need to learn about nutrition, fool. vegan diets are not the
>> healthiest.
>
> They certainly can be. It depends on your choices of foods.
====================
LOL What now you want to compare apples and oranges? What a hoot!!!


>
>> > As a side effect, it gives me a lot of pleasure
>> > to know that I'm connected to less harm than I
>> > used to be.
>> ====================
>> No, you are connected to more than necessary, killer. You've made
> *no*
>> atttempt at reduction. You follow only a simple rule for your very
> simple
>> mind.
>
> Reduce how? Where's the new Veganic Market
> for me to shop at?
=======================
You've been shown how you 'could' reduce, fool. You won't because you care
more about your selfish tastes than saving animals.


Don't forget that going vegan
> causes a huge reduction in crop need, therefore
> less cds.
========================
No, fool. It requires a massive INCREASE in crops foods! You really are
just too stupid to realize that only eating plants means that more need to
be grown for you. Like I said, very, very simple mind....


So just being an average vegan, one
> causes less cds than they did before turning
> vegan.
========================
And still be causing far more than necessary. WHich has been shown that
*you* do, killer.


>
>> > Ooo, the C word. You must be getting riled up or
>> > something. Thanks for admitting though, that there's
>> > not any other choice for most people but to buy
>> > at least some commercial foods.
>> =====================
>> It's "all" you buy, hypocrite. There are no veganic foods....
>
> It's all I buy, but I'm lucky enough to eat veganic
> foods grown by friends who DO have a bit of
> land. One time, we had a huge meal of a
> giant puffball mushroom.
=====================
ROTFLMAO What a hoot! 1 meal?


Absolutely
> delicious. sliced and fried up with seasonings.
> There's always people in Toronto who find
> that zucchinis have taken over their garden
> and ply you with as many as you'll accept!
> There's a creole stew I make that uses
> zucchinis and comes in handy come
> harvest time.
>
>> Dying is not
>> > an option either. It's silly for you to even suggest
>> > that. What were you thinking?
>> ====================
>> Just that you are too stupid to ever grow your own foods. You'd never
> make
>> it...
>
> I have a very, very green thumb. I'm also a lifetime
> amateur botanist who is fascinated by plants and
> organic farming techniques.
======================
No, you aren't. Otherwise you'd make different choices. That is, if
animals really meant anything to you. But of course, they don't, as you
have already proven time and time again, killer.


>
>> > However, if the choice to buy veganic foods was
>> > there and was varied enough to maintain health,
>> > then there would be that as a valid choice. As far
>> > as you saying it's not done at all, you're wrong. It's
>> > very little, but it's done by some people growing their
>> > own foods. Unfortunately, it doesn't tend to reach
>> > the marketplace for anyone else to choose it too.
>> ================
>> Then why aren't you growing your own? Oh, yeah, that selfishness
> thing
>> again, isn't it?
>
> Having to wait to retire is selfish? What selfish
> thing am I getting out of that? You think I want
> to wait until I retire. I don't, but have no choice.
==================
Again, yes you do! YOU just don't WANT to make those choices, killer. It's
all about you!


>
>> > You wish, maybe. No, as far as I know, I don't
>> > wear any leather. Unless there is some in my
>> > shoes somewhere, but I don't think so.
>> ======================
>> LOL So, again you rely on the petro-chemical industry. Are you sure
> you're
>> not a shill for exxon, or something? You sure seem to like to pollute
> the
>> earth and kill animals unnecessisarily, hypocrite.
>
> All that you've concluded comes from me not
> wearing leather or fur? You are confusing me
> Ricky.
====================
What? You go naked? That's a picture I'm sure I don't want to think
about!!! What else do you make shoes out of? Besides slave labor?


>
>> > True needs are things like air, water, food, shelter,
>> > etc.
>> ==================
>> And exotic, imported foods are not in those categories, hypocrite.
>
> True. It's a want. One I allow myself.
====================
At the cost of animal death and suffering. Thanks again for proving that
saving animals means nothing to you, hypocrite.


I don't
> believe it's any worse than local food.
====================
ROTFLMAO Shilling again for exxon, I see.

> Although foreign foods might use less
> machinery, and therefore less cds, but
> that's just a guess.
=====================
LOL A guess that would be as stupid as the rest of your spew...

>
>
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
>
>

In article >,
"Rubystars" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article > ,
> > "Rubystars" > wrote:
> >
> >> I mean, all they have to do is think in analogy:"I didn't ask for that
> >> furrier to kill the mink, I'm just buying the end product. How he
> >> produces
> >> the fur coats isn't my problem, it's his moral responsibility not mine."
> >> *L*
> >
> > If we follow the reasoning of accountability or shared responsibility
> > then, you are responsible for other outcomes as well.
> >
> > As the fur industry dies off you are responsible for putting furriers
> > out of business, their inability to pay their bills and to educate their
> > children. As the deforestation declines in parts of the world, you are
> > responsible for families that are gonna die because they have no other
> > means of buying food or medicine.
> >
> > As the meat industry dies, the same thing. People will be unable to
> > afford their basic needs. Children and adults will go without the
> > basics, or health care. They will get sicker and die.
> >
> > As the population of rodents, amphibians and other mammals increases,
> > you are now responsible for larger numbers of animals who will die
> > because of the increased demand for their natural food sources and
> > territory. As the animals become more aggressive to fight for the
> > resources to stay alive other animals will be killed.
> >
> > Shared responsibility, right? If you truly believe in the concept then
> > you are also responsible for all of these things as your actions set a
> > chain of events in motions.
>
> You really know how to blow things out of proportion, don't you. *L*
>
> All I'm saying is that people vote with their dollars, and shouldn't try to
> pretend otherwise.
>
> -Rubystars

Then I find your claims disingenuous. If we follow the reasoning of
shared responsibility to their logic conclusions then, what I wrote
above is true.

Personally, I consider your approach to be misguided. If you have a
problem with the government then taking it out on the community is a
misdirection. Using the common markets as an avoidance of dealing with
government that isn't responding to you as a citizen undermines the
system.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> >> > Those are some, but there are other 'positive outcomes' to the death of
> >> > humans.
> >>
> >> I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at so you'll have to say more
> >> directly what it is that you mean.
> >
> > My existence is the result of the death of others. My professional life
> > allows me to help many, many people.
>
> I don't believe you. You are too stupid to help anyone. You're too stupid to
> be called a "professional".
>
> You are not reluctant to give personal details about yourself when you think
> we'll be impressed.
>
> > Actions that are perceived as
> > socially good. That wouldn't have been possible if there wasn't rape and
> > murder many years ago that caused my grandparent to flee their country
> > of origin. If they hadn't seen women raped and babies caught on
> > bayonettes, they would likely have not made the journey. My mother may
> > not have born. It is unlikely that she would have met my father. When
> > someone thanks me today, I should point out that they ought to be thank
> > the civilians who were killing one another. I wouldn't be helping them
> > otherwise.
>
> That would undoubtedly be beneficial to them, I would not want anyone to be
> "helped" by you.
>
> What you wrote above is convoluted, nihilistic thinking. A violent rape may
> result in the birth of a great person, that does not change the immoral
> nature of a violent rape one iota.

The outcome is certainly different and positive. A person discovers a
cure for cancer for those afflicted and anyone who might otherwise have
it. The person is the product of a woman who is violently raped. I'd say
the "immoral" act has been redeemed. Negative or immoral acts can have
positive or moral outcomes. Unless of course, you think curing cancer
would be immoral.

> Acts just change things, life goes on and
> people survive, this does not alter the morality of the act. If the act had
> NOT occurred an alternate reality would have unfolded that may have been
> much better.

Or much worse!

Your evidence/reasoning of that alternate reality is...

> You have probably decided to withhold help from Tsunami victims because you
> think it would be better if disease sets in and more people die to reduce
> the population. That's not moral bankruptcy, it's moral rationalization.

I think they call that projection.