Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #121 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #122 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
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.

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


Self-important bunk.

> > 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.


The first error is using the term responsible and cause interchangeably.
The second difficulty is to confuse cause with effect.
  #123 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.


I've given far too many examples, but one more for old times sake.

I post something and the recipient gets angry. The angry individual now
goes into their car and is driving. Still angry, they hit somoene and
kill them. I should be held accountable through your theory. The events
can be traced back to me, right?

After all, if I didn't do something to make them angry they wouldn't
have gone driving and the person wouldn't have been hit by the car.

I am the centre of the universe.
  #124 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.


To repeat myself, yet again, I am responsible for actions not 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.


I haven't. I pay the grocer for meat. I made that clear many times. The
farmer is the one is the moral actor who makes the decision to kill.

> > 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.


Perhaps if I believe this nonsensical theory of shared responsibility
that might work.

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


Well, Dutch. What I can say is if that is what you believe, then you
ought to be punished for your "moral" wrongdoing. I just have no idea of
what you have in mind as the appropriate punishment for someone who does
this immoral act.
  #125 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.


To repeat myself, yet again, I am responsible for actions not 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.


I haven't. I pay the grocer for meat. I made that clear many times. The
farmer is the one is the moral actor who makes the decision to kill.

> > 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.


Perhaps if I believe this nonsensical theory of shared responsibility
that might work.

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


Well, Dutch. What I can say is if that is what you believe, then you
ought to be punished for your "moral" wrongdoing. I just have no idea of
what you have in mind as the appropriate punishment for someone who does
this immoral act.


  #126 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.


Thanks, Dutch. I'm the centre of the universe. I can connect all that is
good and bad in the universe back to me.
  #127 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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?


Where two moral agents are involved both moral agents have the ability
to act -- or not act.

This is the oddity of your theory. If you pay me money and I do it, you
are responsible. If you pay me money, and I don't do it then, who is
responsible?
  #128 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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?


Where two moral agents are involved both moral agents have the ability
to act -- or not act.

This is the oddity of your theory. If you pay me money and I do it, you
are responsible. If you pay me money, and I don't do it then, who is
responsible?
  #129 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>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.


No, it's a want. You can't possibly come up with an
operationally rigorous test to distinguish between
"needs" and "wants". There is none.

>>>>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.


Rent it.

>
>
>>>A person can only do their best.

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

>
>
> I am too.


You are not. You could get rid of a high-CD food and
substitute a nutritionally equivalent lower-CD food,
but you don't do it. Thus, you aren't doing the best
you can.

This was settled weeks ago.

>
>
>>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.


Bullshit. "Health" is not the reason you want to
reduce animal CDs. Cut the bullshit.

>>>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.


There is no such thing as "veganically" grown.

>>>That's called no other choice.

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

>
>
> Be realistic.


I am. You have a choice TODAY.

>
>>>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.


1. You are ALWAYS responsible for the choices AND
THEIR OUTCOMES
that YOU make.

2. There is a choice

> 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.


There is no such thing as "veganic" agriculture.

>
>
>>>>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.


It is absolute. You don't believe it's "kinda" or
"sorta" or "a little bit" wrong; you believe it's
wrong, period, to kill animals (except in self
defense.) THEREFORE, you cannot explain why you still
cause some to die.

>
>>>Actually I wear no fur or leather.

>>
>>You're lying about the leather.

>
>
> You wish


I know.

>
>>>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


You always have choice. You do not "need" to buy
commercially produced food, ever.

>>>It doesn't matter what one ethically believes.

>>
>>THERE is a choice quote!

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


No: "It doesn't matter what one ethically believes."
That's the quote. What a doozy!

>>>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!"


She's a saknk.

>
>
>>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.


No, sense. There is no such thing as "need" as you are
using the word.

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


No, those are wants. They are operationally
indistinguishable from things like movie tickets, golf
clubs, hookers, and video games.

>
>
>>>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


It's present. It cannot NOT be present.

>
>
>>>Now the need for food to live is stupid?

>>
>>You don't need to live.

>
>
> I definitely disagree


No one cares.
  #130 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>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.


No, it's a want. You can't possibly come up with an
operationally rigorous test to distinguish between
"needs" and "wants". There is none.

>>>>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.


Rent it.

>
>
>>>A person can only do their best.

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

>
>
> I am too.


You are not. You could get rid of a high-CD food and
substitute a nutritionally equivalent lower-CD food,
but you don't do it. Thus, you aren't doing the best
you can.

This was settled weeks ago.

>
>
>>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.


Bullshit. "Health" is not the reason you want to
reduce animal CDs. Cut the bullshit.

>>>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.


There is no such thing as "veganically" grown.

>>>That's called no other choice.

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

>
>
> Be realistic.


I am. You have a choice TODAY.

>
>>>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.


1. You are ALWAYS responsible for the choices AND
THEIR OUTCOMES
that YOU make.

2. There is a choice

> 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.


There is no such thing as "veganic" agriculture.

>
>
>>>>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.


It is absolute. You don't believe it's "kinda" or
"sorta" or "a little bit" wrong; you believe it's
wrong, period, to kill animals (except in self
defense.) THEREFORE, you cannot explain why you still
cause some to die.

>
>>>Actually I wear no fur or leather.

>>
>>You're lying about the leather.

>
>
> You wish


I know.

>
>>>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


You always have choice. You do not "need" to buy
commercially produced food, ever.

>>>It doesn't matter what one ethically believes.

>>
>>THERE is a choice quote!

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


No: "It doesn't matter what one ethically believes."
That's the quote. What a doozy!

>>>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!"


She's a saknk.

>
>
>>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.


No, sense. There is no such thing as "need" as you are
using the word.

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


No, those are wants. They are operationally
indistinguishable from things like movie tickets, golf
clubs, hookers, and video games.

>
>
>>>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


It's present. It cannot NOT be present.

>
>
>>>Now the need for food to live is stupid?

>>
>>You don't need to live.

>
>
> I definitely disagree


No one cares.


  #131 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

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

>
>
> Where two moral agents are involved both moral agents have the ability
> to act -- or not act.
>
> This is the oddity of your theory. If you pay me money and I do it, you
> are responsible. If you pay me money, and I don't do it then, who is
> responsible?


For what? Mother ****ER, you are just losing it. If
there's no action or outcome, then there's nothing for
which anyone might be responsible.

There is no oddity. You BOTH are responsible for the
bad outcome, but only IF it occurs.
  #132 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

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

>
>
> Where two moral agents are involved both moral agents have the ability
> to act -- or not act.
>
> This is the oddity of your theory. If you pay me money and I do it, you
> are responsible. If you pay me money, and I don't do it then, who is
> responsible?


For what? Mother ****ER, you are just losing it. If
there's no action or outcome, then there's nothing for
which anyone might be responsible.

There is no oddity. You BOTH are responsible for the
bad outcome, but only IF it occurs.
  #133 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

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

>
>
> To repeat myself, yet again, I am responsible for actions not outcomes.


You are responsible for both. Your responsibilty for
outcomes you don't immediately cause is derivative, but
it is plainly there. The mediation of others between
you and the final action doesn't exculpate you in the
least.

>
>
>>>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.


No one is blame shifting.

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

>
>
> I haven't. I pay the grocer for meat. I made that clear many times. The
> farmer is the one is the moral actor who makes the decision to kill.


You are integral to the process. Without your demand,
the farmer doesn't kill the animals.

If there is any moral responsibility for the animals
deaths, you share in it.

>
>
>>>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.

>
>
> Perhaps if I believe this nonsensical theory of shared responsibility


You do believe in it. That's why you wouldn't buy
things you might otherwise like if you know they're
produced by child slave labor.

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

>
>
> Well,


Right.
  #134 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

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

>
>
> I've given far too many examples, but one more for old times sake.
>
> I post something and the recipient gets angry. The angry individual now
> goes into their car


Bad example. It has never happened.
  #135 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

>
>>
>>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.

>
>
> The first error is using the term responsible and cause interchangeably.
> The second difficulty is to confuse cause with effect.


Something you have done repeatedly and deliberately.

Stupid little homo.


  #136 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

> 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.


The *rape* is not positive for the victim of the rape.

Stupid ****ing felching homo.
  #137 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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


The rapist gets no moral credit for that, it was just circumstance.

> 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.


You're wrong.

Negative or immoral acts can have
> positive or moral outcomes. Unless of course, you think curing cancer
> would be immoral.


No, but the original act is no less 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!


Right. It's affected by the act but not tied to it morally.

If I rob someone, resulting inadvertantly in a murder being averted, my
robbery is no less wrong.

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


What?

>> 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.


You don't think rationally.


  #138 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

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

>
> Self-important bunk.


A physical fact.

>> > 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.

>
> The first error is using the term responsible and cause interchangeably.
> The second difficulty is to confuse cause with effect.


If you buy meat you "cause" animals to be slaughtered, AND you are
responsible for their deaths. The confusion is in your addled brain.


  #139 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

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

>
> Self-important bunk.


A physical fact.

>> > 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.

>
> The first error is using the term responsible and cause interchangeably.
> The second difficulty is to confuse cause with effect.


If you buy meat you "cause" animals to be slaughtered, AND you are
responsible for their deaths. The confusion is in your addled brain.


  #140 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:
> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>That is really interesting. In my family and in my culture we are taught
>>>>>that we are responsible for our actions. Your theory requires that I be
>>>>>responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions.
>>>>
>>>>You share responsibility for the outcomes of other
>>>>people's actions when those actions are done on your
>>>>behalf,
>>>
>>>
>>>Who taught you such nonsense?

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

>
>
> Ah, you blew it with this paragraph.


Still can't explain the flaw...hence the whiff off.

I really didn't think you would even try.


  #141 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

>
> I've given far too many examples, but one more for old times sake.
>
> I post something and the recipient gets angry. The angry individual now
> goes into their car and is driving. Still angry, they hit somoene and
> kill them. I should be held accountable through your theory. The events
> can be traced back to me, right?


Wrong, you did not solicit that killing. When you buy stolen property you
solicit robbery. When you buy food you solicit killing.

> After all, if I didn't do something to make them angry they wouldn't
> have gone driving and the person wouldn't have been hit by the car.
>
> I am the centre of the universe.


Just like a 2-year-old, that's what you sound like.


  #142 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

>
> I've given far too many examples, but one more for old times sake.
>
> I post something and the recipient gets angry. The angry individual now
> goes into their car and is driving. Still angry, they hit somoene and
> kill them. I should be held accountable through your theory. The events
> can be traced back to me, right?


Wrong, you did not solicit that killing. When you buy stolen property you
solicit robbery. When you buy food you solicit killing.

> After all, if I didn't do something to make them angry they wouldn't
> have gone driving and the person wouldn't have been hit by the car.
>
> I am the centre of the universe.


Just like a 2-year-old, that's what you sound like.


  #143 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

>
> To repeat myself, yet again, I am responsible for actions not outcomes.


When you solicit the outcome you are responsible for it.

>> > 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.

>
> I haven't. I pay the grocer for meat. I made that clear many times. The
> farmer is the one is the moral actor who makes the decision to kill.


You solicited the killing.

>
>> > 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.

>
> Perhaps if I believe this nonsensical theory of shared responsibility
> that might work.


You do believe it, you're playing a game.

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

>
> Well, Dutch. What I can say is if that is what you believe, then you
> ought to be punished for your "moral" wrongdoing. I just have no idea of
> what you have in mind as the appropriate punishment for someone who does
> this immoral act.


What immoral act?


  #144 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

>
> To repeat myself, yet again, I am responsible for actions not outcomes.


When you solicit the outcome you are responsible for it.

>> > 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.

>
> I haven't. I pay the grocer for meat. I made that clear many times. The
> farmer is the one is the moral actor who makes the decision to kill.


You solicited the killing.

>
>> > 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.

>
> Perhaps if I believe this nonsensical theory of shared responsibility
> that might work.


You do believe it, you're playing a game.

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

>
> Well, Dutch. What I can say is if that is what you believe, then you
> ought to be punished for your "moral" wrongdoing. I just have no idea of
> what you have in mind as the appropriate punishment for someone who does
> this immoral act.


What immoral act?


  #145 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

>
> Thanks, Dutch. I'm the centre of the universe. I can connect all that is
> good and bad in the universe back to me.


Yes, you do sound like a very young child..




  #146 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

>
> Where two moral agents are involved both moral agents have the ability
> to act -- or not act.


Right

> This is the oddity of your theory. If you pay me money and I do it, you
> are responsible. If you pay me money, and I don't do it then, who is
> responsible?


I am.


  #147 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Rubystars" > wrote in message om...
> That's the most convoluted P.O.S. logic I ever read. It's worse than what
> pearl posts, because at least her posts seem to follow a framework (she
> bases them on something, various pseudosciences,

you seem to be pulling this
> out of some deep dark orifice).
>
> -Rubystars


Still guzzling your diet-drinks, windy?

http://www.wnho.net/history_of_aspartame.htm




  #148 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > Wrong. Eating is a need.
>
> No, it's a want. You can't possibly come up with an
> operationally rigorous test to distinguish between
> "needs" and "wants". There is none.


I think having it's alternative causing death is
a good reason to call something a need.

> Bullshit. "Health" is not the reason you want to
> reduce animal CDs. Cut the bullshit.


For health reasons I'm vegetarian (gradually
becoming vegan). It just so happens that
the animals benefit from this too. I want to
reduce animal deaths, but I don't need to.
The veg diet is good for both health and
animals.

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

> >
> >
> > Be realistic.

>
> I am. You have a choice TODAY.


Did you know that in some places it's against
the law to talk someone into suicide? To
suggest death as an option is just stupid.

> > I'm not responsible when there's no choice involved.

>
> 1. You are ALWAYS responsible for the choices AND
> THEIR OUTCOMES
> that YOU make.


Not when there's no choice.

> 2. There is a choice


You think death is a valid choice here. You're wrong.

> It is absolute. You don't believe it's "kinda" or
> "sorta" or "a little bit" wrong; you believe it's
> wrong, period, to kill animals (except in self
> defense.) THEREFORE, you cannot explain why you still
> cause some to die.


I believe it's mostly wrong. I'm not in any position
to stop the cds although I wish I could. Where
does 'mostly wrong' fit into your definition.

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

> >
> >
> > You wish

>
> I know.


Then you're stalking the wrong person!

> > Having no choice

>
> You always have choice. You do not "need" to buy
> commercially produced food, ever.


Please give me a vegan diet for one day that
follows the above, as an example.

> No: "It doesn't matter what one ethically believes."
> That's the quote. What a doozy!


But it doesn't. The world still spins. The markets
still are not veganic. It doesn't matter what one
ethically believes, those facts remain currently.

> > Karen says "Oh my god, I am NOT skanky!"

>
> She's a saknk.


Well, she'll be glad to know she's a saknk, and not
a skank.

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

>
> No, those are wants. They are operationally
> indistinguishable from things like movie tickets, golf
> clubs, hookers, and video games.


They are very distinguishable by looking at what
ones one can live without. The true needs are
required for life to continue. Your list of wants
are not essential.




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


  #149 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > Wrong. Eating is a need.
>
> No, it's a want. You can't possibly come up with an
> operationally rigorous test to distinguish between
> "needs" and "wants". There is none.


I think having it's alternative causing death is
a good reason to call something a need.

> Bullshit. "Health" is not the reason you want to
> reduce animal CDs. Cut the bullshit.


For health reasons I'm vegetarian (gradually
becoming vegan). It just so happens that
the animals benefit from this too. I want to
reduce animal deaths, but I don't need to.
The veg diet is good for both health and
animals.

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

> >
> >
> > Be realistic.

>
> I am. You have a choice TODAY.


Did you know that in some places it's against
the law to talk someone into suicide? To
suggest death as an option is just stupid.

> > I'm not responsible when there's no choice involved.

>
> 1. You are ALWAYS responsible for the choices AND
> THEIR OUTCOMES
> that YOU make.


Not when there's no choice.

> 2. There is a choice


You think death is a valid choice here. You're wrong.

> It is absolute. You don't believe it's "kinda" or
> "sorta" or "a little bit" wrong; you believe it's
> wrong, period, to kill animals (except in self
> defense.) THEREFORE, you cannot explain why you still
> cause some to die.


I believe it's mostly wrong. I'm not in any position
to stop the cds although I wish I could. Where
does 'mostly wrong' fit into your definition.

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

> >
> >
> > You wish

>
> I know.


Then you're stalking the wrong person!

> > Having no choice

>
> You always have choice. You do not "need" to buy
> commercially produced food, ever.


Please give me a vegan diet for one day that
follows the above, as an example.

> No: "It doesn't matter what one ethically believes."
> That's the quote. What a doozy!


But it doesn't. The world still spins. The markets
still are not veganic. It doesn't matter what one
ethically believes, those facts remain currently.

> > Karen says "Oh my god, I am NOT skanky!"

>
> She's a saknk.


Well, she'll be glad to know she's a saknk, and not
a skank.

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

>
> No, those are wants. They are operationally
> indistinguishable from things like movie tickets, golf
> clubs, hookers, and video games.


They are very distinguishable by looking at what
ones one can live without. The true needs are
required for life to continue. Your list of wants
are not essential.




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


  #150 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

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

> >
> >
> > Where two moral agents are involved both moral agents have the ability
> > to act -- or not act.
> >
> > This is the oddity of your theory. If you pay me money and I do it, you
> > are responsible. If you pay me money, and I don't do it then, who is
> > responsible?

>
> For what? Mother ****ER, you are just losing it. If
> there's no action or outcome, then there's nothing for
> which anyone might be responsible.


Yikes, someone is losing it.

If you pay me money to kill someone and I do, your theory requires that
I share responsibility.

Conversely, if you pay me money to kill someone and I DON'T do it then
who is responsible for the absence of the action of the killing (and the
action of allowing them to live)?

> There is no oddity. You BOTH are responsible for the
> bad outcome, but only IF it occurs.



  #151 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> You are responsible for both. Your responsibilty for
> outcomes you don't immediately cause is derivative, but
> it is plainly there. The mediation of others between
> you and the final action doesn't exculpate you in the
> least.


Nonsense.
  #152 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That is really interesting. In my family and in my culture we are taught
> >>>>>that we are responsible for our actions. Your theory requires that I be
> >>>>>responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions.
> >>>>
> >>>>You share responsibility for the outcomes of other
> >>>>people's actions when those actions are done on your
> >>>>behalf,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Who taught you such nonsense?
> >>
> >>It isn't nonsense.
> >>
> >>Once again: if you drive the getaway car in a bank
> >>robbery in which some innocent person in the bank is
> >>shot and killed, you share in the legal AND moral
> >>responsibility for that death (the legal responsibility
> >>is based on the moral responsibility), and you face a
> >>punishment greater than you would if no one had been
> >>killed. This is not nonsense. You are a participant
> >>in the event, even though you didn't pull the trigger.
> >> This is moral, just, and as it should be.
> >>
> >>Deal with it. Or, instead of sitting there effetely
> >>trying to be clever, try to explain, in detail and
> >>without resorting to faggy sarcasm, exactly where the
> >>flaw is.

> >
> >
> > Ah, you blew it with this paragraph.

>
> Still can't explain the flaw...hence the whiff off.
>
> I really didn't think you would even try.


An intelligent person would be able to see when and where I respond to
requests.
  #153 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Strap-on Nectar wrote:

DAMMIT. Stop cutting the name of the person to whom you're replying.

<...>
> Well, she'll be glad to know she's a saknk, and not
> a skank.


A misspelled skank is still a skank.
  #154 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Strap-on Nectar wrote:

DAMMIT. Stop cutting the name of the person to whom you're replying.

<...>
> Well, she'll be glad to know she's a saknk, and not
> a skank.


A misspelled skank is still a skank.
  #155 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Wrong. Eating is a need.

>>
>>No, it's a want. You can't possibly come up with an
>>operationally rigorous test to distinguish between
>>"needs" and "wants". There is none.

>
>
> I think having it's alternative causing death is
> a good reason to call something a need.


No. There is no operational or behavioral distinction.
Try to imagine one, and I'll shoot it down.
Remember: *operational*, not definitional. The
definition must derive FROM the operational distinction.

>
>
>>Bullshit. "Health" is not the reason you want to
>>reduce animal CDs. Cut the bullshit.

>
>
> For health reasons I'm vegetarian (gradually
> becoming vegan). It just so happens that
> the animals benefit from this too.


No, no animals "benefit" from this. Meat animals that
you don't eat do not benefit: either they are eaten by
someone else and so do not "benefit" from your choice,
or they are not bred in the first and so NEVER benefit
from anything. The animals of the field that are
chopped to bits in the course of producing your food do
not "benefit", either.

Animals do not "benefit" from your refusal to eat meat.

> I want to
> reduce animal deaths, but I don't need to.


You do NOT want to reduce animal deaths; otherwise, you
would do so.

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

>>
>>I am. You have a choice TODAY.

>
>
> Did you know that in some places it's against
> the law to talk someone into suicide?


I'm not trying to "talk you into it". I'm showing it's
an option.

>
>
>>>I'm not responsible when there's no choice involved.

>>
>>1. You are ALWAYS responsible for the choices AND
>> THEIR OUTCOMES that YOU make.

>
>
> Not when there's no choice.


There is always a choice.

>
>
>>2. There is a choice

>
>
> You think death is a valid choice here. You're wrong.


I'm right.

>
>
>>It is absolute. You don't believe it's "kinda" or
>>"sorta" or "a little bit" wrong; you believe it's
>>wrong, period, to kill animals (except in self
>>defense.) THEREFORE, you cannot explain why you still
>>cause some to die.

>
>
> I believe it's mostly wrong.


You CANNOT believe it's "mostly" wrong.

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

>>
>>I know.

>
>
> Then you're stalking the wrong person!


I'm not stalking anyone.

>
>
>>>Having no choice

>>
>>You always have choice. You do not "need" to buy
>>commercially produced food, ever.

>
>
> Please give me a vegan diet for one day


I'm not obliged to give you anything. YOU are the one
who must behave according to the ethics you claim to
hold. If you don't do it, you're a lying hypocrite.

>>No: "It doesn't matter what one ethically believes."
>>That's the quote. What a doozy!

>
>
> But it doesn't. The world still spins.


Your character spins even lower.

>
>
>>>Karen says "Oh my god, I am NOT skanky!"

>>
>>She's a skank.

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

>>
>>No, those are wants. They are operationally
>>indistinguishable from things like movie tickets, golf
>>clubs, hookers, and video games.

>
>
> They are very distinguishable by looking at what
> ones one can live without.


They are INdistinguishable. You cannot construct a
test whereby you would, by observing someone's behavior
- his choices - be able to tell a "need" from a "want".


  #156 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"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?
>>>
>>>
>>>Where two moral agents are involved both moral agents have the ability
>>>to act -- or not act.
>>>
>>>This is the oddity of your theory. If you pay me money and I do it, you
>>>are responsible. If you pay me money, and I don't do it then, who is
>>>responsible?

>>
>>For what? Mother ****ER, you are just losing it. If
>>there's no action or outcome, then there's nothing for
>>which anyone might be responsible.

>
>
> Yikes, someone is losing it.


You - from day one.

>
> If you pay me money to kill someone and I do, your theory requires that
> I share responsibility.


No, dumb ****. As the killer, you OBVIOUSLY are
responsible. Under the well developed, common
sensical, historically accepted theory of shared
responsibility, so would the payer be responsible.

How can you keep making such basic errors, homo Ron?
OF COURSE the killer would be responsible; that has
never been in doubt.

>
> Conversely, if you pay me money to kill someone and I DON'T do it


Then there is no responsibility to be assigned, dumb ****.

>
>
>>There is no oddity. You BOTH are responsible for the
>>bad outcome, but only IF it occurs.

  #157 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"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?
>>>
>>>
>>>Where two moral agents are involved both moral agents have the ability
>>>to act -- or not act.
>>>
>>>This is the oddity of your theory. If you pay me money and I do it, you
>>>are responsible. If you pay me money, and I don't do it then, who is
>>>responsible?

>>
>>For what? Mother ****ER, you are just losing it. If
>>there's no action or outcome, then there's nothing for
>>which anyone might be responsible.

>
>
> Yikes, someone is losing it.


You - from day one.

>
> If you pay me money to kill someone and I do, your theory requires that
> I share responsibility.


No, dumb ****. As the killer, you OBVIOUSLY are
responsible. Under the well developed, common
sensical, historically accepted theory of shared
responsibility, so would the payer be responsible.

How can you keep making such basic errors, homo Ron?
OF COURSE the killer would be responsible; that has
never been in doubt.

>
> Conversely, if you pay me money to kill someone and I DON'T do it


Then there is no responsibility to be assigned, dumb ****.

>
>
>>There is no oddity. You BOTH are responsible for the
>>bad outcome, but only IF it occurs.

  #158 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>You are responsible for both. Your responsibilty for
>>outcomes you don't immediately cause is derivative, but
>>it is plainly there. The mediation of others between
>>you and the final action doesn't exculpate you in the
>>least.

>
>
> Nonsense.


non sequitur, and a predictable little oozy homo whiff-off.

Everyone who just scribbles "nonsense" and runs away is
a loser, and has raised the white flag.
  #159 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>You are responsible for both. Your responsibilty for
>>outcomes you don't immediately cause is derivative, but
>>it is plainly there. The mediation of others between
>>you and the final action doesn't exculpate you in the
>>least.

>
>
> Nonsense.


non sequitur, and a predictable little oozy homo whiff-off.

Everyone who just scribbles "nonsense" and runs away is
a loser, and has raised the white flag.
  #160 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>That is really interesting. In my family and in my culture we are taught
>>>>>>>that we are responsible for our actions. Your theory requires that I be
>>>>>>>responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You share responsibility for the outcomes of other
>>>>>>people's actions when those actions are done on your
>>>>>>behalf,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Who taught you such nonsense?
>>>>
>>>>It isn't nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>Once again: if you drive the getaway car in a bank
>>>>robbery in which some innocent person in the bank is
>>>>shot and killed, you share in the legal AND moral
>>>>responsibility for that death (the legal responsibility
>>>>is based on the moral responsibility), and you face a
>>>>punishment greater than you would if no one had been
>>>>killed. This is not nonsense. You are a participant
>>>>in the event, even though you didn't pull the trigger.
>>>>This is moral, just, and as it should be.
>>>>
>>>>Deal with it. Or, instead of sitting there effetely
>>>>trying to be clever, try to explain, in detail and
>>>>without resorting to faggy sarcasm, exactly where the
>>>>flaw is.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ah, you blew it with this paragraph.

>>
>>Still can't explain the flaw...hence the whiff off.
>>
>>I really didn't think you would even try.

>
>
> An intelligent person


sees that you couldn't even ATTEMPT to explain any
flaw, and hence just whiffed off.

Loser.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"