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.

> Strap-on Nectar wrote:
>
> DAMMIT. Stop cutting the name of the person to whom you're replying.

If you can change my name to an insult, then
you have no standing when complaining that
I snipped yours out. And don't take it so
personally. It's just my idiosyncracy that
I like to see a clean screen following the
format of quote, response. 99% of the
time I clear out parts I'm not responding
to. I do this to both friends and foes.

> > Well, she'll be glad to know she's a saknk, and not
> > a skank.
>
> A misspelled skank is still a skank.

Funny how you stereotype anyone you're
angry with. Since I disagree with most of
what you say, that gives you the urge to
insult. My friend Karen and I are suddenly
skanks. I have 'cankles'. Both mine and
Karen's sexuality has been 'determined'
to be deviant (to you).


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

> > 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.

You're right. Let me change my wording to better
indicate my meaning here. "It just so happens that
the animals suffer less harm from this too.".

> > 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.

That's to inane to even consider. However, maybe
to you that is a very real option. To each their own.

> >>>>>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.

Then who is it you saw wearing the leather that
you KNOW about? Is this one of those things
where you see things that others don't? You
know, one of your sacred 'implied' things?

> >>>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".

Let's see. Take away air, the subject dies. Take away
movie tickets, the subject lives. Take away water, the
subject dies. Take away golf clubs, the subject lives.
Etc. Very distinguishable.


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

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "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

Actually I'll surprise you. I actually found that peppermint tea is tastier
than diet sodas so I don't drink sodas as much as I used to. Of course I
sweeten it with saccharine, and occasionally honey which you probably also
hate, the former because its an artificial sweetener, and the latter because
it's an animal product.

-Rubystars

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.

The avoidance of a murder certainly gets some kudos from me --
especially if it is my own.

> > 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.

Any claims to know what I am thinking originates within you. That's why
it is called projection.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.

Just like the dupe who "thinks" they are guilty for a watch that isn't
stolen. You've been duped into believe that you are accountable for
others.

> >> > 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.

It's terrible to see so many dupes in the world.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> The rapist gets no moral credit for that, it was just circumstance.
>
> I'm proud of you. At least there is some indication that you can
> distinguish causation and circumstance or coincidence.

Indeed

If *you* can do so then why did you proclaim, "The person is the product of
a woman who is violently raped. I'd say the "immoral" act has been
redeemed."

You are all over the map.

"Ron" > wrote

>> If I rob someone, resulting inadvertantly in a murder being averted, my
>> robbery is no less wrong.
>
> The avoidance of a murder certainly gets some kudos from me --
> especially if it is my own.

The "outcome" is good for you by coincidence, the robber is physically
responsible for inadvertantly saving your life, but morally he gets no
credit.

"Ron" > wrote bullshit

You're a troll, I'm bored with you, goodbye.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> The rapist gets no moral credit for that, it was just circumstance.
> >
> > I'm proud of you. At least there is some indication that you can
> > distinguish causation and circumstance or coincidence.
>
> Indeed
>
> If *you* can do so then why did you proclaim, "The person is the product of
> a woman who is violently raped. I'd say the "immoral" act has been
> redeemed."
>
> You are all over the map.

It is interesting to note that when I apply your philosophy to a variety
of situations and to their "logical" conclusion that you tend to note
the difficulties.

Conversely, I could have created a scenario where the product of the
violent rape was a mass murder. Remember, your philosophy requires
tracing the actor's actions (what you call outcomes) to the persons
involved.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> >> If I rob someone, resulting inadvertantly in a murder being averted, my
> >> robbery is no less wrong.
> >
> > The avoidance of a murder certainly gets some kudos from me --
> > especially if it is my own.
>
> The "outcome" is good for you by coincidence, the robber is physically
> responsible for inadvertantly saving your life, but morally he gets no
> credit.

Nah. It's causation just like you attribute the actions of the farmer to
the vegan.

Cause and effect arguments are demonstrations of the false dilemma which
excludes the third option of coincidence.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>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.
>
>
> You're right.

I know. I'm right on all of it.

> Let me change my wording to better
> indicate my meaning here. "It just so happens that
> the animals suffer less harm from this too.".

No. "The" animals don't suffer ANY less harm based on
your lack of eating meat.

>
>
>>>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.
>
>>>>>>>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.
>
>
> Then who is it you saw wearing the leather

You wear leather.

>
>
>>>>>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".
>
>
> Let's see. Take away

No, no "takeaways". I'm asking you to OBSERVE an
individual's behavior and be able to tell how HE
distinguishes between them.

You can't do it.

> > Let me change my wording to better
> > indicate my meaning here. "It just so happens that
> > the animals suffer less harm from this too.".
>
> No. "The" animals don't suffer ANY less harm based on
> your lack of eating meat.

I believe they do. You're free to believe differently.

> > Then who is it you saw wearing the leather
>
> You wear leather.

But I don't, so now what? Are you going to try and
figure out who it is you saw? Are you only seeing
this in your head?

> >>>>>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".
> >
> >
> > Let's see. Take away
>
> No, no "takeaways". I'm asking you to OBSERVE an
> individual's behavior and be able to tell how HE
> distinguishes between them.

I thought we were talking about the difference
between 'need' and 'want'. What are we talking
about now?




--
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:

>>>Let me change my wording to better
>>>indicate my meaning here. "It just so happens that
>>>the animals suffer less harm from this too.".
>>
>>No. "The" animals don't suffer ANY less harm based on
>>your lack of eating meat.
>
>
> I believe they do.

They do not. I've shown it:

- the meat animals will all be killed and eaten, whether
you eat any meat or not
- the animals of the field killed for your diet will
be just as dead

Animals do not suffer less based on your choice of food.

>
>
>>>Then who is it you saw wearing the leather
>>
>>You wear leather.
>
>
> But I don't,

You do.

>
>>>>>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".
>>>
>>>
>>>Let's see. Take away
>>
>>No, no "takeaways". I'm asking you to OBSERVE an
>>individual's behavior and be able to tell how HE
>>distinguishes between them.
>
>
> I thought we were talking about the difference
> between 'need' and 'want'.

We are. You cannot construct a test of a person's
*behavior* that will reveal a distinction. Why are you
so stupid? Why can't you even try?

Remember: the test has to involve the subjects
evaluation of needs and wants. How would you test it?
How would you determine his evaluation that some kind
of good is a need, and another is "merely" a want?

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>Let me change my wording to better
>>>indicate my meaning here. "It just so happens that
>>>the animals suffer less harm from this too.".
>>
>>No. "The" animals don't suffer ANY less harm based on
>>your lack of eating meat.
>
>
> I believe they do.

They do not. I've shown it:

- the meat animals will all be killed and eaten, whether
you eat any meat or not
- the animals of the field killed for your diet will
be just as dead

Animals do not suffer less based on your choice of food.

>
>
>>>Then who is it you saw wearing the leather
>>
>>You wear leather.
>
>
> But I don't,

You do.

>
>>>>>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".
>>>
>>>
>>>Let's see. Take away
>>
>>No, no "takeaways". I'm asking you to OBSERVE an
>>individual's behavior and be able to tell how HE
>>distinguishes between them.
>
>
> I thought we were talking about the difference
> between 'need' and 'want'.

We are. You cannot construct a test of a person's
*behavior* that will reveal a distinction. Why are you
so stupid? Why can't you even try?

Remember: the test has to involve the subjects
evaluation of needs and wants. How would you test it?
How would you determine his evaluation that some kind
of good is a need, and another is "merely" a want?

In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> The farmer, you ****ing idiot. As far as the farmer
> knows, he is just driving a discer through a field. He
> isn't looking for any animals, and he doesn't see any
> dead ones; they're chopped to bits BEHIND him, and
> mixed in with the turned earth.

I guess you're just smarter than they are. I have a strong suspicion
that each farmer knows the intricacies and what their occupation
entails. But it is nice of you to offer to feel guilty for them to
ameliorate your sense that they are stupid.

Ron wrote:

> In article t>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>The farmer, you ****ing idiot. As far as the farmer
>>knows, he is just driving a discer through a field. He
>>isn't looking for any animals, and he doesn't see any
>>dead ones; they're chopped to bits BEHIND him, and
>>mixed in with the turned earth.
>
>
> I guess you're just smarter than they are.

Clearly a lot smarter, and quicker, than you.

In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article t>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The farmer, you ****ing idiot. As far as the farmer
> >>knows, he is just driving a discer through a field. He
> >>isn't looking for any animals, and he doesn't see any
> >>dead ones; they're chopped to bits BEHIND him, and
> >>mixed in with the turned earth.
> >
> >
> > I guess you're just smarter than they are.
>
> Clearly a lot smarter, and quicker, than you.

Personal attacks are not my idea of intelligence. They typically
indicate for me that someone is acting from emotion and not clear
thinking.

The issue that was being discussed was the knowledge, or lack of
knowledge of the farmer and the need of others to assume responsibility
for their actions.

> >>>Let me change my wording to better
> >>>indicate my meaning here. "It just so happens that
> >>>the animals suffer less harm from this too.".
> >>
> >>No. "The" animals don't suffer ANY less harm based on
> >>your lack of eating meat.
> >
> >
> > I believe they do.
>
> They do not. I've shown it:
>
> - the meat animals will all be killed and eaten, whether
> you eat any meat or not

One less demand slows down the supply by
one. If 100 people don't demand the meat, it
stops that much production. Production follows
demand.

> - the animals of the field killed for your diet will
> be just as dead

Yes, there will likely be cds in most commercial products.
Both animal and non-animal. It just happens that the
animal production causes many more cds than the
non-animal foods. This is logically based on the fact
that it takes many many times more crops (grains, hay,
etc.) to make a pound of animal food than it does to make
a pound of plant food. The cds you refer to are mainly
based on crop-growing practices, are they not?

> > I thought we were talking about the difference
> > between 'need' and 'want'.
>
> We are. You cannot construct a test of a person's
> *behavior* that will reveal a distinction. Why are you
> so stupid? Why can't you even try?

If we are talking about the difference between need
and want, how does some subject's behaviour come
into play? That's not what reveals a distinction.

> Remember: the test has to involve the subjects
> evaluation of needs and wants. How would you test it?
> How would you determine his evaluation that some kind
> of good is a need, and another is "merely" a want?

Then I'll make myself the subject, since I can't really
speak for anyone else. I would test it based on what's
essential for healthy life. What would you base it on
for yourself?


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

> When a farmer kills an animal as an occupational
> > choice, to have money to feed his family, etc. (decisions as a moral
> > actor) and I buy products from the store (decisions as a moral
actor) it
> > is a situation of coincidence not cause and effect.
>
> It is not coincidence.
>
> He doesn't "choose". He isn't even aware he's killing
> the animals. YOU are, though. That's one of the three
> big factors that establishes your responsibility. The
> other two are that you ARE choosing, and your
> participation is persistent.

If the farmer isn't aware that he's killing animals,
what makes you so sure that he is? And how
come it's the responsibility of a different person?


--
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 article t>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article t>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The farmer, you ****ing idiot. As far as the farmer
>>>>knows, he is just driving a discer through a field. He
>>>>isn't looking for any animals, and he doesn't see any
>>>>dead ones; they're chopped to bits BEHIND him, and
>>>>mixed in with the turned earth.
>>>
>>>
>>>I guess you're just smarter than they are.
>>
>>Clearly a lot smarter, and quicker, than you.
>
>
> Personal attacks are

something you have richly earned.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>>Let me change my wording to better
>>>>>indicate my meaning here. "It just so happens that
>>>>>the animals suffer less harm from this too.".
>>>>
>>>>No. "The" animals don't suffer ANY less harm based on
>>>>your lack of eating meat.
>>>
>>>
>>>I believe they do.
>>
>>They do not. I've shown it:
>>
>> - the meat animals will all be killed and eaten, whether
>> you eat any meat or not
>
>
> One less demand slows down the supply by
> one.

It does NOTHING to stop the death of any existing animal.

>
>
>> - the animals of the field killed for your diet will
>> be just as dead
>
>
> Yes, there will likely be cds in most commercial products.

Which you buy. Your diet does not cause "less" harm.

>>>I thought we were talking about the difference
>>>between 'need' and 'want'.
>>
>>We are. You cannot construct a test of a person's
>>*behavior* that will reveal a distinction. Why are you
>>so stupid? Why can't you even try?
>
>
> If we are talking about the difference between need
> and want, how does some subject's behaviour come
> into play? That's not what reveals a distinction.

It most certainly is! How the **** else do you expect
him to reveal his evaluation? It certainly can't be
based on what he SAYS, because people say all kinds of
crazy things.

Try it: what behavior would you expect to see that
distinguishes between needs and wants? I know what the
answer is; see if you can figure it out.

>
>
>>Remember: the test has to involve the subjects
>>evaluation of needs and wants. How would you test it?
>> How would you determine his evaluation that some kind
>>of good is a need, and another is "merely" a want?
>
>
> Then I'll make myself the subject

No, definitely not. Your distinction MUST be universal
for it to have any meaning.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>>Let me change my wording to better
>>>>>indicate my meaning here. "It just so happens that
>>>>>the animals suffer less harm from this too.".
>>>>
>>>>No. "The" animals don't suffer ANY less harm based on
>>>>your lack of eating meat.
>>>
>>>
>>>I believe they do.
>>
>>They do not. I've shown it:
>>
>> - the meat animals will all be killed and eaten, whether
>> you eat any meat or not
>
>
> One less demand slows down the supply by
> one.

It does NOTHING to stop the death of any existing animal.

>
>
>> - the animals of the field killed for your diet will
>> be just as dead
>
>
> Yes, there will likely be cds in most commercial products.

Which you buy. Your diet does not cause "less" harm.

>>>I thought we were talking about the difference
>>>between 'need' and 'want'.
>>
>>We are. You cannot construct a test of a person's
>>*behavior* that will reveal a distinction. Why are you
>>so stupid? Why can't you even try?
>
>
> If we are talking about the difference between need
> and want, how does some subject's behaviour come
> into play? That's not what reveals a distinction.

It most certainly is! How the **** else do you expect
him to reveal his evaluation? It certainly can't be
based on what he SAYS, because people say all kinds of
crazy things.

Try it: what behavior would you expect to see that
distinguishes between needs and wants? I know what the
answer is; see if you can figure it out.

>
>
>>Remember: the test has to involve the subjects
>>evaluation of needs and wants. How would you test it?
>> How would you determine his evaluation that some kind
>>of good is a need, and another is "merely" a want?
>
>
> Then I'll make myself the subject

No, definitely not. Your distinction MUST be universal
for it to have any meaning.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>> When a farmer kills an animal as an occupational
>>
>>>choice, to have money to feed his family, etc. (decisions as a moral
>>>actor) and I buy products from the store (decisions as a moral
>
> actor) it
>
>>>is a situation of coincidence not cause and effect.
>>
>>It is not coincidence.
>>
>>He doesn't "choose". He isn't even aware he's killing
>>the animals. YOU are, though. That's one of the three
>>big factors that establishes your responsibility. The
>>other two are that you ARE choosing, and your
>>participation is persistent.
>
>
> If the farmer isn't aware that he's killing animals,
> what makes you so sure that he is?

There are photos. There used to be a very good one
from the British Deer Society of a shredded fawn, but
it's no longer on their web page.

There also is the testimony, here, of a rice farmer.

> And how
> come it's the responsibility of a different person?

The responsibility is shared. If the deaths are a
moral issue, then the farmer is indeed responsible, but
so are you. Effectively, you don't deny it: that's
why you are concerned with "reducing" your CDs.

> > If we are talking about the difference between need
> > and want, how does some subject's behaviour come
> > into play? That's not what reveals a distinction.
>
> It most certainly is! How the **** else do you expect
> him to reveal his evaluation? It certainly can't be
> based on what he SAYS, because people say all kinds of
> crazy things.

I base need on what's necessary for a healthy life. You
can base it on a behaviour if you like, but I'm going to
do it my way.

> Try it: what behavior would you expect to see that
> distinguishes between needs and wants? I know what the
> answer is; see if you can figure it out.

Hmmm, do you consider living and dying to be
behaviours?

> > Then I'll make myself the subject
>
> No, definitely not. Your distinction MUST be universal
> for it to have any meaning.

Universal? Aren't the behaviours of living and
dying pretty much universal?


--
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 the farmer isn't aware that he's killing animals,
> > what makes you so sure that he is?
>
> There are photos. There used to be a very good one
> from the British Deer Society of a shredded fawn, but
> it's no longer on their web page.
>
> There also is the testimony, here, of a rice farmer.

I doubt one can accidently feed a fawn into a shredder.
Anyways, if veganic foods ever become availlable, you
can sure bet that myself and other veggies will be all
over them. Meanwhile though, there is no choice but
to at least partially buy commercially grown foods.

> > And how
> > come it's the responsibility of a different person?
>
> The responsibility is shared. If the deaths are a
> moral issue, then the farmer is indeed responsible, but
> so are you. Effectively, you don't deny it: that's
> why you are concerned with "reducing" your CDs.

Responsibility is not possible in a case where there
is no alternative (death is NOT a valid alternative).
If I have happened to notice and happened to be
pleased by a lessening of deaths connected to my
diet, well, what's wrong with that? Sounds like I'm
doing something good in my books.


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

Strap-on Nectar wrote:
>>DAMMIT. Stop cutting the name of the person to whom you're replying.
>
> If you can change my name to an insult,

You bring an insult to your own nym with every post you make.

> then you have no standing when complaining that
> I snipped yours out.

Your snipping it out makes it impossible to figure out to whom your
replying, dummy. Leave that part in.

> And don't take it so personally.

**** yourself.

> It's just my idiosyncracy that
> I like to see a clean screen following the
> format of quote, response.

Leave that part in. It's not useless clutter. Idiot.

> 99% of the
> time I clear out parts I'm not responding
> to.

It's nice to see whom you're addressing, idiot.

> I do this to both friends and foes.

Leave it in for both, idiot.

>>>Well, she'll be glad to know she's a saknk, and not
>>>a skank.
>>
>>A misspelled skank is still a skank.
>
> Funny how you stereotype anyone you're
> angry with.

I've used no stereotypes.

> My friend Karen and I are suddenly
> skanks.

Suddenly? What were you before? Once a skank, ALWAYS a skank.

> I have 'cankles'.

You finally admit it.

> Both mine and

"MY sexuality," not "mine sexuality." At least you don't need to use
compound pronouns much when asking people if they want "fries with that."

> Karen's sexuality has been 'determined'
> to be deviant (to you).

At least you acknowledge homosexuality is a deviant behavior.

> > 99% of the
> > time I clear out parts I'm not responding
> > to.
>
> It's nice to see whom you're addressing, idiot.

Just look up near the top of the screen. It's the
name right above my post, usually.

> "MY sexuality," not "mine sexuality." At least you don't need to use
> compound pronouns much when asking people if they want "fries with
that."

Well thanks for the grammar lesson, but no
fries for you.

> > Karen's sexuality has been 'determined'
> > to be deviant (to you).
>
> At least you acknowledge homosexuality is a deviant behavior.

I don't think it's deviant. Notice the part where
I typed "(to you)".


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

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:51:13 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:

>Well thanks for the grammar lesson, but no
>fries for you.

Actually, in all fairness to 'usual suspect' he does know
his grammar, and I've benefited at least twice from his
advice on it over the years. That doesn't make him any
less a Berk though.

Claire's Uncle Dreck wrote:
>>Well thanks for the grammar lesson, but no
>>fries for you.
>
> Actually, in all fairness to 'usual suspect' he does know
> his grammar,

Thanks for noticing. In all fairness to you, it takes a generous person
to raise another man's children as his own (even though you did it on
the dole).

> and I've benefited at least twice from his
> advice on it over the years.

Too bad you've only benefitted from little grammar lessons. The
substance of your arguments needs a lot more work than how you convey them.

> It wasn't *fed into* a shredder, it was shredded by a combine when it
> was run over. According to that site, which has changed and I can't
find
> the image or accompanying article, it's a common occurrence in grain
and
> silage farming.

I would think a fawn would not just stand in front of a
moving combine. If it did, the combine driver should
just stop for a moment. If it was my farm, that would
be a rule.

> > Anyways, if veganic foods ever become availlable,
>
> They WON'T. Stop with your ridiculous fantasies.

I can hope. I also think it will eventually happen.

> They'd already be available if there were such a market and if it were
> economically viable. The latter is unlikely on a wide scale -- you may
> find a niche farmer who'll custom grow food for you, but you will pay
> him royally for it. If you're willing to pay extra to have your food
> grown according to your "principles," why haven't you sought out such
a
> farmer yet?

I know no such farmer right now that has enough time
and land to grow for me. I do the best I can and buy
a mix of organic and commercial foods, since this
is what's availlable to me.

> Bullshit. You can grow your own. I gave you links to Toronto-area
> community gardens. You have no excuses. And cut the "partially" BS --
> ALL your food is commercially grown. Every ****ing gram of every
****ing
> bite of it.

Those gardens are quite small. They are also too far from
where I live to tend to every day. A good garden usually
needs daily attention.

> Only according to your own subjective standards. As I wrote in
response
> to Retard earlier, the vegan is a shitty buck-passer who engages in
the
> self-delusion of establishing a "problem" (dead animals) and proposing
a
> "solution" (not consuming meat) and thereby thinking he's accomplished
> something despite the actual results of the change in his consumption
> (dead animals). Your diet STILL results in dead animals -- just as
many
> as, if not more than, before. Your diet is NOT the solution, it's a
weak
> pose to a phony issue. You're a silly self-righteous **** for thinking
> you've done anything positive, even by the false standards you've set.

There you go trying to tell me what my standards are. It's just
like how Jay/Jon tries to tell me what I must morally believe in.

By the way, despite your claim to the otherwise, I still think
eating vegan causes way less cds.


--
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 it did, the combine driver should
> > just stop for a moment.
>
> Sometimes the deer -- fawn or adult -- will leap right in front of a
> moving object, dummy. The view from a combine while harvesting a high
> crop like wheat, corn, or hay, isn't such that a fawn or a rat or some
> other animal would be seen before the loud THUD sound is heard.

Then that would be an unavoidable accident. Not
something that can be blamed on anyone.

> I didn't ask whom you do or don't know, I asked WHY HAVEN'T YOU SOUGHT
> OUT SUCH A FARMER YET?

Personal ads? Go to rural bars? Where do
I find this lifesaving farmer and can I afford him?

> More is available, but you refuse to avail yourself the opportunity of
> living according to your phony principles.

If I'm not availling myself to it, are you sure
it's my principles?




--
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
...
>
>> >>>Let me change my wording to better
>> >>>indicate my meaning here. "It just so happens that
>> >>>the animals suffer less harm from this too.".
>> >>
>> >>No. "The" animals don't suffer ANY less harm based on
>> >>your lack of eating meat.
>> >
>> >
>> > I believe they do.
>>
>> They do not. I've shown it:
>>
>> - the meat animals will all be killed and eaten, whether
>> you eat any meat or not
>
> One less demand slows down the supply by
> one. If 100 people don't demand the meat, it
> stops that much production. Production follows
> demand.
=================
Guess we can add economics to the big list of things you know nothing about,
killer.

>
>> - the animals of the field killed for your diet will
>> be just as dead
>
> Yes, there will likely be cds in most commercial products.
> Both animal and non-animal. It just happens that the
> animal production causes many more cds than the
> non-animal foods.
======================
No, it does not, and you have always failed at trying to prove your
delusion, hypocrite.


This is logically based on the fact
> that it takes many many times more crops (grains, hay,
> etc.) to make a pound of animal food than it does to make
> a pound of plant food.
======================
No, it does not, fool. It takes zero crops to produce a pound of meat.
Now, as for your tofu substitue, you'd be right, it takes many many ponds of
beans to produce 1 pound of tofu... Looks to me like the ratios are really
bad for your foods, killer.


The cds you refer to are mainly
> based on crop-growing practices, are they not?
=====================
Yep, your veggies, killer.


>
>> > I thought we were talking about the difference
>> > between 'need' and 'want'.
>>
>> We are. You cannot construct a test of a person's
>> *behavior* that will reveal a distinction. Why are you
>> so stupid? Why can't you even try?
>
> If we are talking about the difference between need
> and want, how does some subject's behaviour come
> into play? That's not what reveals a distinction.
=================
It reveals your hypocrisy, killer. It reveals that animals are of no
concern to you.


>
>> Remember: the test has to involve the subjects
>> evaluation of needs and wants. How would you test it?
>> How would you determine his evaluation that some kind
>> of good is a need, and another is "merely" a want?
>
> Then I'll make myself the subject, since I can't really
> speak for anyone else. I would test it based on what's
> essential for healthy life. What would you base it on
> for yourself?
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
>
>

> > One less demand slows down the supply by
> > one. If 100 people don't demand the meat, it
> > stops that much production. Production follows
> > demand.
> =================
> Guess we can add economics to the big list of things you know nothing
about,
> killer.

The very basic supply / demand stuff shouldn't
confuse you. Why does it?

> > Yes, there will likely be cds in most commercial products.
> > Both animal and non-animal. It just happens that the
> > animal production causes many more cds than the
> > non-animal foods.
> ======================
> No, it does not, and you have always failed at trying to prove your
> delusion, hypocrite.

You've never listened to my proof before so
I'm not going to bother typing it again.

> ======================
> No, it does not, fool. It takes zero crops to produce a pound of
meat.
> Now, as for your tofu substitue, you'd be right, it takes many many
ponds of
> beans to produce 1 pound of tofu... Looks to me like the ratios are
really
> bad for your foods, killer.

Why are you comparing the 'best' of the meat to
the 'processed' of the vegan? You know full well that
the meat industry cannot rely on game. Demand
would exceed supply. You also know full well, that
it doesn't take that many beans to make tofu.
With just 2 cups of beans you can make a sizeable
chunk of tofu.
http://www.kameyamado.com/english/how_to_make_tofu.html

This tofu can be grown and made with 0 deaths.
Your game requires 1.




--
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
...
>> > One less demand slows down the supply by
>> > one. If 100 people don't demand the meat, it
>> > stops that much production. Production follows
>> > demand.
>> =================
>> Guess we can add economics to the big list of things you know nothing
> about,
>> killer.
>
> The very basic supply / demand stuff shouldn't
> confuse you. Why does it?
=======================
Because it doesn't work quite like that, killer.
The producer isn't just going to stop production and go out of business,
he's going to look for ways to produce his product more cheaply. In the
case of your delusions of animal farming, that means he's going to push even
more animals though an already crowded/brutal/<your adjective here> process
to get a better return. So, actually, what you have done is force the
producer to cause even more of that suffering you claim to despise. And, on
top of that, you subsidise it all with the 'waste' from the extra crops you
now eat instead, with the crop parts you don't eat, killer. Afterall, how
much of a corn plant do you eat? Wheat? Any crop? Thanks for proving
yet again your lack of understanding, killer.


>
>> > Yes, there will likely be cds in most commercial products.
>> > Both animal and non-animal. It just happens that the
>> > animal production causes many more cds than the
>> > non-animal foods.
>> ======================
>> No, it does not, and you have always failed at trying to prove your
>> delusion, hypocrite.
>
> You've never listened to my proof before so
> I'm not going to bother typing it again.
==================
You've NEVER presented any killer. I would LOVE to read it, you just don't
have any, hypocrite.


>
>> ======================
>> No, it does not, fool. It takes zero crops to produce a pound of
> meat.
>> Now, as for your tofu substitue, you'd be right, it takes many many
> ponds of
>> beans to produce 1 pound of tofu... Looks to me like the ratios are
> really
>> bad for your foods, killer.
>
> Why are you comparing the 'best' of the meat to
> the 'processed' of the vegan?
====================
Why can't you compare real diets fool? You're the one that constantly
compares mythical vegan foods agaisnt meats that are common and widely
available. It's YOU that resorts to apples and oranges, killer. You have
to, or you have nothing to base your ignorant claims...


You know full well that
> the meat industry cannot rely on game.
=======================
We aren't talking about an 'industry' fool. We're talking about what an
individual, hypocritical vegan wannabe *could* do if they really cared. But
then, you have already proven that you care nothing about animals.


Demand
> would exceed supply. You also know full well, that
> it doesn't take that many beans to make tofu.
====================
Yes, it does, fool. Plus lots and lots of water!!

> With just 2 cups of beans you can make a sizeable
> chunk of tofu.
> http://www.kameyamado.com/english/how_to_make_tofu.html
=================
You stupid fool. Most of that is water. More of the original bean ends up
in the okara as waste from tofu. man, you really are this stupid. But, I
see why you like tofu, it has to be coagulated, just like blood does. have
a nice blood-drenched breakfast, killer.


>
> This tofu can be grown and made with 0 deaths.
> Your game requires 1.
==================
Nope. You lose, again....

>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article t>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article t>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The farmer, you ****ing idiot. As far as the farmer
> >>>>knows, he is just driving a discer through a field. He
> >>>>isn't looking for any animals, and he doesn't see any
> >>>>dead ones; they're chopped to bits BEHIND him, and
> >>>>mixed in with the turned earth.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I guess you're just smarter than they are.
> >>
> >>Clearly a lot smarter, and quicker, than you.
> >
> >
> > Personal attacks are
>
> something you have richly earned.

More editing...

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>If we are talking about the difference between need
>>>and want, how does some subject's behaviour come
>>>into play? That's not what reveals a distinction.
>>
>>It most certainly is! How the **** else do you expect
>>him to reveal his evaluation? It certainly can't be
>>based on what he SAYS, because people say all kinds of
>>crazy things.
>
>
> I base need on what's necessary for a healthy life.

There is no requirement to have a healthy life. There
is no requirement to have life, period.

>
>>Try it: what behavior would you expect to see that
>>distinguishes between needs and wants? I know what the
>>answer is; see if you can figure it out.
>
>>>Then I'll make myself the subject
>>
>>No, definitely not. Your distinction MUST be universal
>>for it to have any meaning.
>
>
> Universal? Aren't the behaviours of living and
> dying pretty much universal?

Those aren't behaviors.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>If the farmer isn't aware that he's killing animals,
>>>what makes you so sure that he is?
>>
>>There are photos. There used to be a very good one
>>from the British Deer Society of a shredded fawn, but
>>it's no longer on their web page.
>>
>>There also is the testimony, here, of a rice farmer.
>
>
> I doubt one can accidently feed a fawn into a shredder.

It wasn't "fed" into a "shredder"; there is no such
piece of farm equipment. It was some kind of discer or
tiller, and it chopped the fawn to shreds.

> Anyways, if veganic foods

No such thing.

> ever become availlable, you
> can sure bet that myself and other veggies will be all
> over them. Meanwhile though,

Meanwhile, though, there is no choice but for you to
demonstrate that you are a massive hypocrite.

>
>>>And how
>>>come it's the responsibility of a different person?
>>
>>The responsibility is shared. If the deaths are a
>>moral issue, then the farmer is indeed responsible, but
>>so are you. Effectively, you don't deny it: that's
>>why you are concerned with "reducing" your CDs.
>
>
> Responsibility is not possible in a case where there
> is no alternative

There IS an alternative, and responsibility is ALWAYS
there. You CHOOSE to transact with the killers,
knowing that they kill. That makes you responsible for
the moral outcome of the deaths, if indeed there is
one. YOU believe there is one, and you believe it to
be ABSOLUTELY wrong.

Ron wrote:

> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article t>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article t>,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The farmer, you ****ing idiot. As far as the farmer
>>>>>>knows, he is just driving a discer through a field. He
>>>>>>isn't looking for any animals, and he doesn't see any
>>>>>>dead ones; they're chopped to bits BEHIND him, and
>>>>>>mixed in with the turned earth.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess you're just smarter than they are.
>>>>
>>>>Clearly a lot smarter, and quicker, than you.
>>>
>>>
>>>Personal attacks are
>>
>>something you have richly earned.
>
>
> More

Earned.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>It wasn't *fed into* a shredder, it was shredded by a combine when it
>>was run over. According to that site, which has changed and I can't
>
> find
>
>>the image or accompanying article, it's a common occurrence in grain
>
> and
>
>>silage farming.
>
>
> I would think

You are incapable of thought.

> a fawn would not just stand in front of a
> moving combine.

You stupid ****. The fawn is attempting to HIDE in
tall grass. It doesn't know what's coming, and it
thinks that it will do best by staying perfectly still
and hidden.

You stupid, STUPID ****.