"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>>
>> >> > He made me do it, Dutch.
>> >>
>> >> Nobody made you do it Ron, you *choose* to support animal murdering
>> >> farmers
>> >> because it makes your life easy and pleasant.
>> >
>> > Despite having clarified this point, you continue to disagree. Without
>> > evidence of my thinking or behaviour in the world you continue to
>> > disagree.
>>
>> You have provided plenty of evidence of both.
>
> I'm no expert

You certainly aren't, you are much, much less than an expert.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>>
>> >> > He made me do it, Dutch.
>> >>
>> >> Nobody made you do it Ron, you *choose* to support animal murdering
>> >> farmers
>> >> because it makes your life easy and pleasant.
>> >
>> > Despite having clarified this point, you continue to disagree. Without
>> > evidence of my thinking or behaviour in the world you continue to
>> > disagree.
>>
>> You have provided plenty of evidence of both.
>
> I'm no expert

You certainly aren't, you are much, much less than an expert.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>
> >> >> > He made me do it, Dutch.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nobody made you do it Ron, you *choose* to support animal murdering
> >> >> farmers
> >> >> because it makes your life easy and pleasant.
> >> >
> >> > Despite having clarified this point, you continue to disagree. Without
> >> > evidence of my thinking or behaviour in the world you continue to
> >> > disagree.
> >>
> >> You have provided plenty of evidence of both.
> >
> > I'm no expert
>
> You certainly aren't, you are much, much less than an expert.

I believe I was speaking to the possible effects of your drug use on
your abilities and cognitive powers. I wonder if it is drug use that
allows you to read my mind and know my thinking as you indicate in the
paragraphs above.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>
> >> >> > He made me do it, Dutch.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nobody made you do it Ron, you *choose* to support animal murdering
> >> >> farmers
> >> >> because it makes your life easy and pleasant.
> >> >
> >> > Despite having clarified this point, you continue to disagree. Without
> >> > evidence of my thinking or behaviour in the world you continue to
> >> > disagree.
> >>
> >> You have provided plenty of evidence of both.
> >
> > I'm no expert
>
> You certainly aren't, you are much, much less than an expert.

I believe I was speaking to the possible effects of your drug use on
your abilities and cognitive powers. I wonder if it is drug use that
allows you to read my mind and know my thinking as you indicate in the
paragraphs above.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, "Dutch"
>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> > In article >, "Dutch"
>
> > >>
> > >> >> > He made me do it, Dutch.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Nobody made you do it Ron, you *choose* to support animal
murdering
> > >> >> farmers
> > >> >> because it makes your life easy and pleasant.
> > >> >
> > >> > Despite having clarified this point, you continue to disagree.
Without
> > >> > evidence of my thinking or behaviour in the world you continue to
> > >> > disagree.
> > >>
> > >> You have provided plenty of evidence of both.
> > >
> > > I'm no expert
> >
> > You certainly aren't, you are much, much less than an expert.
>
> I believe

Your beliefs are irrelevant.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, "Dutch"
>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> > In article >, "Dutch"
>
> > >>
> > >> >> > He made me do it, Dutch.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Nobody made you do it Ron, you *choose* to support animal
murdering
> > >> >> farmers
> > >> >> because it makes your life easy and pleasant.
> > >> >
> > >> > Despite having clarified this point, you continue to disagree.
Without
> > >> > evidence of my thinking or behaviour in the world you continue to
> > >> > disagree.
> > >>
> > >> You have provided plenty of evidence of both.
> > >
> > > I'm no expert
> >
> > You certainly aren't, you are much, much less than an expert.
>
> I believe

Your beliefs are irrelevant.

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >, "Dutch"
>> >> > >
>> >>
>> >> >> > He made me do it, Dutch.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nobody made you do it Ron, you *choose* to support animal murdering
>> >> >> farmers
>> >> >> because it makes your life easy and pleasant.
>> >> >
>> >> > Despite having clarified this point, you continue to disagree.
>> >> > Without evidence of my thinking or behaviour in the world you
>> >> > continue to disagree.
>> >>
>> >> You have provided plenty of evidence of both.
>> >
>> > I'm no expert
>>
>> You certainly aren't, you are much, much less than an expert.
>
> I believe I was speaking to the possible effects of your drug use on
> your abilities and cognitive powers. I wonder if it is drug use that
> allows you to read my mind and know my thinking as you indicate in the
> paragraphs above.

I can see Ron continues his evil trolling ways.

"Please show some intelligence and at least attempt to answer the
question."


Intelligence!!? ..............from etter!!!?
BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


Too funny.;o)

"Please show some intelligence and at least attempt to answer the
question."


Intelligence!!? ..............from etter!!!?
BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


Too funny.;o)

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> "Please show some intelligence and at least attempt to answer the
> question."
>
>
> Intelligence!!? ..............from etter!!!?
> BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
>
> Too funny.;o)
=================
Maybe you can provide the proof that pansy-boy seems to lack. Of course,
you've never backed up any of your ignorant claims either, have you
banbrains?


>

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> "Please show some intelligence and at least attempt to answer the
> question."
>
>
> Intelligence!!? ..............from etter!!!?
> BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
>
> Too funny.;o)
=================
Maybe you can provide the proof that pansy-boy seems to lack. Of course,
you've never backed up any of your ignorant claims either, have you
banbrains?


>

I'm still waiting for ricky to show photographic proof of the thousands
of deaths caused by the vegan diet.
Seems he can't back up any of his "ignorant claims."

LOL!!

In article .com>,
wrote:

> I'm still waiting for ricky to show photographic proof of the thousands
> of deaths caused by the vegan diet.
> Seems he can't back up any of his "ignorant claims."
>
> LOL!!

Evidentiary claims can be answered with at least three questions. When
killed it? Where was it killed? And by whom?

When an amphibian is killed by a farmer in Mexico on a Monday and the
vegan is in Canada on the same day. To claim that the vegan is
responsible for that animal death is false.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I'm still waiting for ricky to show photographic proof of the thousands
> of deaths caused by the vegan diet.
> Seems he can't back up any of his "ignorant claims."
>
> LOL!!
>===============
Unlike you, banbrains, I have provided proof that your claims are delusion
hypocrisy.

Keep on proving that you have nothing, killer.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I'm still waiting for ricky to show photographic proof of the thousands
> of deaths caused by the vegan diet.
> Seems he can't back up any of his "ignorant claims."
>
> LOL!!
>===============
Unlike you, banbrains, I have provided proof that your claims are delusion
hypocrisy.

Keep on proving that you have nothing, killer.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article .com>,
> wrote:
>
>> I'm still waiting for ricky to show photographic proof of the thousands
>> of deaths caused by the vegan diet.
>> Seems he can't back up any of his "ignorant claims."
>>
>> LOL!!
>
> Evidentiary claims can be answered with at least three questions. When
> killed it? Where was it killed? And by whom?
>
> When an amphibian is killed by a farmer in Mexico on a Monday and the
> vegan is in Canada on the same day. To claim that the vegan is
> responsible for that animal death is false.
==================
Tap, tap, tap... Keep dancing pansy-boy. Looks like you lost, again,
fool...

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article .com>,
> wrote:
>
>> I'm still waiting for ricky to show photographic proof of the thousands
>> of deaths caused by the vegan diet.
>> Seems he can't back up any of his "ignorant claims."
>>
>> LOL!!
>
> Evidentiary claims can be answered with at least three questions. When
> killed it? Where was it killed? And by whom?
>
> When an amphibian is killed by a farmer in Mexico on a Monday and the
> vegan is in Canada on the same day. To claim that the vegan is
> responsible for that animal death is false.
==================
Tap, tap, tap... Keep dancing pansy-boy. Looks like you lost, again,
fool...

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article .com>,
> wrote:
>
>> I'm still waiting for ricky to show photographic proof of the thousands
>> of deaths caused by the vegan diet.
>> Seems he can't back up any of his "ignorant claims."
>>
>> LOL!!
>
> Evidentiary claims can be answered with at least three questions. When
> killed it? Where was it killed? And by whom?
>
> When an amphibian is killed by a farmer in Mexico on a Monday and the
> vegan is in Canada on the same day. To claim that the vegan is
> responsible for that animal death is false.

Are you claiming that morality is based on geographic location?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article .com>,
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I'm still waiting for ricky to show photographic proof of the thousands
> >> of deaths caused by the vegan diet.
> >> Seems he can't back up any of his "ignorant claims."
> >>
> >> LOL!!
> >
> > Evidentiary claims can be answered with at least three questions. When
> > killed it? Where was it killed? And by whom?
> >
> > When an amphibian is killed by a farmer in Mexico on a Monday and the
> > vegan is in Canada on the same day. To claim that the vegan is
> > responsible for that animal death is false.
>
> Are you claiming that morality is based on geographic location?

That is a considerable distortion of what I wrote, but in essence, yes,
Morality, as you have already agreed, is not absolute. Moral codes or
social acceptability change over time and space (read: geographical
location). More specifically, moral codes and social mores are
determined by such things as geographic locations of the humans making
the determination.

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

[..]

> > > When an amphibian is killed by a farmer in Mexico on a Monday and the
> > > vegan is in Canada on the same day. To claim that the vegan is
> > > responsible for that animal death is false.
> >
> > Are you claiming that morality is based on geographic location?
>
> That is a considerable distortion of what I wrote, but in essence, yes,

It's a distortion, but yes. I see.

> Morality, as you have already agreed, is not absolute. Moral codes or
> social acceptability change over time and space (read: geographical
> location).

They don't depend on distance from the act. If your next door neighbour is a
tomato farmer or it's a guy in Mexico it makes no difference to the
principle of complicity. If you buy a tomato, or a Rolex watch, you buy more
than the physical thing, you buy the whole history.

> More specifically, moral codes and social mores are
> determined by such things as geographic locations of the humans making
> the determination.

You're just grasping at straws, as usual.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > > > When an amphibian is killed by a farmer in Mexico on a Monday and the
> > > > vegan is in Canada on the same day. To claim that the vegan is
> > > > responsible for that animal death is false.
> > >
> > > Are you claiming that morality is based on geographic location?
> >
> > That is a considerable distortion of what I wrote, but in essence, yes,
>
> It's a distortion, but yes. I see.
>
> > Morality, as you have already agreed, is not absolute. Moral codes or
> > social acceptability change over time and space (read: geographical
> > location).
>
> They don't depend on distance from the act. If your next door neighbour is a
> tomato farmer or it's a guy in Mexico it makes no difference to the
> principle of complicity. If you buy a tomato, or a Rolex watch, you buy more
> than the physical thing, you buy the whole history.

Of course, it does. Buying or growing a tomato is not a crime -- there
or here. Applying legal theories to daily activities is more of the same
of confusing legal principles with morality.

Please clarify what moral code you are following when you make these
assertions.

> > More specifically, moral codes and social mores are
> > determined by such things as geographic locations of the humans making
> > the determination.
>
> You're just grasping at straws, as usual.

somethings are just to ridiculous to even waste my time. My view and my
Canadian friends' view of marriage is different that my friends who are
from Uganda and Tanzania. That is just one example of how geography and
morality can be interrelated.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > > > When an amphibian is killed by a farmer in Mexico on a Monday and the
> > > > vegan is in Canada on the same day. To claim that the vegan is
> > > > responsible for that animal death is false.
> > >
> > > Are you claiming that morality is based on geographic location?
> >
> > That is a considerable distortion of what I wrote, but in essence, yes,
>
> It's a distortion, but yes. I see.
>
> > Morality, as you have already agreed, is not absolute. Moral codes or
> > social acceptability change over time and space (read: geographical
> > location).
>
> They don't depend on distance from the act. If your next door neighbour is a
> tomato farmer or it's a guy in Mexico it makes no difference to the
> principle of complicity. If you buy a tomato, or a Rolex watch, you buy more
> than the physical thing, you buy the whole history.

Of course, it does. Buying or growing a tomato is not a crime -- there
or here. Applying legal theories to daily activities is more of the same
of confusing legal principles with morality.

Please clarify what moral code you are following when you make these
assertions.

> > More specifically, moral codes and social mores are
> > determined by such things as geographic locations of the humans making
> > the determination.
>
> You're just grasping at straws, as usual.

somethings are just to ridiculous to even waste my time. My view and my
Canadian friends' view of marriage is different that my friends who are
from Uganda and Tanzania. That is just one example of how geography and
morality can be interrelated.

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

[..]

>> > > > When an amphibian is killed by a farmer in Mexico on a Monday and
>> > > > the
>> > > > vegan is in Canada on the same day. To claim that the vegan is
>> > > > responsible for that animal death is false.
>> > >
>> > > Are you claiming that morality is based on geographic location?
>> >
>> > That is a considerable distortion of what I wrote, but in essence, yes,
>>
>> It's a distortion, but yes. I see.
>>
>> > Morality, as you have already agreed, is not absolute. Moral codes or
>> > social acceptability change over time and space (read: geographical
>> > location).
>>
>> They don't depend on distance from the act. If your next door neighbour
>> is a
>> tomato farmer or it's a guy in Mexico it makes no difference to the
>> principle of complicity. If you buy a tomato, or a Rolex watch, you buy
>> more
>> than the physical thing, you buy the whole history.
>
> Of course, it does. Buying or growing a tomato is not a crime -- there
> or here. Applying legal theories to daily activities is more of the same
> of confusing legal principles with morality.

Just a reminder... it's YOU who has been caught doing that a number of times
recently, not I, not ever. As a matter of fact that very comment was another
example.

To respond to your point, you're wrong and/or misguided. The principles of
shared responsibility for acts are the same whether the acts are immoral,
heinous crimes or praiseworthy acts of generosity.

> Please clarify what moral code you are following when you make these
> assertions.

What moral code? My statements are derived from a deep understanding of the
nature of morality gleaned from many years of consideration and discussion
on the matter with learned people.

>> > More specifically, moral codes and social mores are
>> > determined by such things as geographic locations of the humans making
>> > the determination.
>>
>> You're just grasping at straws, as usual.
>
> somethings are just to ridiculous to even waste my time. My view and my
> Canadian friends' view of marriage is different that my friends who are
> from Uganda and Tanzania.

My ideas on morality differ from the guy who lives next door, no doubt, but
that does not mean the end to all discussion on the nature and origins of
morality.

> That is just one example of how geography and
> morality can be interrelated.

It's a poor example. My morals may very well be more similiar to some person
in Scotland or Norway than my neighbour next door to me. However, the fact
that morality takes different forms and has inconsistencies is not something
I would argue. There are still basic roots and principles that tend to
remain constant. No, you obviously attempted by imply that the tomato grower
in Mexico and the consumer in Canada could not be morally linked by a tomato
due to the distance between them, and that was a fallacy. Let's call it "Ad
Geographum".

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > > > When an amphibian is killed by a farmer in Mexico on a Monday and the
> > > > vegan is in Canada on the same day. To claim that the vegan is
> > > > responsible for that animal death is false.
> > >
> > > Are you claiming that morality is based on geographic location?
> >
> > That is a considerable distortion of what I wrote, but in essence, yes,
>
> It's a distortion, but yes. I see.
>
> > Morality, as you have already agreed, is not absolute. Moral codes or
> > social acceptability change over time and space (read: geographical
> > location).
>
> They don't depend on distance from the act. If your next door neighbour is a
> tomato farmer or it's a guy in Mexico it makes no difference to the
> principle of complicity. If you buy a tomato, or a Rolex watch, you buy more
> than the physical thing, you buy the whole history.

And how this is related to the moral code, or principle of "the Golden
Rule"?

> > More specifically, moral codes and social mores are
> > determined by such things as geographic locations of the humans making
> > the determination.
>
> You're just grasping at straws, as usual.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> > > > When an amphibian is killed by a farmer in Mexico on a Monday and
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > vegan is in Canada on the same day. To claim that the vegan is
> >> > > > responsible for that animal death is false.
> >> > >
> >> > > Are you claiming that morality is based on geographic location?
> >> >
> >> > That is a considerable distortion of what I wrote, but in essence, yes,
> >>
> >> It's a distortion, but yes. I see.
> >>
> >> > Morality, as you have already agreed, is not absolute. Moral codes or
> >> > social acceptability change over time and space (read: geographical
> >> > location).
> >>
> >> They don't depend on distance from the act. If your next door neighbour
> >> is a
> >> tomato farmer or it's a guy in Mexico it makes no difference to the
> >> principle of complicity. If you buy a tomato, or a Rolex watch, you buy
> >> more
> >> than the physical thing, you buy the whole history.
> >
> > Of course, it does. Buying or growing a tomato is not a crime -- there
> > or here. Applying legal theories to daily activities is more of the same
> > of confusing legal principles with morality.
>
> Just a reminder... it's YOU who has been caught doing that a number of times
> recently, not I, not ever. As a matter of fact that very comment was another
> example.
>
> To respond to your point, you're wrong and/or misguided. The principles of
> shared responsibility for acts are the same whether the acts are immoral,
> heinous crimes or praiseworthy acts of generosity.
>
> > Please clarify what moral code you are following when you make these
> > assertions.
>
> What moral code? My statements are derived from a deep understanding of the
> nature of morality gleaned from many years of consideration and discussion
> on the matter with learned people.
>
> >> > More specifically, moral codes and social mores are
> >> > determined by such things as geographic locations of the humans making
> >> > the determination.
> >>
> >> You're just grasping at straws, as usual.
> >
> > somethings are just to ridiculous to even waste my time. My view and my
> > Canadian friends' view of marriage is different that my friends who are
> > from Uganda and Tanzania.
>
> My ideas on morality differ from the guy who lives next door, no doubt, but
> that does not mean the end to all discussion on the nature and origins of
> morality.

You proclaim the vegan as immoral with some vague reference to morality.
then, you cite the golden rule as the moral standard and as a common and
then you fail to describe how their choices and actions fail to meet the
criteria of this moral code.

Then there is the issue that just because the moral code can be deemed
your principle or that it might be common in certain religions and
cultures that the vegan is somehow obligated to follow it.

> > That is just one example of how geography and
> > morality can be interrelated.
>
> It's a poor example. My morals may very well be more similiar to some person
> in Scotland or Norway than my neighbour next door to me. However, the fact
> that morality takes different forms and has inconsistencies is not something
> I would argue. There are still basic roots and principles that tend to
> remain constant. No, you obviously attempted by imply that the tomato grower
> in Mexico and the consumer in Canada could not be morally linked by a tomato
> due to the distance between them, and that was a fallacy. Let's call it "Ad
> Geographum".

You cited the moral code of "the Golden Rule". I have no idea now what
moral code you are referring to here.

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

[..]

>> > Morality, as you have already agreed, is not absolute. Moral codes or
>> > social acceptability change over time and space (read: geographical
>> > location).
>>
>> They don't depend on distance from the act. If your next door neighbour
>> is a
>> tomato farmer or it's a guy in Mexico it makes no difference to the
>> principle of complicity. If you buy a tomato, or a Rolex watch, you buy
>> more
>> than the physical thing, you buy the whole history.
>
> And how this is related to the moral code, or principle of "the Golden
> Rule"?

You're just firing from the hip now aren't you?

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

[..]

>> > Morality, as you have already agreed, is not absolute. Moral codes or
>> > social acceptability change over time and space (read: geographical
>> > location).
>>
>> They don't depend on distance from the act. If your next door neighbour
>> is a
>> tomato farmer or it's a guy in Mexico it makes no difference to the
>> principle of complicity. If you buy a tomato, or a Rolex watch, you buy
>> more
>> than the physical thing, you buy the whole history.
>
> And how this is related to the moral code, or principle of "the Golden
> Rule"?

You're just firing from the hip now aren't you?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> > Morality, as you have already agreed, is not absolute. Moral codes or
> >> > social acceptability change over time and space (read: geographical
> >> > location).
> >>
> >> They don't depend on distance from the act. If your next door neighbour
> >> is a
> >> tomato farmer or it's a guy in Mexico it makes no difference to the
> >> principle of complicity. If you buy a tomato, or a Rolex watch, you buy
> >> more
> >> than the physical thing, you buy the whole history.
> >
> > And how this is related to the moral code, or principle of "the Golden
> > Rule"?
>
> You're just firing from the hip now aren't you?

Okay, so you're choosing not to answer the question.

There is nothing inherent, explicit or implied in the golden rule where
I can even remotely consider that buying a stolen rolex means that I've
purchased it's history.

What I can conclude is that if I am willing to buy stolen goods then I
am exhibiting a desire to have stolen goods purchased from me -- that
would be the rule operationalized.

Please explain what moral code you are now operationalizing.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> > Morality, as you have already agreed, is not absolute. Moral codes or
> >> > social acceptability change over time and space (read: geographical
> >> > location).
> >>
> >> They don't depend on distance from the act. If your next door neighbour
> >> is a
> >> tomato farmer or it's a guy in Mexico it makes no difference to the
> >> principle of complicity. If you buy a tomato, or a Rolex watch, you buy
> >> more
> >> than the physical thing, you buy the whole history.
> >
> > And how this is related to the moral code, or principle of "the Golden
> > Rule"?
>
> You're just firing from the hip now aren't you?

Okay, so you're choosing not to answer the question.

There is nothing inherent, explicit or implied in the golden rule where
I can even remotely consider that buying a stolen rolex means that I've
purchased it's history.

What I can conclude is that if I am willing to buy stolen goods then I
am exhibiting a desire to have stolen goods purchased from me -- that
would be the rule operationalized.

Please explain what moral code you are now operationalizing.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> > Morality, as you have already agreed, is not absolute. Moral codes or
> >> > social acceptability change over time and space (read: geographical
> >> > location).
> >>
> >> They don't depend on distance from the act. If your next door neighbour
> >> is a
> >> tomato farmer or it's a guy in Mexico it makes no difference to the
> >> principle of complicity. If you buy a tomato, or a Rolex watch, you buy
> >> more
> >> than the physical thing, you buy the whole history.
> >
> > And how this is related to the moral code, or principle of "the Golden
> > Rule"?
>
> You're just firing from the hip now aren't you?

Okay, so you're choosing not to answer the question.

There is nothing inherent, explicit or implied in the golden rule where
I can even remotely consider that buying a stolen rolex means that I've
purchased it's history.

What I can conclude is that if I am willing to buy stolen goods then I
am exhibiting a desire to have stolen goods purchased from me -- that
would be the rule operationalized.

Please explain what moral code you are now operationalizing.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]

> > Just a reminder... it's YOU who has been caught doing that a number of
times
> > recently, not I, not ever. As a matter of fact that very comment was
another
> > example.
> >
> > To respond to your point, you're wrong and/or misguided. The principles
of
> > shared responsibility for acts are the same whether the acts are
immoral,
> > heinous crimes or praiseworthy acts of generosity.
> >
> > > Please clarify what moral code you are following when you make these
> > > assertions.
> >
> > What moral code? My statements are derived from a deep understanding of
the
> > nature of morality gleaned from many years of consideration and
discussion
> > on the matter with learned people.
> >
> > >> > More specifically, moral codes and social mores are
> > >> > determined by such things as geographic locations of the humans
making
> > >> > the determination.
> > >>
> > >> You're just grasping at straws, as usual.
> > >
> > > somethings are just to ridiculous to even waste my time. My view and
my
> > > Canadian friends' view of marriage is different that my friends who
are
> > > from Uganda and Tanzania.
> >
> > My ideas on morality differ from the guy who lives next door, no doubt,
but
> > that does not mean the end to all discussion on the nature and origins
of
> > morality.
>
> You proclaim the vegan as immoral with some vague reference to morality.

Are we still talking about vegans? My charge against veganism is quite
specific.

> then, you cite the golden rule as the moral standard

No I didn't. The Golden Rule is an ideal moral rule, it doesn't define,
encompass or describe all morality.

> and as a common and
> then you fail to describe how their choices and actions fail to meet the
> criteria of this moral code.

OK

Vegans clearly do not like being patronized, condescended to, or called
nasty names. According to The Golden Rule they should therefore refrain from
doing this to others.

> Then there is the issue that just because the moral code can be deemed
> your principle or that it might be common in certain religions and
> cultures that the vegan is somehow obligated to follow it.

Vegans are free to continue to be self-righteous hypocrites and liars but I
am also free to continue to point it out. What is your problem with that?

> > > That is just one example of how geography and
> > > morality can be interrelated.
> >
> > It's a poor example. My morals may very well be more similiar to some
person
> > in Scotland or Norway than my neighbour next door to me. However, the
fact
> > that morality takes different forms and has inconsistencies is not
something
> > I would argue. There are still basic roots and principles that tend to
> > remain constant. No, you obviously attempted by imply that the tomato
grower
> > in Mexico and the consumer in Canada could not be morally linked by a
tomato
> > due to the distance between them, and that was a fallacy. Let's call it
"Ad
> > Geographum".
>
> You cited the moral code of "the Golden Rule". I have no idea now what
> moral code you are referring to here.

You really are willfully stupid Ron.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote
> > > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > > > > When an amphibian is killed by a farmer in Mexico on a Monday and
the
> > > > > vegan is in Canada on the same day. To claim that the vegan is
> > > > > responsible for that animal death is false.
> > > >
> > > > Are you claiming that morality is based on geographic location?
> > >
> > > That is a considerable distortion of what I wrote, but in essence,
yes,
> >
> > It's a distortion, but yes. I see.
> >
> > > Morality, as you have already agreed, is not absolute. Moral codes or
> > > social acceptability change over time and space (read: geographical
> > > location).
> >
> > They don't depend on distance from the act. If your next door neighbour
is a
> > tomato farmer or it's a guy in Mexico it makes no difference to the
> > principle of complicity. If you buy a tomato, or a Rolex watch, you buy
more
> > than the physical thing, you buy the whole history.
>
> And how this is related to the moral code, or principle of "the Golden
> Rule"?

Why? Should there be a relationship?


>
> > > More specifically, moral codes and social mores are
> > > determined by such things as geographic locations of the humans making
> > > the determination.
> >
> > You're just grasping at straws, as usual.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote
> > > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > > > > When an amphibian is killed by a farmer in Mexico on a Monday and
the
> > > > > vegan is in Canada on the same day. To claim that the vegan is
> > > > > responsible for that animal death is false.
> > > >
> > > > Are you claiming that morality is based on geographic location?
> > >
> > > That is a considerable distortion of what I wrote, but in essence,
yes,
> >
> > It's a distortion, but yes. I see.
> >
> > > Morality, as you have already agreed, is not absolute. Moral codes or
> > > social acceptability change over time and space (read: geographical
> > > location).
> >
> > They don't depend on distance from the act. If your next door neighbour
is a
> > tomato farmer or it's a guy in Mexico it makes no difference to the
> > principle of complicity. If you buy a tomato, or a Rolex watch, you buy
more
> > than the physical thing, you buy the whole history.
>
> And how this is related to the moral code, or principle of "the Golden
> Rule"?

Why? Should there be a relationship?


>
> > > More specifically, moral codes and social mores are
> > > determined by such things as geographic locations of the humans making
> > > the determination.
> >
> > You're just grasping at straws, as usual.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote
> > > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > >> > Morality, as you have already agreed, is not absolute. Moral codes
or
> > >> > social acceptability change over time and space (read: geographical
> > >> > location).
> > >>
> > >> They don't depend on distance from the act. If your next door
neighbour
> > >> is a
> > >> tomato farmer or it's a guy in Mexico it makes no difference to the
> > >> principle of complicity. If you buy a tomato, or a Rolex watch, you
buy
> > >> more
> > >> than the physical thing, you buy the whole history.
> > >
> > > And how this is related to the moral code, or principle of "the Golden
> > > Rule"?
> >
> > You're just firing from the hip now aren't you?
>
> Okay, so you're choosing not to answer the question.

The question makes no sense, it's a strawman. Your whole line of questioning
is becoming increasingly incoherent.

> There is nothing inherent, explicit or implied in the golden rule where
> I can even remotely consider that buying a stolen rolex means that I've
> purchased it's history.

Please describe where I said it did.

> What I can conclude is that if I am willing to buy stolen goods then I
> am exhibiting a desire to have stolen goods purchased from me -- that
> would be the rule operationalized.
>
> Please explain what moral code you are now operationalizing.

I need a coherent explanation of how and why you connected complicity with
the golden rule. I must have an adequate answer to this point if I am going
to continue this debate.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote
> > > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > >> > Morality, as you have already agreed, is not absolute. Moral codes
or
> > >> > social acceptability change over time and space (read: geographical
> > >> > location).
> > >>
> > >> They don't depend on distance from the act. If your next door
neighbour
> > >> is a
> > >> tomato farmer or it's a guy in Mexico it makes no difference to the
> > >> principle of complicity. If you buy a tomato, or a Rolex watch, you
buy
> > >> more
> > >> than the physical thing, you buy the whole history.
> > >
> > > And how this is related to the moral code, or principle of "the Golden
> > > Rule"?
> >
> > You're just firing from the hip now aren't you?
>
> Okay, so you're choosing not to answer the question.

The question makes no sense, it's a strawman. Your whole line of questioning
is becoming increasingly incoherent.

> There is nothing inherent, explicit or implied in the golden rule where
> I can even remotely consider that buying a stolen rolex means that I've
> purchased it's history.

Please describe where I said it did.

> What I can conclude is that if I am willing to buy stolen goods then I
> am exhibiting a desire to have stolen goods purchased from me -- that
> would be the rule operationalized.
>
> Please explain what moral code you are now operationalizing.

I need a coherent explanation of how and why you connected complicity with
the golden rule. I must have an adequate answer to this point if I am going
to continue this debate.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> [..]
>
> > > Just a reminder... it's YOU who has been caught doing that a number of
> times
> > > recently, not I, not ever. As a matter of fact that very comment was
> another
> > > example.
> > >
> > > To respond to your point, you're wrong and/or misguided. The principles
> of
> > > shared responsibility for acts are the same whether the acts are
> immoral,
> > > heinous crimes or praiseworthy acts of generosity.
> > >
> > > > Please clarify what moral code you are following when you make these
> > > > assertions.
> > >
> > > What moral code? My statements are derived from a deep understanding of
> the
> > > nature of morality gleaned from many years of consideration and
> discussion
> > > on the matter with learned people.
> > >
> > > >> > More specifically, moral codes and social mores are
> > > >> > determined by such things as geographic locations of the humans
> making
> > > >> > the determination.
> > > >>
> > > >> You're just grasping at straws, as usual.
> > > >
> > > > somethings are just to ridiculous to even waste my time. My view and
> my
> > > > Canadian friends' view of marriage is different that my friends who
> are
> > > > from Uganda and Tanzania.
> > >
> > > My ideas on morality differ from the guy who lives next door, no doubt,
> but
> > > that does not mean the end to all discussion on the nature and origins
> of
> > > morality.
> >
> > You proclaim the vegan as immoral with some vague reference to morality.
>
> Are we still talking about vegans? My charge against veganism is quite
> specific.
>
> > then, you cite the golden rule as the moral standard
>
> No I didn't. The Golden Rule is an ideal moral rule, it doesn't define,
> encompass or describe all morality.

Of course because I must have stated that.

> > and as a common and
> > then you fail to describe how their choices and actions fail to meet the
> > criteria of this moral code.
>
> OK
>
> Vegans clearly do not like being patronized, condescended to, or called
> nasty names. According to The Golden Rule they should therefore refrain from
> doing this to others.

Why? It was you who claimed that this was the guiding principle. I
haven't heard one of them state this as their guiding principle.

> > Then there is the issue that just because the moral code can be deemed
> > your principle or that it might be common in certain religions and
> > cultures that the vegan is somehow obligated to follow it.
>
> Vegans are free to continue to be self-righteous hypocrites and liars but I
> am also free to continue to point it out. What is your problem with that?

Another subject change. Quite the diversionary artist. Two paragraphs
above we were discussing the guiding principle. However, since you do
ask, I am left to conclude that by following this principle that you
want other to point out that you are the self-righteous hypocrites -- do
unto others, right Dutch?

> > > > That is just one example of how geography and
> > > > morality can be interrelated.
> > >
> > > It's a poor example. My morals may very well be more similiar to some
> person
> > > in Scotland or Norway than my neighbour next door to me. However, the
> fact
> > > that morality takes different forms and has inconsistencies is not
> something
> > > I would argue. There are still basic roots and principles that tend to
> > > remain constant. No, you obviously attempted by imply that the tomato
> grower
> > > in Mexico and the consumer in Canada could not be morally linked by a
> tomato
> > > due to the distance between them, and that was a fallacy. Let's call it
> "Ad
> > > Geographum".
> >
> > You cited the moral code of "the Golden Rule". I have no idea now what
> > moral code you are referring to here.
>
> You really are willfully stupid Ron.

Please be specific, Dutch. What part of the golden rule makes my
purchase of tomatoes from a Mexican grower immoral in any way, shape or
form?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> [..]
>
> > > Just a reminder... it's YOU who has been caught doing that a number of
> times
> > > recently, not I, not ever. As a matter of fact that very comment was
> another
> > > example.
> > >
> > > To respond to your point, you're wrong and/or misguided. The principles
> of
> > > shared responsibility for acts are the same whether the acts are
> immoral,
> > > heinous crimes or praiseworthy acts of generosity.
> > >
> > > > Please clarify what moral code you are following when you make these
> > > > assertions.
> > >
> > > What moral code? My statements are derived from a deep understanding of
> the
> > > nature of morality gleaned from many years of consideration and
> discussion
> > > on the matter with learned people.
> > >
> > > >> > More specifically, moral codes and social mores are
> > > >> > determined by such things as geographic locations of the humans
> making
> > > >> > the determination.
> > > >>
> > > >> You're just grasping at straws, as usual.
> > > >
> > > > somethings are just to ridiculous to even waste my time. My view and
> my
> > > > Canadian friends' view of marriage is different that my friends who
> are
> > > > from Uganda and Tanzania.
> > >
> > > My ideas on morality differ from the guy who lives next door, no doubt,
> but
> > > that does not mean the end to all discussion on the nature and origins
> of
> > > morality.
> >
> > You proclaim the vegan as immoral with some vague reference to morality.
>
> Are we still talking about vegans? My charge against veganism is quite
> specific.
>
> > then, you cite the golden rule as the moral standard
>
> No I didn't. The Golden Rule is an ideal moral rule, it doesn't define,
> encompass or describe all morality.

Of course because I must have stated that.

> > and as a common and
> > then you fail to describe how their choices and actions fail to meet the
> > criteria of this moral code.
>
> OK
>
> Vegans clearly do not like being patronized, condescended to, or called
> nasty names. According to The Golden Rule they should therefore refrain from
> doing this to others.

Why? It was you who claimed that this was the guiding principle. I
haven't heard one of them state this as their guiding principle.

> > Then there is the issue that just because the moral code can be deemed
> > your principle or that it might be common in certain religions and
> > cultures that the vegan is somehow obligated to follow it.
>
> Vegans are free to continue to be self-righteous hypocrites and liars but I
> am also free to continue to point it out. What is your problem with that?

Another subject change. Quite the diversionary artist. Two paragraphs
above we were discussing the guiding principle. However, since you do
ask, I am left to conclude that by following this principle that you
want other to point out that you are the self-righteous hypocrites -- do
unto others, right Dutch?

> > > > That is just one example of how geography and
> > > > morality can be interrelated.
> > >
> > > It's a poor example. My morals may very well be more similiar to some
> person
> > > in Scotland or Norway than my neighbour next door to me. However, the
> fact
> > > that morality takes different forms and has inconsistencies is not
> something
> > > I would argue. There are still basic roots and principles that tend to
> > > remain constant. No, you obviously attempted by imply that the tomato
> grower
> > > in Mexico and the consumer in Canada could not be morally linked by a
> tomato
> > > due to the distance between them, and that was a fallacy. Let's call it
> "Ad
> > > Geographum".
> >
> > You cited the moral code of "the Golden Rule". I have no idea now what
> > moral code you are referring to here.
>
> You really are willfully stupid Ron.

Please be specific, Dutch. What part of the golden rule makes my
purchase of tomatoes from a Mexican grower immoral in any way, shape or
form?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Ron" > wrote
> > > > "Dutch" > wrote:
> > >
> > > [..]
> > >
> > > > > > When an amphibian is killed by a farmer in Mexico on a Monday and
> the
> > > > > > vegan is in Canada on the same day. To claim that the vegan is
> > > > > > responsible for that animal death is false.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you claiming that morality is based on geographic location?
> > > >
> > > > That is a considerable distortion of what I wrote, but in essence,
> yes,
> > >
> > > It's a distortion, but yes. I see.
> > >
> > > > Morality, as you have already agreed, is not absolute. Moral codes or
> > > > social acceptability change over time and space (read: geographical
> > > > location).
> > >
> > > They don't depend on distance from the act. If your next door neighbour
> is a
> > > tomato farmer or it's a guy in Mexico it makes no difference to the
> > > principle of complicity. If you buy a tomato, or a Rolex watch, you buy
> more
> > > than the physical thing, you buy the whole history.
> >
> > And how this is related to the moral code, or principle of "the Golden
> > Rule"?
>
> Why? Should there be a relationship?

NO. I've claimed that my choice to buy tomatoes is not immoral. You've
claimed some immorality associated with this act. You've described the
prevailing moral code as the golden rule. You refuse to make a case of
how my purchase of tomatoes violates the golden rule to even remotely
assess my action as immoral.

> > > > More specifically, moral codes and social mores are
> > > > determined by such things as geographic locations of the humans making
> > > > the determination.
> > >
> > > You're just grasping at straws, as usual.

Indeed. The social mores of several ancient civilizations (that is
humans in other geographic locations and times) are identical to US or
Canadian social mores. Yes, Dutch -- straws!

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Ron" > wrote
> > > > "Dutch" > wrote:
> > >
> > > [..]
> > >
> > > > > > When an amphibian is killed by a farmer in Mexico on a Monday and
> the
> > > > > > vegan is in Canada on the same day. To claim that the vegan is
> > > > > > responsible for that animal death is false.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you claiming that morality is based on geographic location?
> > > >
> > > > That is a considerable distortion of what I wrote, but in essence,
> yes,
> > >
> > > It's a distortion, but yes. I see.
> > >
> > > > Morality, as you have already agreed, is not absolute. Moral codes or
> > > > social acceptability change over time and space (read: geographical
> > > > location).
> > >
> > > They don't depend on distance from the act. If your next door neighbour
> is a
> > > tomato farmer or it's a guy in Mexico it makes no difference to the
> > > principle of complicity. If you buy a tomato, or a Rolex watch, you buy
> more
> > > than the physical thing, you buy the whole history.
> >
> > And how this is related to the moral code, or principle of "the Golden
> > Rule"?
>
> Why? Should there be a relationship?

NO. I've claimed that my choice to buy tomatoes is not immoral. You've
claimed some immorality associated with this act. You've described the
prevailing moral code as the golden rule. You refuse to make a case of
how my purchase of tomatoes violates the golden rule to even remotely
assess my action as immoral.

> > > > More specifically, moral codes and social mores are
> > > > determined by such things as geographic locations of the humans making
> > > > the determination.
> > >
> > > You're just grasping at straws, as usual.

Indeed. The social mores of several ancient civilizations (that is
humans in other geographic locations and times) are identical to US or
Canadian social mores. Yes, Dutch -- straws!

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Ron" > wrote
> > > > "Dutch" > wrote:
> > >
> > > [..]
> > >
> > > >> > Morality, as you have already agreed, is not absolute. Moral codes
> or
> > > >> > social acceptability change over time and space (read: geographical
> > > >> > location).
> > > >>
> > > >> They don't depend on distance from the act. If your next door
> neighbour
> > > >> is a
> > > >> tomato farmer or it's a guy in Mexico it makes no difference to the
> > > >> principle of complicity. If you buy a tomato, or a Rolex watch, you
> buy
> > > >> more
> > > >> than the physical thing, you buy the whole history.
> > > >
> > > > And how this is related to the moral code, or principle of "the Golden
> > > > Rule"?
> > >
> > > You're just firing from the hip now aren't you?
> >
> > Okay, so you're choosing not to answer the question.
>
> The question makes no sense, it's a strawman. Your whole line of questioning
> is becoming increasingly incoherent.

You claimed that if I buy a stolen rolex that I also accept its history.
You've stated the golden rule as the guiding principle of morality. You
continue to refuse to respond to how is the purchase of a stolen rolex a
violation of the golden rule.

> > There is nothing inherent, explicit or implied in the golden rule where
> > I can even remotely consider that buying a stolen rolex means that I've
> > purchased it's history.
>
> Please describe where I said it did.

Use your mouse and scroll up a bit. Use your search function on this
post and search the term "rolex".

> > What I can conclude is that if I am willing to buy stolen goods then I
> > am exhibiting a desire to have stolen goods purchased from me -- that
> > would be the rule operationalized.
> >
> > Please explain what moral code you are now operationalizing.
>
> I need a coherent explanation of how and why you connected complicity with
> the golden rule. I must have an adequate answer to this point if I am going
> to continue this debate.

I didn't, you did.

Buying tomatoes this week, which I declared, is not an illegal act. Nor
is it immoral. The buying of tomatoes, or the buying of tomatoes from a
Mexican grower in no way violates the golden rule. if you believe that
it does then, please make your case.