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.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> 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 never said there was.

> I've claimed that my choice to buy tomatoes is not immoral.

That's daring of you to admit. What do you mean by "not immoral"?

>You've
> claimed some immorality associated with this act.

Where? Show me the quote.

> You've described the
> prevailing moral code as the golden rule.

Where? Show me the quote.

> You refuse to make a case of
> how my purchase of tomatoes violates the golden rule

I don't think it does.

> to even remotely
> assess my action as immoral.

I wouldn't think of it. You are however in league with the tomato producers,
since you pay their wages and take a benefit from them.

>> > > > 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!

The morality of Mexico is irrelevant when you buy Mexican tomatoes in
Canada.

If you buy sneakers that you know were produced by slave labour, you are a
driving force in that process, whether or not you think that's immoral, or
whether they think it's immoral in Indonesia where they make them is
immaterial.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> 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 never said there was.

> I've claimed that my choice to buy tomatoes is not immoral.

That's daring of you to admit. What do you mean by "not immoral"?

>You've
> claimed some immorality associated with this act.

Where? Show me the quote.

> You've described the
> prevailing moral code as the golden rule.

Where? Show me the quote.

> You refuse to make a case of
> how my purchase of tomatoes violates the golden rule

I don't think it does.

> to even remotely
> assess my action as immoral.

I wouldn't think of it. You are however in league with the tomato producers,
since you pay their wages and take a benefit from them.

>> > > > 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!

The morality of Mexico is irrelevant when you buy Mexican tomatoes in
Canada.

If you buy sneakers that you know were produced by slave labour, you are a
driving force in that process, whether or not you think that's immoral, or
whether they think it's immoral in Indonesia where they make them is
immaterial.

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

Naturally

> You've stated the golden rule as the guiding principle of morality.

No I didn't.

> You
> continue to refuse to respond to how is the purchase of a stolen rolex a
> violation of the golden rule.

If you don't want other people to steal your property then don't steal
theirs.

>> > 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".

I just explained it, but actually you're mixing two different concepts
together.

>> > 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.

No I didn't. Now please explain why you did it.

> 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.

I've encountered people like you before. You have given up, it's as if you
don't believe that reason exists, or that if it does, it's beyond your
reach. The other explanation is that you know what's going on and this is
just an elaborate game, but that also leads one to the conclusion that you
don't believe in truth.

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

Naturally

> You've stated the golden rule as the guiding principle of morality.

No I didn't.

> You
> continue to refuse to respond to how is the purchase of a stolen rolex a
> violation of the golden rule.

If you don't want other people to steal your property then don't steal
theirs.

>> > 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".

I just explained it, but actually you're mixing two different concepts
together.

>> > 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.

No I didn't. Now please explain why you did it.

> 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.

I've encountered people like you before. You have given up, it's as if you
don't believe that reason exists, or that if it does, it's beyond your
reach. The other explanation is that you know what's going on and this is
just an elaborate game, but that also leads one to the conclusion that you
don't believe in truth.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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.
>
> Naturally
>
> > You've stated the golden rule as the guiding principle of morality.
>
> No I didn't.
>
> > You
> > continue to refuse to respond to how is the purchase of a stolen rolex a
> > violation of the golden rule.
>
> If you don't want other people to steal your property then don't steal
> theirs.
>
> >> > 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".
>
> I just explained it, but actually you're mixing two different concepts
> together.
>
> >> > 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.
>
> No I didn't. Now please explain why you did it.
>
> > 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.
>
> I've encountered people like you before. You have given up, it's as if you
> don't believe that reason exists, or that if it does, it's beyond your
> reach. The other explanation is that you know what's going on and this is
> just an elaborate game, but that also leads one to the conclusion that you
> don't believe in truth.

I've heard the same from theists when I don't accept their "truth".

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

> You've stated the golden rule as the guiding principle of morality.

I doubt it. Without going back to be 100% certain you've made an
error, I'll go on my 99% level of confidence and assume you did. I
imagine he presented the Golden Rule as ONE guiding principle of
morality, not THE guiding principle.

As usual, your extreme slovenliness causes you to make errors.

All humans make errors, queen, but you make far more than most.

> > > 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.

He won't find it no matter how far back he scrolls. You have
misunderstood what he wrote, and you've misrepresented it. Just one
more in a long string of easily avoidable errors. Easily avoidable,
that is, for anyone who can be bothered to try to avoid them. You seem
not to care.

>
> > > 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.

No, dipshit. That would not be the rule "operationalized" (you
jargon-spewing freak). The rule "operationalized", or given force to
use plain English, would be that by buying stolen merchandise, you are
saying that you don't mind if someone STEALS goods from you; not
"purchases goods from you", dipshit, STEALS goods from you.

You are just too stupid to do this. You ought to stop. You aren't 5%
as clever as you imagine yourself to be.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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 never said there was.
>
> > I've claimed that my choice to buy tomatoes is not immoral.
>
> That's daring of you to admit. What do you mean by "not immoral"?
>
> >You've
> > claimed some immorality associated with this act.
>
> Where? Show me the quote.
>
> > You've described the
> > prevailing moral code as the golden rule.
>
> Where? Show me the quote.
>
> > You refuse to make a case of
> > how my purchase of tomatoes violates the golden rule
>
> I don't think it does.
>
> > to even remotely
> > assess my action as immoral.
>
> I wouldn't think of it. You are however in league with the tomato producers,
> since you pay their wages and take a benefit from them.
>
> >> > > > 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!
>
> The morality of Mexico is irrelevant when you buy Mexican tomatoes in
> Canada.
>
> If you buy sneakers that you know were produced by slave labour, you are a
> driving force in that process, whether or not you think that's immoral, or
> whether they think it's immoral in Indonesia where they make them is
> immaterial.

I know. I stand over the workers with a whip. They had better perform
for their $2 or else. I cause everything. I stand in the buyers office
with a gun and force them to place orders. I stand in the receiving
docks on two continents with people forcing everyone to act.

I AM the MAN!!! My powers are so awesome in fact that usual and rick
will have no power to resist my demands and they WILL respond to me. I
only have to open my newsreader and they will do as I want them.

In article .com>,
"Jay Santos" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article >, "Dutch"
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Ron" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >, "Dutch"
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > 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 do.
>
> > You've stated the golden rule as the guiding principle of morality.
>
> I doubt it. Without going back to be 100% certain you've made an
> error, I'll go on my 99% level of confidence and assume you did. I
> imagine he presented the Golden Rule as ONE guiding principle of
> morality, not THE guiding principle.
>
> As usual, your extreme slovenliness causes you to make errors.
>
> All humans make errors, queen, but you make far more than most.
>
> > > > 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.
>
> He won't find it no matter how far back he scrolls. You have
> misunderstood what he wrote, and you've misrepresented it. Just one
> more in a long string of easily avoidable errors. Easily avoidable,
> that is, for anyone who can be bothered to try to avoid them. You seem
> not to care.
>
> >
> > > > 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.
>
> No, dipshit. That would not be the rule "operationalized" (you
> jargon-spewing freak). The rule "operationalized", or given force to
> use plain English, would be that by buying stolen merchandise, you are
> saying that you don't mind if someone STEALS goods from you; not
> "purchases goods from you", dipshit, STEALS goods from you.
>
> You are just too stupid to do this. You ought to stop. You aren't 5%
> as clever as you imagine yourself to be.

*another blip on the gaydar screen*

Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Jay Santos" > wrote:
>
> > Fudgepacker wrote:
> > > In article >, "Dutch"
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > No, dipshit. That would not be the rule "operationalized" (you
> > jargon-spewing freak). The rule "operationalized", or given force
to
> > use plain English, would be that by buying stolen merchandise, you
are
> > saying that you don't mind if someone STEALS goods from you; not
> > "purchases goods from you", dipshit, STEALS goods from you.
> >
> > You are just too stupid to do this. You ought to stop. You aren't
5%
> > as clever as you imagine yourself to be.
>
> *another blip
Another substance-free post by the pathetic little fudgepacker.

In article .com>,
"Jay Santos" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Jay Santos" > wrote:
> >
> > > Fudgepacker wrote:
> > > > In article >, "Dutch"
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > No, dipshit. That would not be the rule "operationalized" (you
> > > jargon-spewing freak). The rule "operationalized", or given force
> to
> > > use plain English, would be that by buying stolen merchandise, you
> are
> > > saying that you don't mind if someone STEALS goods from you; not
> > > "purchases goods from you", dipshit, STEALS goods from you.
> > >
> > > You are just too stupid to do this. You ought to stop. You aren't
> 5%
> > > as clever as you imagine yourself to be.
> >
> > *another blip
> Another substance-free post by the pathetic little fudgepacker.

Ah, editing. That's sweet. The gaydar has you pegged and the notices
went out.

Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Jay Santos" > wrote:
>
> > Fudgepacker wrote:
> > > In article
.com>,
> > > "Jay Santos" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fudgepacker wrote:
> > > > > In article >, "Dutch"
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > No, dipshit. That would not be the rule "operationalized" (you
> > > > jargon-spewing freak). The rule "operationalized", or given
force
> > to
> > > > use plain English, would be that by buying stolen merchandise,
you
> > are
> > > > saying that you don't mind if someone STEALS goods from you;
not
> > > > "purchases goods from you", dipshit, STEALS goods from you.
> > > >
> > > > You are just too stupid to do this. You ought to stop. You
aren't
> > 5%
> > > > as clever as you imagine yourself to be.
> > >
> > > *another blip
> > Another substance-free post by the pathetic little fudgepacker.
>
> Ah,
Ah, another substance free post from the snarky little fudgepacker.

In article . com>,
"Jay Santos" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Jay Santos" > wrote:
> >
> > > Fudgepacker wrote:
> > > > In article
> .com>,
> > > > "Jay Santos" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Fudgepacker wrote:
> > > > > > In article >, "Dutch"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, dipshit. That would not be the rule "operationalized" (you
> > > > > jargon-spewing freak). The rule "operationalized", or given
> force
> > > to
> > > > > use plain English, would be that by buying stolen merchandise,
> you
> > > are
> > > > > saying that you don't mind if someone STEALS goods from you;
> not
> > > > > "purchases goods from you", dipshit, STEALS goods from you.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are just too stupid to do this. You ought to stop. You
> aren't
> > > 5%
> > > > > as clever as you imagine yourself to be.
> > > >
> > > > *another blip
> > > Another substance-free post by the pathetic little fudgepacker.
> >
> > Ah,
> Ah, another substance free post from the snarky little fudgepacker.

*gaydar on overload*

Ron wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "Jay Santos" > wrote:
>
> > Fudgepacker wrote:
> > > In article
.com>,
> > > "Jay Santos" > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > *another blip
> > > > Another substance-free post by the pathetic little fudgepacker.
> > >
> > > Ah,
> > Ah, another substance free post from the snarky little fudgepacker.
>
> *gaydar on overload*

You really are a self-loathing homo.

In article .com>,
"Jay Santos" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > "Jay Santos" > wrote:
> >
> > > Fudgepacker wrote:
> > > > In article
> .com>,
> > > > "Jay Santos" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *another blip
> > > > > Another substance-free post by the pathetic little fudgepacker.
> > > >
> > > > Ah,
> > > Ah, another substance free post from the snarky little fudgepacker.
> >
> > *gaydar on overload*
>
> You really are a self-loathing homo.

roflmao, yes, that must be it, Hector the Projector.

Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Jay Santos" > wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> > > In article
. com>,
> > > "Jay Santos" > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > *another blip
> > > > > > Another substance-free post by the pathetic little
fudgepacker.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah,
> > > > Ah, another substance free post from the snarky little
fudgepacker.
> > >
> > > *gaydar on overload*
> >
> > You really are a self-loathing homo.
>
> roflmao, yes, that must be it

Yes, it must. Why else would you keep calling others homos as a form
of insulting them?

In article .com>,
"Jay Santos" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Jay Santos" > wrote:
> >
> > > Ron wrote:
> > > > In article
> . com>,
> > > > "Jay Santos" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > *another blip
> > > > > > > Another substance-free post by the pathetic little
> fudgepacker.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah,
> > > > > Ah, another substance free post from the snarky little
> fudgepacker.
> > > >
> > > > *gaydar on overload*
> > >
> > > You really are a self-loathing homo.
> >
> > roflmao, yes, that must be it
>
> Yes, it must. Why else would you keep calling others homos as a form
> of insulting them?

Yes, hector. Who have I referred to as "homo"?

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

If the production of every tomato leads some result you consider
immoral, then yes, your choice to buy tomatoes is indeed immoral, and
your claim is wrong.

>
> > > > > 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.

Indeed - just grasping at straws.

In article . com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article >, "Dutch"
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Ron" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >, "Dutch"
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > 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.
>
> If the production of every tomato leads some result you consider
> immoral, then yes, your choice to buy tomatoes is indeed immoral, and
> your claim is wrong.

The choice to buy my tomatoes satisfied my hunger and my occasional
desire for a particular meal that utilizes tomatoes.

Buying tomatoes is not immoral. Satisfying my hunger is not immoral. One
of the recipes that I enjoy and prepare is not 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.
>
> Indeed - just grasping at straws.

Ron wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > homo Ron wrote:
> > > In article >, "Dutch"
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Why? Should there be a relationship?
> > >
> > > NO. I've claimed that my choice to buy tomatoes is not immoral.
> >
> > If the production of every tomato leads some result you consider
> > immoral, then yes, your choice to buy tomatoes is indeed immoral,
and
> > your claim is wrong.
>
> The choice to buy my tomatoes satisfied my hunger and my occasional
> desire for a particular meal that utilizes tomatoes.

It did more than that.

>
> Buying tomatoes is not immoral.

It may well be immoral, if the production of tomatoes yields an immoral
result. By participating in the market for tomaotes, you acquire some
responsibility for whatever that immoral result is.

> One of the recipes that I enjoy and prepare is not immoral.

Probably ONLY one.

>
> > > > > > > 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.
> >
> > Indeed - just grasping at straws.

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> > > homo Ron wrote:
> > > > In article >, "Dutch"
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Why? Should there be a relationship?
> > > >
> > > > NO. I've claimed that my choice to buy tomatoes is not immoral.
> > >
> > > If the production of every tomato leads some result you consider
> > > immoral, then yes, your choice to buy tomatoes is indeed immoral,
> and
> > > your claim is wrong.
> >
> > The choice to buy my tomatoes satisfied my hunger and my occasional
> > desire for a particular meal that utilizes tomatoes.
>
> It did more than that.

No, that was pretty much the extent of what "I" did.

> > Buying tomatoes is not immoral.
>
> It may well be immoral, if the production of tomatoes yields an immoral
> result. By participating in the market for tomaotes, you acquire some
> responsibility for whatever that immoral result is.
>
> > One of the recipes that I enjoy and prepare is not immoral.
>
> Probably ONLY one.

My apologies. I intended to write, one of the recipes that I enjoy that
uses tomatoes....

> > > > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Indeed - just grasping at straws.

Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> > > In article
. com>,
> > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > homo Ron wrote:
> > > > > In article >, "Dutch"
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why? Should there be a relationship?
> > > > >
> > > > > NO. I've claimed that my choice to buy tomatoes is not
immoral.
> > > >
> > > > If the production of every tomato leads some result you
consider
> > > > immoral, then yes, your choice to buy tomatoes is indeed
immoral,
> > > > and your claim is wrong.
> > >
> > > The choice to buy my tomatoes satisfied my hunger and my
occasional
> > > desire for a particular meal that utilizes tomatoes.
> >
> > It did more than that.
>
> No, that was pretty much the extent of what "I" did.

That is NOT, however, the extent of your responsibility.

You keep confusing actions with results. You're a very confused
person.

>
> > > Buying tomatoes is not immoral.
> >
> > It may well be immoral, if the production of tomatoes yields an
immoral
> > result. By participating in the market for tomaotes, you acquire
some
> > responsibility for whatever that immoral result is.
> >
> > > One of the recipes that I enjoy and prepare is not immoral.
> >
> > Probably ONLY one.
>
> My apologies. I intended to write, one of the recipes that I enjoy
that
> uses tomatoes....

It doesn't matter: you STILL have only one such. All the rest are
immoral.

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> > > Ron wrote:
> > > > In article
> . com>,
> > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > homo Ron wrote:
> > > > > > In article >, "Dutch"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why? Should there be a relationship?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > NO. I've claimed that my choice to buy tomatoes is not
> immoral.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the production of every tomato leads some result you
> consider
> > > > > immoral, then yes, your choice to buy tomatoes is indeed
> immoral,
> > > > > and your claim is wrong.
> > > >
> > > > The choice to buy my tomatoes satisfied my hunger and my
> occasional
> > > > desire for a particular meal that utilizes tomatoes.
> > >
> > > It did more than that.
> >
> > No, that was pretty much the extent of what "I" did.
>
> That is NOT, however, the extent of your responsibility.
>
> You keep confusing actions with results. You're a very confused
> person.
>
> >
> > > > Buying tomatoes is not immoral.
> > >
> > > It may well be immoral, if the production of tomatoes yields an
> immoral
> > > result. By participating in the market for tomaotes, you acquire
> some
> > > responsibility for whatever that immoral result is.
> > >
> > > > One of the recipes that I enjoy and prepare is not immoral.
> > >
> > > Probably ONLY one.
> >
> > My apologies. I intended to write, one of the recipes that I enjoy
> that
> > uses tomatoes....
>
> It doesn't matter: you STILL have only one such. All the rest are
> immoral.

I think I was quite clear when I was discussing this with Dutch. My
action were to walk to the grocery store. My actions were to select
tomatoes and then walk to the cashier. My actions were to hand over
money, wait for change and then walk home again.

The outcomes were to satisfy my hunger. The outcomes where that I was
able to prepare my meal. The outcome was that a $20 was replaced by
smaller notes and coins. Those were the outcomes of my actions.

Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> > > In article
.com>,
> > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > The choice to buy my tomatoes satisfied my hunger and my
occasional
> > > > > desire for a particular meal that utilizes tomatoes.
> > > >
> > > > It did more than that.
> > >
> > > No, that was pretty much the extent of what "I" did.
> >
> > That is NOT, however, the extent of your responsibility.
> >
> > You keep confusing actions with results. You're a very confused
> > person.

You're very badly confused.

> >
> > >
> > > > > Buying tomatoes is not immoral.
> > > >
> > > > It may well be immoral, if the production of tomatoes yields an
immoral
> > > > result. By participating in the market for tomaotes, you
acquire some
> > > > responsibility for whatever that immoral result is.
> > > >
> > > > > One of the recipes that I enjoy and prepare is not immoral.
> > > >
> > > > Probably ONLY one.
> > >
> > > My apologies. I intended to write, one of the recipes that I
enjoy
> > > that uses tomatoes....
> >
> > It doesn't matter: you STILL have only one such. All the rest are
> > immoral.
>
> I think I was quite clear when I was discussing this with Dutch.

No, you are always deliberately opaque. It's the essence of your
****witted game.

You DO acquire moral responsibility for the outcome. Note,
fudgepacker: that is NOT the same as saying you are responsible for
someone else's *actions*. Stop confusing the actions with the results
of the actions. I have been trying to help you for weeks to see the
distinction. Either you are stupid, or you're deliberately being an
asshole.

In article om>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> > > Ron wrote:
> > > > In article
> .com>,
> > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > The choice to buy my tomatoes satisfied my hunger and my
> occasional
> > > > > > desire for a particular meal that utilizes tomatoes.
> > > > >
> > > > > It did more than that.
> > > >
> > > > No, that was pretty much the extent of what "I" did.
> > >
> > > That is NOT, however, the extent of your responsibility.
> > >
> > > You keep confusing actions with results. You're a very confused
> > > person.
>
> You're very badly confused.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Buying tomatoes is not immoral.
> > > > >
> > > > > It may well be immoral, if the production of tomatoes yields an
> immoral
> > > > > result. By participating in the market for tomaotes, you
> acquire some
> > > > > responsibility for whatever that immoral result is.
> > > > >
> > > > > > One of the recipes that I enjoy and prepare is not immoral.
> > > > >
> > > > > Probably ONLY one.
> > > >
> > > > My apologies. I intended to write, one of the recipes that I
> enjoy
> > > > that uses tomatoes....
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter: you STILL have only one such. All the rest are
> > > immoral.
> >
> > I think I was quite clear when I was discussing this with Dutch.
>
> No, you are always deliberately opaque. It's the essence of your
> ****witted game.
>
> You DO acquire moral responsibility for the outcome. Note,
> fudgepacker: that is NOT the same as saying you are responsible for
> someone else's *actions*. Stop confusing the actions with the results
> of the actions. I have been trying to help you for weeks to see the
> distinction. Either you are stupid, or you're deliberately being an
> asshole.

Weeks?

I only began speaking with the person using the name "Rudy" recently.

My actions are clear. I walked to the store, selected tomatoes, paid for
them and walked home. What was the outcome of MY action?

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

>> I've encountered people like you before. You have given up, it's as if
>> you
>> don't believe that reason exists, or that if it does, it's beyond your
>> reach. The other explanation is that you know what's going on and this is
>> just an elaborate game, but that also leads one to the conclusion that
>> you
>> don't believe in truth.
>
> I've heard the same from theists when I don't accept their "truth".

You don't believe truth even exists.

"Jay Santos" > wrote
> Ron wrote:
>> "Dutch" > wrote:

>> You've stated the golden rule as the guiding principle of morality.
>
> I doubt it. Without going back to be 100% certain you've made an
> error, I'll go on my 99% level of confidence and assume you did. I
> imagine he presented the Golden Rule as ONE guiding principle of
> morality, not THE guiding principle.

Isn't that telling, you got it without even reading it, Ron has read
numerous references and still doesn't get it.

"Ron" > wrote

> I AM the MAN!!!

I don't think so Ron, back to the beauty shop.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> I've encountered people like you before. You have given up, it's as if
> >> you
> >> don't believe that reason exists, or that if it does, it's beyond your
> >> reach. The other explanation is that you know what's going on and this is
> >> just an elaborate game, but that also leads one to the conclusion that
> >> you
> >> don't believe in truth.
> >
> > I've heard the same from theists when I don't accept their "truth".
>
> You don't believe truth even exists.

That's an odd way of phrasing the situation. I believe that multiple
truths are possible. For example, the vegan believes the truth that it
is wrong to kill an animal for food. The meat eater believes the truth
that tis is right to kill some animals for food. The theist believes the
truth that a good exists. The atheist believes the truth that gods don't
exist.

Different truths, or beliefs that can and do exist at the same time.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Jay Santos" > wrote
> > Ron wrote:
> >> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> You've stated the golden rule as the guiding principle of morality.
> >
> > I doubt it. Without going back to be 100% certain you've made an
> > error, I'll go on my 99% level of confidence and assume you did. I
> > imagine he presented the Golden Rule as ONE guiding principle of
> > morality, not THE guiding principle.
>
> Isn't that telling, you got it without even reading it, Ron has read
> numerous references and still doesn't get it.

Doin the backstroke...and relying on the cheerleaders.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> > I AM the MAN!!!
>
> I don't think so Ron, back to the beauty shop.

I can't that would mean that my time isn't being spent protecting
children from being sodomized. It means my time wouldn't be spent
protecting people from premeditated murder. After all, you've declared
that I am responsible for the outcomes of those actions. When I go to
sleep tonight and a child is sodomozied somewhere in this city, your
logic requires that I be responsible for the outcome of my action.

The same therefore would apply to you.

Ron wrote:

> In article om>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>>In article .com>,
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article
>>
ps.com>,
>>
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>The choice to buy my tomatoes satisfied my hunger and my
>>
>>occasional
>>
>>>>>>>desire for a particular meal that utilizes tomatoes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It did more than that.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, that was pretty much the extent of what "I" did.
>>>>
>>>>That is NOT, however, the extent of your responsibility.
>>>>
>>>>You keep confusing actions with results. You're a very confused
>>>>person.
>>
>>You're very badly confused.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>Buying tomatoes is not immoral.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It may well be immoral, if the production of tomatoes yields an
>>
>>immoral
>>
>>>>>>result. By participating in the market for tomaotes, you
>>
>>acquire some
>>
>>>>>>responsibility for whatever that immoral result is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>One of the recipes that I enjoy and prepare is not immoral.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Probably ONLY one.
>>>>>
>>>>>My apologies. I intended to write, one of the recipes that I
>>
>>enjoy
>>
>>>>>that uses tomatoes....
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't matter: you STILL have only one such. All the rest are
>>>>immoral.
>>>
>>>I think I was quite clear when I was discussing this with Dutch.
>>
>>No, you are always deliberately opaque. It's the essence of your
>>****witted game.
>>
>>You DO acquire moral responsibility for the outcome. Note,
>>fudgepacker: that is NOT the same as saying you are responsible for
>>someone else's *actions*. Stop confusing the actions with the results
>>of the actions. I have been trying to help you for weeks to see the
>>distinction. Either you are stupid, or you're deliberately being an
>>asshole.
>
>
> Weeks?

Yes.

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article om>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article .com>,
> >>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article
> >>
> ps.com>,
> >>
> >>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>The choice to buy my tomatoes satisfied my hunger and my
> >>
> >>occasional
> >>
> >>>>>>>desire for a particular meal that utilizes tomatoes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It did more than that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No, that was pretty much the extent of what "I" did.
> >>>>
> >>>>That is NOT, however, the extent of your responsibility.
> >>>>
> >>>>You keep confusing actions with results. You're a very confused
> >>>>person.
> >>
> >>You're very badly confused.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>>Buying tomatoes is not immoral.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It may well be immoral, if the production of tomatoes yields an
> >>
> >>immoral
> >>
> >>>>>>result. By participating in the market for tomaotes, you
> >>
> >>acquire some
> >>
> >>>>>>responsibility for whatever that immoral result is.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>One of the recipes that I enjoy and prepare is not immoral.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Probably ONLY one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>My apologies. I intended to write, one of the recipes that I
> >>
> >>enjoy
> >>
> >>>>>that uses tomatoes....
> >>>>
> >>>>It doesn't matter: you STILL have only one such. All the rest are
> >>>>immoral.
> >>>
> >>>I think I was quite clear when I was discussing this with Dutch.
> >>
> >>No, you are always deliberately opaque. It's the essence of your
> >>****witted game.
> >>
> >>You DO acquire moral responsibility for the outcome. Note,
> >>fudgepacker: that is NOT the same as saying you are responsible for
> >>someone else's *actions*. Stop confusing the actions with the results
> >>of the actions. I have been trying to help you for weeks to see the
> >>distinction. Either you are stupid, or you're deliberately being an
> >>asshole.
> >
> >
> > Weeks?
>
> Yes.

Will the real Ruddy please stand up.

*Kitty Carlisle fans the world over applaud*

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article om>,
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article .com>,
>>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article
>>>>
oups.com>,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The choice to buy my tomatoes satisfied my hunger and my
>>>>
>>>>occasional
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>desire for a particular meal that utilizes tomatoes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It did more than that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, that was pretty much the extent of what "I" did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is NOT, however, the extent of your responsibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You keep confusing actions with results. You're a very confused
>>>>>>person.
>>>>
>>>>You're very badly confused.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Buying tomatoes is not immoral.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It may well be immoral, if the production of tomatoes yields an
>>>>
>>>>immoral
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>result. By participating in the market for tomaotes, you
>>>>
>>>>acquire some
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>responsibility for whatever that immoral result is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>One of the recipes that I enjoy and prepare is not immoral.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Probably ONLY one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My apologies. I intended to write, one of the recipes that I
>>>>
>>>>enjoy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>that uses tomatoes....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It doesn't matter: you STILL have only one such. All the rest are
>>>>>>immoral.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think I was quite clear when I was discussing this with Dutch.
>>>>
>>>>No, you are always deliberately opaque. It's the essence of your
>>>>****witted game.
>>>>
>>>>You DO acquire moral responsibility for the outcome. Note,
>>>>fudgepacker: that is NOT the same as saying you are responsible for
>>>>someone else's *actions*. Stop confusing the actions with the results
>>>>of the actions. I have been trying to help you for weeks to see the
>>>>distinction. Either you are stupid, or you're deliberately being an
>>>>asshole.
>>>
>>>
>>>Weeks?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>
> Will the

No substance.

>
> *Kitty Carlisle fans the world over applaud*

Stop with the excruciatingly faggoty narrative, homo
Ron. It diminishes you (as if you have anything left
to diminish.)

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article om>,
> >>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article .com>,
> >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article
> >>>>
> oups.com>,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>The choice to buy my tomatoes satisfied my hunger and my
> >>>>
> >>>>occasional
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>desire for a particular meal that utilizes tomatoes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>It did more than that.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>No, that was pretty much the extent of what "I" did.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>That is NOT, however, the extent of your responsibility.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You keep confusing actions with results. You're a very confused
> >>>>>>person.
> >>>>
> >>>>You're very badly confused.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Buying tomatoes is not immoral.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>It may well be immoral, if the production of tomatoes yields an
> >>>>
> >>>>immoral
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>result. By participating in the market for tomaotes, you
> >>>>
> >>>>acquire some
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>responsibility for whatever that immoral result is.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>One of the recipes that I enjoy and prepare is not immoral.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Probably ONLY one.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>My apologies. I intended to write, one of the recipes that I
> >>>>
> >>>>enjoy
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>that uses tomatoes....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It doesn't matter: you STILL have only one such. All the rest are
> >>>>>>immoral.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I think I was quite clear when I was discussing this with Dutch.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, you are always deliberately opaque. It's the essence of your
> >>>>****witted game.
> >>>>
> >>>>You DO acquire moral responsibility for the outcome. Note,
> >>>>fudgepacker: that is NOT the same as saying you are responsible for
> >>>>someone else's *actions*. Stop confusing the actions with the results
> >>>>of the actions. I have been trying to help you for weeks to see the
> >>>>distinction. Either you are stupid, or you're deliberately being an
> >>>>asshole.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Weeks?
> >>
> >>Yes.
> >
> >
> > Will the
>
> No substance.
>
> >
> > *Kitty Carlisle fans the world over applaud*
>
> Stop with the excruciatingly faggoty narrative, homo
> Ron. It diminishes you (as if you have anything left
> to diminish.)

*applause for the highest score on today's gaydar*

Ron wrote:
> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >>>>No, you are always deliberately opaque. It's the essence of
your
> > >>>>****witted game.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>You DO acquire moral responsibility for the outcome. Note,
> > >>>>fudgepacker: that is NOT the same as saying you are
responsible for
> > >>>>someone else's *actions*. Stop confusing the actions with the
results
> > >>>>of the actions. I have been trying to help you for weeks to
see the
> > >>>>distinction. Either you are stupid, or you're deliberately
being an
> > >>>>asshole.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Weeks?
> > >>
> > >>Yes.
> > >
> > >
> > > Will the
> >
> > No substance.
> >
> > >
> > > *Kitty Carlisle fans the world over applaud*
> >
> > Stop with the excruciatingly faggoty narrative, homo
> > Ron. It diminishes you (as if you have anything left
> > to diminish.)
>
> *applause

You're a self hating homo. You should get help.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >> I've encountered people like you before. You have given up, it's as if
>> >> you
>> >> don't believe that reason exists, or that if it does, it's beyond your
>> >> reach. The other explanation is that you know what's going on and this
>> >> is
>> >> just an elaborate game, but that also leads one to the conclusion that
>> >> you
>> >> don't believe in truth.
>> >
>> > I've heard the same from theists when I don't accept their "truth".
>>
>> You don't believe truth even exists.
>
> That's an odd way of phrasing the situation. I believe that multiple
> truths are possible.

> For example, the vegan believes the truth that it
> is wrong to kill an animal for food.

That's not truth, it has been clearly shown to be a sham, a self-serving
posture.

> The meat eater believes the truth
> that tis is right to kill some animals for food.
> The theist believes the
> truth that a good exists. The atheist believes the truth that gods don't
> exist.
> Different truths, or beliefs that can and do exist at the same time.

I agree that moral beliefs that appear to be inconcistent can simultaneously
be valid for different people, but that's not what I was referring to.

By truth I mean that which a man utters when he speaks from his heart, his
authentic self, pure honesty, no games, no posing, no reciting others' ideas
that he doesn't really understand, not ego, not just trying to be clever or
cool. When this happens there is a ring to the words, the ring of truth. I
get the impression that you don't know about this.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Jay Santos" > wrote
>> > Ron wrote:
>> >> "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >> You've stated the golden rule as the guiding principle of morality.
>> >
>> > I doubt it. Without going back to be 100% certain you've made an
>> > error, I'll go on my 99% level of confidence and assume you did. I
>> > imagine he presented the Golden Rule as ONE guiding principle of
>> > morality, not THE guiding principle.
>>
>> Isn't that telling, you got it without even reading it, Ron has read
>> numerous references and still doesn't get it.
>
> Doin the backstroke...and relying on the cheerleaders.

How did he get it without reading it and you read it and didn't? You have a
short-circuit somewhere.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> > I AM the MAN!!!
>>
>> I don't think so Ron, back to the beauty shop.
>
> I can't that would mean that my time isn't being spent protecting
> children from being sodomized. It means my time wouldn't be spent
> protecting people from premeditated murder. After all, you've declared
> that I am responsible for the outcomes of those actions. When I go to
> sleep tonight and a child is sodomozied somewhere in this city, your
> logic requires that I be responsible for the outcome of my action.
>
> The same therefore would apply to you.

You are missing fundamental concepts that are making your efforts fall flat.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I've encountered people like you before. You have given up, it's as if
> >> >> you
> >> >> don't believe that reason exists, or that if it does, it's beyond your
> >> >> reach. The other explanation is that you know what's going on and this
> >> >> is
> >> >> just an elaborate game, but that also leads one to the conclusion that
> >> >> you
> >> >> don't believe in truth.
> >> >
> >> > I've heard the same from theists when I don't accept their "truth".
> >>
> >> You don't believe truth even exists.
> >
> > That's an odd way of phrasing the situation. I believe that multiple
> > truths are possible.
>
> > For example, the vegan believes the truth that it
> > is wrong to kill an animal for food.
>
> That's not truth, it has been clearly shown to be a sham, a self-serving
> posture.

It is _their_ truth. It is what they believe. It is not _your_ truth. It
is not what you believe.

> > The meat eater believes the truth
> > that tis is right to kill some animals for food.
> > The theist believes the
> > truth that a good exists. The atheist believes the truth that gods don't
> > exist.
> > Different truths, or beliefs that can and do exist at the same time.
>
> I agree that moral beliefs that appear to be inconcistent can simultaneously
> be valid for different people, but that's not what I was referring to.
>
> By truth I mean that which a man utters when he speaks from his heart, his
> authentic self, pure honesty, no games, no posing, no reciting others' ideas
> that he doesn't really understand, not ego, not just trying to be clever or
> cool. When this happens there is a ring to the words, the ring of truth. I
> get the impression that you don't know about this.

Passion and truth are not the same thing in my view. I can speak
passionately about an issue and be "wrong". The theist can speak
passionately about a god that doesn't exist.

I can speak form my heart that I truly believe that I have a ten dollar
bill in my wallet only to open it and find a 5 or a 20. I can be wrong.