In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.

Then I ask again, what is the moral principle that the vegan is
violating by purchasing tomatoes or rice?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.

Yes, the fundamental concept is that this reasoning "works" for this
(veganism) example but cannot be applied consistently to other
situations. And when faced with that inconsistency, you are unable to
state that you are incorrect.

The ethic that you want me to accept is inconsistent. To support what
are commonly held beliefs, we have the discussion as it is.

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

>> > 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.

You don't get it, they do NOT believe it, they say it because it makes them
feel good to think that they do. This is proven beyond a doubt by their
completely inadequate response to the reality of collateral deaths.

> 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 wasn't referring to passion, "from his heart" was a misleading term to
use, I should have removed it. Truth doesn't have to be emotional or
passionate, it might be very matter-of-fact and dispassionate.

> I can speak
> passionately about an issue and be "wrong". The theist can speak
> passionately about a god that doesn't exist.

I agree, but the case of theist the belief is actually the thing, so in a
sense the god he is referring to does exist, his belief creates it.

> 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.

That's simply a misstatement of fact, it doesn't relate to "truth" per se.
When I refer to speaking truth, there is always a sign, a ring, some insight
or humour that gives it away.

I don't claim to understand "truth", I know a little about it, I know that
it exists, that men have been searching for it forever, that I have glimpsed
it, that it is conspicuous when absent, and that I want to know more.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "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.
>
> Then I ask again, what is the moral principle that the vegan is
> violating by purchasing tomatoes or rice?

Killing animals to obtain food.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "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.
>
> Yes, the fundamental concept is that this reasoning "works" for this
> (veganism) example but cannot be applied consistently to other
> situations. And when faced with that inconsistency, you are unable to
> state that you are incorrect.
>
> The ethic that you want me to accept is inconsistent. To support what
> are commonly held beliefs, we have the discussion as it is.

No, you don't get it, and I am not going to attempt to explain it because
you haven't demonstrated that you can listen.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> You don't get it, they do NOT believe it, they say it because it makes them
> feel good to think that they do. This is proven beyond a doubt by their
> completely inadequate response to the reality of collateral deaths.

I find you confusing. We were discussing a meaning for the term truth.
Truth is just a word. Each of us attaches a meaning to that word. In the
effort to understand what you mean when you use this word, you now have
changed the discussion.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> You don't get it, they do NOT believe it, they say it because it makes them
> feel good to think that they do. This is proven beyond a doubt by their
> completely inadequate response to the reality of collateral deaths.

I find you confusing. We were discussing a meaning for the term truth.
Truth is just a word. Each of us attaches a meaning to that word. In the
effort to understand what you mean when you use this word, you now have
changed the discussion.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> I wasn't referring to passion, "from his heart" was a misleading term to
> use, I should have removed it. Truth doesn't have to be emotional or
> passionate, it might be very matter-of-fact and dispassionate.

Truth is just a word.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> I don't claim to understand "truth", I know a little about it, I know that
> it exists, that men have been searching for it forever, that I have glimpsed
> it, that it is conspicuous when absent, and that I want to know more.

From my perspective, "truth" is a vague and meaningless concept. I find
it the approach very disappointing. it is similar to when people say
that they want to be happy but can't or won't describe what makes them
happy. One can't find what they can't describe.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "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.
> >
> > Then I ask again, what is the moral principle that the vegan is
> > violating by purchasing tomatoes or rice?
>
> Killing animals to obtain food.

The vegan doesn't kill animals to obtain food. The principle is intact.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "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.
> >
> > Yes, the fundamental concept is that this reasoning "works" for this
> > (veganism) example but cannot be applied consistently to other
> > situations. And when faced with that inconsistency, you are unable to
> > state that you are incorrect.
> >
> > The ethic that you want me to accept is inconsistent. To support what
> > are commonly held beliefs, we have the discussion as it is.
>
> No, you don't get it, and I am not going to attempt to explain it because
> you haven't demonstrated that you can listen.

So, let's move on.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "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.
> >
> > Yes, the fundamental concept is that this reasoning "works" for this
> > (veganism) example but cannot be applied consistently to other
> > situations. And when faced with that inconsistency, you are unable to
> > state that you are incorrect.
> >
> > The ethic that you want me to accept is inconsistent. To support what
> > are commonly held beliefs, we have the discussion as it is.
>
> No, you don't get it, and I am not going to attempt to explain it because
> you haven't demonstrated that you can listen.

So, let's move on.

Ron wrote:

> 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.

No. We can see, from their actions, that it is not
what they believe; it is merely what they say. They
are hypocrites.

Ron wrote:

> 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.

No. We can see, from their actions, that it is not
what they believe; it is merely what they say. They
are hypocrites.

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"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.
>>>
>>>Then I ask again, what is the moral principle that the vegan is
>>>violating by purchasing tomatoes or rice?
>>
>>Killing animals to obtain food.
>
>
> The vegan doesn't kill animals to obtain food.

The "vegan" pays people to farm, knowing that they kill
animals in the course of their farming. The "vegan"
thereby shares responsibility for the deaths.

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"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.
>>>
>>>Then I ask again, what is the moral principle that the vegan is
>>>violating by purchasing tomatoes or rice?
>>
>>Killing animals to obtain food.
>
>
> The vegan doesn't kill animals to obtain food.

The "vegan" pays people to farm, knowing that they kill
animals in the course of their farming. The "vegan"
thereby shares responsibility for the deaths.

In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> No. We can see, from their actions, that it is not
> what they believe; it is merely what they say. They
> are hypocrites.

Despite your desire, I just don't find it reasonable to hold one person
accountable (morally or otherwise) for the outcomes of the actions of
another person. I think it is time to challenge the laws.

In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> No. We can see, from their actions, that it is not
> what they believe; it is merely what they say. They
> are hypocrites.

Despite your desire, I just don't find it reasonable to hold one person
accountable (morally or otherwise) for the outcomes of the actions of
another person. I think it is time to challenge the laws.

In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"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.
> >>>
> >>>Then I ask again, what is the moral principle that the vegan is
> >>>violating by purchasing tomatoes or rice?
> >>
> >>Killing animals to obtain food.
> >
> >
> > The vegan doesn't kill animals to obtain food.
>
> The "vegan" pays people to farm, knowing that they kill
> animals in the course of their farming. The "vegan"
> thereby shares responsibility for the deaths.

I've never paid anyone to farm. I've exchanged money for product.

In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"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.
> >>>
> >>>Then I ask again, what is the moral principle that the vegan is
> >>>violating by purchasing tomatoes or rice?
> >>
> >>Killing animals to obtain food.
> >
> >
> > The vegan doesn't kill animals to obtain food.
>
> The "vegan" pays people to farm, knowing that they kill
> animals in the course of their farming. The "vegan"
> thereby shares responsibility for the deaths.

I've never paid anyone to farm. I've exchanged money for product.

Ron wrote:

> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>No. We can see, from their actions, that it is not
>>what they believe; it is merely what they say. They
>>are hypocrites.
>
>
> Despite your desire

Not my desire, little homo. It's my sound, adult moral
reasoning, shared by other adults with sound minds
(that lets you out). You still are resentful for
having been held accountable for having aided and
abetted your childhood friend in the commission of some
bad act.

> I just don't find it reasonable to hold one person
> accountable (morally or otherwise) for the outcomes of the actions of
> another person.

When the person who is so held accountable has been an
active, voluntary, fully aware participant in the
*process* that led to the outcomes, it is morally right
and legally just to hold him accountable.

Ron wrote:

> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then I ask again, what is the moral principle that the vegan is
>>>>>violating by purchasing tomatoes or rice?
>>>>
>>>>Killing animals to obtain food.
>>>
>>>
>>>The vegan doesn't kill animals to obtain food.
>>
>>The "vegan" pays people to farm, knowing that they kill
>>animals in the course of their farming. The "vegan"
>>thereby shares responsibility for the deaths.
>
>
> I've never paid anyone to farm. I've exchanged money for product.

Identical.

Ron wrote:

> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then I ask again, what is the moral principle that the vegan is
>>>>>violating by purchasing tomatoes or rice?
>>>>
>>>>Killing animals to obtain food.
>>>
>>>
>>>The vegan doesn't kill animals to obtain food.
>>
>>The "vegan" pays people to farm, knowing that they kill
>>animals in the course of their farming. The "vegan"
>>thereby shares responsibility for the deaths.
>
>
> I've never paid anyone to farm. I've exchanged money for product.

Identical.

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Then I ask again, what is the moral principle that the vegan is
> >>>>>violating by purchasing tomatoes or rice?
> >>>>
> >>>>Killing animals to obtain food.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The vegan doesn't kill animals to obtain food.
> >>
> >>The "vegan" pays people to farm, knowing that they kill
> >>animals in the course of their farming. The "vegan"
> >>thereby shares responsibility for the deaths.
> >
> >
> > I've never paid anyone to farm. I've exchanged money for product.
>
> Identical.

It's time to launch a legal challenge and undo this ridiculous premise.

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Then I ask again, what is the moral principle that the vegan is
> >>>>>violating by purchasing tomatoes or rice?
> >>>>
> >>>>Killing animals to obtain food.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The vegan doesn't kill animals to obtain food.
> >>
> >>The "vegan" pays people to farm, knowing that they kill
> >>animals in the course of their farming. The "vegan"
> >>thereby shares responsibility for the deaths.
> >
> >
> > I've never paid anyone to farm. I've exchanged money for product.
>
> Identical.

It's time to launch a legal challenge and undo this ridiculous premise.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> You don't get it, they do NOT believe it, they say it because it makes
>> them
>> feel good to think that they do. This is proven beyond a doubt by their
>> completely inadequate response to the reality of collateral deaths.
>
> I find you confusing. We were discussing a meaning for the term truth.

Among other things...

> Truth is just a word.

"Just a word"???

> Each of us attaches a meaning to that word. In the
> effort to understand what you mean when you use this word, you now have
> changed the discussion.

That last sentence has a broken structure, I find it difficult to believe
you solve problems for a living.

You referred to vegans believing in "their truth", I responded.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> You don't get it, they do NOT believe it, they say it because it makes
>> them
>> feel good to think that they do. This is proven beyond a doubt by their
>> completely inadequate response to the reality of collateral deaths.
>
> I find you confusing. We were discussing a meaning for the term truth.

Among other things...

> Truth is just a word.

"Just a word"???

> Each of us attaches a meaning to that word. In the
> effort to understand what you mean when you use this word, you now have
> changed the discussion.

That last sentence has a broken structure, I find it difficult to believe
you solve problems for a living.

You referred to vegans believing in "their truth", I responded.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> I wasn't referring to passion, "from his heart" was a misleading term to
>> use, I should have removed it. Truth doesn't have to be emotional or
>> passionate, it might be very matter-of-fact and dispassionate.
>
> Truth is just a word.

I told you what I meant by it when I first used it. I am referring to the
sound of a person's authentic self.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> I wasn't referring to passion, "from his heart" was a misleading term to
>> use, I should have removed it. Truth doesn't have to be emotional or
>> passionate, it might be very matter-of-fact and dispassionate.
>
> Truth is just a word.

I told you what I meant by it when I first used it. I am referring to the
sound of a person's authentic self.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> I don't claim to understand "truth", I know a little about it, I know
>> that
>> it exists, that men have been searching for it forever, that I have
>> glimpsed
>> it, that it is conspicuous when absent, and that I want to know more.
>
> From my perspective, "truth" is a vague and meaningless concept.

In it's simplest form truth is not vague, it simply means that which is
honest, genuine, not a lie, not deception, reflecting reality. When a person
speaks honestly without guile or agendas they tend to produce truth not only
of that description but on another level, insightful, helpful, interesting
or humourous.

> I find
> it the approach very disappointing. it is similar to when people say
> that they want to be happy but can't or won't describe what makes them
> happy. One can't find what they can't describe.

I don't find it like that, but I can see how you might.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> I don't claim to understand "truth", I know a little about it, I know
>> that
>> it exists, that men have been searching for it forever, that I have
>> glimpsed
>> it, that it is conspicuous when absent, and that I want to know more.
>
> From my perspective, "truth" is a vague and meaningless concept.

In it's simplest form truth is not vague, it simply means that which is
honest, genuine, not a lie, not deception, reflecting reality. When a person
speaks honestly without guile or agendas they tend to produce truth not only
of that description but on another level, insightful, helpful, interesting
or humourous.

> I find
> it the approach very disappointing. it is similar to when people say
> that they want to be happy but can't or won't describe what makes them
> happy. One can't find what they can't describe.

I don't find it like that, but I can see how you might.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "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.
>> >
>> > Yes, the fundamental concept is that this reasoning "works" for this
>> > (veganism) example but cannot be applied consistently to other
>> > situations. And when faced with that inconsistency, you are unable to
>> > state that you are incorrect.
>> >
>> > The ethic that you want me to accept is inconsistent. To support what
>> > are commonly held beliefs, we have the discussion as it is.
>>
>> No, you don't get it, and I am not going to attempt to explain it because
>> you haven't demonstrated that you can listen.
>
> So, let's move on.

Where to?

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>> Ron wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> No. We can see, from their actions, that it is not
>> what they believe; it is merely what they say. They
>> are hypocrites.
>
> Despite your desire, I just don't find it reasonable to hold one person
> accountable (morally or otherwise) for the outcomes of the actions of
> another person. I think it is time to challenge the laws.

I don't. If their actions are also contributory to the outcomes then they
should be held accountable.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>> Ron wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> No. We can see, from their actions, that it is not
>> what they believe; it is merely what they say. They
>> are hypocrites.
>
> Despite your desire, I just don't find it reasonable to hold one person
> accountable (morally or otherwise) for the outcomes of the actions of
> another person. I think it is time to challenge the laws.

I don't. If their actions are also contributory to the outcomes then they
should be held accountable.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> I wasn't referring to passion, "from his heart" was a misleading term to
> >> use, I should have removed it. Truth doesn't have to be emotional or
> >> passionate, it might be very matter-of-fact and dispassionate.
> >
> > Truth is just a word.
>
> I told you what I meant by it when I first used it. I am referring to the
> sound of a person's authentic self.

I'm not familiar with your meaning of "truth". We could redefine the
word to suit you and this discussion but then that doesn't seem very
reasonable to me at this juncture.

What sound does "truth" make? Or, what is the "sound" when you
perceive/imagine/think I am being authentic versus inauthentic? I think
we will find that what you are describing is an emotional response that
"fits" with your conceptualizations of the world. I think we will also
find that will be specific to each individual.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> I wasn't referring to passion, "from his heart" was a misleading term to
> >> use, I should have removed it. Truth doesn't have to be emotional or
> >> passionate, it might be very matter-of-fact and dispassionate.
> >
> > Truth is just a word.
>
> I told you what I meant by it when I first used it. I am referring to the
> sound of a person's authentic self.

I'm not familiar with your meaning of "truth". We could redefine the
word to suit you and this discussion but then that doesn't seem very
reasonable to me at this juncture.

What sound does "truth" make? Or, what is the "sound" when you
perceive/imagine/think I am being authentic versus inauthentic? I think
we will find that what you are describing is an emotional response that
"fits" with your conceptualizations of the world. I think we will also
find that will be specific to each individual.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> I don't claim to understand "truth", I know a little about it, I know
> >> that
> >> it exists, that men have been searching for it forever, that I have
> >> glimpsed
> >> it, that it is conspicuous when absent, and that I want to know more.
> >
> > From my perspective, "truth" is a vague and meaningless concept.
>
> In it's simplest form truth is not vague, it simply means that which is
> honest, genuine, not a lie, not deception, reflecting reality. When a person
> speaks honestly without guile or agendas they tend to produce truth not only
> of that description but on another level, insightful, helpful, interesting
> or humourous.

Forgive me for testing your assumptions. You tend to react less than
favourably when I do so.

I am sitting and I am typing. This is a fact. This a truth demonstrated
at least superficially by the fact that you will read these words as at
least piece of empirical evidence to to support this claim.

Any expectation that the truth of 'I am sitting and I am typing' is
insightful, helpful, interesting or humourous is an expectation that you
have associated with this term.

I find that the truth 'I am sitting and I am typing' to be lacking any
of those four traits. Therefore to claim any association between this
truth and my authentic self is a connection that you have made.

> > I find
> > it the approach very disappointing. it is similar to when people say
> > that they want to be happy but can't or won't describe what makes them
> > happy. One can't find what they can't describe.
>
> I don't find it like that, but I can see how you might.

Again, I apologize for challenging your assumptions.

However, the very statement that you used is contradictory although it
is a fairly commonly used in some circles. I don't claim to understand
truth can be reworded to I don't understand truth. Truth is that which
is factual. Truth can be understood. I am sitting and typing is truth. I
think you do understand the truth.

To support my position above, what specific truth is that an individual
doesn't know, wishes to know, or lacks understanding of (the truth they
seek which, also suggests that the truth is lost) is similar to the
person who seeks happiness but cannot define the happiness that they
seek.

These are peculiarities of language that many adopt. When I seek
something (truth or happiness) it suggests that something is lost, it
also suggests that it is something can be seen. When people phrase
things in this way, I usually ask what does happiness look like, or what
does truth look like?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> I don't claim to understand "truth", I know a little about it, I know
> >> that
> >> it exists, that men have been searching for it forever, that I have
> >> glimpsed
> >> it, that it is conspicuous when absent, and that I want to know more.
> >
> > From my perspective, "truth" is a vague and meaningless concept.
>
> In it's simplest form truth is not vague, it simply means that which is
> honest, genuine, not a lie, not deception, reflecting reality. When a person
> speaks honestly without guile or agendas they tend to produce truth not only
> of that description but on another level, insightful, helpful, interesting
> or humourous.

Forgive me for testing your assumptions. You tend to react less than
favourably when I do so.

I am sitting and I am typing. This is a fact. This a truth demonstrated
at least superficially by the fact that you will read these words as at
least piece of empirical evidence to to support this claim.

Any expectation that the truth of 'I am sitting and I am typing' is
insightful, helpful, interesting or humourous is an expectation that you
have associated with this term.

I find that the truth 'I am sitting and I am typing' to be lacking any
of those four traits. Therefore to claim any association between this
truth and my authentic self is a connection that you have made.

> > I find
> > it the approach very disappointing. it is similar to when people say
> > that they want to be happy but can't or won't describe what makes them
> > happy. One can't find what they can't describe.
>
> I don't find it like that, but I can see how you might.

Again, I apologize for challenging your assumptions.

However, the very statement that you used is contradictory although it
is a fairly commonly used in some circles. I don't claim to understand
truth can be reworded to I don't understand truth. Truth is that which
is factual. Truth can be understood. I am sitting and typing is truth. I
think you do understand the truth.

To support my position above, what specific truth is that an individual
doesn't know, wishes to know, or lacks understanding of (the truth they
seek which, also suggests that the truth is lost) is similar to the
person who seeks happiness but cannot define the happiness that they
seek.

These are peculiarities of language that many adopt. When I seek
something (truth or happiness) it suggests that something is lost, it
also suggests that it is something can be seen. When people phrase
things in this way, I usually ask what does happiness look like, or what
does truth look like?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> You don't get it, they do NOT believe it, they say it because it makes
> >> them
> >> feel good to think that they do. This is proven beyond a doubt by their
> >> completely inadequate response to the reality of collateral deaths.
> >
> > I find you confusing. We were discussing a meaning for the term truth.
>
> Among other things...
>
> > Truth is just a word.
>
> "Just a word"???

Yes. That you use the word to represent anything more than what the
actual definition provides for is a choice that you make. Words, like
mathematical systems are systems of representation.

Your explanation of the meaning you associate with truth encompasses far
more than something that is factual and verifiable as factual. Truth is
what we perceive.

As an example. A person in their 30s or 40s learn today that they are
adopted. For decades they believed that they are the child of X and Y.
Today, they must face new knowledge or information that A and B are
their biological parents. The "truth" was always there that they were
adopted -- they just didn't have that information or knowledge. To them
what is believable or authentic was never to be believed or authentic.

The truth in the example is that they are and _were_ an adoptee, despite
what sounded right, felt right, or what they believed to be true. Their
truth was specific to them.

> > Each of us attaches a meaning to that word. In the
> > effort to understand what you mean when you use this word, you now have
> > changed the discussion.
>
> That last sentence has a broken structure, I find it difficult to believe
> you solve problems for a living.

I notice that you take issue when I don't conform to your expectations.
I consider that your issue.

> You referred to vegans believing in "their truth", I responded.

Ron wrote:

> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>anal leakage wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>anal leakage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Then I ask again, what is the moral principle that the vegan is
>>>>>>>violating by purchasing tomatoes or rice?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Killing animals to obtain food.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The vegan doesn't kill animals to obtain food.
>>>>
>>>>The "vegan" pays people to farm, knowing that they kill
>>>>animals in the course of their farming. The "vegan"
>>>>thereby shares responsibility for the deaths.
>>>
>>>
>>>I've never paid anyone to farm. I've exchanged money for product.
>>
>>Identical.
>
>
> It's time to

It's time to accept the logic you couldn't even begin
to refute.