 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 03:45:52 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"Ray" > wrote in message ... >> "Dutch" > wrote in message ... >>> "Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> >>>> According to 'usual suspect', animals killed intentionally >>>> during the course of crop production cannot be said to >>>> be collateral deaths. (below) >>>> >>>> [Start - Derek to usual suspect] >>>> > I don't believe that accidents exist where human activity >>>> > is concerned. Farmers cause collateral deaths intentionally >>>> > when using cides and heavy machinery in populated areas. >>>> >>>> If such deaths are intentional, they aren't also collateral. >>>> [end] >>>> usual suspect 21 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/55nv5 >>>> >>>> The implication of that statement means he cannot continue >>>> to insist that the vegan intentionally causes collateral deaths, >>>> because according to his view intentional deaths aren't >>>> collateral deaths in the first place if they're intentional. I did >>>> warn him that making such a statement discounts every >>>> death caused by the use of pesticides and other direct pest >>>> control measures from his tally of collateral deaths, but he >>>> didn't listen. 'usual suspect' is now left without any argument >>>> when insisting vegans intentionally cause collateral deaths, >>>> because as soon as he claims them to be intentional they are >>>> discounted. >>> >>> It makes no sense to get into quibbling about *how* animals are killed in >>> the production of human food. >> >> This is not a subject for debate, it is FACT. >===================== >No, what's not up for debate is the death and suffering If those deaths are caused intentionally, then according to you and 'useless object, they cannot be deemed as collateral deaths. "And for the record, they are *not* all collateral deaths, many are deliberate" Rick Etter 19 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4secb "Deliberate deaths are not the same as the collateral deaths in any part of the production cycle." Rick Etter 21 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6q8m7 In response to that, diderot, the most notorious liar on the issue of collateral deaths tried to correct you by writing; "of course they are. deliberate, purposeful deaths occur at every stage of production, and are a subset of collateral deaths. did you not read my carefully, slowly typed outline? you responded. then why are you continuing this line of nonsense? are you incapable of learning? cordially, diderot diderot 22 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6fddm As we can see, despite diderot's comment, both you and 'useless object' agree that the intentional deaths accrued during crop production cannot be deemed as collateral deaths. You're both hosed and have no argument while insisting vegans are to blame for things which, according to you both, don't even exist. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 03:45:52 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>"Ray" > wrote in message ... >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> "Derek" > wrote in message >>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> According to 'usual suspect', animals killed intentionally >>>>> during the course of crop production cannot be said to >>>>> be collateral deaths. (below) >>>>> >>>>> [Start - Derek to usual suspect] >>>>> > I don't believe that accidents exist where human activity >>>>> > is concerned. Farmers cause collateral deaths intentionally >>>>> > when using cides and heavy machinery in populated areas. >>>>> >>>>> If such deaths are intentional, they aren't also collateral. >>>>> [end] >>>>> usual suspect 21 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/55nv5 >>>>> >>>>> The implication of that statement means he cannot continue >>>>> to insist that the vegan intentionally causes collateral deaths, >>>>> because according to his view intentional deaths aren't >>>>> collateral deaths in the first place if they're intentional. I did >>>>> warn him that making such a statement discounts every >>>>> death caused by the use of pesticides and other direct pest >>>>> control measures from his tally of collateral deaths, but he >>>>> didn't listen. 'usual suspect' is now left without any argument >>>>> when insisting vegans intentionally cause collateral deaths, >>>>> because as soon as he claims them to be intentional they are >>>>> discounted. >>>> >>>> It makes no sense to get into quibbling about *how* animals are killed >>>> in >>>> the production of human food. >>> >>> This is not a subject for debate, it is FACT. >>===================== >>No, what's not up for debate is the death and suffering > > If those deaths are caused intentionally, then according > to you and 'useless object, they cannot be deemed as > collateral deaths. ================= Funny that, that is what Ray just said.... As I stated fool, you can continue to quibble about the definitions all you want, it doesn't make the animals any less dead, or you any less culpable. It's just another strawman built to try and divert attention away from your bloody hands, killer. > > "And for the record, they are *not* all collateral deaths, > many are deliberate" > Rick Etter 19 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4secb > > "Deliberate deaths are not the same as the collateral > deaths in any part of the production cycle." > Rick Etter 21 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6q8m7 > > In response to that, diderot, the most notorious liar on > the issue of collateral deaths tried to correct you by > writing; > > "of course they are. deliberate, purposeful deaths occur > at every stage of production, and are a subset of collateral > deaths. > > did you not read my carefully, slowly typed outline? you > responded. then why are you continuing this line of > nonsense? ================= Because it matters not to the animals you kill and *your* responsibility in those deaths, hypocrite. > > are you incapable of learning? =============== No, but you obviously are, killer. > > cordially, > diderot > diderot 22 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6fddm > > As we can see, despite diderot's comment, both you and > 'useless object' agree that the intentional deaths accrued > during crop production cannot be deemed as collateral > deaths. You're both hosed and have no argument while > insisting vegans are to blame for things which, according > to you both, don't even exist. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2005 18:09:31 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>On 26 Jan 2005 15:32:22 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >wrote: >>>[..] >>>There's no pulling him out of this one >> >>He doesn't require pulling out of anything > > > He's kicking your fat pimply crippled ass. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2005 17:12:10 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>On 26 Jan 2005 15:35:03 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >wrote: >>> >>>>Derek wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:09:13 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>>>>>If they're truly accidental, >>>> >>>>They are accidental to the farmer. >>> >>>Then they carry no moral importance >> >>To the farmer, no. > > > And nor to me, either, That isn't even English. The deaths are intentional to you: you know about them, you claim to decry them, you aren't obliged to buy the food. All the elements of intentionality are there. It's settled, then: collateral all the way around; accidental to the farmer; intentional to you. Time to move on to a new waste of time, Dreck. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:32:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 26 Jan 2005 17:12:10 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On 26 Jan 2005 15:35:03 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:09:13 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>If they're truly accidental, >>>>> >>>>>They are accidental to the farmer. >>>> >>>>Then they carry no moral importance >>> >>>To the farmer, no. >> >> And nor to me, either, > >That isn't even English. > >The deaths are intentional to you Yet according to 'usual suspect' and Rick tetter, they do not qualify as collaterals deaths. "And for the record, they are *not* all collateral deaths, many are deliberate" Rick Etter 19 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4secb "Deliberate deaths are not the same as the collateral deaths in any part of the production cycle." Rick Etter 21 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6q8m7 "If such deaths are intentional, they aren't also collateral." usual suspect 21 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/55nv5 That being so, whenever they accuse vegans of being responsible for the collateral deaths in crop production, they accuse vegans of being responsible for things that don't even exist. Priceless! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:30:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 26 Jan 2005 18:09:31 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On 26 Jan 2005 15:32:22 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >wrote: >>>>[..] >>>>There's no pulling him out of this one >>> >>>He doesn't require pulling out of anything >> >> >> He's > >kicking your fat pimply crippled ass. Rather, he's taken a back seat while you attempt to pull him free from the hole he's dug himself into. His conspicuous absence isn't just an accident, you know; he's waiting for your lead on this. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:32:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote: >> >>>On 26 Jan 2005 17:12:10 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>> >>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote: >>>> >>>>>On 26 Jan 2005 15:35:03 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If they're truly accidental, >>>>>> >>>>>>They are accidental to the farmer. >>>>> >>>>>Then they carry no moral importance >>>> >>>>To the farmer, no. >>> >>>And nor to me, either, >> >>That isn't even English. >> >>The deaths are intentional to you > > > Yet according to 'usual suspect' and Rick tetter According to those two scholars, the deaths are intentional to you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:30:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote: >> >>>On 26 Jan 2005 18:09:31 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>> >>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote: >>>> >>>>>There's no pulling him out of this one >>>> >>>>He doesn't require pulling out of anything >>> >>> >>>He's >> >>kicking your fat pimply crippled ass. > > > Rather, Yes, RATHER. Hurts, doesn't it? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:01:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:30:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On 26 Jan 2005 18:09:31 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>There's no pulling him out of this one >>>>> >>>>>He doesn't require pulling out of anything >>>> >>>>He's >>> >>>kicking your fat pimply crippled ass. >> >> Rather, <unsnip> Rather, he's taken a back seat while you attempt to pull him free from the hole he's dug himself into. His conspicuous absence isn't just an accident, you know; he's waiting for your lead on this. >Yes, RATHER. Hurts, doesn't it? If anything, I find it quite amusing to see him take a back seat while hoping you'll be able to save his embarrassment for him. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:00:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:32:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On 26 Jan 2005 17:12:10 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>On 26 Jan 2005 15:35:03 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >wrote: >>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>If they're truly accidental, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>They are accidental to the farmer. >>>>>> >>>>>>Then they carry no moral importance >>>>> >>>>>To the farmer, no. >>>> >>>>And nor to me, either, >>> >>>That isn't even English. >>> >>>The deaths are intentional to you >> >> Yet according to 'usual suspect' and Rick tetter <unsnip> Yet according to 'usual suspect' and Rick tetter, they do not qualify as collaterals deaths. "And for the record, they are *not* all collateral deaths, many are deliberate" Rick Etter 19 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4secb "Deliberate deaths are not the same as the collateral deaths in any part of the production cycle." Rick Etter 21 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6q8m7 "If such deaths are intentional, they aren't also collateral." usual suspect 21 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/55nv5 That being so, whenever they accuse vegans of being responsible for the collateral deaths in crop production, they accuse vegans of being responsible for things that don't even exist. Priceless! >According to those two scholars, the deaths are >intentional to you. And to them, so whenever they accuse vegans of being responsible for the collateral deaths in crop production, they accuse vegans of being responsible for things that don't even exist. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:01:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:30:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote: >>>> >>>>>On 26 Jan 2005 18:09:31 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>There's no pulling him out of this one >>>>>> >>>>>>He doesn't require pulling out of anything >>>>> >>>>>He's >>>> >>>>kicking your fat pimply crippled ass. >>> >>>Rather, > > <unsnip> > Rather, Yes, RATHER. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:00:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:32:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote: >>>> >>>>>On 26 Jan 2005 17:12:10 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On 26 Jan 2005 15:35:03 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>If they're truly accidental, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>They are accidental to the farmer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Then they carry no moral importance >>>>>> >>>>>>To the farmer, no. >>>>> >>>>>And nor to me, either, >>>> >>>>That isn't even English. >>>> >>>>The deaths are intentional to you >>> >>>Yet according to 'usual suspect' and Rick tetter > >>According to those two scholars, the deaths are >>intentional to you. > > > And to them Nope. Fully collateral and accidental to them, because they don't see any moral dimension to it. You do. Once again, you lose. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:19:15 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 03:45:52 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>>"Ray" > wrote in message ... >>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message ... >>>>> "Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> >>>>>> According to 'usual suspect', animals killed intentionally >>>>>> during the course of crop production cannot be said to >>>>>> be collateral deaths. (below) >>>>>> >>>>>> [Start - Derek to usual suspect] >>>>>> > I don't believe that accidents exist where human activity >>>>>> > is concerned. Farmers cause collateral deaths intentionally >>>>>> > when using cides and heavy machinery in populated areas. >>>>>> >>>>>> If such deaths are intentional, they aren't also collateral. >>>>>> [end] >>>>>> usual suspect 21 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/55nv5 >>>>>> >>>>>> The implication of that statement means he cannot continue >>>>>> to insist that the vegan intentionally causes collateral deaths, >>>>>> because according to his view intentional deaths aren't >>>>>> collateral deaths in the first place if they're intentional. I did >>>>>> warn him that making such a statement discounts every >>>>>> death caused by the use of pesticides and other direct pest >>>>>> control measures from his tally of collateral deaths, but he >>>>>> didn't listen. 'usual suspect' is now left without any argument >>>>>> when insisting vegans intentionally cause collateral deaths, >>>>>> because as soon as he claims them to be intentional they are >>>>>> discounted. >>>>> >>>>> It makes no sense to get into quibbling about *how* animals are killed >>>>> in >>>>> the production of human food. >>>> >>>> This is not a subject for debate, it is FACT. >>>===================== >>>No, what's not up for debate is the death and suffering >> >> If those deaths are caused intentionally, then according >> to you and 'useless object, they cannot be deemed as >> collateral deaths. >================= >Funny that, that is what Ray just said.... That's right. He sees as well as I do that "If those deaths are caused intentionally, *then according to you and 'useless object,* they cannot be deemed as collateral deaths. >> "And for the record, they are *not* all collateral deaths, >> many are deliberate" >> Rick Etter 19 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4secb >> >> "Deliberate deaths are not the same as the collateral >> deaths in any part of the production cycle." >> Rick Etter 21 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6q8m7 >> >> In response to that, diderot, the most notorious liar on >> the issue of collateral deaths tried to correct you by >> writing; >> >> "of course they are. deliberate, purposeful deaths occur >> at every stage of production, and are a subset of collateral >> deaths. >> >> did you not read my carefully, slowly typed outline? you >> responded. then why are you continuing this line of >> nonsense? >================= > >Because it matters not to the animals you kill and *your* responsibility in >those deaths, hypocrite. You're responding to something diderot wrote, stupid. >> are you incapable of learning? >=============== >No, but you obviously are, killer. Again, you've responded to something diderot wrote. >> cordially, >> diderot >> diderot 22 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6fddm >> >> As we can see, despite diderot's comment, both you and >> 'useless object' agree that the intentional deaths accrued >> during crop production cannot be deemed as collateral >> deaths. You're both hosed and have no argument while >> insisting vegans are to blame for things which, according >> to you both, don't even exist. Well, dummy? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> The deaths are intentional to you: you know about
> them, you claim to decry them, you aren't obliged to > buy the food. All the elements of intentionality are > there. > > It's settled, then: collateral all the way around; > accidental to the farmer; intentional to you. Time to > move on to a new waste of time, Dreck. Cds and/or ids are not controllable by the consumer of food. You say 'you aren't obliged to buy the food'. There is no other choices available so yes indeed, one IS obliged to buy the food. A variety of foods are a need for a healthy life. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:18:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>There's no pulling him out of this one >>>>>>> >>>>>>>He doesn't require pulling out of anything >>>>>> >>>>>>He's >>>>> >>>>>kicking your fat pimply crippled ass. <unsnip> Rather, he's taken a back seat while you attempt to pull him free from the hole he's dug himself into. His conspicuous absence isn't just an accident, you know; he's waiting for your lead on this. >Yes, RATHER. Hurts, doesn't it? If anything, I find it quite amusing to see him take a back seat while hoping you'll be able to save his embarrassment for him. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>The deaths are intentional to you: you know about >>them, you claim to decry them, you aren't obliged to >>buy the food. All the elements of intentionality are >>there. >> >>It's settled, then: collateral all the way around; >>accidental to the farmer; intentional to you. Time to >>move on to a new waste of time, Dreck. > > > Cds and/or ids are not controllable by > the consumer of food. Your choice to buy commercially produced food IS fully under your control. Guilty. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:19:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>If they're truly accidental, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>They are accidental to the farmer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Then they carry no moral importance >>>>>>> >>>>>>>To the farmer, no. >>>>>> >>>>>>And nor to me, either, >>>>> >>>>>That isn't even English. >>>>> >>>>>The deaths are intentional to you >>>> >>>>Yet according to 'usual suspect' and Rick tetter >>> >>>According to those two scholars, the deaths are >>>intentional to you. >> >> And to them > >Nope. Their quotes prove it, liar Jon, and your repeated snipping of their quotes proves that you know it. <unsnip> Yet according to 'usual suspect' and Rick tetter, they do not qualify as collaterals deaths. "And for the record, they are *not* all collateral deaths, many are deliberate" Rick Etter 19 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4secb "Deliberate deaths are not the same as the collateral deaths in any part of the production cycle." Rick Etter 21 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6q8m7 "If such deaths are intentional, they aren't also collateral." usual suspect 21 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/55nv5 That being so, whenever they accuse vegans of being responsible for the collateral deaths in crop production, they accuse vegans of being responsible for things that don't even exist. Priceless! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:18:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > Why did you snip out the posting history, Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater? >>>>>>>>>There's no pulling him out of this one >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>He doesn't require pulling out of anything >>>>>>> >>>>>>>He's >>>>>> >>>>>>kicking your fat pimply crippled ass. > > > <unsnip> > Rather, Yes, RATHER. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > Cds and/or ids are not controllable by
> > the consumer of food. > > Your choice to buy commercially produced food IS fully > under your control. > > Guilty. Only according to an idiot who claims that food is not a need, and that dying is a good option. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:28:43 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:18:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >Why did you snip out the posting history I'll do what I wish without your leave to do so. >>>>>>>>>>There's no pulling him out of this one >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>He doesn't require pulling out of anything >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>He's >>>>>>> >>>>>>>kicking your fat pimply crippled ass. <unsnip> Rather, he's taken a back seat while you attempt to pull him free from the hole he's dug himself into. His conspicuous absence isn't just an accident, you know; he's waiting for your lead on this. >Yes, RATHER. Hurts, doesn't it? If anything, I find it quite amusing to see him take a back seat while hoping you'll be able to save his embarrassment for him. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:16:18 GMT, wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:59:13 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:51:40 GMT, wrote: >>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:00:16 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:52:29 GMT, wrote: >>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:48:38 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:19:55 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> According to 'usual suspect', animals killed intentionally >>>>>>>> during the course of crop production cannot be said to >>>>>>>> be collateral deaths. (below) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [Start - Derek to usual suspect] >>>>>>>> > I don't believe that accidents exist where human activity >>>>>>>> > is concerned. Farmers cause collateral deaths intentionally >>>>>>>> > when using cides and heavy machinery in populated areas. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If such deaths are intentional, they aren't also collateral. >>>>>>>> [end] >>>>>>>> usual suspect 21 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/55nv5 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The implication of that statement means he cannot continue >>>>>>>> to insist that the vegan intentionally causes collateral deaths, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>INTENTIONAL >>>>>>>Definition: >>>>>> >>>>>>We all understand what the term "intentional" means >>>>>>without your efforts to wriggle from what you wrote >>>>>>by bringing in long definitions from an online dictionary >>>>>>to cloud it. >>>>>> >>>>>>According to you, intentional deaths cannot be deemed >>>>>>collateral deaths. That being the case, all those billions >>>>>>off alleged deaths caused by the use of pesticides and >>>>>>general pest control measures cannot be included in >>>>>>your exaggerated numbers of collateral deaths. You >>>>>>now have no argument when insisting vegans take >>>>>>responsibility for the collateral deaths accrued during >>>>>>crop production, >>>>> >>>>> According to him they are still just as responsible >>>>>for cds, >>>> >>>>According to him, no collateral deaths exist if in fact >>>>they are caused intentionally. That being so, he has >>>>no argument when insisting vegans to be responsible >>>>for them. >>> >>> Yes, there are still collateral deaths >> >>Not according to 'usual suspect', they're not, > > The number of deaths and your contribution to them, >does not change simply because you call them one thing >instead of another, or say they don't exist. According to 'usual suspect' "If such deaths are intentional, they aren't also collateral.", and that's what this thread concerns itself with: his view on what constitutes collateral deaths and his wrongful blaming for things that don't exist. >>so he >>has no argument against the vegan for causing that >>which doesn't exist. > > There are deliberate deaths Which aren't collateral deaths, according to Rick tetter and 'usual suspect', so when either accuse the vegan of causing them they in fact contradict themselves and accuse the vegan of causing things that don't even exist. What part in that don't you understand? >and accidental deaths If they are truly accidental, then no one can be blamed for them. >and consumer contribution to the process allows it to >repeat and cause more such deaths Yet only an hour ago in your reply to Scented Nectar you claimed that we are not responsible for them, since they would occur whether we were alive or dead. "To say that you're not really "responsible" for them is true, since they would occur even if you were dead or had never been born" David Harrison 27 Jan 2005 17:09:25 What you've conceded there is something along the lines of what I once wrote to "Rubystars" under the nym "ipse dixit" some time ago after she was accused of being responsible for the collateral death caused in telecommunications. "The most reliable way of ruling out the existence of a causal connection between any two events, namely your posting on Usenet and the alleged collateral deaths it causes is to ask whether the collateral deaths would, in the same circumstances, have occurred in the absence of your posting to Usenet. If the collateral deaths would have occurred in any event, then you cannot be its cause or one of its causes, and therefore not responsible for them. To be causal, your action as a participant here must be necessary to the outcome, and it isn't, because those alleged collateral deaths would still allegedly occur without your participation here. It's a "but for condition." I use it in response to the CD argument generally as the most reliable way of ruling out the existence of a causal connection between the farmer causing harms and his consumers who pay him by asking whether the collateral deaths he causes would, in the circumstances, have occurred in the absence of my purchase of vegetables. If the harms would have occurred in any event, then I cannot be its cause or one of its causes, and therefore not responsible for them. To be causal, my action as a mere consumer must be necessary to the outcome, and it isn't, because he can still cause CDs without my buying from him. I understand it as the "but-for condition." But for the farmer, CD's in crop production wouldn't happen, so he is causal and fully responsible for his autonomous actions. ipse dixit 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5udmv [..] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:28:43 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote: > >> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:18:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > >Why did you snip out the posting history > > I'll do what I wish without your leave to do so. Here it is again: this *bizarre* obsession by "vegans" over others telling them what to do. Dreck, I didn't suggest you needed my permission to snip out the posting history; I merely asked you why you did snip it out. Yes, of course you can do it without my permission; but WHY did you do it, Dreck? You don't usually do it, so why did you do it this time? > > >>>>>>>>>>There's no pulling him out of this one > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>He doesn't require pulling out of anything > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>He's > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>kicking your fat pimply crippled ass. > > <unsnip> > Rather, he's kicked your fat crippled pimply ass. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:19:15 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 03:45:52 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote: >>>>"Ray" > wrote in message ... >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message >>>>> ... >>>>>> "Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> According to 'usual suspect', animals killed intentionally >>>>>>> during the course of crop production cannot be said to >>>>>>> be collateral deaths. (below) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Start - Derek to usual suspect] >>>>>>> > I don't believe that accidents exist where human activity >>>>>>> > is concerned. Farmers cause collateral deaths intentionally >>>>>>> > when using cides and heavy machinery in populated areas. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If such deaths are intentional, they aren't also collateral. >>>>>>> [end] >>>>>>> usual suspect 21 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/55nv5 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The implication of that statement means he cannot continue >>>>>>> to insist that the vegan intentionally causes collateral deaths, >>>>>>> because according to his view intentional deaths aren't >>>>>>> collateral deaths in the first place if they're intentional. I did >>>>>>> warn him that making such a statement discounts every >>>>>>> death caused by the use of pesticides and other direct pest >>>>>>> control measures from his tally of collateral deaths, but he >>>>>>> didn't listen. 'usual suspect' is now left without any argument >>>>>>> when insisting vegans intentionally cause collateral deaths, >>>>>>> because as soon as he claims them to be intentional they are >>>>>>> discounted. >>>>>> >>>>>> It makes no sense to get into quibbling about *how* animals are >>>>>> killed >>>>>> in >>>>>> the production of human food. >>>>> >>>>> This is not a subject for debate, it is FACT. >>>>===================== >>>>No, what's not up for debate is the death and suffering >>> >>> If those deaths are caused intentionally, then according >>> to you and 'useless object, they cannot be deemed as >>> collateral deaths. >>================= >>Funny that, that is what Ray just said.... > > That's right. He sees as well as I do that "If those deaths > are caused intentionally, *then according to you and 'useless > object,* they cannot be deemed as collateral deaths. ================= LOL Thanks for the admission that you are responsible for *intentional* death and suffering of animals, hypocrite. How deep a hole you going to dig yourself into, killer? > >>> "And for the record, they are *not* all collateral deaths, >>> many are deliberate" >>> Rick Etter 19 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4secb >>> >>> "Deliberate deaths are not the same as the collateral >>> deaths in any part of the production cycle." >>> Rick Etter 21 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6q8m7 >>> >>> In response to that, diderot, the most notorious liar on >>> the issue of collateral deaths tried to correct you by >>> writing; >>> >>> "of course they are. deliberate, purposeful deaths occur >>> at every stage of production, and are a subset of collateral >>> deaths. >>> >>> did you not read my carefully, slowly typed outline? you >>> responded. then why are you continuing this line of >>> nonsense? >>================= >> >>Because it matters not to the animals you kill and *your* responsibility >>in >>those deaths, hypocrite. > > You're responding to something diderot wrote, stupid. ======================== No, fool, I responded to your inane preoccupation with meanings instead of focusing on the death and suffering of those animals you kill. What a hoot! You tryuly are great fun, hypocrite... > >>> are you incapable of learning? >>=============== >>No, but you obviously are, killer. > > Again, you've responded to something diderot wrote. ==================== No, I'm responding to what you are posting here fool. Your idiocy and ignorance. > >>> cordially, >>> diderot >>> diderot 22 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6fddm >>> >>> As we can see, despite diderot's comment, both you and >>> 'useless object' agree that the intentional deaths accrued >>> during crop production cannot be deemed as collateral >>> deaths. You're both hosed and have no argument while >>> insisting vegans are to blame for things which, according >>> to you both, don't even exist. > > Well, dummy? ================= Well what, killer? When are you going to stop your intentional killing now? What a great laugh you are fool... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:38:35 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:16:18 GMT, wrote: >>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:59:13 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:51:40 GMT, wrote: >>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:00:16 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:52:29 GMT, wrote: >>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:48:38 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:19:55 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> According to 'usual suspect', animals killed intentionally >>>>>>>>> during the course of crop production cannot be said to >>>>>>>>> be collateral deaths. (below) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [Start - Derek to usual suspect] >>>>>>>>> > I don't believe that accidents exist where human activity >>>>>>>>> > is concerned. Farmers cause collateral deaths intentionally >>>>>>>>> > when using cides and heavy machinery in populated areas. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If such deaths are intentional, they aren't also collateral. >>>>>>>>> [end] >>>>>>>>> usual suspect 21 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/55nv5 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The implication of that statement means he cannot continue >>>>>>>>> to insist that the vegan intentionally causes collateral deaths, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>INTENTIONAL >>>>>>>>Definition: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>We all understand what the term "intentional" means >>>>>>>without your efforts to wriggle from what you wrote >>>>>>>by bringing in long definitions from an online dictionary >>>>>>>to cloud it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>According to you, intentional deaths cannot be deemed >>>>>>>collateral deaths. That being the case, all those billions >>>>>>>off alleged deaths caused by the use of pesticides and >>>>>>>general pest control measures cannot be included in >>>>>>>your exaggerated numbers of collateral deaths. You >>>>>>>now have no argument when insisting vegans take >>>>>>>responsibility for the collateral deaths accrued during >>>>>>>crop production, >>>>>> >>>>>> According to him they are still just as responsible >>>>>>for cds, >>>>> >>>>>According to him, no collateral deaths exist if in fact >>>>>they are caused intentionally. That being so, he has >>>>>no argument when insisting vegans to be responsible >>>>>for them. >>>> >>>> Yes, there are still collateral deaths >>> >>>Not according to 'usual suspect', they're not, >> >> The number of deaths and your contribution to them, >>does not change simply because you call them one thing >>instead of another, or say they don't exist. > >According to 'usual suspect' "If such deaths are >intentional, they aren't also collateral.", and that's >what this thread concerns itself with: his view on >what constitutes collateral deaths and his wrongful >blaming for things that don't exist. > >>>so he >>>has no argument against the vegan for causing that >>>which doesn't exist. >> >> There are deliberate deaths > >Which aren't collateral deaths, according to Rick >tetter and 'usual suspect', so when either accuse >the vegan of causing them they in fact contradict >themselves and accuse the vegan of causing things >that don't even exist. What part in that don't you >understand? How accusing veg*ns of the deliberate deaths they contribute to, is accusing them of causing things that don't even exist. >>and accidental deaths > >If they are truly accidental, then no one can be >blamed for them. If someone caused them to happen they can be blamed for them, since they are to blame for them. >>and consumer contribution to the process allows it to >>repeat and cause more such deaths > >Yet only an hour ago in your reply to Scented Nectar >you claimed that we are not responsible for them, >since they would occur whether we were alive or dead. > > "To say that you're not really "responsible" for them > is true, since they would occur even if you were dead > or had never been born" > David Harrison 27 Jan 2005 17:09:25 There's a difference between being responsible and contributing. We personally can contribute to something, without being responsible for whether or not it occurs. >What you've conceded there is something along the lines >of what I once wrote to "Rubystars" under the nym >"ipse dixit" some time ago after she was accused of >being responsible for the collateral death caused in >telecommunications. > > "The most reliable way of ruling out the existence > of a causal connection between any two events, namely > your posting on Usenet and the alleged collateral deaths > it causes is to ask whether the collateral deaths would, in > the same circumstances, have occurred in the absence of > your posting to Usenet. If the collateral deaths would have > occurred in any event, then you cannot be its cause or one > of its causes, and therefore not responsible for them. To > be causal, your action as a participant here must be > necessary to the outcome, and it isn't, because those alleged > collateral deaths would still allegedly occur without your > participation here. It's a "but for condition." > > I use it in response to the CD argument It works fine for meat eaters too. The chickens who die so I can eat them, and the cds involved with getting grain to the chickens--like the ones that you contribute to--would have happened just as well if we had never been born. > generally as the > most reliable way of ruling out the existence of a causal > connection between the farmer causing harms and his > consumers who pay him by asking whether the collateral > deaths he causes would, in the circumstances, have > occurred in the absence of my purchase of vegetables. > If the harms would have occurred in any event, then I > cannot be its cause or one of its causes, and therefore > not responsible for them. To be causal, my action as a > mere consumer must be necessary to the outcome, and > it isn't, because he can still cause CDs without my buying > from him. I understand it as the "but-for condition." But > for the farmer, CD's in crop production wouldn't happen, > so he is causal True. But but for the consumer the same is true. As a group, customers are causal. So when we join a group which causes things to occur, and contribute to such things happening in the future, we take on some degree of responsibility, imo. If not, we wouldn't even be thinking about it much less spending hours discussing it. >and fully responsible for his autonomous > actions. > ipse dixit 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5udmv > >[..] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:00:35 GMT, wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:38:35 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:16:18 GMT, wrote: >>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:59:13 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:51:40 GMT, wrote: >>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:00:16 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:52:29 GMT, wrote: >>>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:48:38 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:19:55 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> According to 'usual suspect', animals killed intentionally >>>>>>>>>> during the course of crop production cannot be said to >>>>>>>>>> be collateral deaths. (below) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [Start - Derek to usual suspect] >>>>>>>>>> > I don't believe that accidents exist where human activity >>>>>>>>>> > is concerned. Farmers cause collateral deaths intentionally >>>>>>>>>> > when using cides and heavy machinery in populated areas. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If such deaths are intentional, they aren't also collateral. >>>>>>>>>> [end] >>>>>>>>>> usual suspect 21 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/55nv5 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The implication of that statement means he cannot continue >>>>>>>>>> to insist that the vegan intentionally causes collateral deaths, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>INTENTIONAL >>>>>>>>>Definition: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>We all understand what the term "intentional" means >>>>>>>>without your efforts to wriggle from what you wrote >>>>>>>>by bringing in long definitions from an online dictionary >>>>>>>>to cloud it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>According to you, intentional deaths cannot be deemed >>>>>>>>collateral deaths. That being the case, all those billions >>>>>>>>off alleged deaths caused by the use of pesticides and >>>>>>>>general pest control measures cannot be included in >>>>>>>>your exaggerated numbers of collateral deaths. You >>>>>>>>now have no argument when insisting vegans take >>>>>>>>responsibility for the collateral deaths accrued during >>>>>>>>crop production, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> According to him they are still just as responsible >>>>>>>for cds, >>>>>> >>>>>>According to him, no collateral deaths exist if in fact >>>>>>they are caused intentionally. That being so, he has >>>>>>no argument when insisting vegans to be responsible >>>>>>for them. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, there are still collateral deaths >>>> >>>>Not according to 'usual suspect', they're not, >>> >>> The number of deaths and your contribution to them, >>>does not change simply because you call them one thing >>>instead of another, or say they don't exist. >> >>According to 'usual suspect' "If such deaths are >>intentional, they aren't also collateral.", and that's >>what this thread concerns itself with: his view on >>what constitutes collateral deaths and his wrongful >>blaming for things that don't exist. I'll take the absence of your response to this as a tacit agreement. >>>>so he >>>>has no argument against the vegan for causing that >>>>which doesn't exist. >>> >>> There are deliberate deaths >> >>Which aren't collateral deaths, according to Rick >>tetter and 'usual suspect', so when either accuse >>the vegan of causing them they in fact contradict >>themselves and accuse the vegan of causing things >>that don't even exist. What part in that don't you >>understand? > > How accusing veg*ns of the deliberate deaths >they contribute to, is accusing them of causing things >that don't even exist. Because, as I've said repeatedly now, according to him intentional deaths aren't collateral deaths, so whenever he accuses the vegan of causing them he accuses them of causing things, which to him don't even exist. >>>and accidental deaths >> >>If they are truly accidental, then no one can be >>blamed for them. > > If someone caused them to happen they can be >blamed for them, since they are to blame for them. That's true and takes nothing from the fact that, if they're truly accidental, then no one can be blamed for them. >>>and consumer contribution to the process allows it to >>>repeat and cause more such deaths >> >>Yet only an hour ago in your reply to Scented Nectar >>you claimed that we are not responsible for them, >>since they would occur whether we were alive or dead. >> >> "To say that you're not really "responsible" for them >> is true, since they would occur even if you were dead >> or had never been born" >> David Harrison 27 Jan 2005 17:09:25 > > There's a difference between being responsible and >contributing. We aren't responsible for them, as you concede. That you believe we contribute to those deaths is irrelevant and cannot be shown anyway. I for one don't contribute anything towards those deaths. >We personally can contribute to something, >without being responsible for whether or not it occurs. No. If I contribute to the meat industry by eating meat, then I am responsible for the deaths of those animals I choose as part of my diet. >>What you've conceded there is something along the lines >>of what I once wrote to "Rubystars" under the nym >>"ipse dixit" some time ago after she was accused of >>being responsible for the collateral death caused in >>telecommunications. >> >> "The most reliable way of ruling out the existence >> of a causal connection between any two events, namely >> your posting on Usenet and the alleged collateral deaths >> it causes is to ask whether the collateral deaths would, in >> the same circumstances, have occurred in the absence of >> your posting to Usenet. If the collateral deaths would have >> occurred in any event, then you cannot be its cause or one >> of its causes, and therefore not responsible for them. To >> be causal, your action as a participant here must be >> necessary to the outcome, and it isn't, because those alleged >> collateral deaths would still allegedly occur without your >> participation here. It's a "but for condition." >> >> I use it in response to the CD argument > > It works fine for meat eaters too. Vegetarians vicariously kill the vegetables they eat. Meatarians vicariously kill the animals they eat. There's no confusion over whether either are to blame for the deaths they cause. When vegetarians are accused of causing the deaths of animals, the link between the two actions isn't apparent, and that's where the "but for" condition comes into play. It doesn't work for meatarians because the link between them and the deaths they cause is already apparent. [..] >> generally as the >> most reliable way of ruling out the existence of a causal >> connection between the farmer causing harms and his >> consumers who pay him by asking whether the collateral >> deaths he causes would, in the circumstances, have >> occurred in the absence of my purchase of vegetables. >> If the harms would have occurred in any event, then I >> cannot be its cause or one of its causes, and therefore >> not responsible for them. To be causal, my action as a >> mere consumer must be necessary to the outcome, and >> it isn't, because he can still cause CDs without my buying >> from him. I understand it as the "but-for condition." But >> for the farmer, CD's in crop production wouldn't happen, >> so he is causal > > True. You have no option but to agree. >But but for the consumer the same is true. As >a group, customers are causal. They are causal to whatever they choose to kill. Vegetarians vicariously kill the vegetables they eat. Meatarians vicariously kill the animals they eat. There's no confusion over whether either are to blame for the deaths they cause. >So when we join a >group which causes things to occur, and contribute >to such things happening in the future, we take on >some degree of responsibility, imo. Yet further up this page you state; "There's a difference between being responsible and contributing. We personally can contribute to something, without being responsible for whether or not it occurs." Make up tour mind. [..] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:32:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > > wrote: >>Derek wrote: >>> On 26 Jan 2005 17:12:10 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > >>> wrote: >>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>On 26 Jan 2005 15:35:03 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >wrote: >>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:09:13 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>If they're truly accidental, >>>>>> >>>>>>They are accidental to the farmer. >>>>> >>>>>Then they carry no moral importance >>>> >>>>To the farmer, no. >>> >>> And nor to me, either, >> >>That isn't even English. >> >>The deaths are intentional to you > > Yet according to 'usual suspect' and Rick tetter, they > do not qualify as collaterals deaths. > > "And for the record, they are *not* all collateral deaths, > many are deliberate" > Rick Etter 19 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4secb > > "Deliberate deaths are not the same as the collateral > deaths in any part of the production cycle." > Rick Etter 21 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6q8m7 > > "If such deaths are intentional, they aren't also collateral." > usual suspect 21 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/55nv5 > > That being so, whenever they accuse vegans of being > responsible for the collateral deaths in crop production, > they accuse vegans of being responsible for things that > don't even exist. Priceless! Where does he say collateral deaths don't exist? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:01:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>Derek wrote: >>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:30:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza >>> > wrote: >>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>On 26 Jan 2005 18:09:31 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > >>>>>wrote: >>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>There's no pulling him out of this one >>>>>> >>>>>>He doesn't require pulling out of anything >>>>> >>>>>He's >>>> >>>>kicking your fat pimply crippled ass. >>> >>> Rather, > <unsnip> > Rather, he's taken a back seat while you attempt to > pull him free from the hole he's dug himself into. His > conspicuous absence isn't just an accident, you know; > he's waiting for your lead on this. > >>Yes, RATHER. Hurts, doesn't it? > > If anything, I find it quite amusing to see him take a > back seat while hoping you'll be able to save his > embarrassment for him. I disagree with his interperation that deliberate deaths in agriculture are not collateral, it's a fine point but also a moot point, because the consumer is complicit in all of them. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote >> The deaths are intentional to you: you know about >> them, you claim to decry them, you aren't obliged to >> buy the food. All the elements of intentionality are >> there. >> >> It's settled, then: collateral all the way around; >> accidental to the farmer; intentional to you. Time to >> move on to a new waste of time, Dreck. > > Cds and/or ids are not controllable by > the consumer of food. You say 'you > aren't obliged to buy the food'. There > is no other choices available so yes > indeed, one IS obliged to buy the food. There are other options available, just not ones that require no effort on your part. Your choices are predicated on ease, not a moral motivation. > A variety of foods are a need for a > healthy life. You make choices based on ease and desire for good health while animals' basic right to life is treated as an incidental factor. Explain how that makes your choices more moral than anyone elses? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>The deaths are intentional to you: you know about >>them, you claim to decry them, you aren't obliged to >>buy the food. All the elements of intentionality are >>there. >> >>It's settled, then: collateral all the way around; >>accidental to the farmer; intentional to you. Time to >>move on to a new waste of time, Dreck. > > > Cds and/or ids are not controllable by > the consumer of food. Your participation in the markets for commercially produced fruits and vegetables is FULLY controllable by you. Stop lying. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:43:04 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:00:35 GMT, wrote: >>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:38:35 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:16:18 GMT, wrote: >>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:59:13 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:51:40 GMT, wrote: >>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:00:16 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:52:29 GMT, wrote: >>>>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:48:38 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>>>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:19:55 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> According to 'usual suspect', animals killed intentionally >>>>>>>>>>> during the course of crop production cannot be said to >>>>>>>>>>> be collateral deaths. (below) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [Start - Derek to usual suspect] >>>>>>>>>>> > I don't believe that accidents exist where human activity >>>>>>>>>>> > is concerned. Farmers cause collateral deaths intentionally >>>>>>>>>>> > when using cides and heavy machinery in populated areas. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If such deaths are intentional, they aren't also collateral. >>>>>>>>>>> [end] >>>>>>>>>>> usual suspect 21 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/55nv5 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The implication of that statement means he cannot continue >>>>>>>>>>> to insist that the vegan intentionally causes collateral deaths, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>INTENTIONAL >>>>>>>>>>Definition: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>We all understand what the term "intentional" means >>>>>>>>>without your efforts to wriggle from what you wrote >>>>>>>>>by bringing in long definitions from an online dictionary >>>>>>>>>to cloud it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>According to you, intentional deaths cannot be deemed >>>>>>>>>collateral deaths. That being the case, all those billions >>>>>>>>>off alleged deaths caused by the use of pesticides and >>>>>>>>>general pest control measures cannot be included in >>>>>>>>>your exaggerated numbers of collateral deaths. You >>>>>>>>>now have no argument when insisting vegans take >>>>>>>>>responsibility for the collateral deaths accrued during >>>>>>>>>crop production, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> According to him they are still just as responsible >>>>>>>>for cds, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>According to him, no collateral deaths exist if in fact >>>>>>>they are caused intentionally. That being so, he has >>>>>>>no argument when insisting vegans to be responsible >>>>>>>for them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, there are still collateral deaths >>>>> >>>>>Not according to 'usual suspect', they're not, >>>> >>>> The number of deaths and your contribution to them, >>>>does not change simply because you call them one thing >>>>instead of another, or say they don't exist. >>> >>>According to 'usual suspect' "If such deaths are >>>intentional, they aren't also collateral.", and that's >>>what this thread concerns itself with: his view on >>>what constitutes collateral deaths and his wrongful >>>blaming for things that don't exist. > >I'll take the absence of your response to this as >a tacit agreement. > >>>>>so he >>>>>has no argument against the vegan for causing that >>>>>which doesn't exist. >>>> >>>> There are deliberate deaths >>> >>>Which aren't collateral deaths, according to Rick >>>tetter and 'usual suspect', so when either accuse >>>the vegan of causing them they in fact contradict >>>themselves and accuse the vegan of causing things >>>that don't even exist. What part in that don't you >>>understand? >> >> How accusing veg*ns of the deliberate deaths >>they contribute to, is accusing them of causing things >>that don't even exist. > >Because, as I've said repeatedly now, according to >him intentional deaths aren't collateral deaths, so >whenever he accuses the vegan of causing them he >accuses them of causing things, which to him don't >even exist. No Derek, and you're aware of it. What does he call them? Deliberate deaths. The deaths still exist. >>>>and accidental deaths >>> >>>If they are truly accidental, then no one can be >>>blamed for them. >> >> If someone caused them to happen they can be >>blamed for them, since they are to blame for them. > >That's true and takes nothing from the fact that, if >they're truly accidental, then no one can be blamed >for them. When people cause farm machinery to run blades through the surface area of fields, turning the ground upside down and stomping down on it with tons of weight, animals are killed and those responsible for the action are to blame. >>>>and consumer contribution to the process allows it to >>>>repeat and cause more such deaths >>> >>>Yet only an hour ago in your reply to Scented Nectar >>>you claimed that we are not responsible for them, >>>since they would occur whether we were alive or dead. >>> >>> "To say that you're not really "responsible" for them >>> is true, since they would occur even if you were dead >>> or had never been born" >>> David Harrison 27 Jan 2005 17:09:25 >> >> There's a difference between being responsible and >>contributing. > >We aren't responsible for them, as you concede. >That you believe we contribute to those deaths >is irrelevant and cannot be shown anyway. I for >one don't contribute anything towards those deaths. How do you avoid it? What do you eat and where do you get it? That's a change of subject though, and even if you don't contribute to any, those who do, do contribute to them. >>We personally can contribute to something, >>without being responsible for whether or not it occurs. > >No. If I contribute to the meat industry by eating >meat, then I am responsible for the deaths of those >animals I choose as part of my diet. No. You contribute to them, but you're not responsible since they would have happened if you had not. >>>What you've conceded there is something along the lines >>>of what I once wrote to "Rubystars" under the nym >>>"ipse dixit" some time ago after she was accused of >>>being responsible for the collateral death caused in >>>telecommunications. >>> >>> "The most reliable way of ruling out the existence >>> of a causal connection between any two events, namely >>> your posting on Usenet and the alleged collateral deaths >>> it causes is to ask whether the collateral deaths would, in >>> the same circumstances, have occurred in the absence of >>> your posting to Usenet. If the collateral deaths would have >>> occurred in any event, then you cannot be its cause or one >>> of its causes, and therefore not responsible for them. To >>> be causal, your action as a participant here must be >>> necessary to the outcome, and it isn't, because those alleged >>> collateral deaths would still allegedly occur without your >>> participation here. It's a "but for condition." >>> >>> I use it in response to the CD argument >> >> It works fine for meat eaters too. > >Vegetarians vicariously kill the vegetables they eat. >Meatarians vicariously kill the animals they eat. I rarely have in the past. Most never do. >There's no confusion over whether either are to >blame for the deaths they cause. When vegetarians >are accused of causing the deaths of animals, the >link between the two actions isn't apparent, and >that's where the "but for" condition comes into play. >It doesn't work for meatarians because the link >between them and the deaths they cause is already >apparent. Whatever works for veg*ns in that respect, works equally well for meat consumers. >[..] >>> generally as the >>> most reliable way of ruling out the existence of a causal >>> connection between the farmer causing harms and his >>> consumers who pay him by asking whether the collateral >>> deaths he causes would, in the circumstances, have >>> occurred in the absence of my purchase of vegetables. >>> If the harms would have occurred in any event, then I >>> cannot be its cause or one of its causes, and therefore >>> not responsible for them. To be causal, my action as a >>> mere consumer must be necessary to the outcome, and >>> it isn't, because he can still cause CDs without my buying >>> from him. I understand it as the "but-for condition." But >>> for the farmer, CD's in crop production wouldn't happen, >>> so he is causal >> >> True. > >You have no option but to agree. > >>But but for the consumer the same is true. As >>a group, customers are causal. > >They are causal to whatever they choose to kill. >Vegetarians vicariously kill the vegetables they eat. >Meatarians vicariously kill the animals they eat. >There's no confusion over whether either are to >blame for the deaths they cause. Including deaths associated with crop production. >>So when we join a >>group which causes things to occur, and contribute >>to such things happening in the future, we take on >>some degree of responsibility, imo. > >Yet further up this page you state; > "There's a difference between being responsible > and contributing. We personally can contribute to > something, without being responsible for whether > or not it occurs." > >Make up tour mind. >[..] The degree of responsibility would only be in regards to how our contribution influenced future such products, so it's usually not worth considering. We are still contributing to it none the less. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> There are other options available, just not ones that require no
effort on > your part. Your choices are predicated on ease, not a moral motivation. No, they are based on real life likelihood and possibility. > > A variety of foods are a need for a > > healthy life. > > You make choices based on ease and desire for good health while animals' > basic right to life is treated as an incidental factor. Explain how that > makes your choices more moral than anyone elses? Why would I compare my choices with other people's morality? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > Cds and/or ids are not controllable by
> > the consumer of food. > > Your participation in the markets for commercially > produced fruits and vegetables is FULLY controllable by > you. Stop lying. You're lying. Produce is a need. So are nuts, seeds, beans and grains which you left out. A need which causes a forced complicity with the only available suppliers. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... >> > Cds and/or ids are not controllable by >> > the consumer of food. >> >> Your participation in the markets for commercially >> produced fruits and vegetables is FULLY controllable by >> you. Stop lying. > > You're lying. Produce is a need. So are nuts, > seeds, beans and grains which you left out. > A need which causes a forced complicity > with the only available suppliers. ================ More delusions, killer. You have more than one available source for all these. *YOU* choose to take only those that fit your selfish wants, not needs, hypocrite. > > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > Irony, hypocrisy, stupidity and ignorance run amok.... > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > You're lying. Produce is a need. So are nuts,
> > seeds, beans and grains which you left out. > > A need which causes a forced complicity > > with the only available suppliers. > ================ > More delusions, killer. You have more than one available source for all > these. *YOU* choose to take only those that fit your selfish wants, not > needs, hypocrite. Tell me these magical other sources. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:12:07 GMT, wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:43:04 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:00:35 GMT, wrote: >>>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:38:35 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:16:18 GMT, wrote: >>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:59:13 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:51:40 GMT, wrote: >>>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:00:16 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:52:29 GMT, wrote: >>>>>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:48:38 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:19:55 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> According to 'usual suspect', animals killed intentionally >>>>>>>>>>>> during the course of crop production cannot be said to >>>>>>>>>>>> be collateral deaths. (below) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [Start - Derek to usual suspect] >>>>>>>>>>>> > I don't believe that accidents exist where human activity >>>>>>>>>>>> > is concerned. Farmers cause collateral deaths intentionally >>>>>>>>>>>> > when using cides and heavy machinery in populated areas. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If such deaths are intentional, they aren't also collateral. >>>>>>>>>>>> [end] >>>>>>>>>>>> usual suspect 21 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/55nv5 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The implication of that statement means he cannot continue >>>>>>>>>>>> to insist that the vegan intentionally causes collateral deaths, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>INTENTIONAL >>>>>>>>>>>Definition: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>We all understand what the term "intentional" means >>>>>>>>>>without your efforts to wriggle from what you wrote >>>>>>>>>>by bringing in long definitions from an online dictionary >>>>>>>>>>to cloud it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>According to you, intentional deaths cannot be deemed >>>>>>>>>>collateral deaths. That being the case, all those billions >>>>>>>>>>off alleged deaths caused by the use of pesticides and >>>>>>>>>>general pest control measures cannot be included in >>>>>>>>>>your exaggerated numbers of collateral deaths. You >>>>>>>>>>now have no argument when insisting vegans take >>>>>>>>>>responsibility for the collateral deaths accrued during >>>>>>>>>>crop production, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> According to him they are still just as responsible >>>>>>>>>for cds, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>According to him, no collateral deaths exist if in fact >>>>>>>>they are caused intentionally. That being so, he has >>>>>>>>no argument when insisting vegans to be responsible >>>>>>>>for them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, there are still collateral deaths >>>>>> >>>>>>Not according to 'usual suspect', they're not, >>>>> >>>>> The number of deaths and your contribution to them, >>>>>does not change simply because you call them one thing >>>>>instead of another, or say they don't exist. >>>> >>>>According to 'usual suspect' "If such deaths are >>>>intentional, they aren't also collateral.", and that's >>>>what this thread concerns itself with: his view on >>>>what constitutes collateral deaths and his wrongful >>>>blaming for things that don't exist. >> >>I'll take the absence of your response to this as >>a tacit agreement. Read below *. >>>>>>so he >>>>>>has no argument against the vegan for causing that >>>>>>which doesn't exist. >>>>> >>>>> There are deliberate deaths >>>> >>>>Which aren't collateral deaths, according to Rick >>>>tetter and 'usual suspect', so when either accuse >>>>the vegan of causing them they in fact contradict >>>>themselves and accuse the vegan of causing things >>>>that don't even exist. What part in that don't you >>>>understand? >>> >>> How accusing veg*ns of the deliberate deaths >>>they contribute to, is accusing them of causing things >>>that don't even exist. >> >>Because, as I've said repeatedly now, according to >>him intentional deaths aren't collateral deaths, so >>whenever he accuses the vegan of causing them he >>accuses them of causing things, which to him don't >>even exist. > > No Derek, and you're aware of it. How many times must I remind you that this thread concerns itself with his view on what constitutes collateral deaths and his wrongful blaming for things that, according to his view cannot logically exist? If you hadn't ignored my earlier comment above* you would've been reminded of that and not tried to divert this discussion onto my view of what constitutes one instead. >>>>>and accidental deaths >>>> >>>>If they are truly accidental, then no one can be >>>>blamed for them. >>> >>> If someone caused them to happen they can be >>>blamed for them, since they are to blame for them. >> >>That's true and takes nothing from the fact that, if >>they're truly accidental, then no one can be blamed >>for them. > > When people cause farm machinery to run blades >through the surface area of fields, turning the ground >upside down and stomping down on it with tons of weight, >animals are killed and those responsible for the action are >to blame. That's right: farmers. >>>>>and consumer contribution to the process allows it to >>>>>repeat and cause more such deaths >>>> >>>>Yet only an hour ago in your reply to Scented Nectar >>>>you claimed that we are not responsible for them, >>>>since they would occur whether we were alive or dead. >>>> >>>> "To say that you're not really "responsible" for them >>>> is true, since they would occur even if you were dead >>>> or had never been born" >>>> David Harrison 27 Jan 2005 17:09:25 >>> >>> There's a difference between being responsible and >>>contributing. >> >>We aren't responsible for them, as you concede. >>That you believe we contribute to those deaths >>is irrelevant and cannot be shown anyway. I for >>one don't contribute anything towards those deaths. > > How do you avoid it? It's not a case of avoiding it. It's something that happens around me, like the illegal invasion of British forces on foreign land, for example. >>>We personally can contribute to something, >>>without being responsible for whether or not it occurs. >> >>No. If I contribute to the meat industry by eating >>meat, then I am responsible for the deaths of those >>animals I choose as part of my diet. > > No. YES Harrison. YOU are responsible for the death of whatever animal you choose to eat. Get used to it! >>>>What you've conceded there is something along the lines >>>>of what I once wrote to "Rubystars" under the nym >>>>"ipse dixit" some time ago after she was accused of >>>>being responsible for the collateral death caused in >>>>telecommunications. >>>> >>>> "The most reliable way of ruling out the existence >>>> of a causal connection between any two events, namely >>>> your posting on Usenet and the alleged collateral deaths >>>> it causes is to ask whether the collateral deaths would, in >>>> the same circumstances, have occurred in the absence of >>>> your posting to Usenet. If the collateral deaths would have >>>> occurred in any event, then you cannot be its cause or one >>>> of its causes, and therefore not responsible for them. To >>>> be causal, your action as a participant here must be >>>> necessary to the outcome, and it isn't, because those alleged >>>> collateral deaths would still allegedly occur without your >>>> participation here. It's a "but for condition." >>>> >>>> I use it in response to the CD argument >>> >>> It works fine for meat eaters too. >> >>Vegetarians vicariously kill the vegetables they eat. >>Meatarians vicariously kill the animals they eat. > > I rarely have in the past. Most never do. > >>There's no confusion over whether either are to >>blame for the deaths they cause. When vegetarians >>are accused of causing the deaths of animals, the >>link between the two actions isn't apparent, and >>that's where the "but for" condition comes into play. >>It doesn't work for meatarians because the link >>between them and the deaths they cause is already >>apparent. > > Whatever works for veg*ns in that respect, works >equally well for meat consumers. I've just painstakingly shown that it doesn't. >>>> generally as the >>>> most reliable way of ruling out the existence of a causal >>>> connection between the farmer causing harms and his >>>> consumers who pay him by asking whether the collateral >>>> deaths he causes would, in the circumstances, have >>>> occurred in the absence of my purchase of vegetables. >>>> If the harms would have occurred in any event, then I >>>> cannot be its cause or one of its causes, and therefore >>>> not responsible for them. To be causal, my action as a >>>> mere consumer must be necessary to the outcome, and >>>> it isn't, because he can still cause CDs without my buying >>>> from him. I understand it as the "but-for condition." But >>>> for the farmer, CD's in crop production wouldn't happen, >>>> so he is causal >>> >>> True. >> >>You have no option but to agree. >> >>>But but for the consumer the same is true. As >>>a group, customers are causal. >> >>They are causal to whatever they choose to kill. >>Vegetarians vicariously kill the vegetables they eat. >>Meatarians vicariously kill the animals they eat. >>There's no confusion over whether either are to >>blame for the deaths they cause. > > Including deaths associated with crop production. No. Neither the meatarian or the vegetarian is responsible for the collateral deaths caused by autonomous farmers in crop production, whether those crops go to feed livestock or ourselves. >>>So when we join a >>>group which causes things to occur, and contribute >>>to such things happening in the future, we take on >>>some degree of responsibility, imo. >> >>Yet further up this page you state; >> "There's a difference between being responsible >> and contributing. We personally can contribute to >> something, without being responsible for whether >> or not it occurs." >> >>Make up tour mind. >>[..] > > The degree of responsibility would only be in >regards to how our contribution influenced future >such products, so it's usually not worth considering. Then you've nothing say. >We are still contributing to it none the less. You might be, but I ain't. Speak for yourself only. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... >> > You're lying. Produce is a need. So are nuts, >> > seeds, beans and grains which you left out. >> > A need which causes a forced complicity >> > with the only available suppliers. >> ================ >> More delusions, killer. You have more than one available source for > all >> these. *YOU* choose to take only those that fit your selfish wants, > not >> needs, hypocrite. > > Tell me these magical other sources. ====================== They've been discussed fool. You still choose the ones that you 'wsant' rather that only what you 'need'. > > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > Irony, hypocrisy, stupidity and ignorance run amok.... > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > Scented Nectar wrote: > > >>The deaths are intentional to you: you know about > >>them, you claim to decry them, you aren't obliged to > >>buy the food. All the elements of intentionality are > >>there. > >> > >>It's settled, then: collateral all the way around; > >>accidental to the farmer; intentional to you. Time to > >>move on to a new waste of time, Dreck. > > > > > > Cds and/or ids are not controllable by > > the consumer of food. > > Your participation in the markets for commercially > produced fruits and vegetables is FULLY controllable by > you. Stop lying. I'm holding a gun to her head. She has no choice. I am forcing her to do that. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > Tell me these magical other sources.
> ====================== > They've been discussed fool. You still choose the ones that you 'wsant' > rather that only what you 'need'. We have different definitions of need. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stinky" > wrote in message ... >> > Tell me these magical other sources. >> ====================== >> They've been discussed fool. You still choose the ones that you > 'wsant' >> rather that only what you 'need'. > > We have different definitions of need. =============== No, you have selfish definitions of need. What the body 'needs' to survive is fairly constant, killer. What you choose to eat if for your wants, conveninece and entertainment. > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > Irony, hypocrisy, stupidity and ignorance run amok.... > |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma. | Vegan | |||
| Collateral Deaths Associated with the Vegetarian Diet | Vegan | |||
| at least keep up, usual suspect | Vegan | |||
| Rick Etter's denial of the collateral deaths accrued during the production of grass fed beef | Vegan | |||
| Animal Collateral Deaths | Vegan | |||
Linear Mode
