> > There aren't as many places in Toronto
> > that have community gardens as you
> > think. Also, the plots are rather small.
> > You certainly couldn't grow a years
> > supply of food there. Well maybe of
> > just one crop.
>
> So this code of ethics stipulates that you stay in Toronto?

What code of ethics do you mean? There
are a lot of reasons I stay in Toronto.


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

> > I do know some vegans, you know. The stats
> > or numbers work out death-wise in favour of
> > the vegan diet.
>
> Compared to...?

The average meat eating diet, like I
ate before going veg in 1981.

> > I can feel proud of that if I want
> > to. There's worse crimes out there than that
> > for you to go fix.
>
> I haven't accused anyone of a crime, I just find it a shame that you
refuse
> to explore the possibility that this narrow moral relativistic
thinking you
> are using to make yourself feel good causes more harm to you than it
does
> good. I can't explain it better than that, you need to try it out to
see
> what I mean.

You keep assuming that there is a harm in
my being veg and becoming vegan. There's
not, and your help is not needed. Go help
someone who wants it, not me.


--
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 Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:55:33 GMT, wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:16:05 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:52:07 GMT, wrote:
>
>>> His view doesn't matter.
>>
>>His view DOES matter and IS the subject of this thread.
>
> Then let HIM say what his view is.

He already has, and according to him "If such deaths are
intentional, they aren't also collateral." That being so, when
he asserts that vegans are responsible for collateral deaths
he contradicts himself, because according to his view, the
intentional deaths caused by farmers aren't collateral deaths
in the first place if they're intentional.

>>Read my paragraph above your line again.
>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>Read that again as well.
>
> Reality is what matters.

The subject title to this thread is what matters to this
thread, Harrison.

>>>>>>>>>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 consumers
>>
>>Obviously not, since you yourself are on record as saying;
>> "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
>
> You are not the consumers. You are one meaningless consumer,
>and it makes no difference whether you contribute or not, much
>less what you consume.

Then you cannot continue to claim vegetarians are
responsible for the collateral deaths caused by others
since conceding they aren't.

>>>>>>>>>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,
>>>
>>> Come to think of it, that's how it is with chicken houses
>>>around here, and beef cattle in pastures...
>>
>>No. Chicken houses exist because you pay money
>>to have others farm chickens for you. Crop fields
>>exist because I pay to have others plant vegetables
>>in them.
>
> You give yourself far too much credit.

I'm responsible for what I ask for: the death of crops to
eat. You are responsible for what you ask for: the death
of animals to eat.

>>>>>>>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!
>>>
>>> Not lately. It has been years since I've eaten an animal
>>>who I was responsible for the death of.
>>
>>You are responsible for the death of every animal you
>>chose to eat,
>
> LOL! I am not.

You are because you instruct that it be farmed and killed
on your behalf.

>I haven't been responsible for the death
>of any animal I've eaten for years, except for the clams
>I've steamed.

A meatarian denying responsibility for the deaths
he causes; priceless! Thanks Dave.

>>just as the vegan is responsible for the
>>death of every vegetable he chooses to eat.
>
> Only if they're still alive when you get them.

No. The vegetarian vicariously kills the vegetables he
chooses to eat.

>>>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>> LOL. You did not.
>>
>>I've shown that there's no confusion as to whom is
>>responsible for the death of the animal they chose
>>to eat, on the basis that the meatarian makes the
>>choice to vicariously kill that animal. He cannot
>>eat it unless that animal is killed. The direct link
>>between the meatarian and the death he causes
>>is clear.
>>
>>Vegetarians don't eat animals or direct others to kill
>>animals on their behalf during crop production, so
>>when meatarians try to level the death toll by insisting
>>that the vegetarian does kill these animals, the "but-for
>>condition" comes into play to show they cannot be the
>>cause of those deaths. You've conceded as much by
>>writing;
>>
>> "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
>
> Which is true. It's true for meat eaters and for veg*ns.

I agree. Neither the vegetarian or the meatarian can be
held responsible for the collateral deaths caused by
farmers.

>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> We're as responsible for those deaths as the ones of
>>>animals killed to eat. We're either responsible for both,
>>>or for neither.
>>
>>Yet earlier you wrote;
>>
>> "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
>>
>>Make up your mind, Harrison.
>
> Neither.

Then you'll remain in constant contradiction.

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:55:33 GMT, wrote:
> >On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:16:05 +0000, Derek >
wrote:
> >>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:52:07 GMT, wrote:
> >
> >>> His view doesn't matter.
> >>
> >>His view DOES matter and IS the subject of this thread.
> >
> > Then let HIM say what his view is.
>
> He already has, and according to him "If such deaths are
> intentional, they aren't also collateral."

To the "vegan". They ARE intentional to the "vegan", because you know
even before you go to the shops that the food you'll buy caused the
deaths of animals, and you know that it will cause the deaths of
animals next week and next month and all the rest of your life, and yet
STILL you intend to buy that same death-soaked food. Ergo, you INTEND
those animals to die, and their deaths are NOT collateral...to YOU.

To the farmer, they are collateral. He doesn't intend to cause them -
he intends to grow crops.

Once again, you lose.

On 31 Jan 2005 09:51:49 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:55:33 GMT, wrote:
>> >On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:16:05 +0000, Derek >wrote:
>> >>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:52:07 GMT, wrote:
>> >
>> >>> His view doesn't matter.
>> >>
>> >>His view DOES matter and IS the subject of this thread.
>> >
>> > Then let HIM say what his view is.
>>
>> He already has, and according to him "If such deaths are
>> intentional, they aren't also collateral."
>
>To the "vegan".

This thread concerns itself with 'usual suspects' view
on what constitutes collateral deaths and the implications
of that view. Your efforts to divert attention away from
his error are obvious.

Being that nearly all collateral deaths associated with
crop production are intentional, according to his view
they aren't deemed to be collateral deaths in the first
place. This contradiction being so, he cannot continue
to assert that vegans are responsible for things that
don't exist.

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2005 09:51:49 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >
wrote:
> >Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> >> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:55:33 GMT, wrote:
> >> >Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> >> >>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:52:07 GMT, wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> His view doesn't matter.
> >> >>
> >> >>His view DOES matter and IS the subject of this thread.
> >> >
> >> > Then let HIM say what his view is.
> >>
> >> He already has, and according to him "If such deaths are
> >> intentional, they aren't also collateral."
> >
> >To the "vegan".
>
> This thread concerns itself with

the view that "vegans" cannot view the deaths of animals of the field a
collateral because they INTEND them to happen.

Once again, you lose.

"Derek" > wrote

> I'm responsible for what I ask for: the death of crops to
> eat. You are responsible for what you ask for: the death
> of animals to eat.

If I ask for the death of animals *and* I am aware that abuse of animals
takes place, I become complicit in the deaths *and* the abuse, even though I
did not ask for the abuse. In order to avoid moral complicity in such abuse
I must stop funding it and find a source of meat where no abuse is taking
place, or else stop eating meat altogether.

The exact same reasoning applies to crop farming and collateral deaths.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:32:28 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>
>> I'm responsible for what I ask for: the death of crops to
>> eat. You are responsible for what you ask for: the death
>> of animals to eat.
>
>If I ask for the death of animals *and* I am aware that abuse of animals
>takes place, I become complicit in the deaths *and* the abuse, even though I
>did not ask for the abuse.

That doesn't make sense. You start off by asking
for the death and abuse of animals, and finish by
stating you didn't ask for any abuse.

On 31 Jan 2005 10:31:21 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 31 Jan 2005 09:51:49 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:55:33 GMT, wrote:
>> >> >Derek wrote:
>> >> >>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:52:07 GMT, wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>> His view doesn't matter.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>His view DOES matter and IS the subject of this thread.
>> >> >
>> >> > Then let HIM say what his view is.
>> >>
>> >> He already has, and according to him "If such deaths are
>> >> intentional, they aren't also collateral."
>> >
>> >To the "vegan".
>>
>> This thread concerns itself with
>
>the view that "vegans" cannot view the deaths of animals of the field a
>collateral because they INTEND them to happen.

The thread concerns itself with its subject title, and
unluckily for you, your efforts to divert attention
away from his error are obvious and shows that
you share in 'usual suspects' embarrassment.

Being that nearly all collateral deaths associated with
crop production are intentional, according to his view
they aren't deemed to be collateral deaths in the first
place. This contradiction being so, he cannot continue
to assert that vegans are responsible for things that
don't exist.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:32:28 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote
>>
>>> I'm responsible for what I ask for: the death of crops to
>>> eat. You are responsible for what you ask for: the death
>>> of animals to eat.
>>
>>If I ask for the death of animals *and* I am aware that abuse of animals
>>takes place, I become complicit in the deaths *and* the abuse, even though
>>I
>>did not ask for the abuse.
>
> That doesn't make sense. You start off by asking
> for the death and abuse of animals, and finish by
> stating you didn't ask for any abuse.

Where are you seeing that? I *never* asked for the abuse, and didn't say I
did.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:29:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:32:28 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>
>>>> I'm responsible for what I ask for: the death of crops to
>>>> eat. You are responsible for what you ask for: the death
>>>> of animals to eat.
>>>
>>>If I ask for the death of animals *and* I am aware that
>>>abuse of animals takes place, I become complicit in the
>>>deaths *and* the abuse, even though I did not ask for
>>>the abuse.
>>
>> That doesn't make sense. You start off by asking
>> for the death and abuse of animals, and finish by
>> stating you didn't ask for any abuse.
>
>Where are you seeing that? I *never* asked for the abuse, and didn't say I
>did.

When you wrote, "If I ask for the death of animals *and*
I am aware that abuse of animals takes place..." you are
in deed asking for abuse to take place. You then finish by
stating you didn't ask for abuse to take place by writing,
"even though I did not ask for the abuse." You contradicted
yourself.

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Douchebag wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2005 10:31:21 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >
wrote:
> >Claire's fat crippled Uncle Douchebag wrote:
> >> On 31 Jan 2005 09:51:49 -0800, "Rudy Canoza"
>wrote:
> >> >Claire's fat crippled Uncle Douchebag wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:55:33 GMT, wrote:
> >> >> >Claire's fat crippled Uncle Douchebag wrote:
> >> >> >>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:52:07 GMT, wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> His view doesn't matter.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>His view DOES matter and IS the subject of this thread.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Then let HIM say what his view is.
> >> >>
> >> >> He already has, and according to him "If such deaths are
> >> >> intentional, they aren't also collateral."
> >> >
> >> >To the "vegan".
> >>
> >> This thread concerns itself with
> >
> >the view that "vegans" cannot view the deaths of animals of the
field a
> >collateral because they INTEND them to happen.
>
> The thread concerns itself with

the view that "vegans" cannot view the deaths of animals of the field
as collateral because they INTEND them to happen.

> the view that "vegans" cannot view the deaths of animals of the field
> as collateral because they INTEND them to happen.

It is the farmer who intends and does. The consumer
causes none of it.


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

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:29:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:32:28 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> I'm responsible for what I ask for: the death of crops to
>>>>> eat. You are responsible for what you ask for: the death
>>>>> of animals to eat.
>>>>
>>>>If I ask for the death of animals *and* I am aware that
>>>>abuse of animals takes place, I become complicit in the
>>>>deaths *and* the abuse, even though I did not ask for
>>>>the abuse.
>>>
>>> That doesn't make sense. You start off by asking
>>> for the death and abuse of animals, and finish by
>>> stating you didn't ask for any abuse.
>>
>>Where are you seeing that? I *never* asked for the abuse, and didn't say I
>>did.
>
> When you wrote, "If I ask for the death of animals *and*
> I am aware that abuse of animals takes place..." you are
> in deed asking for abuse to take place.

I don't get your reasoning. I am NOT asking for abuse, I am simply aware
that it occurs. In fact my distinct preference is that abuse does NOT occur
at all.

Similiarly, when you ask for veggies, you only want veggies, despite the
fact you are aware that cds occur. You aren't "asking for" cds, in fact I
suspect that your distinct preference is that they do not occur at all.

I don't know how this could get any clearer.

> You then finish by
> stating you didn't ask for abuse to take place by writing,
> "even though I did not ask for the abuse." You contradicted
> yourself.

I didn't ask for abuse, I asked for the animal to be killed in a prescribed
humane manner.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:59:27 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:29:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:32:28 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm responsible for what I ask for: the death of crops to
>>>>>> eat. You are responsible for what you ask for: the death
>>>>>> of animals to eat.
>>>>>
>>>>>If I ask for the death of animals *and* I am aware that
>>>>>abuse of animals takes place, I become complicit in the
>>>>>deaths *and* the abuse, even though I did not ask for
>>>>>the abuse.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't make sense. You start off by asking
>>>> for the death and abuse of animals, and finish by
>>>> stating you didn't ask for any abuse.
>>>
>>>Where are you seeing that? I *never* asked for the abuse, and didn't say I
>>>did.
>>
>> When you wrote, "If I ask for the death of animals *and*
>> I am aware that abuse of animals takes place..." you are
>> in deed asking for abuse to take place.
>
>I don't get your reasoning. I am NOT asking for abuse,

Again, when writing, "If I ask for the death of animals *and*
I am aware that abuse of animals takes place..." you are
in deed asking for abuse to take place.

>> You then finish by
>> stating you didn't ask for abuse to take place by writing,
>> "even though I did not ask for the abuse." You contradicted
>> yourself.
>
>I didn't ask for abuse

Again, when writing, "If I ask for the death of animals *and*
I am aware that abuse of animals takes place..." you are
in deed asking for abuse to take place.

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> 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

that "vegans" intend the deaths because they know they will happen and
they intend their purchases, and so the deaths are intentional from the
perspective of "vegans", not collateral. From the perspective of
farmers, they are collateral.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:59:27 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:29:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:32:28 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm responsible for what I ask for: the death of crops to
>>>>>>> eat. You are responsible for what you ask for: the death
>>>>>>> of animals to eat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If I ask for the death of animals *and* I am aware that
>>>>>>abuse of animals takes place, I become complicit in the
>>>>>>deaths *and* the abuse, even though I did not ask for
>>>>>>the abuse.
>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't make sense. You start off by asking
>>>>> for the death and abuse of animals, and finish by
>>>>> stating you didn't ask for any abuse.
>>>>
>>>>Where are you seeing that? I *never* asked for the abuse, and didn't say
>>>>I
>>>>did.
>>>
>>> When you wrote, "If I ask for the death of animals *and*
>>> I am aware that abuse of animals takes place..." you are
>>> in deed asking for abuse to take place.
>>
>>I don't get your reasoning. I am NOT asking for abuse,
>
> Again, when writing, "If I ask for the death of animals *and*
> I am aware that abuse of animals takes place..." you are
> in deed asking for abuse to take place.

By that reasoning if you ask for vegetables when you are aware that cds take
place that means you are asking for cds to take place. By your reasoning
vegans are even MORE culpable than I believe they are.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:41:40 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:59:27 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:29:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:32:28 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm responsible for what I ask for: the death of crops to
>>>>>>>> eat. You are responsible for what you ask for: the death
>>>>>>>> of animals to eat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If I ask for the death of animals *and* I am aware that
>>>>>>>abuse of animals takes place, I become complicit in the
>>>>>>>deaths *and* the abuse, even though I did not ask for
>>>>>>>the abuse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That doesn't make sense. You start off by asking
>>>>>> for the death and abuse of animals, and finish by
>>>>>> stating you didn't ask for any abuse.
>>>>>
>>>>>Where are you seeing that? I *never* asked for the abuse,
>>>>>and didn't say I did.
>>>>
>>>> When you wrote, "If I ask for the death of animals *and*
>>>> I am aware that abuse of animals takes place..." you are
>>>> in deed asking for abuse to take place.
>>>
>>>I don't get your reasoning. I am NOT asking for abuse,
>>
>> Again, when writing, "If I ask for the death of animals *and*
>> I am aware that abuse of animals takes place..." you are
>> in deed asking for abuse to take place.
>
>By that reasoning if you ask for vegetables when you are aware that cds take
>place that means you are asking for cds to take place.

That sentence presupposes collateral deaths are associated
with every item I might buy when it simply isn't the case.
For example, I don't presuppose that a police driver has killed
pedestrians on his way to answer my call, just because police
drivers are known to sometimes kill pedestrians. If he does,
then that doesn't mean to say that I asked him to kill any
pedestrians.

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:41:40 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> >> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:59:27 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:29:09 -0800, "Dutch" >
wrote:
> >>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:32:28 -0800, "Dutch" >
wrote:
> >>>>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'm responsible for what I ask for: the death of crops to
> >>>>>>>> eat. You are responsible for what you ask for: the death
> >>>>>>>> of animals to eat.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>If I ask for the death of animals *and* I am aware that
> >>>>>>>abuse of animals takes place, I become complicit in the
> >>>>>>>deaths *and* the abuse, even though I did not ask for
> >>>>>>>the abuse.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That doesn't make sense. You start off by asking
> >>>>>> for the death and abuse of animals, and finish by
> >>>>>> stating you didn't ask for any abuse.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Where are you seeing that? I *never* asked for the abuse,
> >>>>>and didn't say I did.
> >>>>
> >>>> When you wrote, "If I ask for the death of animals *and*
> >>>> I am aware that abuse of animals takes place..." you are
> >>>> in deed asking for abuse to take place.
> >>>
> >>>I don't get your reasoning. I am NOT asking for abuse,
> >>
> >> Again, when writing, "If I ask for the death of animals *and*
> >> I am aware that abuse of animals takes place..." you are
> >> in deed asking for abuse to take place.
> >
> >By that reasoning if you ask for vegetables when you are aware that
cds take
> >place that means you are asking for cds to take place.
>
> That sentence presupposes collateral deaths are associated
> with every item I might buy

No, it isn't. It only presupposes that CDs are associated with SOME
items you buy every time you shop, and that IS the case.
> [snip bad, ****witted example]

Skunky wrote:
> > the view that "vegans" cannot view the deaths of animals of the
field
> > as collateral because they INTEND them to happen.
>
> It is the farmer who intends and does.
Take the test first if you expect me to respond to you.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:41:40 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:59:27 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:29:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
>>>>>>news:5g2tv01o1onddumb6e948qtglhad5jabir@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:32:28 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm responsible for what I ask for: the death of crops to
>>>>>>>>> eat. You are responsible for what you ask for: the death
>>>>>>>>> of animals to eat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If I ask for the death of animals *and* I am aware that
>>>>>>>>abuse of animals takes place, I become complicit in the
>>>>>>>>deaths *and* the abuse, even though I did not ask for
>>>>>>>>the abuse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That doesn't make sense. You start off by asking
>>>>>>> for the death and abuse of animals, and finish by
>>>>>>> stating you didn't ask for any abuse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Where are you seeing that? I *never* asked for the abuse,
>>>>>>and didn't say I did.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you wrote, "If I ask for the death of animals *and*
>>>>> I am aware that abuse of animals takes place..." you are
>>>>> in deed asking for abuse to take place.
>>>>
>>>>I don't get your reasoning. I am NOT asking for abuse,
>>>
>>> Again, when writing, "If I ask for the death of animals *and*
>>> I am aware that abuse of animals takes place..." you are
>>> in deed asking for abuse to take place.
>>
>>By that reasoning if you ask for vegetables when you are aware that cds
>>take
>>place that means you are asking for cds to take place.
>
> That sentence presupposes collateral deaths are associated
> with every item I might buy when it simply isn't the case.

Your reply to me presupposes that abuse takes place with every cut of meat I
buy when it simply isn't the case.

> For example, I don't presuppose that a police driver has killed
> pedestrians on his way to answer my call, just because police
> drivers are known to sometimes kill pedestrians. If he does,
> then that doesn't mean to say that I asked him to kill any
> pedestrians.

> Take the test first if you expect me to respond to you.

You don't have to respond. I don't mind
talking to myself or other people.


--
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 Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:43:47 +0000, Derek > wrote:

>On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:55:33 GMT, wrote:
>>On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:16:05 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:52:07 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>>> His view doesn't matter.
>>>
>>>His view DOES matter and IS the subject of this thread.
>>
>> Then let HIM say what his view is.
>
>He already has, and according to him "If such deaths are
>intentional, they aren't also collateral." That being so, when
>he asserts that vegans are responsible for collateral deaths
>he contradicts himself, because according to his view, the
>intentional deaths caused by farmers aren't collateral deaths
>in the first place if they're intentional.

The only way to know what he thinks about it is if he
explains it. But I am convinced he's not helping you get out
of anything simply by saying intentional deaths aren't collateral.
And. If he's saying they're not, he's wrong anyway in at least
some cases, imo.

>>>Read my paragraph above your line again.
>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Read that again as well.
>>
>> Reality is what matters.
>
>The subject title to this thread is what matters to this
>thread, Harrison.

Reality is what matters to reality, Nash.

>>>>>>>>>>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 consumers
>>>
>>>Obviously not, since you yourself are on record as saying;
>>> "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
>>
>> You are not the consumers. You are one meaningless consumer,
>>and it makes no difference whether you contribute or not, much
>>less what you consume.
>
>Then you cannot continue to claim vegetarians are
>responsible for the collateral deaths caused by others
>since conceding they aren't.

But you do contribute to 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you avoid it?
>>>>>
>>>>>It's not a case of avoiding it. It's something that happens
>>>>>around me,
>>>>
>>>> Come to think of it, that's how it is with chicken houses
>>>>around here, and beef cattle in pastures...
>>>
>>>No. Chicken houses exist because you pay money
>>>to have others farm chickens for you. Crop fields
>>>exist because I pay to have others plant vegetables
>>>in them.
>>
>> You give yourself far too much credit.
>
>I'm responsible for what I ask for: the death of crops to
>eat. You are responsible for what you ask for: the death
>of animals to eat.

We contribute to it, but we're not responsible for it.

>>>>>>>>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!
>>>>
>>>> Not lately. It has been years since I've eaten an animal
>>>>who I was responsible for the death of.
>>>
>>>You are responsible for the death of every animal you
>>>chose to eat,
>>
>> LOL! I am not.
>
>You are because you instruct that it be farmed and killed
>on your behalf.

No, I sure don't. I never have had to, and wouldn't know
how to.

>>I haven't been responsible for the death
>>of any animal I've eaten for years, except for the clams
>>I've steamed.
>
>A meatarian denying responsibility for the deaths
>he causes;

No, I'm denying responsibility for deaths I had nothing
at all to do with.

> priceless! Thanks Dave.
>
>>>just as the vegan is responsible for the
>>>death of every vegetable he chooses to eat.
>>
>> Only if they're still alive when you get them.
>
>No. The vegetarian vicariously kills the vegetables he
>chooses to eat.
>
>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>> LOL. You did not.
>>>
>>>I've shown that there's no confusion as to whom is
>>>responsible for the death of the animal they chose
>>>to eat, on the basis that the meatarian makes the
>>>choice to vicariously kill that animal. He cannot
>>>eat it unless that animal is killed. The direct link
>>>between the meatarian and the death he causes
>>>is clear.
>>>
>>>Vegetarians don't eat animals or direct others to kill
>>>animals on their behalf during crop production, so
>>>when meatarians try to level the death toll by insisting
>>>that the vegetarian does kill these animals, the "but-for
>>>condition" comes into play to show they cannot be the
>>>cause of those deaths. You've conceded as much by
>>>writing;
>>>
>>> "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
>>
>> Which is true. It's true for meat eaters and for veg*ns.
>
>I agree. Neither the vegetarian or the meatarian can be
>held responsible for the collateral deaths caused by
>farmers.

But we all contribute to them.

>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> We're as responsible for those deaths as the ones of
>>>>animals killed to eat. We're either responsible for both,
>>>>or for neither.
>>>
>>>Yet earlier you wrote;
>>>
>>> "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
>>>
>>>Make up your mind, Harrison.
>>
>> Neither.
>
>Then you'll remain in constant contradiction.

There's no contradiction that I can see. We're not
responsible for deaths we're not responsible for. But
if you want to pretend we are, then we would be as
responsible for cds as we are for deliberate killings.
No contradiction in any of that. You're the one who
wants to introduce a contradiction, but it doesn't
work.

In article >,
Jon > wrote:

> He already has, and according to him "If such deaths are
> intentional, they aren't also collateral." That being so, when
> he asserts that vegans are responsible for collateral deaths
> he contradicts himself, because according to his view, the
> intentional deaths caused by farmers aren't collateral deaths
> in the first place if they're intentional. What part in that don't
> you understand, and how many times must I repeat it before
> you finally grasp it?

This is also the fallacy of insignificant cause. (The human need to
special, important or signficant.)

A more accurate determination could be accomplished by graphing all of
those involved and determining the percentage of
responsibility/contributed to the outcome

50% The farmer (person who kills the animal)
10% The consumer (demand -- one of many who wants the animal)
10% Other consumers (demand -- the others who want the animal)
10% Other farmers (competition)
10% Personal needs of the farmer (economic forces on the farmer)
10% All the others associated with the
growing, production, sale and purchase.

In this instance, there are six causes related to the death of a farm
animal and the most significant cause is the farmer who kills it.

In article >,
Derek > wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:37:55 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > Jon > wrote:
> >
> >> He already has, and according to him "If such deaths are
> >> intentional, they aren't also collateral." That being so, when
> >> he asserts that vegans are responsible for collateral deaths
> >> he contradicts himself, because according to his view, the
> >> intentional deaths caused by farmers aren't collateral deaths
> >> in the first place if they're intentional. What part in that don't
> >> you understand, and how many times must I repeat it before
> >> you finally grasp it?
> >
> >This is also the fallacy of insignificant cause. (The human need to
> >special, important or signficant.)
>
> You're missing the point entirely. This thread concerns
> itself with 'usual suspects' view on what qualifies a
> collateral death and the implications of such a view.

Just sloppiness on my part. Both perspectives are based on the notion of
responsibility. Both perspectives are a dichotomy of the same phenomena
of exclusive responsibility versus shared responsibility. A discussion
of direct or indirect death requires an accurate assessment of who is
responsible for what part of the outcome.

> >A more accurate determination could be accomplished by graphing all of
> >those involved and determining the percentage of
> >responsibility/contributed to the outcome
> >
> >50% The farmer (person who kills the animal)
> >10% The consumer (demand -- one of many who wants the animal)
> >10% Other consumers (demand -- the others who want the animal)
> >10% Other farmers (competition)
> >10% Personal needs of the farmer (economic forces on the farmer)
> >10% All the others associated with the
> > growing, production, sale and purchase.
> >
> >In this instance, there are six causes related to the death of a farm
> >animal and the most significant cause is the farmer who kills it.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote \
>> > There aren't as many places in Toronto
>> > that have community gardens as you
>> > think. Also, the plots are rather small.
>> > You certainly couldn't grow a years
>> > supply of food there. Well maybe of
>> > just one crop.
>>
>> So this code of ethics stipulates that you stay in Toronto?
>
> What code of ethics do you mean? There
> are a lot of reasons I stay in Toronto.

The code that informs you that it is always morally better to abstain from
eating meat.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> > I do know some vegans, you know. The stats
>> > or numbers work out death-wise in favour of
>> > the vegan diet.
>>
>> Compared to...?
>
> The average meat eating diet, like I
> ate before going veg in 1981.

That's a very narrow frame of reference. There are countless other viable
options that ought to considered also.

>> > I can feel proud of that if I want
>> > to. There's worse crimes out there than that
>> > for you to go fix.
>>
>> I haven't accused anyone of a crime, I just find it a shame that you
> refuse
>> to explore the possibility that this narrow moral relativistic
> thinking you
>> are using to make yourself feel good causes more harm to you than it
> does
>> good. I can't explain it better than that, you need to try it out to
> see
>> what I mean.
>
> You keep assuming that there is a harm in
> my being veg and becoming vegan.

I'm not just assuming it, I have concluded it from my own experience, from
general observations of vegans, and by listening to your evasive responses.
There is something going on inside your head that is not in your best
interests. I absolutely guarantee it.

> There's
> not, and your help is not needed.

I disagree, you are in denial and I have conclusive evidence of it.

> Go help
> someone who wants it, not me.

As long as you make responses to me I shall continue to interpret that as a
cry for help. Despite your protestations, something in your subconscious is
recognizing that there is a truth here for you that your conscious awareness
will not allow you to see.

> >> > There aren't as many places in Toronto
> >> > that have community gardens as you
> >> > think. Also, the plots are rather small.
> >> > You certainly couldn't grow a years
> >> > supply of food there. Well maybe of
> >> > just one crop.
> >>
> >> So this code of ethics stipulates that you stay in Toronto?
> >
> > What code of ethics do you mean? There
> > are a lot of reasons I stay in Toronto.
>
> The code that informs you that it is always morally better to abstain
from
> eating meat.

Not eating meat has nothing to do with
where I live. What do ethics have to do
with where I live?


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

> >> > I do know some vegans, you know. The stats
> >> > or numbers work out death-wise in favour of
> >> > the vegan diet.
> >>
> >> Compared to...?
> >
> > The average meat eating diet, like I
> > ate before going veg in 1981.
>
> That's a very narrow frame of reference. There are countless other
viable
> options that ought to considered also.

My personal health and well being is a good
frame of reference for me, not necessarily
for you. What other options are you referring
to?

> > You keep assuming that there is a harm in
> > my being veg and becoming vegan.
>
> I'm not just assuming it, I have concluded it from my own experience,
from
> general observations of vegans, and by listening to your evasive
responses.
> There is something going on inside your head that is not in your best
> interests. I absolutely guarantee it.

You're nuts. And completely wrong too.

> > There's
> > not, and your help is not needed.
>
> I disagree, you are in denial and I have conclusive evidence of it.

Regardless of whether you disagree I don't
want your help. Please refrain from it. I'll
discuss and debate things with you, but
dump the helping bit.

> > Go help
> > someone who wants it, not me.
>
> As long as you make responses to me I shall continue to interpret that
as a
> cry for help. Despite your protestations, something in your
subconscious is
> recognizing that there is a truth here for you that your conscious
awareness
> will not allow you to see.

Then you will be misinterpreting me. I am
not crying for help. Understand this. When
I respond to you it's to debate, discuss and
find humour sometimes. Do not take any
thing I say as a cry for help unless I specifically
ask.


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