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.

"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.


I wonder how he is going to lie his way out of that one!

Dreck stupidly 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:
1. [adj] by conscious design or purpose; "intentional damage"; "a
knowing attempt to defraud"; "a willful waste of time"
2. [adj] done or made or performed with purpose and intent;
"style...is more than the deliberate and designed creation"- Havelock
Ellis; "games designed for all ages"; "well-designed houses"
3. [adj] done by design; "the insult was intentional"; "willful
disobedience"

COLLATERAL
[adj] accompaniment to something else; "collateral target damage from a
bombing run"

The two terms are DISTINCT, dummy. What is collateral is by defintion
*UN*intentional. What's intentional by definition is NOT collateral.

> because according to his view intentional deaths aren't
> collateral deaths in the first place if they're intentional.

I understand each word and how it should be used. You don't.

> 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,

You're confusing issues, fat ****. Suppose a farmer spreads out a
specific pesticide to kill aphids. It works, and, in fact, it works too
well. Rains come and wash the pesticide into a stream, pond, river, etc.
The now run-off pesticide kills a variety of fish, tadpoles, etc. The
aphids were intentional deaths. The fish and other aquatic life killed
by the run-off were UNintentional -- COLLATERAL -- deaths.

> but he

is dealing with a fat, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey with a certificate
in woodwork who fancies himself the Second ****ing Coming of Socrates,
Plato, and Aristotle combined, but who in reality is a hapless
shit-stirrer who's stupefied by his pain medication.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:46:56 +0000, Derek > 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

It sounds like he's wrong.
__________________________________________________ _______
Main Entry: 1col·lat·er·al
[...]
1 a : accompanying as secondary or subordinate
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...eral&x=14&y=11
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There is no mention of whether it's intentional or accidental.

>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.

You sure are trying to wiggle out of it.

>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.

No they're not. He's just wrong, and vegans are not any
better because of it.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:19:55 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Dreck stupidly 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, because according to you they aren't
collateral deaths to begin with if they're intentional.
Way to go, stupid.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:01:45 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" > wrote:
>"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.
>
>I wonder how he is going to lie his way out of that one!

He'll try. You can count on that. After a short while he'll
resort to what he always does: snip and run for cover, but
not before displaying his embarrassment by calling me
childish names.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:48:38 +0000, Derek > wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:19:55 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>
>>Dreck stupidly 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, and also for intentional deaths as well.

>because according to you they aren't
>collateral deaths to begin with if they're intentional.
>Way to go, stupid.

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:
>>
>>>Dreck stupidly 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.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:36:12 GMT, wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:46:56 +0000, Derek > 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
>
> It sounds like he's wrong.

Irrelevant. According to him no collateral deaths exist
if in fact they're caused intentionally, so whenever he
insists that the vegan is responsible for the collateral
deaths caused by farmers using cides or driving heavy
machinery through populated areas, he contradicts
himself because those deaths aren't collateral deaths
according to him.

>>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.
>
> You sure are trying to wiggle out of it.

I've nothing to wriggle from.

>>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.
>
> No they're not.

Yes, they are.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:06:14 +0000, Derek > wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:36:12 GMT, wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:46:56 +0000, Derek > 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
>>
>> It sounds like he's wrong.
>
>Irrelevant. According to him no collateral deaths exist
>if in fact they're caused intentionally, so whenever he
>insists that the vegan is responsible for the collateral
>deaths caused by farmers using cides or driving heavy
>machinery through populated areas, he contradicts
>himself because those deaths aren't collateral deaths
>according to him.

Then they're deliberate deaths which you are responsible
for along with the accidental deaths.

>>>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.
>>
>> You sure are trying to wiggle out of it.
>
>I've nothing to wriggle from.

You have both deliberate and accidental deaths, all
of which are cds imo, but regardless of whether or not
they're both cds, you have them to wriggle from if you
could, but you can't.

>>>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.
>>
>> No they're not.
>
>Yes, they are.

They are not discounted, just put in a separate group.
You know that.

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:
>>>
>>>>Dreck stupidly 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, *and* there
are deliberate deaths. You are still just as responsible
for both, whether deliberate deaths are cds or not.
So is he. So am I.

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:
>>>>
>>>>>Dreck stupidly 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, so he
has no argument against the vegan for causing that
which doesn't exist.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:42:25 GMT, wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:06:14 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:36:12 GMT, wrote:
>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:46:56 +0000, Derek > 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
>>>
>>> It sounds like he's wrong.
>>
>>Irrelevant. According to him no collateral deaths exist
>>if in fact they're caused intentionally, so whenever he
>>insists that the vegan is responsible for the collateral
>>deaths caused by farmers using cides or driving heavy
>>machinery through populated areas, he contradicts
>>himself because those deaths aren't collateral deaths
>>according to him.
>
> Then they're deliberate deaths which you are responsible
>for along with the accidental deaths.

Not according to 'usual suspect', I'm not, because they're
intentional deaths and therefore not collateral deaths at all.
He can't blame vegans for things that don't exist.

>>>>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.
>>>
>>> You sure are trying to wiggle out of it.
>>
>>I've nothing to wriggle from.
>
> You have both deliberate

If they are deliberate and intentional, then they aren't
collateral deaths according to 'usual suspect', and he
therefore has no argument against the vegan when
insisting they're responsible for something that doesn't
exist.

> and accidental deaths,

If the deaths are accidental, then they are of no moral
importance to me.

>>>>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.
>>>
>>> No they're not.
>>
>>Yes, they are.
>
> They are not discounted

Yes, they are.

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck wrote:
>
>
> Not according to 'usual suspect', I'm not, because they're
> intentional deaths and therefore not collateral deaths at all.

They're collateral to food production. They're deliberate to lying
sanctimonious hypocritical "vegans" (others) and pretend-"vegans" (you
and Skanky).

> He can't blame vegans for things that don't exist.

They do exist. You KNOW the CDs occur, and you choose to keep being
complicit to them. To you, they're intentional. To the farmer,
they're collateral.

"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.

On 26 Jan 2005 13:24:10 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

>Derek wrote:
>>
>> Not according to 'usual suspect', I'm not, because they're
>> intentional deaths and therefore not collateral deaths at all.
>
>They're collateral to food production.

Not according to 'usual suspect', they aren't. According
to him, "If such deaths are intentional, they aren't also
collateral." According to him no collateral deaths exist
if in fact they're caused intentionally, so whenever he
insists that the vegan is responsible for the collateral
deaths caused by farmers using cides or driving heavy
machinery through populated areas, he contradicts
himself because those deaths aren't collateral deaths
in the first place. I did try to warn him but he refused
to listen, and now he's lost his argument against the
vegan through his own ignorance and arrogance.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:34:30 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"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.

If they're truly accidental, then they carry no moral
importance whatsoever. If, on the other hand they're
intentional, then they aren't deemed to be collateral
deaths according to 'usual suspect', and he now has
no argument against the vegan when insisting they
must carry the responsibility for things that don't exist.

Derek wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2005 13:24:10 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >
wrote:
>
> >Derek wrote:
> >>
> >> Not according to 'usual suspect', I'm not, because they're
> >> intentional deaths and therefore not collateral deaths at all.
> >
> >They're collateral to food production.
>
> Not according to 'usual suspect', they aren't.

Yes, according to Mr. Suspect, they are collateral to food production.
They're NOT collateral to YOU, you fat smelly ****. You know they
happen, and you press right on stuffing the death-causing food in your
greasy pie-hole.

On 26 Jan 2005 14:34:55 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 26 Jan 2005 13:24:10 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Not according to 'usual suspect', I'm not, because they're
>> >> intentional deaths and therefore not collateral deaths at all.
>> >
>> >They're collateral to food production.
>>
>> Not according to 'usual suspect', they aren't.
>
>Yes, according to Mr. Suspect, they are collateral to food production.

Not if those deaths are caused intentionally, they aren't,
according to him, so that discounts all the deaths caused
by pesticides and heavy machinery in populated areas.
The rest are accidental, again, according to him, and if
we're to accept that accidents can happen where human
activity is concerned, then those deaths carry no moral
significance at all to anyone.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:34:30 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"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.
>
> If they're truly accidental, then they carry no moral
> importance whatsoever.

That depends on the circumstances, there are many shades of "accident", the
moral importance depends on those factors. If a worker is hurt in an
industrial accident the company might be held morally and legally liable if
they failed in some way to provide adequate safety measures.

Similiarly farmers are still morally responsible for animals killed
accidentally or incidentally in agriculture even though they were not
specifically targetted, if the farmer should have or could have taken steps
to provide measures to avoid the collateral effect.

> If, on the other hand they're
> intentional, then they aren't deemed to be collateral
> deaths according to 'usual suspect'

Semantics, animals killed intentionally in plant food production are still
"collateral" victims, i.e. they are incidental victims of the process rather
than the end product as with meat production.

> and he now has
> no argument against the vegan when insisting they
> must carry the responsibility for things that don't exist.

Non sequitor. Consumers who voluntarily carry on business with a particular
producer share blame for everything that happens in the normal course of his
business, regardless of what you call it.

Claire's fat crippled dog-beater Uncle Dreck wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2005 14:34:55 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >
wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On 26 Jan 2005 13:24:10 -0800, "Rudy Canoza"
>wrote:
> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Not according to 'usual suspect', I'm not, because they're
> >> >> intentional deaths and therefore not collateral deaths at all.
> >> >
> >> >They're collateral to food production.
> >>
> >> Not according to 'usual suspect', they aren't.
> >
> >Yes, according to Mr. Suspect, they are collateral to food
production.
>
> Not if

Always. To Mr. Suspect, those deaths are always collateral to the
farmers' production of food, but INTENTIONAL in your purchase of food.
It's settled. Time for you to move on to some other waste of time.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:09:13 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:34:30 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"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.
>>
>> If they're truly accidental, then they carry no moral
>> importance whatsoever.
>
>That depends on the circumstances

The circumstance would be that they are accidental, as
mentioned, and any that are are of no moral importance
and cannot be blamed on anyone.

>> If, on the other hand they're
>> intentional, then they aren't deemed to be collateral
>> deaths according to 'usual suspect'
>
>Semantics

No. It's exactly what he wrote, and he must now concede
that vegans cannot be held responsible for things that
don't exist.

>> and he now has
>> no argument against the vegan when insisting they
>> must carry the responsibility for things that don't exist.
>
>Non sequitor.

My conclusion follows logically from my premise, so
it's clearly obvious that you've misused the term.

On 26 Jan 2005 15:16:06 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 26 Jan 2005 14:34:55 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On 26 Jan 2005 13:24:10 -0800, "Rudy >wrote:
>> >> >Derek wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not according to 'usual suspect', I'm not, because they're
>> >> >> intentional deaths and therefore not collateral deaths at all.
>> >> >
>> >> >They're collateral to food production.
>> >>
>> >> Not according to 'usual suspect', they aren't.
>> >
>> >Yes, according to Mr. Suspect, they are collateral to food
>> >production.
>>
>> Not if
>
>Always.

Not according to 'usual suspect', they aren't. According
to him, "If such deaths are intentional, they aren't also
collateral." According to him no collateral deaths exist
if in fact they're caused intentionally, so whenever he
insists that the vegan is responsible for the collateral
deaths caused by farmers using cides or driving heavy
machinery through populated areas, he contradicts
himself because those deaths aren't collateral deaths
in the first place. What part in that are you having
problems understanding, stupid Jon?

Claire's fat crippled dog-beater Uncle Dreck wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2005 15:16:06 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >
wrote:
> >Claire's fat crippled dog-beater Uncle Dreck wrote:
> >> On 26 Jan 2005 14:34:55 -0800, "Rudy Canoza"
>wrote:
> >> >Claire's fat crippled dog-beater Uncle Dreck wrote:
> >> >> On 26 Jan 2005 13:24:10 -0800, "Rudy
>wrote:
> >> >> >Claire's fat crippled dog-beater Uncle Dreck wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Not according to 'usual suspect', I'm not, because they're
> >> >> >> intentional deaths and therefore not collateral deaths at
all.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >They're collateral to food production.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not according to 'usual suspect', they aren't.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, according to Mr. Suspect, they are collateral to food
> >> >production.
> >>
> >> Not if
> >
> >Always.
>
> Not according to 'usual suspect', they aren't.

Yes, according to Mr. Suspect, they are ALWAYS collateral to the
farmer's production of food; they are INTENTIONAL in your sleazy
self-interested food purchases.
It's settled. Time for you to move on to some other waste of time.

Claire's fat crippled dog-beater Uncle Dreck wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:09:13 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> Claire's fat crippled dog-beater Uncle Dreck wrote in message
...
> >> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:34:30 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> Claire's fat crippled dog-beater Uncle Dreck wrote in message
...
> >>>>
> >> If they're truly accidental,

They are accidental to the farmer. He neither knows of chopped-to-bits
animals, nor does he care.

They are NOT accidental to "vegans". You know full well about them,
and you claim to care.

It would seem you bear ALL the moral responsibility.

> >> then they carry no moral
> >> importance whatsoever.

Lots.

> >
> >That depends on the circumstances
>
> The circumstance would be that they are accidental

To the farmer, NOT to you. To you and other lying moral-shit "vegans",
they are intentional.

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 and cannot be blamed
on anyone, including vegans. However, the vast majority of
field deaths accrue from the intentional use of pesticides, and
according to 'usual suspect', "If such deaths are intentional,
they aren't also collateral." That being so, he contradicts himself
when insisting vegans are responsible for collateral deaths, on
the basis that they don't exist in the first place. There's nothing
you can do to pull him out of this one, so you may as well give
up.

On 26 Jan 2005 15:32:22 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
[..]
There's no pulling him out of this one, liar Jon. He's sunk!

"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.

You can not have an intentional collateral death. Any attempt to prove
otherwise only discredits the writer.
This situation could have been avoided had Mr. Object admitted his error,
but no, he makes matters worse by his denial and thus deepens the hole he
has made for himself - and others!

Even you acknowledges the error by trying to change the subject.

Nice one Derek, I wonder how Rick Etter will deal with an intentional
collateral death?
Plenty of 'Lys' around here at the moment Rick:-)

Derek wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:34:30 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"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.
>
> If they're truly accidental

We're not talking "accidental", ****wit. We're talking COLLATERAL.
They're not synonyms.

They are unquestionably collateral to the farmer: his intent is to
grow and harvest food, not kill animals. Whether they are "accidental"
or not is immaterial.

The farmer has no interest in them. You, however, claim to have an
interest in them. You also have knowledge of them. They are a moral
issue to you, not to the farmer. Your moral interest, combined with
your knowledge of them, mean they are INTENTIONAL to you: by your
fully aware purchase of death-causing food, you INTEND to cause deaths
that you allegedly decry.

Once again, the hypocrisy of "vegans" is established.

It's settled, then. You may now move on to a different form of time
wasting. Go.

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. To you, YES. You claim to decry them. The farmer
doesn't. You are blameworthy; he isn't.

"Derek" > wrote

>>> If they're truly accidental, then they carry no moral
>>> importance whatsoever.
>>
>>That depends on the circumstances
>
> The circumstance would be that they are accidental, as
> mentioned, and any that are are of no moral importance
> and cannot be blamed on anyone.

Accidents are frequently someone's fault, ask any insurance adjuster.


[..]

"Ray" > wrote

>> 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.
>
> You can not have an intentional collateral death. Any attempt to prove
> otherwise only discredits the writer.

Nonsense, animals that are killed deliberately and animals that are killed
accidentally are all collateral deaths in the production of plant foods.

> This situation could have been avoided had Mr. Object admitted his error,
> but no, he makes matters worse by his denial and thus deepens the hole he
> has made for himself - and others!
>
> Even you acknowledges the error by trying to change the subject.

I didn't touch the subject.

> Nice one Derek, I wonder how Rick Etter will deal with an intentional
> collateral death?
> Plenty of 'Lys' around here at the moment Rick:-)

Collateral killing can be intentional or unintentional. A mouse that is
poisoned in a grain silo is a collateral death. The word just means that the
act is of a secondary or indirect nature.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/73/C0477300.html

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, fat crippled dog-beater
Dreck.

The deaths are INTENTIONAL to you and other lying "vegans".

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> "Ray" > wrote
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> You can not have an intentional collateral death. Any attempt to prove
>> otherwise only discredits the writer.
>
> Nonsense, animals that are killed deliberately and animals that are killed
> accidentally are all collateral deaths in the production of plant foods.

Not so, collateral death in the accepted sense of the word is an accidental
death. You can not have an "intentional" accidental death.
>
>> This situation could have been avoided had Mr. Object admitted his
>> error, but no, he makes matters worse by his denial and thus deepens the
>> hole he has made for himself - and others!
>>
>> Even you acknowledges the error by trying to change the subject.
>
> I didn't touch the subject.
>
>> Nice one Derek, I wonder how Rick Etter will deal with an intentional
>> collateral death?
>> Plenty of 'Lys' around here at the moment Rick:-)
>
> Collateral killing can be intentional or unintentional. A mouse that is
> poisoned in a grain silo is a collateral death. The word just means that
> the act is of a secondary or indirect nature.
> http://www.bartleby.com/61/73/C0477300.html
>
>

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Derek wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:34:30 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"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.
>>
>> If they're truly accidental
>
> We're not talking "accidental", ****wit. We're talking COLLATERAL.
> They're not synonyms.
>
> They are unquestionably collateral to the farmer: his intent is to
> grow and harvest food, not kill animals. Whether they are "accidental"
> or not is immaterial.
>
> The farmer has no interest in them. You, however, claim to have an
> interest in them. You also have knowledge of them. They are a moral
> issue to you, not to the farmer. Your moral interest, combined with
> your knowledge of them, mean they are INTENTIONAL to you: by your
> fully aware purchase of death-causing food, you INTEND to cause deaths
> that you allegedly decry.
>
> Once again, the hypocrisy of "vegans" is established.
>
> It's settled, then. You may now move on to a different form of time
> wasting. Go.

It's far from settled ~~jonnie~~.

Collateral and accidental mean the same thing in the present context.

Even a born liar like you can not have an "intentional" collateral death.

>

"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 you cause. You can
try to excuse it with any words you want, but you are still culpable,
killer.

>
> You can not have an intentional collateral death. Any attempt to prove
> otherwise only discredits the writer.
> This situation could have been avoided had Mr. Object admitted his error,
> but no, he makes matters worse by his denial and thus deepens the hole he
> has made for himself - and others!
>
> Even you acknowledges the error by trying to change the subject.
>
> Nice one Derek, I wonder how Rick Etter will deal with an intentional
> collateral death?
====================
Animals at storage facilities are intentionally targeted and killed, fool.
Killed for your cheap, conveninet veggies. Now, go have that nice
blood-drenched breakfast, hypocrite.


> Plenty of 'Lys' around here at the moment Rick:-)
====================
And they all lead back to your complicity and bloody footprints, killer.


>
>

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 up to his neck in it, and there's nothing you
can do to pull him out of this one.

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, if they're truly accidental, which
only leaves the deaths that are caused intentionally by
the use of pesticides and heavy machinery, and according
to 'usual suspect',

"If such deaths are intentional, they aren't also collateral."

That being so, those field deaths aren't collateral deaths
and therefore must be discounted as such according to
his view.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:58:22 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>
>>>> If they're truly accidental, then they carry no moral
>>>> importance whatsoever.
>>>
>>>That depends on the circumstances
>>
>> The circumstance would be that they are accidental, as
>> mentioned, and any that are are of no moral importance
>> and cannot be blamed on anyone.
>
>Accidents are frequently someone's fault

Killing animals by driving a combine through a populated
field is not what I would call an accident. They are fully
intentional, and according to 'usual suspect',

"If such deaths are intentional, they aren't also collateral."

That being so, those field deaths aren't collateral deaths
and therefore must be discounted as such according to
his view.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:34:45 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" > wrote:
>"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.
>
>You can not have an intentional collateral death. Any attempt to prove
>otherwise only discredits the writer.

Exactly!

>This situation could have been avoided had Mr. Object admitted his error,
>but no, he makes matters worse by his denial and thus deepens the hole he
>has made for himself - and others!

I did try to warn him of the implications of writing
such a load of nonsense, but he ignored my warnings
and still went ahead to insist that he is correct when
stating;

"If such deaths are intentional, they aren't also collateral."

>Even you acknowledges the error by trying to change the subject.

Exactly!

>Nice one Derek,

Thanks Ray.

>I wonder how Rick Etter will deal with an intentional
>collateral death?

'useless object' has effectively discounted every field
death from his tally of collateral deaths, leaving only
the accidental deaths to blame vegans for. Tetter will
either have to challenge 'useless object' or concede
that they aren't collateral deaths as well, but bearing
in mind that he also believes the same as 'useless
object' on this issue I doubt we'll see it.

"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 Tetter 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 you can see, 'useless object' and Tetter both agree
that the intentional deaths accrued during crop production
cannot be deemed collateral deaths. They're both hosed
and have no argument while insisting vegans are to blame
for things which, according to them, don't even exist.