> > It's not the only alternative according to my
> > ethics.
>
> Ethics is not simply a personal choice.

Ethics are very much a personal choice.
Everyone has slightly or very different
ones. My ethics say do what you can
and that's good enough. No where in
my ethics do I believe that killing myself
is a solution to other people's misdeeds.

> > What on earth is the matter with you?
> > I'm in a position of forced complicity regarding
> > cds.
>
> You are not in any such position at all. You have
> numerous ways to opt out. You just don't WANT to do them.

We've discussed this before. I don't have
those other options at this time. It has
nothing to do with want.

> > Therefore I am not responsible for them.
>
> You are. The chain of causation is clear and well
> established. You don't WANT to be responsible for
> them, just as immature people *never* want to consider
> themselves responsible. It's too convenient always to
> portray yourself as the pawn of powerful impersonal forces.
>
> > The farmer is.
>
> You are as well.

Nope. I have no bearing on what the farmers
of my food do. I'm in no position to stop them
from running their farms in the manner they do.
Therefore I am complicit but not responsible.

> >I am not willing to kill myself
> > in order to stop this situation. That would
> > be ABSOLUTELY ridiculous. Where's the
> > logic in that? You are Rudy, aren't you.
>
> No. I'm Rudy.

Well Rudy, you have a new little clone.

> > By the way, since you showed such
> > interest in the law the other day, it's
> > illegal in many places to try and talk
> > someone into suicide.
>
> I doubt that. I doubt you know anything more about the
> law than laws about marijuana.

Don't look at me. Kandy was the one who
brought up the law crying slander over some
thing that turned out to be true after all.


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

Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > It's not the only alternative according to my
> > > ethics.
> >
> > Ethics is not simply a personal choice.
>
> Ethics are

IS. "Ethics" used this way is singular. You stupid dope.

> very much a personal choice.

No, it emphatically is not. Your belief that it is is indicative of
your immaturity and arrested development; 42 going on 19, still.

Ethics is part of what governs relations among people (which is why
"animal rights" is nonsense from the beginning.) Ethics is the
definition of what is right behavior between or among people in various
settings. For example, in a narrower sense of the word, professional
ethics says that it is wrong for a psychiatrist to sleep with his
patient. No responsible psychiatrist is ever going to pull a Skunky
and say to his professional society, "You're not the boss of me! *I*
get to decide what's ethical for MEEEEEEEEEE!" That's what you're
attempting to do.

You do not get to decide your own ethics. Whether you like it or not,
ethics is something that is largely imposed on you.

> Everyone has slightly or very different
> ones.

No, they do not.

> My ethics say do what you can
> and that's good enough.

That's not ethics; that's your sense of convenience, your self image.

> No where in my ethics

You don't get to have "your" personal ethics. You're going to do your
angry teenager bit now and shrilly insist that you do, but you don't.

> do I believe that killing myself
> is a solution to other people's misdeeds.
>
> > > What on earth is the matter with you?
> > > I'm in a position of forced complicity regarding
> > > cds.
> >
> > You are not in any such position at all. You have
> > numerous ways to opt out. You just don't WANT to do them.
>
> We've discussed this before.

You always spouted nonsense before. You have done NOTHING to change
your animal-killing ways, and the only reason is that you don't WANT to
do anything, not that you "can't". You COULD do some very big things,
or you could do a LOT of very small things that would make a
difference, but you don't want to do ANYTHING. You are so very much
the classically defiant teenager. "You're not the boss of me!"

>
> > > Therefore I am not responsible for them.
> >
> > You are. The chain of causation is clear and well
> > established. You don't WANT to be responsible for
> > them, just as immature people *never* want to consider
> > themselves responsible. It's too convenient always to
> > portray yourself as the pawn of powerful impersonal forces.
> >
> > > The farmer is.
> >
> > You are as well.
>
> Nope.

Yep. Unmistakably.

> I have no bearing on what the farmers
> of my food do.

You have full control of where and from whom you obtain your food.
That control, coupled with your knowledge of what your current food
suppliers do and don't do, ensures that you share in responsibility.

> I'm in no position to stop them
> from running their farms in the manner they do.

You are in complete control of your choice from whom to buy.

> Therefore I am complicit but not responsible.

Both. Complicity MEANS responsibility.

>
> > >I am not willing to kill myself
> > > in order to stop this situation. That would
> > > be ABSOLUTELY ridiculous. Where's the
> > > logic in that? You are Rudy, aren't you.
> >
> > No. I'm Rudy.
>
> Well Rudy, you have a new little clone.

No, K is just someone who thinks a lot as I do, and who hasn't been
around much until recently. We're at opposite ends of the country.

>
> > > By the way, since you showed such
> > > interest in the law the other day, it's
> > > illegal in many places to try and talk
> > > someone into suicide.
> >
> > I doubt that. I doubt you know anything more about the
> > law than laws about marijuana.
>
> Don't look at me. Kandy was the one who
> brought up the law crying slander over some
> thing that turned out to be true after all.

Cut the shit. YOU just pretended you know something about alleged laws
forbidding trying to talk someone into committing suicide. You don't
know what you're talking about.

On 2 Feb 2005 11:10:37 -0800, Gonad wrote:

>****wit David Harrison wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:42:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > Derek > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 04:42:13 GMT, the Gonad wrote:
>> >> >Mr Harrison wrote:
>> >> >> On 31 Jan 2005 09:06:39 -0800, the Gonad wrote:
>> >> [..]
>> >> >>>This is key, ****wit. You have to view yourself as responsible
>for the
>> >> >>>deaths of whole animals.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No I don't,
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes, you do, ****wit. You are responsible.
>> >>
>> >> heh heh heh. You meatarians
>
>There is no word 'meatarian'.
>
>> >
>> >The vegan makes the same logical error when they assume that they
>are
>> >avoiding responsibility for animal pain, suffering and death.
>> >
>> >The most significant cause of an animal's death is the person who
>> >directly causes it. The vegan is an insignificant player in the
>equation.
>> >
>> >A seal is killed for it's coat
>> >
>> >the shared responsibility looks something like this:
>> >
>> >50% The hunter
>> >10% The personal interests of the hunter (family, occupation,
>etc.)
>> >10% The consumer who wants the product
>> >10% The stores that sell it and their market forces
>> >10% The traders and those associated with the industry
>> >10% The buyers and those associated with the industry
>> >
>> >The numbers and percetanges can be juggled, but assume the vegan is
>the
>> >significant cause is a logical fallacy.
>>
>> Whatever is true of a vegan's responsibility for the deaths he
>> contributes to, is true for the meat consumer as well. Both do
>> contribute, regardless of whether or not we pretend they are
>> responsible.
>
>There is no pretense. BOTH are responsible for the deaths of the
>animals that are killed in the course of producing the foods they eat.

Now that you mention it, it's been years since I was responsible
for the death of an animal.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 06:38:51 GMT, Gonad fondled himself and fantasised:

>Mr Harrison wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 04:42:13 GMT, the Gonad, moron, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mr Harrison wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 31 Jan 2005 09:06:39 -0800, the Gonad, moron, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>****wit. Matheny clearly
>>>>>demonstrates that the "it would have happened without me" excuse falls
>>>>>apart.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He does not, and he could not.
>>>
>>>He did. He can, and he did.
>>
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>Read the paper, ****wit.

You are the child screaming "goose, goose...", but
there is no goose Gonad, and I know it, so I'm damn
sure not going to try chasing it. If there is a goose,
Gonad, then you catch it and let's see it.

LOL....

honk....


honk, honk....


LOL....


there it goes Gonad....


honk honk....


did you catch it?


.....honk, honk...


lol....

****wit David Harrison, stupid inbred redneck, wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 06:38:51 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >****wit David Harrison, stupid inbred redneck, wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 04:42:13 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>****wit David Harrison, stupid inbred redneck, wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On 31 Jan 2005 09:06:39 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>****wit. Matheny clearly
> >>>>>demonstrates that the "it would have happened without me" excuse
falls
> >>>>>apart.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> He does not, and he could not.
> >>>
> >>>He did. He can, and he did.
> >>
> >>
> >> Prove it.
> >
> >Read the paper, ****wit.
>
> You are the

Read the paper, ****wit. Or maybe ask some 8th grader to read it to
you. You haven't read it.

> > > Ethics is not simply a personal choice.
> >
> > Ethics are
>
> IS. "Ethics" used this way is singular. You stupid dope.

Excuse me, Mr. Grammar Head.

> > very much a personal choice.
>
> No, it emphatically is not. Your belief that it is is indicative of
> your immaturity and arrested development; 42 going on 19, still.

It's me who decides my ethics, so it is very
much a personal choice. Others don't decide
them for me. As for my age, I guess I'm just
young at heart!

> Ethics is part of what governs relations among people (which is why
> "animal rights" is nonsense from the beginning.) Ethics is the
> definition of what is right behavior between or among people in
various
> settings. For example, in a narrower sense of the word, professional
> ethics says that it is wrong for a psychiatrist to sleep with his
> patient. No responsible psychiatrist is ever going to pull a Skunky
> and say to his professional society, "You're not the boss of me! *I*
> get to decide what's ethical for MEEEEEEEEEE!" That's what you're
> attempting to do.

I'm not a psychiatrist and I'm not trying to
sleep with a patient. Are you trying to say
that the law should direct one's ethics.
I think following the law is one thing, but
ethics are another. Often they overlap.

> You do not get to decide your own ethics. Whether you like it or not,
> ethics is something that is largely imposed on you.

No. Laws and some behaviours are imposed
but ethics aren't unless I belonged to a religion
which I don't, in which case the church would
tell me my ethics.

> > Everyone has slightly or very different
> > ones.
>
> No, they do not.

They do. Everyone has their own version of
right and wrong.

> > My ethics say do what you can
> > and that's good enough.
>
> That's not ethics; that's your sense of convenience, your self image.

That's my ethics on the specific topic of
animal deaths.

> > No where in my ethics
>
> You don't get to have "your" personal ethics. You're going to do your
> angry teenager bit now and shrilly insist that you do, but you don't.

Then who's ethics am I using, if not my own?

> You always spouted nonsense before. You have done NOTHING to change
> your animal-killing ways, and the only reason is that you don't WANT
to
> do anything, not that you "can't". You COULD do some very big things,
> or you could do a LOT of very small things that would make a
> difference, but you don't want to do ANYTHING. You are so very much
> the classically defiant teenager. "You're not the boss of me!"

I have done enough to satisfy me. If that's not
good enough for you, tough. It's me who counts.

> > I have no bearing on what the farmers
> > of my food do.
>
> You have full control of where and from whom you obtain your food.
> That control, coupled with your knowledge of what your current food
> suppliers do and don't do, ensures that you share in responsibility.

It's a forced complicity so I'm not responsible.
There are not enough veganic choices to buy
for a healthy life, so I buy some commercial
foods. The only other choice I have is to starve
and that's NOT an option I'll even consider.

> > I'm in no position to stop them
> > from running their farms in the manner they do.
>
> You are in complete control of your choice from whom to buy.

Again, show me the source of a complete vegan
diet, where no animal deaths occur by the farmer.
What's that? They don't exist? No choice, then.

> > Therefore I am complicit but not responsible.
>
> Both. Complicity MEANS responsibility.

Forced complicity means the responsibility
lies elsewhere. In this case, the farmer.

> > Well Rudy, you have a new little clone.
>
> No, K is just someone who thinks a lot as I do, and who hasn't been
> around much until recently. We're at opposite ends of the country.

He's learned to ape you well.

> > Don't look at me. Kandy was the one who
> > brought up the law crying slander over some
> > thing that turned out to be true after all.
>
> Cut the shit. YOU just pretended you know something about alleged
laws
> forbidding trying to talk someone into committing suicide. You don't
> know what you're talking about.

I know that many places have laws against it. I'm
just not sure which places. I think in most states
and Canada there are laws against it. But don't
worry, I'm not planning on suicide so Kandy won't
get in any trouble.


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

Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > > Ethics is not simply a personal choice.
> > >
> > > Ethics are
> >
> > IS. "Ethics" used this way is singular. You stupid dope.
>
> Excuse me, Mr. Grammar Head.

There's that typically anti-intellectual attitude of the ignorant.

>
> > > very much a personal choice.
> >
> > No, it emphatically is not. Your belief that it is is indicative
of
> > your immaturity and arrested development; 42 going on 19, still.
>
> It's me who decides my ethics, so it is very
> much a personal choice.

No. It is NOT you who decides it. That's what I explained below, but
NOOOOO! You had to shoot from the lip straight away. ANOTHER hallmark
of immaturity.

Read the whole thing next time, dummy.


> Others don't decide them for me.

Yes, others do. Not entirely without input from you, but NO, you do
not get to set your own ethics according to your mere whim.

> As for my age, I guess I'm just young at heart!

You're immature.

>
> > Ethics is part of what governs relations among people (which is why
> > "animal rights" is nonsense from the beginning.) Ethics is the
> > definition of what is right behavior between or among people in
various
> > settings. For example, in a narrower sense of the word,
professional
> > ethics says that it is wrong for a psychiatrist to sleep with his
> > patient. No responsible psychiatrist is ever going to pull a
Skunky
> > and say to his professional society, "You're not the boss of me!
*I*
> > get to decide what's ethical for MEEEEEEEEEE!" That's what you're
> > attempting to do.
>
> I'm not a psychiatrist and I'm not trying to
> sleep with a patient. Are you trying to say
> that the law should direct one's ethics.
> I think following the law is one thing, but
> ethics are another. Often they overlap.

I'm suggesting that individuals do not get to set their own ad hoc,
situational ethics, as you are want to do.

>
> > You do not get to decide your own ethics. Whether you like it or
not,
> > ethics is something that is largely imposed on you.
>
> No.

Yes.

> Laws and some behaviours are imposed
> but ethics aren't

Ethics IS. It IS imposed on you by two things. Some of it is imposed
on you by the surrounding society in which you exist. You don't get to
decide, unilaterally and based solely on whim, what is ethical in your
dealings with those in the society in which you live; most of it is
decided communally. And some is imposed on you by your adherence to
various creeds, of which "veganism" is one (albeit a shitty and poorly
conceived one.) You, of course, are not really a "vegan", and never
will be, PRECISELY because you are so juvenile and immature that you
won't accept restraints on your petulant insistence on behaving
irresponsibly.

> unless I belonged to a religion
> which I don't, in which case the church would
> tell me my ethics.
>
> > > Everyone has slightly or very different
> > > ones.
> >
> > No, they do not.
>
> They do.

They do not.

> Everyone has their own version of right and wrong.

No. That is patently absurd, but it figures you'd believe it.


>
> > > My ethics say do what you can
> > > and that's good enough.
> >
> > That's not ethics; that's your sense of convenience, your self
image.
>
> That's my ethics

That's your slovenly attempt at rationalization.

> > > No where in my ethics
> >
> > You don't get to have "your" personal ethics. You're going to do
your
> > angry teenager bit now and shrilly insist that you do, but you
don't.
>
> Then who's ethics am I using, if not my own?

None. Fundamentally, you are an unethical person. You don't believe
in ethics at all. You decide EVERYTHING ad hoc, according to criteria
like convenience and pleasure. Ethics doesn't enter into your decision
making in any way.

> > You always spouted nonsense before. You have done NOTHING to
change
> > your animal-killing ways, and the only reason is that you don't
WANT to
> > do anything, not that you "can't". You COULD do some very big
things,
> > or you could do a LOT of very small things that would make a
> > difference, but you don't want to do ANYTHING. You are so very
much
> > the classically defiant teenager. "You're not the boss of me!"
>
> I have done enough to satisfy me.

You haven't done ANYTHING, and you won't even give a second's honest
consideration to suggestions by others of what you might do or might
consider; instead, you reflexively reject EVERYTHING based on just one
thing: "You're not the boss of me!" It's juvenile and immature.


> > > I have no bearing on what the farmers
> > > of my food do.
> >
> > You have full control of where and from whom you obtain your food.
> > That control, coupled with your knowledge of what your current food
> > suppliers do and don't do, ensures that you share in
responsibility.
>
> It's a forced complicity

There is no such thing. NOTHING is forced. No one puts a gun to your
head and orders you to go into any store in which you shop. No one
makes you shop in stores at all.

Nothing is forced. Stop lying.

>
> > > I'm in no position to stop them
> > > from running their farms in the manner they do.
> >
> > You are in complete control of your choice from whom to buy.
>
> Again, show me the source of a complete vegan
> diet, where no animal deaths occur by the farmer.

It's not my job to furnish you what you claim to "need".

> What's that? They don't exist? No choice, then.

You do have a choice: do it yourself; form a co-op; hire a farmer;
think critically (for a change) about the implied ethics and realize
that it's an absurdity, and give it up. You have LOTS of choices. You
just don't WANT to exercise choice. Being immature and juvenile, you
still think the world is obliged to give you what you want. You're
wrong - it isn't.

>
> > > Therefore I am complicit but not responsible.
> >
> > Both. Complicity MEANS responsibility.
>
> Forced complicity

There is no forced complicity. It's an oxymoron.


>
> > > Well Rudy, you have a new little clone.
> >
> > No, K is just someone who thinks a lot as I do, and who hasn't been
> > around much until recently. We're at opposite ends of the country.
>
> He's learned to ape you well.

He thinks as I do - independently.

You wouldn't know about independence.


> > > Don't look at me. Kandy was the one who
> > > brought up the law crying slander over some
> > > thing that turned out to be true after all.
> >
> > Cut the shit. YOU just pretended you know something about alleged
laws
> > forbidding trying to talk someone into committing suicide. You
don't
> > know what you're talking about.
>
> I know that many places have laws against it.

Prove it. Name just ONE place, and cite the law.

I'll wait. I'll be waiting a long time.

> > It's me who decides my ethics, so it is very
> > much a personal choice.
>
> No. It is NOT you who decides it. That's what I explained below, but
> NOOOOO! You had to shoot from the lip straight away. ANOTHER
hallmark
> of immaturity.

My ethics are my own.

> > Others don't decide them for me.
>
> Yes, others do. Not entirely without input from you, but NO, you do
> not get to set your own ethics according to your mere whim.

Yes I do.

> > I'm not a psychiatrist and I'm not trying to
> > sleep with a patient. Are you trying to say
> > that the law should direct one's ethics.
> > I think following the law is one thing, but
> > ethics are another. Often they overlap.
>
> I'm suggesting that individuals do not get to set their own ad hoc,
> situational ethics, as you are want to do.

Well, I guess I'm just unusual, since I set my own.

> > Laws and some behaviours are imposed
> > but ethics aren't
>
> Ethics IS. It IS imposed on you by two things. Some of it is imposed
> on you by the surrounding society in which you exist. You don't get
to
> decide, unilaterally and based solely on whim, what is ethical in your
> dealings with those in the society in which you live; most of it is
> decided communally. And some is imposed on you by your adherence to
> various creeds, of which "veganism" is one (albeit a shitty and poorly
> conceived one.) You, of course, are not really a "vegan", and never
> will be, PRECISELY because you are so juvenile and immature that you
> won't accept restraints on your petulant insistence on behaving
> irresponsibly.

Where have I behaved irresponsibly? Society
has not decided my ethics for me, although I
consider them, when choosing my ethics.
Veganism doesn't choose for me either.

> > Everyone has their own version of right and wrong.
>
> No. That is patently absurd, but it figures you'd believe it.

It's quite true.

> > > > My ethics say do what you can
> > > > and that's good enough.
> > >
> > > That's not ethics; that's your sense of convenience, your self
> image.
> >
> > That's my ethics
>
> That's your slovenly attempt at rationalization.

No, that's my ethics.

> > > > No where in my ethics
> > >
> > > You don't get to have "your" personal ethics. You're going to do
> your
> > > angry teenager bit now and shrilly insist that you do, but you
> don't.
> >
> > Then who's ethics am I using, if not my own?
>
> None. Fundamentally, you are an unethical person. You don't believe
> in ethics at all. You decide EVERYTHING ad hoc, according to criteria
> like convenience and pleasure. Ethics doesn't enter into your
decision
> making in any way.

Yeah it does. But I don't expect you to know that
as you can't read my mind.

> > > You always spouted nonsense before. You have done NOTHING to
> change
> > > your animal-killing ways, and the only reason is that you don't
> WANT to
> > > do anything, not that you "can't". You COULD do some very big
> things,
> > > or you could do a LOT of very small things that would make a
> > > difference, but you don't want to do ANYTHING. You are so very
> much
> > > the classically defiant teenager. "You're not the boss of me!"
> >
> > I have done enough to satisfy me.
>
> You haven't done ANYTHING, and you won't even give a second's honest
> consideration to suggestions by others of what you might do or might
> consider; instead, you reflexively reject EVERYTHING based on just one
> thing: "You're not the boss of me!" It's juvenile and immature.

Being ordered to eat game or move to the
country or hiring a personal farmer are not
options for me. Nor are they absolute
necessities ethics-wise according to me.

> > > > I have no bearing on what the farmers
> > > > of my food do.
> > >
> > > You have full control of where and from whom you obtain your food.
> > > That control, coupled with your knowledge of what your current
food
> > > suppliers do and don't do, ensures that you share in
> responsibility.
> >
> > It's a forced complicity
>
> There is no such thing. NOTHING is forced. No one puts a gun to your
> head and orders you to go into any store in which you shop. No one
> makes you shop in stores at all.
>
> Nothing is forced. Stop lying.

Nonsense. Hunger drives me to the stores.
The need to live a healthy life forces me to
comply.

> > > > I'm in no position to stop them
> > > > from running their farms in the manner they do.
> > >
> > > You are in complete control of your choice from whom to buy.
> >
> > Again, show me the source of a complete vegan
> > diet, where no animal deaths occur by the farmer.
>
> It's not my job to furnish you what you claim to "need".

Then you shouldn't criticize my way of attaining
that need.

> > What's that? They don't exist? No choice, then.
>
> You do have a choice: do it yourself; form a co-op; hire a farmer;
> think critically (for a change) about the implied ethics and realize
> that it's an absurdity, and give it up. You have LOTS of choices.
You
> just don't WANT to exercise choice. Being immature and juvenile, you
> still think the world is obliged to give you what you want. You're
> wrong - it isn't.

A veganic co-op needs veganic farmers.
There's not enough yet. As far as giving up,
I've already given up on your ideas. My
way of doing things is good enough for me.
You've just got to accept that.

> > > > Therefore I am complicit but not responsible.
> > >
> > > Both. Complicity MEANS responsibility.
> >
> > Forced complicity
>
> There is no forced complicity. It's an oxymoron.

So are jumbo shrimp, yet they exist.

> > > > Well Rudy, you have a new little clone.
> > >
> > > No, K is just someone who thinks a lot as I do, and who hasn't
been
> > > around much until recently. We're at opposite ends of the
country.
> >
> > He's learned to ape you well.
>
> He thinks as I do - independently.

He thinks as you do - in unison.

> You wouldn't know about independence.

You sure don't know me very well.

> > > > Don't look at me. Kandy was the one who
> > > > brought up the law crying slander over some
> > > > thing that turned out to be true after all.
> > >
> > > Cut the shit. YOU just pretended you know something about alleged
> laws
> > > forbidding trying to talk someone into committing suicide. You
> don't
> > > know what you're talking about.
> >
> > I know that many places have laws against it.
>
> Prove it. Name just ONE place, and cite the law.
>
> I'll wait. I'll be waiting a long time.

Just google it or something. I'm not required
to prove everything I say, just as you're not
required to believe 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.

Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > It's me who decides my ethics, so it is very
> > > much a personal choice.
> >
> > No. It is NOT you who decides it. That's what I explained below,
but
> > NOOOOO! You had to shoot from the lip straight away. ANOTHER
hallmark
> > of immaturity.
>
> My ethics are my own.

You don't have any ethics. Everything, without exception, is
situational for you, and a sense of right and wrong NEVER enters into
the calculation; only whether you'll find something convenient and
pleasurable.

>
> > > Others don't decide them for me.
> >
> > Yes, others do. Not entirely without input from you, but NO, you
do
> > not get to set your own ethics according to your mere whim.
>
> Yes I do.

No, you don't. At least, you wouldn't if you had any ethics at all,
which you don't.

>
> > > I'm not a psychiatrist and I'm not trying to
> > > sleep with a patient. Are you trying to say
> > > that the law should direct one's ethics.
> > > I think following the law is one thing, but
> > > ethics are another. Often they overlap.
> >
> > I'm suggesting that individuals do not get to set their own ad hoc,
> > situational ethics, as you are want to do.
>
> Well, I guess I'm just unusual, since I set my own.

You don't. You have none.

>
> > > Laws and some behaviours are imposed
> > > but ethics aren't
> >
> > Ethics IS. It IS imposed on you by two things. Some of it is
imposed
> > on you by the surrounding society in which you exist. You don't
get to
> > decide, unilaterally and based solely on whim, what is ethical in
your
> > dealings with those in the society in which you live; most of it is
> > decided communally. And some is imposed on you by your adherence
to
> > various creeds, of which "veganism" is one (albeit a shitty and
poorly
> > conceived one.) You, of course, are not really a "vegan", and
never
> > will be, PRECISELY because you are so juvenile and immature that
you
> > won't accept restraints on your petulant insistence on behaving
> > irresponsibly.
>
> Where have I behaved irresponsibly?

All the time, in everything, right there in Toronto.


> > > Everyone has their own version of right and wrong.
> >
> > No. That is patently absurd, but it figures you'd believe it.
>
> It's quite true.

Yes, it's quite true that it is patently absurd to imagine ethics can
be set unilaterally by an individual, when ethics is what governs
relations *among* individuals. It also is quite true that it figures
you would believe, juvenilely as always, that you can unilaterally set
your own.

>
> > > > > My ethics say do what you can
> > > > > and that's good enough.
> > > >
> > > > That's not ethics; that's your sense of convenience, your self
> > > > image.
> > >
> > > That's my ethics
> >
> > That's your slovenly attempt at rationalization.
>
> No, that's my ethics.

Your rationalization. You have no ethics, just pleasure-seeking.

>
> > > > > No where in my ethics
> > > >
> > > > You don't get to have "your" personal ethics. You're going to
do your
> > > > angry teenager bit now and shrilly insist that you do, but you
> > > > don't.
> > >
> > > Then who's ethics am I using, if not my own?
> >
> > None. Fundamentally, you are an unethical person. You don't
believe
> > in ethics at all. You decide EVERYTHING ad hoc, according to
criteria
> > like convenience and pleasure. Ethics doesn't enter into your
decision
> > making in any way.
>
> Yeah it does.

No, it doesn't.

>
> > > > You always spouted nonsense before. You have done NOTHING to
change
> > > > your animal-killing ways, and the only reason is that you don't
WANT to
> > > > do anything, not that you "can't". You COULD do some very big
things,
> > > > or you could do a LOT of very small things that would make a
> > > > difference, but you don't want to do ANYTHING. You are so very
much
> > > > the classically defiant teenager. "You're not the boss of me!"
> > >
> > > I have done enough to satisfy me.
> >
> > You haven't done ANYTHING, and you won't even give a second's
honest
> > consideration to suggestions by others of what you might do or
might
> > consider; instead, you reflexively reject EVERYTHING based on just
one
> > thing: "You're not the boss of me!" It's juvenile and immature.
>
> Being ordered to eat game

No one has "ordered" you to eat game or do anything else. People have
pointed out that you would cause fewer deaths than you currently do if
you ate some carefully chosen game. That is not "ordering".

> or move to the
> country or hiring a personal farmer are not
> options for me.

No one has "ordered" you to do that. They ARE options for you, and you
summarily reject them because you find them distasteful. Not
impossible, merely distasteful. Taste has nothing to do with ethics.

> Nor are they absolute
> necessities ethics-wise according to me.

NOTHING is a necessity for you "ethics-wise"; you have no ethics.


> > > > > I have no bearing on what the farmers
> > > > > of my food do.
> > > >
> > > > You have full control of where and from whom you obtain your
food.
> > > > That control, coupled with your knowledge of what your current
food
> > > > suppliers do and don't do, ensures that you share in
> > responsibility.
> > >
> > > It's a forced complicity
> >
> > There is no such thing. NOTHING is forced. No one puts a gun to
your
> > head and orders you to go into any store in which you shop. No one
> > makes you shop in stores at all.
> >
> > Nothing is forced. Stop lying.
>
> Nonsense.

No, good sense.

> Hunger drives me to the stores.

Hunger doesn't "drive" you to any particular solution. You WANT to go
to the stores, because it's easy, and ease is everything to you.

> The need to live a healthy life

No such thing.

You are not forced against your will to do anything. Your complicity
comes from volutarily choosing a particular course of action out of
numerous options available.


> > > > > I'm in no position to stop them
> > > > > from running their farms in the manner they do.
> > > >
> > > > You are in complete control of your choice from whom to buy.
> > >
> > > Again, show me the source of a complete vegan
> > > diet, where no animal deaths occur by the farmer.
> >
> > It's not my job to furnish you what you claim to "need".
>
> Then you shouldn't criticize my way of attaining
> that need.

You don't have any need. You have wants. The criticism arises because
your choices go against the phony ethical position you claim, but which
isn't an ethical position at all.

>
> > > What's that? They don't exist? No choice, then.
> >
> > You do have a choice: do it yourself; form a co-op; hire a farmer;
> > think critically (for a change) about the implied ethics and
realize
> > that it's an absurdity, and give it up. You have LOTS of choices.
You
> > just don't WANT to exercise choice. Being immature and juvenile,
you
> > still think the world is obliged to give you what you want. You're
> > wrong - it isn't.
>
> A veganic co-op needs veganic farmers.
> There's not enough yet.

There aren't ANY. But that's beside the point. You could become one,
or you could approach a current conventional farmer and inquire about
his willingness to farm according to your demands. You don't do it,
because you don't care at all about killing animals. All you care
about is cheap food easily available.

> As far as giving up,
> I've already given up on your ideas.

You never considered them. You never would - you never would consider
anything that involved some degree of personal sacrifice in order to
meet the ethical demands of a position you claim to embrace. You don't
have an ethics.

> My way of doing things

abdicating all responsibility, just like lots of other maladapted
teenaged malcontents

> is good enough for me.

Of course! You ONLY think of what you like.

> You've just got to accept that.

Intellectually, I don't have to accept one word of your fraudulent
moral pose. I am free to call it what it is: sanctimonious hypocrisy
and complete lack of ethics.


> > > > > Therefore I am complicit but not responsible.
> > > >
> > > > Both. Complicity MEANS responsibility.
> > >
> > > Forced complicity
> >
> > There is no forced complicity. It's an oxymoron.
>
> So are jumbo shrimp,

No, that is not an oxymoron.


> > > > > Well Rudy, you have a new little clone.
> > > >
> > > > No, K is just someone who thinks a lot as I do, and who hasn't
been
> > > > around much until recently. We're at opposite ends of the
country.
> > >
> > > He's learned to ape you well.
> >
> > He thinks as I do - independently.
>
> He thinks as you do - in unison.

He thinks independently. You wouldn't know about true independence.

>
> > You wouldn't know about independence.
>
> You sure don't know me very well.

I know you all too well.


> > > > > Don't look at me. Kandy was the one who
> > > > > brought up the law crying slander over some
> > > > > thing that turned out to be true after all.
> > > >
> > > > Cut the shit. YOU just pretended you know something about
alleged laws
> > > > forbidding trying to talk someone into committing suicide. You
don't
> > > > know what you're talking about.
> > >
> > > I know that many places have laws against it.
> >
> > Prove it. Name just ONE place, and cite the law.
> >
> > I'll wait. I'll be waiting a long time.
>
> Just google it or something.

The burden of proof is on you. We know you can't meet it. That's
typical.

You can't name a single place and support your claim. We all knew
that, of course.

> I'm not required
> to prove everything I say,

You can't support ANYTHING you say.

> just as you're not required to believe it.

It's bullshit. Of course I don't believe it.

On 3 Feb 2005 10:39:16 -0800, Gonad wrote:

>****wit David Harrison, stupid inbred redneck, wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 06:38:51 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> >****wit David Harrison, stupid inbred redneck, wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 04:42:13 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>****wit David Harrison, stupid inbred redneck, wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>On 31 Jan 2005 09:06:39 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>>****wit. Matheny clearly
>> >>>>>demonstrates that the "it would have happened without me" excuse
>falls
>> >>>>>apart.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> He does not, and he could not.
>> >>>
>> >>>He did. He can, and he did.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Prove it.
>> >
>> >Read the paper, ****wit.
>>
>> You are the
>
>Read the paper,

Post it you half ass Gonad. But we know you can't, and you
prove you can't with every post.

****wit David Harrison, stupid inbred cracker, wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2005 10:39:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >****wit David Harrison, stupid inbred redneck, wrote:
> >> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 06:38:51 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>
> >> >****wit David Harrison, stupid inbred redneck, wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 04:42:13 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>****wit David Harrison, stupid inbred redneck, wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>On 31 Jan 2005 09:06:39 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>>>****wit. Matheny clearly
> >> >>>>>demonstrates that the "it would have happened without me"
excuse
> >falls
> >> >>>>>apart.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> He does not, and he could not.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>He did. He can, and he did.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Prove it.
> >> >
> >> >Read the paper, ****wit.
> >>
> >> You are the
> >
> >Read the paper, you stupid cracker.
>
> Post it you ha

Read the paper, ****wit, you stupid cracker.

> > > I'm suggesting that individuals do not get to set their own ad
hoc,
> > > situational ethics, as you are want to do.
> >
> > Well, I guess I'm just unusual, since I set my own.
>
> You don't. You have none.

People DO set their own ethics. Who do
you think does it for them?

> > Where have I behaved irresponsibly?
>
> All the time, in everything, right there in Toronto.

Uh, yeah ok, what ever you say there fellow.

> No one has "ordered" you to eat game or do anything else. People have
> pointed out that you would cause fewer deaths than you currently do if
> you ate some carefully chosen game. That is not "ordering".

It a ridiculous suggestion to make in these
vegetarian groups. If you want to be helpful
here, post a vegan recipe or two. Quit with
the constant complaining.

> > The need to live a healthy life
>
> No such thing.

Here's where you're showing your extremism
again.

> > Then you shouldn't criticize my way of attaining
> > that need.
>
> You don't have any need. You have wants. The criticism arises
because
> your choices go against the phony ethical position you claim, but
which
> isn't an ethical position at all.

Food is a need for a healthy life. I don't know
why you persist in not following this logic.

> > Just google it or something.
>
> The burden of proof is on you. We know you can't meet it. That's
> typical.

So go have fun proving me wrong then.

> > I'm not required
> > to prove everything I say,
>
> You can't support ANYTHING you say.

I'm not in school writing papers. I don't need to
reference what I claim. And since I don't need
for you to believe me, it doesn't matter anyway.
Anyone interested enough to do their own
research, good for them and thanks for sharing
if you do. But don't tell me I HAVE to cite
referrences for everything I say.


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

Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > > I'm suggesting that individuals do not get to set their own ad
> hoc,
> > > > situational ethics, as you are want to do.
> > >
> > > Well, I guess I'm just unusual, since I set my own.
> >
> > You don't. You have none.
>
> People DO set their own ethics.

No, people do not.

> Who do you think does it for them?

In your case, no one - you have no ethics.

>
> > > Where have I behaved irresponsibly?
> >
> > All the time, in everything, right there in Toronto.
> >
> > No one has "ordered" you to eat game or do anything else. People
have
> > pointed out that you would cause fewer deaths than you currently do
if
> > you ate some carefully chosen game. That is not "ordering".
>
> It a ridiculous suggestion to make in these
> vegetarian groups.

No, it isn't. Not to someone who really is concerned with not killing
animals. You aren't concerned. You don't care.


>
> > > The need to live a healthy life
> >
> > No such thing.
>
> Here's where you're showing your extremism
> again.

No. There is no "need" to live a healthy life at all. Billions of
people don't lead healthy lives, and most of it is by choice.

>
> > > Then you shouldn't criticize my way of attaining
> > > that need.
> >
> > You don't have any need. You have wants. The criticism arises
because
> > your choices go against the phony ethical position you claim, but
which
> > isn't an ethical position at all.
>
> Food is a need for a healthy life. I don't know
> why you persist in not following this logic.

Because I have demonstrated that it is NOT logic. It's nonsense. You
have wants, not "needs". You want to live a healthy life. Nothing
wrong in and of itself in that, but it still isn't a need.

>
> > > Just google it or something.
> >
> > The burden of proof is on you. We know you can't meet it. That's
> > typical.
>
> So go have fun proving me wrong then.

We will assume you are wrong until you prove that you aren't.

>
> > > I'm not required
> > > to prove everything I say,
> >
> > You can't support ANYTHING you say.

> > People DO set their own ethics.
>
> No, people do not.
>
> > Who do you think does it for them?
>
> In your case, no one - you have no ethics.

People set their own ethics.

> > > you ate some carefully chosen game. That is not "ordering".
> >
> > It a ridiculous suggestion to make in these
> > vegetarian groups.
>
> No, it isn't. Not to someone who really is concerned with not killing
> animals. You aren't concerned. You don't care.

Why would you think that veg*ns would
condone a practice, which if it ever became
popular would cause the extinction of game
animals.

> > > > The need to live a healthy life
> > >
> > > No such thing.
> >
> > Here's where you're showing your extremism
> > again.
>
> No. There is no "need" to live a healthy life at all. Billions of
> people don't lead healthy lives, and most of it is by choice.

I have a need to live a healthy life. Of course it's
a choice whether to provide oneself with a need
or not, but since I'm not suicidal, obviously I'm
going to need to have a healthy life.

> > Food is a need for a healthy life. I don't know
> > why you persist in not following this logic.
>
> Because I have demonstrated that it is NOT logic. It's nonsense. You
> have wants, not "needs". You want to live a healthy life. Nothing
> wrong in and of itself in that, but it still isn't a need.

It's a need to me. You'll just have to be
content with disagreeing. You'll not
convince me you're right.

> > So go have fun proving me wrong then.
>
> We will assume you are wrong until you prove that you aren't.

Assume all you want. You probably do anyway.




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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > People DO set their own ethics.
>>
>> No, people do not.
>>
>> > Who do you think does it for them?
>>
>> In your case, no one - you have no ethics.
>
> People set their own ethics.

I just decided to kill my neighbour and rape his wife. That is ethical if I
decide it is?

>> > > you ate some carefully chosen game. That is not "ordering".
>> >
>> > It a ridiculous suggestion to make in these
>> > vegetarian groups.
>>
>> No, it isn't. Not to someone who really is concerned with not killing
>> animals. You aren't concerned. You don't care.
>
> Why would you think that veg*ns would
> condone a practice, which if it ever became
> popular would cause the extinction of game
> animals.

Because it might reduce some animal deaths, and would never become that
popular.

Have you ever seriously considered the impact of eliminating all the grass
and broad-leaf plant material, all the waste and by-products, probably more
than half the the content of the human food chain?

I didn't think so. Dimwit.

> > People set their own ethics.
>
> I just decided to kill my neighbour and rape his wife. That is ethical
if I
> decide it is?

I seriously doubt that anyone would find that
ethical. A person doing wrong almost always
KNOWS they're doing wrong.

> > Why would you think that veg*ns would
> > condone a practice, which if it ever became
> > popular would cause the extinction of game
> > animals.
>
> Because it might reduce some animal deaths, and would never become
that
> popular.

The idea of killing a beautiful, peaceful creature
of the forest, and then eating it, is not appealing
to vegetarians. Are you really this stupid? (to
quote you bud ricky)

> Have you ever seriously considered the impact of eliminating all the
grass
> and broad-leaf plant material, all the waste and by-products, probably
more
> than half the the content of the human food chain?
>
> I didn't think so. Dimwit.

What on earth are you talking about? Have you
taken a hallucinogen? Read your paragraph
and try to explain what you're talking about.


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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > And what are you suggesting that I
>> > compare it to?
>> =======================
>> LOL You've been told many times. Are you admitting you are too
> stupid to
>> remember the posts?
>
>
> I only remember you wanting to compare it
> to meals consisting of game only, and
> nothing else.
====================
No, fool. Your memory is shot from the drugs, eh killer? I never said
game only. That's just another of your strawmen. But that aside, I was
talikng about you comparing foods that you will eat. Something that you
are afraid to do, or just too interested in your own selfish pleasures to
take seriously.

Not very realistic, I hope.
====================
Very realistic, especially if animals really did mean anything to you. Of
course they don't, as you have proven time and time again, hypocrite.




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

****wit David Harrison wrote:

> On 2 Feb 2005 11:10:37 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison wrote:
>>
>>> Whatever is true of a vegan's responsibility for the deaths he
>>>contributes to, is true for the meat consumer as well. Both do
>>>contribute, regardless of whether or not we pretend they are
>>>responsible.
>>
>>There is no pretense. BOTH are responsible for the deaths of the
>>animals that are killed in the course of producing the foods they eat.
>
>
> Now that you mention it, it's been years since I was responsible
> for the death of an animal.

You are responsible for the deaths of animals every
day. ****wit.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>People DO set their own ethics.
>>
>>No, people do not.
>>
>>
>>>Who do you think does it for them?
>>
>>In your case, no one - you have no ethics.
>
>
> People set their own ethics.

People do not set their own ethics. Ethics is not
personal, it's political.

>
>
>>>>you ate some carefully chosen game. That is not "ordering".
>>>
>>>It a ridiculous suggestion to make in these
>>>vegetarian groups.
>>
>>No, it isn't. Not to someone who really is concerned with not killing
>>animals. You aren't concerned. You don't care.
>
>
> Why would you think that veg*ns would
> condone a practice, which if it ever became
> popular would cause the extinction of game
> animals.

It wouldn't. And "vegans" aren't worried about
extinctions in the least: if they had their way, all
domestic farm animals would become extinct.

>
>
>>>>>The need to live a healthy life
>>>>
>>>>No such thing.
>>>
>>>Here's where you're showing your extremism
>>>again.
>>
>>No. There is no "need" to live a healthy life at all. Billions of
>>people don't lead healthy lives, and most of it is by choice.
>
>
> I have a need to live a healthy life.

No, you want to do so. You don't have a need to do so.


>
>
>>>Food is a need for a healthy life. I don't know
>>>why you persist in not following this logic.
>>
>>Because I have demonstrated that it is NOT logic. It's nonsense. You
>>have wants, not "needs". You want to live a healthy life. Nothing
>>wrong in and of itself in that, but it still isn't a need.
>
>
> It's a need to me.

No, it's a want. You simply want to live a healthy
life, and you may even get your wish. If you don't, it
will not be a case of a "need" not being met.

>
>>>So go have fun proving me wrong then.
>>
>>We will assume you are wrong until you prove that you aren't.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>People set their own ethics.
>>
>>I just decided to kill my neighbour and rape his wife. That is ethical
>
> if I
>
>>decide it is?
>
>
> I seriously doubt that anyone would find that
> ethical.

Clearly some people DO find it ethical, Skanky: that's
why it happens.

You've said that people get to choose their own ethics.
If that is so, then you have to allow that SOMEONE
might feel such a course of action is ethical, and
according to you, we would have to agree that it is
ethical...to him. That's plainly absurd.

>
>
>>>Why would you think that veg*ns would
>>>condone a practice, which if it ever became
>>>popular would cause the extinction of game
>>>animals.
>>
>>Because it might reduce some animal deaths, and would never become
>>that popular.
>
>
> The idea of killing a beautiful, peaceful creature
> of the forest, and then eating it, is not appealing
> to vegetarians.

Irrelevant. It COULD result in some of them causing
fewer deaths than what they now cause.

>
>
>>Have you ever seriously considered the impact of eliminating all the grass
>>and broad-leaf plant material, all the waste and by-products, probably more
>>than half the the content of the human food chain?
>>
>>I didn't think so. Dimwit.
>
>
> What on earth are you talking about?

Stuff you wouldn't understand.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > People set their own ethics.
>>
>> I just decided to kill my neighbour and rape his wife. That is ethical
> if I
>> decide it is?
>
> I seriously doubt that anyone would find that
> ethical. A person doing wrong almost always
> KNOWS they're doing wrong.

You just said I set my own ethics. There ARE people who would consider that
ethical, fortunately we do NOT let them decide that for themselves.

>> > Why would you think that veg*ns would
>> > condone a practice, which if it ever became
>> > popular would cause the extinction of game
>> > animals.
>>
>> Because it might reduce some animal deaths, and would never become
> that
>> popular.
>
> The idea of killing a beautiful, peaceful creature
> of the forest, and then eating it, is not appealing
> to vegetarians. Are you really this stupid? (to
> quote you bud ricky)

No, but killing and letting it rot in the field is perfectly all right, also
to quote ricky.

Are YOU really this stupid?

>
>> Have you ever seriously considered the impact of eliminating all the
> grass
>> and broad-leaf plant material, all the waste and by-products, probably
> more
>> than half the the content of the human food chain?
>>
>> I didn't think so. Dimwit.
>
> What on earth are you talking about? Have you
> taken a hallucinogen? Read your paragraph
> and try to explain what you're talking about.

It figures you wouldn't have a clue what I mean.

The meat people eat is a result of animals eating primarily cellulose,
grass, fiber, low-grade grains, by-products of other processes like
fermentation, and waste products made into mashes and feeds. All of that
material is the foundation of the human food chain and it comprises a huge
amount of readily available material that is otherwise useless. By stopping
using animals we would sacrifice ALL of it. That would remove fully ONE HALF
or more of the calories that currently input into the base of the human food
chain. Explain in detail how you plan to replace all that, and of course
don't kill any animals or distrurb the environment doing it. Hurry up now.
Pffft!

> Clearly some people DO find it ethical, Skanky: that's
> why it happens.

I don't think anyone finds that ethical. There are
people who knowingly do things that are unethical.

> You've said that people get to choose their own ethics.
> If that is so, then you have to allow that SOMEONE
> might feel such a course of action is ethical, and
> according to you, we would have to agree that it is
> ethical...to him. That's plainly absurd.

It may very well be ethical in someone's
ill mind, but that doesn't change the fact
that most people think it's wrong and there
are laws against it.

> > The idea of killing a beautiful, peaceful creature
> > of the forest, and then eating it, is not appealing
> > to vegetarians.
>
> Irrelevant. It COULD result in some of them causing
> fewer deaths than what they now cause.

Stop being a meat pusher in veg newsgroups.

> >>Have you ever seriously considered the impact of eliminating all the
grass
> >>and broad-leaf plant material, all the waste and by-products,
probably more
> >>than half the the content of the human food chain?
> >>
> >>I didn't think so. Dimwit.
> >
> >
> > What on earth are you talking about?
>
> Stuff you wouldn't understand.

Stuff I don't think anyone would.


--
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 seriously doubt that anyone would find that
> > ethical. A person doing wrong almost always
> > KNOWS they're doing wrong.
>
> You just said I set my own ethics. There ARE people who would consider
that
> ethical, fortunately we do NOT let them decide that for themselves.

Luckily there are laws. But I am of the belief
that most people who do wrong, do it knowingly.

> > The idea of killing a beautiful, peaceful creature
> > of the forest, and then eating it, is not appealing
> > to vegetarians. Are you really this stupid? (to
> > quote you bud ricky)
>
> No, but killing and letting it rot in the field is perfectly all
right, also
> to quote ricky.
>
> Are YOU really this stupid?

You are now talking about the misdeeds of some
farmers. Any collateral or intentional deaths in
this situation are caused by, and are the
responsibility of the farmer. The consumer
only demands the end resulting plant food.

> The meat people eat is a result of animals eating primarily cellulose,
> grass, fiber, low-grade grains, by-products of other processes like
> fermentation, and waste products made into mashes and feeds. All of
that
> material is the foundation of the human food chain and it comprises a
huge
> amount of readily available material that is otherwise useless. By
stopping
> using animals we would sacrifice ALL of it. That would remove fully
ONE HALF
> or more of the calories that currently input into the base of the
human food
> chain. Explain in detail how you plan to replace all that, and of
course
> don't kill any animals or distrurb the environment doing it. Hurry up
now.
> Pffft!

All that waste would be better off composted
and used to enrich the soil for growing more
plant foods.


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

> > People set their own ethics.
>
> People do not set their own ethics. Ethics is not
> personal, it's political.

Ethics are personal. The law is political.

> > Why would you think that veg*ns would
> > condone a practice, which if it ever became
> > popular would cause the extinction of game
> > animals.
>
> It wouldn't. And "vegans" aren't worried about
> extinctions in the least: if they had their way, all
> domestic farm animals would become extinct.

I'm sure us humans can find a way to reintroduce
them to living in the wild again in a number of
places. Like some of those reclaimed pastures
and fodder fields.

> > It's a need to me.
>
> No, it's a want. You simply want to live a healthy
> life, and you may even get your wish. If you don't, it
> will not be a case of a "need" not being met.

You can call it what you want. To me it's a need.





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

Skanky the Toronto prostitute wrote:
>>Clearly some people DO find it ethical, Skanky: that's
>>why it happens.
>
>
> I don't think anyone finds that ethical.

Clearly some people do, Skanky.

>
>>You've said that people get to choose their own ethics.
>> If that is so, then you have to allow that SOMEONE
>>might feel such a course of action is ethical, and
>>according to you, we would have to agree that it is
>>ethical...to him. That's plainly absurd.
>
>
> It may very well be ethical in someone's
> ill mind, but that doesn't change the fact
> that most people think it's wrong

Irrelevant. You said people get to choose their own
ethics - plainly an absurd position.

Ethics are not set on an individual basis, nor
according to whim, as you wish to have.


>>>The idea of killing a beautiful, peaceful creature
>>>of the forest, and then eating it, is not appealing
>>>to vegetarians.
>>
>>Irrelevant. It COULD result in some of them causing
>>fewer deaths than what they now cause.
>
>
> Stop being a meat pusher in veg newsgroups.

I'm not doing that, Skanky.

>
>
>>>>Have you ever seriously considered the impact of eliminating all the
>>>>grass and broad-leaf plant material, all the waste and by-products,
>>>>probably more than half the the content of the human food chain?
>>>>
>>>>I didn't think so. Dimwit.
>>>
>>>
>>>What on earth are you talking about?
>>
>>Stuff you wouldn't understand.
>
>
> Stuff I don't think anyone would.

Stuff YOU definitely don't.

Skanky the Toronto prostitute wrote:

>>>I seriously doubt that anyone would find that
>>>ethical. A person doing wrong almost always
>>>KNOWS they're doing wrong.
>>
>>You just said I set my own ethics. There ARE people who would consider
>
> that
>
>>ethical, fortunately we do NOT let them decide that for themselves.
>
>
> Luckily there are laws. But I am of the belief
> that most people who do wrong, do it knowingly.

That's certainly the case with you, Skanky. You know
that "veganism" holds that it is wrong to kill animals,
but you go right ahead and participate.


>>>The idea of killing a beautiful, peaceful creature
>>>of the forest, and then eating it, is not appealing
>>>to vegetarians. Are you really this stupid? (to
>>>quote you bud ricky)
>>
>>No, but killing and letting it rot in the field is perfectly all
>>right, also to quote ricky.
>>
>>Are YOU really this stupid?
>
>
> You are now talking about the misdeeds of some
> farmers.

ALL farmers. Misdeeds you know about. Misdeeds for
which you share responsibility if you continue to buy
from them.

Skanky the Toronto whore wrote:

>>>People set their own ethics.
>>
>>People do not set their own ethics. Ethics is not
>>personal, it's political.
>
>
> Ethics are personal.

Ethics is not personal. People do not set their own
ethics. I've explained why. You're just being
juvenile and stubborn, as usual.

>>>Why would you think that veg*ns would
>>>condone a practice, which if it ever became
>>>popular would cause the extinction of game
>>>animals.
>>
>>It wouldn't. And "vegans" aren't worried about
>>extinctions in the least: if they had their way, all
>>domestic farm animals would become extinct.
>
>
> I'm sure us humans can find a way to reintroduce
> them to living in the wild again in a number of
> places.

No. Those breeds will go extinct. That's what
"vegans" expect to happen. They don't care about
extinctions per se.


>>>It's a need to me.
>>
>>No, it's a want. You simply want to live a healthy
>>life, and you may even get your wish. If you don't, it
>>will not be a case of a "need" not being met.
>
>
> You can call it what you want. To me it's a need.

It's a want. There is no such thing as "need" as
you're trying to use the word.

> Skanky the Toronto prostitute wrote:

That's it, you're not getting any more
discounts when you're in town!

> > I don't think anyone finds that ethical.
>
> Clearly some people do, Skanky.

Luckily we have laws for such situations.
I still think though, that most harmers of
people/animals know they are doing
wrong.

> > It may very well be ethical in someone's
> > ill mind, but that doesn't change the fact
> > that most people think it's wrong
>
> Irrelevant. You said people get to choose their own
> ethics - plainly an absurd position.

They get to choose their ethics. Their laws
however are chosen for them. There's a
big area of ethics that overlaps with and
often agrees with the law.

> Ethics are not set on an individual basis, nor
> according to whim, as you wish to have.

Who said according to whim. People often
have strong reasonings for their ethics, what
ever they may be.

> > Stop being a meat pusher in veg newsgroups.
>
> I'm not doing that, Skanky.

Yes you are.




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

> > Luckily there are laws. But I am of the belief
> > that most people who do wrong, do it knowingly.
>
> That's certainly the case with you, Skanky. You know
> that "veganism" holds that it is wrong to kill animals,
> but you go right ahead and participate.

I'm not convinced that the numbers of cds
in cropgrowing are as high as you imply.
What ones do happen are the direct
responsibility of the farmer, not the
consumer, whose only demand was the
end result plant food.

> ALL farmers. Misdeeds you know about. Misdeeds for
> which you share responsibility if you continue to buy
> from them.

Forced complicity means no responsibility.
Do you really want to go over all this again?


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

> > Ethics are personal.
>
> Ethics is not personal. People do not set their own
> ethics. I've explained why. You're just being
> juvenile and stubborn, as usual.

We disagree. The dictionary says that ethics
are motivation based on ideas of right and
wrong. That sounds pretty personal.

> > I'm sure us humans can find a way to reintroduce
> > them to living in the wild again in a number of
> > places.
>
> No. Those breeds will go extinct. That's what
> "vegans" expect to happen. They don't care about
> extinctions per se.

With proper reintroduction, in many areas,
that should not be a problem.




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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > Luckily there are laws. But I am of the belief
>> > that most people who do wrong, do it knowingly.
>>
>> That's certainly the case with you, Skanky. You know
>> that "veganism" holds that it is wrong to kill animals,
>> but you go right ahead and participate.
>
> I'm not convinced that the numbers of cds
> in cropgrowing are as high as you imply.
> What ones do happen are the direct
> responsibility of the farmer, not the
> consumer, whose only demand was the
> end result plant food.
=======================
Tap, tap ,tap. Keep dancing, hypocrite...


>
>> ALL farmers. Misdeeds you know about. Misdeeds for
>> which you share responsibility if you continue to buy
>> from them.
>
> Forced complicity means no responsibility.
> Do you really want to go over all this again?
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
>
>

Skanky the Toronto whore wrote:

>>Skanky the Toronto prostitute wrote:
>
>>>I don't think anyone finds that ethical.
>>
>>Clearly some people do, Skanky.
>
>
> Luckily we have laws for such situations.

Those laws are based on shared ethics. People do not
get to make up their own ethics.


>>>It may very well be ethical in someone's
>>>ill mind, but that doesn't change the fact
>>>that most people think it's wrong
>>
>>Irrelevant. You said people get to choose their own
>>ethics - plainly an absurd position.
>
>
> They get to choose their ethics.

They do not.

>
>>Ethics are not set on an individual basis, nor
>>according to whim, as you wish to have.
>
>
> Who said according to whim.

You demonstrate with every post that it's only
according to whim.

>
>>>Stop being a meat pusher in veg newsgroups.
>>
>>I'm not doing that, Skanky.

Skanky the Toronto whore wrote:

>>>Luckily there are laws. But I am of the belief
>>>that most people who do wrong, do it knowingly.
>>
>>That's certainly the case with you, Skanky. You know
>>that "veganism" holds that it is wrong to kill animals,
>>but you go right ahead and participate.
>
>
> I'm not convinced that the numbers of cds
> in cropgrowing are as high as you imply.

It doesn't matter how high they are. They're greater
than zero. "veganism" is an ETHICALLY PRESCRIPTIVE
belief system - a religion - that implies one shouldn't
kill animals. You participate in a process that kills
animals. That's all we need to know.

>>ALL farmers. Misdeeds you know about. Misdeeds for
>>which you share responsibility if you continue to buy
>>from them.
>
>
> Forced complicity

There is no forced complicity. If you elect to grow
all your own food - and no one is stopping you - then
you could avoid complicity in animal death. Nothing is
forced. "Force" ONLY means other humans making you do
something. It doesn't cover your lazy refusal to
accept responsibility for yourself, your juvenilely
defiant rejection of plainly reasonable choices.

Skanky the Toronto whore wrote:

>>>Ethics are personal.
>>
>>Ethics is not personal. People do not set their own
>>ethics. I've explained why. You're just being
>>juvenile and stubborn, as usual.
>
>
> We disagree.

You are wrong. Ethics is not personal. It can't be.

>
>>>I'm sure us humans can find a way to reintroduce
>>>them to living in the wild again in a number of
>>>places.
>>
>>No. Those breeds will go extinct. That's what
>>"vegans" expect to happen. They don't care about
>>extinctions per se.
>
>
> With proper reintroduction

There wouldn't BE any reintroduction. The breeds are
not suited to living on their own, and no one would
want them anywhere.

"vegans" do not have a problem with extinction per se.

> > Luckily we have laws for such situations.
>
> Those laws are based on shared ethics. People do not
> get to make up their own ethics.

Although there are shared ethics, people
have their own beliefs in what's right and
wrong. I for instance believe that smoking
pot is ok. Many people do not think it's
ok. The law says it's not, so no matter how
much I think it's ok, I know full well that if
I were to walk down the public street
smoking a joint, I'll likely be arrested.

> > They get to choose their ethics.
>
> They do not.

Do too.

> >>Ethics are not set on an individual basis, nor
> >>according to whim, as you wish to have.
> >
> >
> > Who said according to whim.
>
> You demonstrate with every post that it's only
> according to whim.

You've got to stop with these implied things
you always see.


--
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'm not convinced that the numbers of cds
> > in cropgrowing are as high as you imply.
>
> It doesn't matter how high they are. They're greater
> than zero. "veganism" is an ETHICALLY PRESCRIPTIVE
> belief system - a religion - that implies one shouldn't
> kill animals. You participate in a process that kills
> animals. That's all we need to know.

The farmer is responsible. The consumer
has only demanded the plant product.
Due to lack of availlability, the consumer
while technically complicit, is in a position
of forced complicity, which takes away
any responsibility.

> >>ALL farmers. Misdeeds you know about. Misdeeds for
> >>which you share responsibility if you continue to buy
> >>from them.
> >
> >
> > Forced complicity
>
> There is no forced complicity. If you elect to grow
> all your own food - and no one is stopping you - then
> you could avoid complicity in animal death. Nothing is
> forced. "Force" ONLY means other humans making you do
> something. It doesn't cover your lazy refusal to
> accept responsibility for yourself, your juvenilely
> defiant rejection of plainly reasonable choices.

I have no land to grow my own food yet. You
can call it lazy if you want, but I call it my
retirement plan. Until then, it's not an option
for 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.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > Clearly some people DO find it ethical, Skanky: that's
> > why it happens.
>
> I don't think anyone finds that ethical. There are
> people who knowingly do things that are unethical.

I have known unethical people. They almost never consider themselves
unethical. Pedophiles tell themselves that they are helping children become
aquainted with sex. Thieves tell themselves that they are only really
robbing big faceless insurance companies. People frequently harm other
people because "they deserve it".

> > You've said that people get to choose their own ethics.
> > If that is so, then you have to allow that SOMEONE
> > might feel such a course of action is ethical, and
> > according to you, we would have to agree that it is
> > ethical...to him. That's plainly absurd.
>
> It may very well be ethical in someone's
> ill mind, but that doesn't change the fact
> that most people think it's wrong and there
> are laws against it.

Which means that ethics are created by consensus and we learn to follow
them, we don't make them up.


> > > The idea of killing a beautiful, peaceful creature
> > > of the forest, and then eating it, is not appealing
> > > to vegetarians.
> >
> > Irrelevant. It COULD result in some of them causing
> > fewer deaths than what they now cause.
>
> Stop being a meat pusher in veg newsgroups.

They aren't all "veg newsgroups" dippy. If meat causes less animal suffering
than plant foods in some cases then why should it not be recognized as such?

> > >>Have you ever seriously considered the impact of eliminating all the
> grass
> > >>and broad-leaf plant material, all the waste and by-products,
> probably more
> > >>than half the the content of the human food chain?
> > >>
> > >>I didn't think so. Dimwit.
> > >
> > >
> > > What on earth are you talking about?
> >
> > Stuff you wouldn't understand.
>
> Stuff I don't think anyone would.

I explained it in my other post, for the cognitively impaired.

> > We disagree.
>
> You are wrong. Ethics is not personal. It can't be.

Of course they can be. The dictionary
says "Motivation based on ideas of right
and wrong." That sounds quite personal.


--
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 have known unethical people. They almost never consider themselves
> unethical. Pedophiles tell themselves that they are helping children
become
> aquainted with sex. Thieves tell themselves that they are only really
> robbing big faceless insurance companies. People frequently harm other
> people because "they deserve it".

That shows how personal ethics are. The
people you used as examples have different
ethics. I'm sure though, that in at least some
cases they know what they're doing is wrong.

> > It may very well be ethical in someone's
> > ill mind, but that doesn't change the fact
> > that most people think it's wrong and there
> > are laws against it.
>
> Which means that ethics are created by consensus and we learn to
follow
> them, we don't make them up.

Laws are often based on a consensus
of people who agree on an ethical point.

> They aren't all "veg newsgroups" dippy. If meat causes less animal
suffering
> than plant foods in some cases then why should it not be recognized as
such?

If you really wanted to stop animal suffering you
would encourage more 0 death homesteading
and veganic farming rather than your minimum
1 death game.




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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > I'm not convinced that the numbers of cds
>> > in cropgrowing are as high as you imply.
>>
>> It doesn't matter how high they are. They're greater
>> than zero. "veganism" is an ETHICALLY PRESCRIPTIVE
>> belief system - a religion - that implies one shouldn't
>> kill animals. You participate in a process that kills
>> animals. That's all we need to know.
>
> The farmer is responsible. The consumer
> has only demanded the plant product.
> Due to lack of availlability, the consumer
> while technically complicit, is in a position
> of forced complicity, which takes away
> any responsibility.
====================
LOL You really don't understand anything you write, do you killer? Keep up
the good work proving your stupidity, hypocrite.



>
>> >>ALL farmers. Misdeeds you know about. Misdeeds for
>> >>which you share responsibility if you continue to buy
>> >>from them.
>> >
>> >
>> > Forced complicity
>>
>> There is no forced complicity. If you elect to grow
>> all your own food - and no one is stopping you - then
>> you could avoid complicity in animal death. Nothing is
>> forced. "Force" ONLY means other humans making you do
>> something. It doesn't cover your lazy refusal to
>> accept responsibility for yourself, your juvenilely
>> defiant rejection of plainly reasonable choices.
>
> I have no land to grow my own food yet. You
> can call it lazy if you want, but I call it my
> retirement plan. Until then, it's not an option
> for me.
==================
Ly It IS an option. It's just that YOU are too lazy and selfish to take
that option. Proving yet again that animals take a back seat to your
conveninece and entertainment. Thanks again, hypocrite.


>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
> Irony, hypocrisy, stupidity and ignorance on display. Read all the lys
> inside...
>