Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gaverick Matheny pours shit all over Dreck's head (then porks Dreck'swife)

Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).

The task he has set himself is to take apart the
occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
eat, based on expected utility considerations.

His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.
This in fact is straightforward: neither meat eaters
nor vegetarians, themselves, kill animals (usually).
That, of course, isn't the point. The linkage to the
actual animal killers is clear. It's even a little
amusing that Matheny has gone through all his gyrations
to try to show that meat eaters do in fact bear
responsibility for the animals they cause to be killed,
because I don't think most meat eaters ever think they
*aren't* responsible.

However, Matheny's analysis, as I said, clearly works
to establish "vegans" as being responsible for animal
collateral deaths, too, by exactly the same mechanism.
Some low-talent sophists like Dreck Nash attempt to
make the difference based on the "necessity" of animals
being killed in order to produce the food (necessary
for meat, supposedly not necessary for vegetables), but
Matheny's paper doesn't address that issue at all, as
it shouldn't.

When we look at one of the two criminal situations that
serve as analogies for the idea of complicity of
"vegans" in animal deaths - the accomplice in an
unexpectedly fatal bank robbery - we see that the
accomplice's complicity is NOT dependent on some
"necessity" of the unexpected outcome. That is, the
accomplice - say, the getaway driver - is already
responsible for the bank robbery, but if some innocent
person is killed in the course of the robbery, the
accomplice ALSO shares in the responsibility for the
death. If caught, his punishment will be, and SHOULD
be, harsher than if no death had occurred.

The "vegan" isn't the hands-on killer of animals in the
case of collateral animal deaths in agriculture, but
the dead animals are a foreseeable consequence of the
process, just as the dead bank customer is a
foreseeable consequence of an armed bank robbery, and
the "vegan" knows about the virtual certainty of CDs;
at least, Dreck Nash always claims she does.

"vegans" are morally complicit in the collateral deaths
that occur in the course of the production of "vegans'"
food.
  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
>Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
>Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
>at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
>(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).
>
>The task he has set himself is to take apart the
>occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
>doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
>meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
>industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
>attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
>fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
>eat, based on expected utility considerations.
>
>His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
>with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
>is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
>deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.


No, it does not. The paper sets out to prove that, while
some argue that act-utilitarianism cannot provide an
adequate critique of buying meat, on the basis that a
single meat purchase will not actually cause more farm
animals to be raised or slaughtered, act-utilitarians
cannot use actual utility as a decision procedure and
must instead use expected utility to prescribe actions.

There's no mention in his paper that such a mechanism
links vegetarians to the collateral deaths associated in
crop production. You've merely asserted there is and
fail to show where. Throw again.
[..]
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> "vegans" are morally complicit in the collateral deaths
> that occur in the course of the production of "vegans'"
> food.


Moral complicity dissappears in the following
situation. The situation of no choice. The
vegan must buy food and there is not enough
veganic foods available to provide for a
healthy life. That makes no choice buy to
buy some commercial foods. It's literally
a life or death choice. Responsibility fades
away when there's no choice.


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


  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>"vegans" are morally complicit in the collateral deaths
>>that occur in the course of the production of "vegans'"
>>food.

>
>
> Moral complicity dissappears in the following
> situation. The situation of no choice.


1. No, it doesn't. Your complicity in the "bad"
outcome doesn't change.

2. There IS a choice.
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
>>Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
>>Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
>>at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
>>(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).
>>
>>The task he has set himself is to take apart the
>>occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
>>doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
>>meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
>>industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
>>attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
>>fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
>>eat, based on expected utility considerations.
>>
>>His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
>>with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
>>is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
>>deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.

>
>
> No, it does not.


Yes, it does.

> The paper sets out to prove that, while
> some argue that act-utilitarianism cannot provide an
> adequate critique of buying meat, on the basis that a
> single meat purchase will not actually cause more farm
> animals to be raised or slaughtered, act-utilitarians
> cannot use actual utility as a decision procedure and
> must instead use expected utility to prescribe actions.


Next time READ THE WHOLE PAPER, Dog-beater. All you
did was cut-and-paste from the abstract.

>
> There's no mention in his paper


You didn't read the paper; you only read the abstract,
and cut-and-pasted two sentences from it.

> that such a mechanism
> links vegetarians to the collateral deaths associated in
> crop production.


Irrelevant. The mechanism applies perfectly well to
vegetarians. The EXPECTED utility to animals of the
field due to the act of buying commercially produced
vegetables is diminished in EXACTLY the same way the
expected utility to meat animals is diminished by all
meat eaters. The mechanism is the same.

Once again, you lose. You may now move on to another
form of time wastage.


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ray
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
. net...

<Snip>

What's a "Collateral Death" ~~Jonnie~~?

Is it the same as accidental?


  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:52:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>
>>>Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
>>>Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
>>>Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
>>>at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
>>>(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).
>>>
>>>The task he has set himself is to take apart the
>>>occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
>>>doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
>>>meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
>>>industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
>>>attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
>>>fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
>>>eat, based on expected utility considerations.
>>>
>>>His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
>>>with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
>>>is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
>>>deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.

>>
>> No, it does not.

>
>Yes, it does.


Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
production, and after you've done that show where his
article concludes that the vegetarian is responsible for
them.

>> The paper sets out to prove that, while
>> some argue that act-utilitarianism cannot provide an
>> adequate critique of buying meat, on the basis that a
>> single meat purchase will not actually cause more farm
>> animals to be raised or slaughtered, act-utilitarians
>> cannot use actual utility as a decision procedure and
>> must instead use expected utility to prescribe actions.

>
>Next time READ THE WHOLE PAPER


I have read it, and nowhere does it even suggest a link
between vegetarians and the collateral deaths caused
by farmers in crop production. You've read something
into it that doesn't exist.

>> that such a mechanism
>> links vegetarians to the collateral deaths associated in
>> crop production.

>
>Irrelevant.


No, it is not. Matheny doesn't show that such a mechanism
links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused by farmers
in crop production. Read it again without imagining the words
"collateral" and "deaths" exist in it.
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matheny said your wife was a good ride.


Derek wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:52:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
>>>>Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
>>>>Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
>>>>at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
>>>>(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).
>>>>
>>>>The task he has set himself is to take apart the
>>>>occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
>>>>doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
>>>>meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
>>>>industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
>>>>attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
>>>>fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
>>>>eat, based on expected utility considerations.
>>>>
>>>>His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
>>>>with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
>>>>is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
>>>>deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.
>>>
>>>No, it does not.

>>
>>Yes, it does.

>
>
> Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
> vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
> production, and after you've done that show where his
> article concludes that the vegetarian is responsible for
> them.


His article doesn't explicitly do that. Based on my
extension of his mechanism, *I* did it. The expected
utility argument extends perfectly well to cover
"vegans" purchases of commercially grown produce, and
the deaths of animals in the field. Matheny didn't
need to cover it; I took care of it for him.

>
>
>>>The paper sets out to prove that, while
>>>some argue that act-utilitarianism cannot provide an
>>>adequate critique of buying meat, on the basis that a
>>>single meat purchase will not actually cause more farm
>>>animals to be raised or slaughtered, act-utilitarians
>>>cannot use actual utility as a decision procedure and
>>>must instead use expected utility to prescribe actions.

>>
>>Next time READ THE WHOLE PAPER

>
>
> I have read it,


You did not. You did cut-and-paste from the abstract.
You only read the abstract.

>
>>>that such a mechanism
>>>links vegetarians to the collateral deaths associated in
>>>crop production.

>>
>>Irrelevant.

>
>
> No, it is not.


Yes, it is irrelevant.

> Matheny doesn't show that such a mechanism
> links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused by farmers
> in crop production.


It doesn't matter. He let the "expected utility" cat
out of the bag, and it ran right up and scratched your
claim of no responsibility to shreds.
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>Moral complicity dissappears in the following
>>>situation. The situation of no choice.

>>
>>1. No, it doesn't. Your complicity in the "bad"
>> outcome doesn't change.

>
>
> Then you have to acknowledge forced complicity


There is no such thing. There is complicity, or there
isn't.

>
>
>>2. There IS a choice.

>
>
> The only other choice


There is not "only" one other choice.
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > Moral complicity dissappears in the following
> > situation. The situation of no choice.

>
> 1. No, it doesn't. Your complicity in the "bad"
> outcome doesn't change.


Then you have to acknowledge forced complicity
as being way less morally wrong than willful
complicity.

> 2. There IS a choice.


The only other choice (assuming one
can't afford to homestead) is death
from starvation. That can't possibly
be seen as a viable choice! Surely
you must agree.


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





  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> >>>Moral complicity dissappears in the following
> >>>situation. The situation of no choice.
> >>
> >>1. No, it doesn't. Your complicity in the "bad"
> >> outcome doesn't change.

> >
> >
> > Then you have to acknowledge forced complicity

>
> There is no such thing. There is complicity, or there
> isn't.


Then forced complicity is not really a form
of complicity. More like its opposite.

> >>2. There IS a choice.

> >
> >
> > The only other choice

>
> There is not "only" one other choice.


I presented 2, homesteading and death.
I forgot about getting a farmer to grow
veganic for one or more. Both homesteading
and hiring a farmer are not in most
people's budget, that leaves only death
or buying commercial. Have I left
anything out? (keep in mind that eating
meat is not an option, nor is it 0 death)



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



  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>>Moral complicity dissappears in the following
>>>>>situation. The situation of no choice.
>>>>
>>>>1. No, it doesn't. Your complicity in the "bad"
>>>> outcome doesn't change.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then you have to acknowledge forced complicity

>>
>>There is no such thing. There is complicity, or there
>>isn't.

>
>
> Then forced complicity


There is no such thing.

>
>>>>2. There IS a choice.
>>>
>>>
>>>The only other choice

>>
>>There is not "only" one other choice.

>
>
> I presented 2, homesteading and death.
> I forgot about getting a farmer to grow
> veganic for one or more. Both homesteading
> and hiring a farmer are not in most
> people's budget,


Claiming not to be able to afford to do the right thing
does not exculpate you for doing the wrong thing.

  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...

> I presented 2, homesteading and death.
> I forgot about getting a farmer to grow
> veganic for one or more. Both homesteading
> and hiring a farmer are not in most
> people's budget, that leaves only death
> or buying commercial. Have I left
> anything out? (keep in mind that eating
> meat is not an option, nor is it 0 death)


Let me ask you a question: what would you do if the only two options were
eating meat and death? Just curious...


  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:09:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:52:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
>>>>>Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
>>>>>Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
>>>>>at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
>>>>>(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).
>>>>>
>>>>>The task he has set himself is to take apart the
>>>>>occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
>>>>>doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
>>>>>meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
>>>>>industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
>>>>>attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
>>>>>fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
>>>>>eat, based on expected utility considerations.
>>>>>
>>>>>His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
>>>>>with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
>>>>>is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
>>>>>deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.
>>>>
>>>>No, it does not.
>>>
>>>Yes, it does.

>>
>> Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
>> vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
>> production, and after you've done that show where his
>> article concludes that the vegetarian is responsible for
>> them.

>
>His article doesn't explicitly do that.


Exactly! You imagined it did and then asserted it.

>Based on my extension of his mechanism, *I* did it.


Then you cannot lie by claiming "it (Matheny's article)
also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused
by the production of the crops they eat." What you
should have written was that YOUR extension of it
makes that link rather than the article itself. You lied
again, Jon, and every time you do it you dump whatever
argument you're carrying down the toilet.

[..]
>> Matheny doesn't show that such a mechanism
>> links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused by
>> farmers in crop production.

>
>It doesn't matter.


It does if you want your lie to be believed, you stupid
fool.

[..]
  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Scented Nectar wrote:
>
>> Then forced complicity

>
>There is no such thing.


Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.


  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:09:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:52:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
>>>>>>Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
>>>>>>Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
>>>>>>at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
>>>>>>(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The task he has set himself is to take apart the
>>>>>>occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
>>>>>>doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
>>>>>>meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
>>>>>>industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
>>>>>>attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
>>>>>>fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
>>>>>>eat, based on expected utility considerations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
>>>>>>with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
>>>>>>is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
>>>>>>deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it does not.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it does.
>>>
>>>Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
>>>vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
>>>production, and after you've done that show where his
>>>article concludes that the vegetarian is responsible for
>>>them.

>>
>>His article doesn't explicitly do that.

>
>
> Exactly! You imagined it did and then asserted it.


No, I never imagined anything about his article. I
understood the point of his article - expected utility
and contributory causation - and I extended it.
Legitimately.

You'll note, ****drip - well, you would have noted if
you had read the paper, which you plainly didn't do -
that Matheny writes most of his article concerning
bandits stealing beans from the bowls of villagers. He
then extends his conclusion to cover the contributory
causation of meat eaters to the deaths of meat animals.
Following identical procedure, I have extended his
conclusion to cover the contributory causation of
"vegans" to the deaths of animals of the field.

Matheny's extension is legitimate and correct, and so
is mine.

>
>
>>Based on my extension of his mechanism, *I* did it.

>
>
> Then you cannot lie by claiming "it (Matheny's article)
> also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused
> by the production of the crops they eat."


I never said that Matheny's *article* explicity did
this. My apologies if it wasn't clear to you, but I
think most of your alleged misperceptions are actually
deliberate. What I meant to say is that Matheny's
exposition of expected utility and contributory
causation can perfectly well be extended to cover
"vegans'" contributory causation of death of animals in
the field. It can, and I did it (the extension.)

> What you
> should have written was that YOUR extension of it
> makes that link rather than the article itself.


I never wrote that the *article* did it. I said that
Matheny's analysis did it. The analysis does it;
Matheny just didn't do it explicitly.
  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > I presented 2, homesteading and death.
> > I forgot about getting a farmer to grow
> > veganic for one or more. Both homesteading
> > and hiring a farmer are not in most
> > people's budget, that leaves only death
> > or buying commercial. Have I left
> > anything out? (keep in mind that eating
> > meat is not an option, nor is it 0 death)

>
> Let me ask you a question: what would you do if the only two options

were
> eating meat and death? Just curious...


I'd have to break down and eat the meat,
which I consider unhealthy but healthier
than starving. That's a last resort to me.
As long as veg food is available, that's
what I'll choose. Even when shown low
deaths meats, which are rare (no pun)
enough to NOT be able to supply all
meat eaters, I will still choose a veg
food. Some veg foods are 0 death,
but meats always have at least 1.
Anyway, it's just healthier to not eat
meat.


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



  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Then forced complicity

>>
>>There is no such thing.

>
>
> Forced complicity exists,


It does not.
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> >>>Moral complicity dissappears in the following
>> >>>situation. The situation of no choice.
>> >>
>> >>1. No, it doesn't. Your complicity in the "bad"
>> >> outcome doesn't change.
>> >
>> >
>> > Then you have to acknowledge forced complicity

>>
>> There is no such thing. There is complicity, or there
>> isn't.

>
> Then forced complicity is not really a form
> of complicity. More like its opposite.
>
>> >>2. There IS a choice.
>> >
>> >
>> > The only other choice

>>
>> There is not "only" one other choice.

>
> I presented 2, homesteading and death.
> I forgot about getting a farmer to grow
> veganic for one or more. Both homesteading
> and hiring a farmer are not in most
> people's budget,

====================
Again killer, we are not talking about most people, most people, the sane
ones, don't make the claims that *YOU* do about caring about animal death
and suffering. If animal death and suffering were really of any importance
to you, you'd do whatever it took to make those choices that reduced your
bloody footprints. You however have already stated that you will never make
those choices because you convenience and selfishness take priority.


that leaves only death
> or buying commercial. Have I left
> anything out? (keep in mind that eating
> meat is not an option, nor is it 0 death)

==================
It can be alot less death than what you eat now, 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.
>
>
>



  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

C. James Strutz wrote:

> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>I presented 2, homesteading and death.
>>I forgot about getting a farmer to grow
>>veganic for one or more. Both homesteading
>>and hiring a farmer are not in most
>>people's budget, that leaves only death
>>or buying commercial. Have I left
>>anything out? (keep in mind that eating
>>meat is not an option, nor is it 0 death)

>
>
> Let me ask you a question: what would you do if the only two options were
> eating meat and death? Just curious...


She'd eat the meat. I think she's already said that.

Homo felcher Ron would just shriek, "False dilemma!
False dilemma!" and flounce away.


  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> >>>Then you have to acknowledge forced complicity
> >>
> >>There is no such thing. There is complicity, or there
> >>isn't.

> >
> >
> > Then forced complicity

>
> There is no such thing.


Then lets call it forced participation.

> > I presented 2, homesteading and death.
> > I forgot about getting a farmer to grow
> > veganic for one or more. Both homesteading
> > and hiring a farmer are not in most
> > people's budget,

>
> Claiming not to be able to afford to do the right thing
> does not exculpate you for doing the wrong thing.


Not having the money for something turns
that something into an impossibility
choice-wise.

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



  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > Moral complicity dissappears in the following
>> > situation. The situation of no choice.

>>
>> 1. No, it doesn't. Your complicity in the "bad"
>> outcome doesn't change.

>
> Then you have to acknowledge forced complicity
> as being way less morally wrong than willful
> complicity.
>
>> 2. There IS a choice.

>
> The only other choice (assuming one
> can't afford to homestead) is death
> from starvation.

====================
No fool, you been shown that they are other choices within the foods that
you eat now! You are just to self-absorbed into killing animals
unnecessarily to seriously look at those options. Afterall, your selfish
conveninece and entertainment come first, as you have proven over and over,
killer.



That can't possibly
> be seen as a viable choice! Surely
> you must agree.
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
>
>
>



  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>>Then you have to acknowledge forced complicity
>>>>
>>>>There is no such thing. There is complicity, or there
>>>>isn't.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then forced complicity

>>
>>There is no such thing.

>
>
> Then lets call it forced participation.


No such thing. You CHOOSE to participate in the market
for commercially grown produce.

>
>
>>>I presented 2, homesteading and death.
>>>I forgot about getting a farmer to grow
>>>veganic for one or more. Both homesteading
>>>and hiring a farmer are not in most
>>>people's budget,

>>
>>Claiming not to be able to afford to do the right thing
>>does not exculpate you for doing the wrong thing.

>
>
> Not having the money for something turns
> that something into an impossibility
> choice-wise.


False, but irrelevant: it STILL does not excuse
wrongdoing. If you claim you "need" food, and you have
no money, and you break into a grocery store and steal
some food, you have done wrong, and you are culpable,
both legally and morally.

You always have choices.
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Derek > wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >Scented Nectar wrote:
> >
> >> Then forced complicity

> >
> >There is no such thing.

>
> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.


We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice. It is choice
that would certainly have a negative or unwanted consequence, but the
choice still remains. Unfortunately, our culture allows the individual
to get caught up in the "he made me do it" mentality. It is this
mentality that allows people to be manipulated. it is a remnant from
religion to inspire guilt and control.
  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> "vegans" are morally complicit in the collateral deaths
>> that occur in the course of the production of "vegans'"
>> food.

>
> Moral complicity dissappears in the following
> situation. The situation of no choice.

====================
That doesn't apply to ou, killer. You have other choices...

The
> vegan must buy food and there is not enough
> veganic foods available to provide for a
> healthy life.

=====================
What happened? I thought this mythical food source was supposed to be able
to feed the world!!!


That makes no choice buy to
> buy some commercial foods.

=======================
here are literally 1000s of choices right there, hypocrite. Your problem is
that you continue to choice those foods that you have been shown cause more
death and suffering that you need to contribute to just for survival.
Instead, you demand convenince and savory entertainment. Selfishness and
hypocrisy, killer.


It's literally
> a life or death choice. Responsibility fades
> away when there's no choice.

=================
Again, that doesn't include you, killer.


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





  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:45:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:09:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:52:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
>>>>>>>Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
>>>>>>>Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
>>>>>>>at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
>>>>>>>(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The task he has set himself is to take apart the
>>>>>>>occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
>>>>>>>doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
>>>>>>>meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
>>>>>>>industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
>>>>>>>attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
>>>>>>>fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
>>>>>>>eat, based on expected utility considerations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
>>>>>>>with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
>>>>>>>is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
>>>>>>>deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, it does not.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, it does.
>>>>
>>>>Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
>>>>vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
>>>>production, and after you've done that show where his
>>>>article concludes that the vegetarian is responsible for
>>>>them.
>>>
>>>His article doesn't explicitly do that.

>>
>> Exactly! You imagined it did and then asserted it.

>
>No, I never imagined anything about his article.


You categorically stated that "it (Matheny's article)
also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused
by the production of the crops they eat.", and when I
asked where, you answered that "His article doesn't
explicitly do that." Thus, you imagined it did.

> I extended it. Legitimately.


You extended it without any support for the conclusion
drawn from that extension, and didn't have the guts to
announce that you did extend it to include your wrong
conclusion, either. That's not what I would call an honest
or legitimate extension.

>>>Based on my extension of his mechanism, *I* did it.

>>
>> Then you cannot lie by claiming "it (Matheny's article)
>> also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused
>> by the production of the crops they eat."

>
>I never said that Matheny's *article* explicity did
>this.


"it (Matheny's article) also links vegetarians to the
collateral deaths caused by the production of the
crops they eat."

Stop lying, Jon.

>> What you
>> should have written was that YOUR extension of it
>> makes that link rather than the article itself.

>
>I never wrote that the *article* did it.


"it (Matheny's article) also links vegetarians to the
collateral deaths caused by the production of the
crops they eat."

Stop lying, Jon. You should've stated that your extension
to Matheny's article allegedly links vegetarians to collateral
deaths, rather than Matheny's article itself.

>I said that Matheny's analysis did it.


No. Your EXTENSION to Matheny's analysis does
it, allegedly; not Matheny's analysis itself. You lied
again. When will you ever learn?
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:

>In article >,
> Derek > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >Scented Nectar wrote:
>> >
>> >> Then forced complicity
>> >
>> >There is no such thing.

>>
>> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
>> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
>> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.

>
>We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.


Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
person can be forced to comply with brute force
and coercion if applied firmly enough.


It is choice
>that would certainly have a negative or unwanted consequence, but the
>choice still remains. Unfortunately, our culture allows the individual
>to get caught up in the "he made me do it" mentality. It is this
>mentality that allows people to be manipulated. it is a remnant from
>religion to inspire guilt and control.


  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:45:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:09:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:52:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
>>>>>>>>Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
>>>>>>>>Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
>>>>>>>>at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
>>>>>>>>(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The task he has set himself is to take apart the
>>>>>>>>occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
>>>>>>>>doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
>>>>>>>>meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
>>>>>>>>industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
>>>>>>>>attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
>>>>>>>>fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
>>>>>>>>eat, based on expected utility considerations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
>>>>>>>>with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
>>>>>>>>is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
>>>>>>>>deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, it does not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, it does.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
>>>>>vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
>>>>>production, and after you've done that show where his
>>>>>article concludes that the vegetarian is responsible for
>>>>>them.
>>>>
>>>>His article doesn't explicitly do that.
>>>
>>>Exactly! You imagined it did and then asserted it.

>>
>>No, I never imagined anything about his article.

>
>
> You categorically stated that "it (Matheny's article)
> also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused
> by the production of the crops they eat."


No, I didn't. I wrote

His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.

"It" in the second sentence refers to "his analysis".
I never used the word "article". You lied in saying I
did. We've come to expect that kind of lying from you.

>
>>I extended it. Legitimately.

>
>
> You extended it


Legitimately and correctly.

>
>>>>Based on my extension of his mechanism, *I* did it.
>>>
>>>Then you cannot lie by claiming "it (Matheny's article)
>>>also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused
>>>by the production of the crops they eat."

>>
>>I never said that Matheny's *article* explicity did
>>this.

>
>
> "it (Matheny's article)


No, "it (Matheny's ANALYSIS)..."


> Stop lying, Jon.


Stop lying, fat crippled cuckold.

>
>
>>>What you
>>>should have written was that YOUR extension of it
>>>makes that link rather than the article itself.

>>
>>I never wrote that the *article* did it. I said that Matheny's analysis did it.

>
>
> No.


Yes. See above.
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
>>Derek > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Then forced complicity
>>>>
>>>>There is no such thing.
>>>
>>>Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
>>>you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
>>>be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.

>>
>>We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.

>
>
> Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
> a half Nelson,


You couldn't do it. He's not crippled, and you are.
Even though he's a pansy, he'd kick the shit out of you.
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:21:51 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:45:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:09:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:52:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
>>>>>>>>>Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
>>>>>>>>>Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
>>>>>>>>>at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
>>>>>>>>>(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The task he has set himself is to take apart the
>>>>>>>>>occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
>>>>>>>>>doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
>>>>>>>>>meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
>>>>>>>>>industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
>>>>>>>>>attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
>>>>>>>>>fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
>>>>>>>>>eat, based on expected utility considerations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
>>>>>>>>>with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
>>>>>>>>>is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
>>>>>>>>>deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, it does not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, it does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
>>>>>>vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
>>>>>>production, and after you've done that show where his
>>>>>>article concludes that the vegetarian is responsible for
>>>>>>them.
>>>>>
>>>>>His article doesn't explicitly do that.
>>>>
>>>>Exactly! You imagined it did and then asserted it.
>>>
>>>No, I never imagined anything about his article.

>>
>> You categorically stated that "it (Matheny's article)
>> also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused
>> by the production of the crops they eat."

>
>No, I didn't. I wrote
>
> His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
> with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
> is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
> deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.
>
>"It" in the second sentence refers to "his analysis".


Then once again, you cannot lie by claiming "it (Matheny's
analysis) also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths
caused by the production of the crops they eat." Only your
admitted-to extension to it allegedly does that.



  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:21:51 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:45:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:09:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:52:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:09:08 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Matheny has another article: Expected Utility,
>>>>>>>>>>Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. It's in the
>>>>>>>>>>Journal of Applied Philosophy, and is available in PDF
>>>>>>>>>>at http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/thresholds.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>(requires the Adobe Acrobat reader).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The task he has set himself is to take apart the
>>>>>>>>>>occasionally encountered omnivore's argument that a) he
>>>>>>>>>>doesn't personally kill the animals he eats, and b) his
>>>>>>>>>>meat consumption doesn't bring about the whole meat
>>>>>>>>>>industry, so "he" cannot be held accountable. Matheny
>>>>>>>>>>attempts to show that all meat eaters together are in
>>>>>>>>>>fact accountable for all the deaths of animals they
>>>>>>>>>>eat, based on expected utility considerations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
>>>>>>>>>>with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
>>>>>>>>>>is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
>>>>>>>>>>deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No, it does not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, it does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
>>>>>>>vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
>>>>>>>production, and after you've done that show where his
>>>>>>>article concludes that the vegetarian is responsible for
>>>>>>>them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>His article doesn't explicitly do that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Exactly! You imagined it did and then asserted it.
>>>>
>>>>No, I never imagined anything about his article.
>>>
>>>You categorically stated that "it (Matheny's article)
>>>also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused
>>>by the production of the crops they eat."

>>
>>No, I didn't. I wrote
>>
>> His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
>> with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
>> is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
>> deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.
>>
>>"It" in the second sentence refers to "his analysis".

>
>
> Then once again


Then once again, you lied.

Stop lying, fat crippled dog-beating cuckold.
  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:23:45 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>>>In article >,Der ek > wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Then forced complicity
>>>>>
>>>>>There is no such thing.
>>>>
>>>>Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
>>>>you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
>>>>be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
>>>
>>>We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.

>>
>> Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
>> a half Nelson,

>
>You couldn't do it. He's not crippled, and you are.
>Even though he's a pansy, he'd kick the shit out of you.


Some things pass right by you without you even noticing
it, don't they?

Let's use your favourite character in a little thought
experiment of our own, shall we? If a catamite was
being buggered up the arse by Harrison, would that
catamite be forced to comply with a buggering or not?
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:23:45 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Then forced complicity
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no such thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
>>>>>you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
>>>>>be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
>>>>
>>>>We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
>>>
>>>Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
>>>a half Nelson,

>>
>>You couldn't do it. He's not crippled, and you are.
>>Even though he's a pansy, he'd kick the shit out of you.

>
>
> Some things pass right by you without you even noticing
> it, don't they?


No.
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:40:47 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

[..]
>>>No, I didn't. I wrote
>>>
>>> His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
>>> with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
>>> is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
>>> deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.
>>>
>>>"It" in the second sentence refers to "his analysis".


You cannot lie by claiming "it (Matheny's analysis) also
links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused by the
production of the crops they eat." Only your admitted-to
extension to it allegedly does that.
  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:40:47 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>
>> Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
>>

> [..]
>
>>>>No, I didn't. I wrote
>>>>
>>>> His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
>>>> with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
>>>> is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
>>>> deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.
>>>>
>>>>"It" in the second sentence refers to "his analysis".

>
>
> You cannot lie


I didn't.


  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:55:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>Derekr wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:40:47 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>> Derek wrote:

>>
>>>>>No, I didn't. I wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
>>>>> with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
>>>>> is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
>>>>> deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.
>>>>>
>>>>>"It" in the second sentence refers to "his analysis".

>>
>> You cannot lie

>
>I didn't.


As is usual with you, when faced with the evidence of your
lies you snip it all away and pretend it doesn't exist. That's
pitiable. You categorically stated that, "it (Matheny's analysis)
also links vegetarians to the collateral deaths caused by the
production of the crops they eat.", and when I pressed you
on this issue you finally admitted that it was an extension of
your own making which made the link rather than Matheny's
analysis itself,

"Based on my extension of his mechanism, *I* did it.
......
Matheny didn't need to cover it; I took care of it for him."

  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek" > wrote

> The paper sets out to prove that, while
> some argue that act-utilitarianism cannot provide an
> adequate critique of buying meat, on the basis that a
> single meat purchase will not actually cause more farm
> animals to be raised or slaughtered,


That in itself a pointless exercise and essentially a strawman. No
meat-eater I know would use such an obviously fallacious attempt to avoid
responsibility, it's vegans who use such tactics.


  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> "vegans" are morally complicit in the collateral deaths
>> that occur in the course of the production of "vegans'"
>> food.

>
> Moral complicity dissappears in the following
> situation. The situation of no choice. The
> vegan must buy food and there is not enough
> veganic foods available to provide for a
> healthy life. That makes no choice buy to
> buy some commercial foods. It's literally
> a life or death choice. Responsibility fades
> away when there's no choice.


You have choices, they're just too hard for you to face.



  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ray" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> . net...
>
> <Snip>
>
> What's a "Collateral Death" ~~Jonnie~~?
>
> Is it the same as accidental?


Whether it's accidental or deliberate is incidental.


  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek" > wrote

> Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
> vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
> production,


If consuming meat links the consumer to the deaths in meat production, and I
agree it does, then consuming rice links the consumer to the deaths in rice
production.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
dreck nash's distortion and eating disorder usual suspect Vegan 0 14-08-2005 02:37 PM
Gaverick Matheny gets "vegans" into DEEPER hot water Jay Santos Vegan 0 31-12-2004 06:36 AM
dreck nash is a crybaby liar usual suspect Vegan 6 23-05-2004 07:16 PM
Dreck was in custody in a Scottish gaol in April 2002 Jonathan Ball Vegan 1 11-05-2004 08:30 AM
Unethical Dreck Nash and his omission of context Jonathan Ball Vegan 31 03-11-2003 08:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"