C. James Strutz wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>>My news server didn't post your last message in the "Mayonnaise" thread.
>>>Unfortunately, I don't have the password for my other news server with me,
>>>hence the new thread. It's drifted far away from mayonnaise anyway...
>>
>>Your fault.
>
>
> Oh, I didn't realize we were assigning fault.

You're complaining about the drift of the thread, and
the drift of the thread is your fault.

>
>
>>>Usual Suspect wrote:
>>
>>Not to be picky, but I don't capitalize.
>
>
> Why not?
>
>
>>>>You're still asking me to dig up the question about WHY you
>>>>disagree with my opinion about how vegans are ethical poseurs.
>>>
>>>Forgive me, I lost track of which questions you were accusing me of not
>>>answering in your circle of writings.
>>
>>Stop blaming me. You refused to answer questions.
>
>
> No, I didn't.

Yes, you did. You refused to answer his, and you
refused to answer mine. Try mine again:

SeeJames:
>>> I think it's wrong to take the life of a
>>> sentient being except under [sic]
>>> extenuating circumstances.

Mr. Suspect:
>> Which extenuating circumstances are those?

SeeJames:
> Capital punishment, and in self defense when
> someone's life is threatened are two examples that
> I can think of.

Mr. Ball:
So, the production of your food doesn't qualify, and
the collateral deaths of sentient animals in the
course of that production is, unequivocally in your
view, morally wrong. So, why do you participate in
this orgy of death that you *necessarily* view as
morally wrong?


You NEVER answered that question, SeeJames. You told
Mr. Suspect that you had, but you never did. Try to
answer it now.

Here are a couple of other questions you evaded:

Mr. Suspect:
>>>> Is an egg sentient?

SeeJames:
>>> I don't think so.

Mr. Suspect:
>> When does an egg's contents become sentient?

SeeJames:
> I don't know.

Mr. Ball:
Don't you think you *ought* to know, if you're going
to use sentience as the basis for deciding if it's
right or wrong to kill something?


And this one, SeeJames:

...perhaps I should point out that you are on the
horns of a classic dilemma. Either:

- your willing participation in collateral deaths of
sentient animals means you don't REALLY believe it's
morally wrong, and so you are a liar, which is
evil; or

- your casual participation, a participation that is
ENTIRELY unnecessary, means you're knowingly and thus
voluntarily helping to kill sentient animals in
violation of your moral beliefs, which makes you
evil.


So??? Which is it, SeeJames? Hypocrisy and lying,
which are evil, or deliberate violation, which is
evil?


You never answered any of those three questions,
SeeJames. You said something in reply to the last one:

What is with you? Abusing people for your own cheap
amusement is evil.

but it was non-responsive to the question asked.

Answer the questions, SeeJames. Stop playing games -
you clearly *are* merely playing games, SeeJames - and
answer the questions. They're good questions. They go
right to the heart of "veganism" as any kind of ethical
response to an imagined ethical predicament.