On 3/8/2012 9:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 8, 5:46 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/8/2012 8:10 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 8, 5:09 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2012 7:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/8/2012 12:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 9:32 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - the friend of Lesley Simon,
>>>>>>>> the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - has it. He shares
>>>>>>>> moral responsibility for the animal CDs caused in order to put food on
>>>>>>>> his plate. This cannot be rationally disputed.
>>
>>>>>>>> His relationship with the hands-on killers of animals has these elements:
>>
>>>>>>>> * the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal
>>
>>>>>>>> * the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
>>>>>>>> the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery
>>
>>>>>>>> * the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions
>>
>>>>>>>> * the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
>>>>>>>> achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food
>>
>>>>>>>> "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whatever he is this week
>>>>>>>> doesn't need to hire an agent at all, and he doesn't need to hire one
>>>>>>>> who kills animals collaterally. That he does makes him share moral
>>>>>>>> responsibility for the deaths of animals. He cannot claim to be living
>>>>>>>> a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", and he sure as hell isn't "minimizing" his
>>>>>>>> CD footprint because he has never measured.
>>
>>>>>>> Your injection of carbon emission's into our planet's atmosphere has
>>>>>>> these elements:
>>
>>>>>>> - It is voluntary; no-one is coercing you into doing it.
>>
>>>>>>> - You are an active participant
>>
>>>>>>> - You are fully aware of the likely consequences of continued
>>>>>>> injection of carbon emissions into our planet's atmosphere for other
>>>>>>> humans
>>
>>>>>>> - It is not instrumentally necessary for you to achieve any
>>>>>>> legitimate goal.
>>
>>>>>>> You therefore have vicarious moral responsibility for the future harms
>>>>>>> to humans that will take place that will have been contributed to by
>>>>>>> your activity.
>>
>>>>>> Yep - I never denied it, either.
>>
>>>>> Okay, good. Would you also agree that it is more than likely that some
>>>>> humans will very prematurely die in the future as a result of
>>>>> anthropogenic climate change to which your activity has contributed?
>>
>>>> Still trying to find some way to make the dispersed sand of that fake
>>>> pedestal come back together like a rock, are you, Woopert? It won't
>>>> work. Your belief about your moral pose is false.
>>
>>> I don't know what belief you are talking about,
>>
>> The belief that refraining from eating animal bits is ethically
>> required, and that therefore if one does it one is ethically superior to
>> one who doesn't. That belief, you ****ing liar.
>
> I don't believe either of those things.

You sure do believe the first, and logically therefore you must believe
the second. Both are false.