In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> [..]
>
> >> > The vegan mitigates their responsibility by following all the rules and
> >> > the laws associated with killing animals.
> >>
> >> There are no rules and laws associated with killing animals, no such law
> >> is
> >> even feasible. Vegans have fabricated a morality outside the normal one,
> >> with moral rules involving animals that go far beyond it, yet they live
> >> in
> >> the comfort and protection of the normal moral system with it's cheap
> >> affordable food and health care. If they are going to preach an
> >> outlandish
> >> moral system and preach to me that I ought to follow it, they need to
> >> follow
> >> it first. Cutting down on animal products is not nearly enough to
> >> validate
> >> their alleged moral system.
> >
> > "Normal moral system?" What's that about. I was taught to eat meat and I
> > was taught which meats were acceptable and socially acceptable eat.
>
> Customs.

Thank you. Customs are taught and learned. They are not biological or
genetic. They are common and popular.

> > Of course, your argument has been disputed and your simply ignored the
> > formations that clearly demonstrated the double standard that you
> > applied to the vegan.
>
> Not at all, you have utterly misconstrued the arguments all along the way.
>
> >> > Come on, Dutch. You lost.
> >>
> >> Phaw.. in your dreams. Wake up!
> >
> > I clearly demonstrated this. When your own logic was presented with a
> > different example, you simply commented that you didn't have the time to
> > do all that was necessary to follow through.
>
> Your examples were nothing but a convoluted mess based on fallacies. I do
> not have the time to completely untangle your mixed-up thinking, you must do
> some of the work yourself.

the work was done. All the was required was that you clarify why you
applied one standard to the vegan and another to yourself.

> If you would learn to listen, instead of playing devil's advocate on every
> point to attempt to "score", you might get somewhere. Playing devil's
> advocate is exactly as valid as agreeing with everything you read.

Listen? I'm reading your comments.

Where you consider me being Devil's Advocate, I consider you blindly
introjecting what is spoonfed.