"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:
>
>> "Derek" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 03:52:14 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>> >> "rick etter" > wrote:
>> >>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> >>> ...
>> > [..]
>> >>> > I'm glad that you are venting your hostility and aggression on a
>> >>> > keyboard and not on some unsuspecting person near to you. I hope
>> >>> > there
>> >>> > aren't children in your vicinity.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The vegan can't be responsible for their action, just as the farmer
>> >>> > can't be responsible for their own action. Your theory thus far has
>> >>> > made
>> >>> > that clear. The farmer can't control their actions, they are
>> >>> > powerless
>> >>> > before me. One word from me and they must kill. I command them.
>> >>> > They
>> >>> > are
>> >>> > my slaves. I throw in the promise of a few bucks and my minions
>> >>> > respond.
>> >>> ===============
>> >>> Lack of any logical response noted, fool. Keep up the good work
>> >>> proving
>> >>> your ignorance and stupidity....
>> >>
>> >>Ah, rick! Hello! It is you that didn't respond. You have argued that
>> >>the
>> >>killers of animals are not responsible and that the consumer is
>> >>responsible. I asked then, who is responsible for the consumer's
>> >>actions? How can you logically state that one is responsible for the
>> >>other, but not vice versa.
>> >>
>> >>I'm sorry you're looking foolish, rick. But this is the outcome of the
>> >>beliefs that you are advocating here in your attempt to make vegans
>> >>look
>> >>bad.
>> >
>> > Rick, like all the other buck-passers
>> ====================
>> ROTFLMAO This from the greatest buck-passer on usenet!! What a hoot!
>> Unlike you fool, I have never passed the buck on my culpability in the
>> death
>> and suffering of animals. You have, in spades, killer. Even after
>> your
>> pal Aristotle told you that you are culpable, in english!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> here insists that
>> > the vegan must falsely take on the responsibility for
>> > the wrong actions of others, thereby enabling those
>> > wrong actions to continue and to make themselves
>> > fellow enablers of those wrong actions. In my view,
>> > his argument aims to recruit vegan apologists and
>> > enablers so he can then go on to insist that they are
>> > showing a contempt for the rights of animals when
>> > buying vegetables.
>> ================
>> Tap, tap, tap, killer. Keep dancing, you still know that it is the
>> choices
>> you make, even though you could make others, that lead to the death and
>> suffering of animals that you falsely claim to care for. You are
>> constantly
>> passing the buck of your bloody hands onto others.
>
> Make a case, Rick.
==================
Already have, pansy-boy.



All Dutch has managed to do is to reiterate the
> logically fallacies that can be found in law to support his argument.
====================
Where have I just discussed the law?


> How about you? Are you going to tell us about 'aiding and abetting'
> also? A position that the laws takes very inconsistent and only in
> certain circumstances is hardly strong reasoning for a logical position.
====================
It's your stupidity that is logically inconsistant, fool. You claim that I
am the one passing the buck and blaiming others, yet that is alll that you
have done here. Thanks for continuing to prove your total lack of any
knowledge on the subject, pansy-boy.