In article . net>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> "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.

Let's be more specific, Rick. Who have I blamed and for what? I have, in
my view, attributed responsibility for the action being performed to the
person acting.

Next thing, you'll be saying is that I make you write pansy-boy. Of
course, it is my fault that you write these things. I must cause you to
act. You have no control over the keyboard. You have no control over
your fingers.