"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> > Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law,
>> >> > the
>> >> > new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.
>> >>
>> >> They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain food.
>> >
>> > I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week
>>
>> How do you know?
>
> Please identify the animals that I killed.

Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
posturing, not invent new ways to do so.

>> > Just curious, what did you do to stop the sodomizing of children today?
>>
>> I kept you occupied.
>>
>> >> >> > The law becomes the
>> >> >> > sacred text. There are "prophets" that are quoted as being the
>> >> >> > authorities and so on. Beliefs, moral codes, rules of conduct
>> >> >> > (where
>> >> >> > our
>> >> >> > disagreement appears) are the requirements of the practice of the
>> >> >> > religion.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not convincing.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think it is quite convincing. What is being demanded of the vegan
>> >> > fits
>> >> > quite well with my observation of the law as a religion by function.
>> >>
>> >> I don't understand what you're saying, but if it is that veganism
>> >> resembles
>> >> a religion in some ways, I agree.
>> >
>> > Now, what I'm saying is that your approach is very similar to theists.
>> > You just use a different bible -- the law and different prophets -- the
>> > experts.
>>
>> I use my ability to reason.
>
> Reason for us

Grey matter, use it, it works.

> Which vegan has killed what animal?

Not relevant. Grey matter...

>> You take conventional wisdom and in knee-jerk fashion disagree with all
>> of
>> it in the hope that someone will mistake you for clever.
>
> When you can't respond to such a few simple question, I would agree that
> it is conventional but hardly wisdom.

Your questions are irrelevant, you're tap dancing, you don't know how to get
to the essence.

>> You are exactly as much of a dimwit as the one who takes conventional
>> wisdom
>> and in knee-jerk fashion agrees with all of it.
>
> I do think that is an acknowledgment. Finally, progress.

Where is the acknowledgement of your knee-jerk approach to conventional
wisdom? That's what is missing here, and without it there is no progress.

> The overwhelming majority do seem to introject the commonly held
> beliefs. It is a choice of what one is willing to be spoonfed and accept.

I repeat, knee-jerk rejection of commonly held beliefs is no different. What
is necessary is rational assessment of all beliefs and ideas. Stop trying to
outwit people, it isn't working.