In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.

If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name of
the person who was killed as a result.

I have taken this standard of evidence of proof and applied it to the
example under discussion.

Which vegan paid what money to which person for the killing of what
animal?

I didn't have a contract with my grocer to kill an animal so that I
could get my tomatoes. My grocer didn't kill an animal to secure the
tomatoes and then sell them to me. The exchange of money for was a
barter if you will or an exchange of money for a product.