Ron wrote:

> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>We aren't talking about legal liability for murder or
>>complicity to murder. We're talking about moral
>>liability for deaths of animals, where those deaths are
>>not considered illegal. It is the *principle* of
>>complicity that is demonstrated by reference to the
>>criminal law.
>
>
> Let's run this through...
>
> I go to the store. Through my action of wanting to purchase meat, I now
> create demand. As a result of my action a series of successive actions
> then takes place which you are tracing back to me as the originating
> cause.
>
> An animal dies, as part of this reasoning you hold me accountable for
> the death of the animal.
>
> Now, if the farmer has a stroke in the process of slaughtering cattle
> for me then, I must also be responsible for his death.

No. You already know why not.

> His death can be
> traced backed to me as "the first cause".

Nope.

> If I hadn't wanted or needed
> meat he wouldn't have been slaughtering the cattle and wouldn't have
> died.

Would have been doing something else, and died.

> [...]
>
>
>
>> No one is suggesting that "vegans'"
>>complicity in the deaths of animals is illegal; just
>>that it is immoral, according to *their* alleged
>>"ethics". It IS immoral with respect to their alleged
>>"ethics", and it is not necessary to know which
>>"vegans" killed which animals.
>
>
> Then please explain why one is

Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
consider immoral.