In article > ,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> 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.

Let's apply this thinking to another example. The government is
currently affecting repairs in my neighbourhood. They claim they are
doing so on my behalf. I have full knowledge that accidents in the
workplace happen and that people get killed on the job. A worker is
relining street car tracks and is killed in the process. I am now
responsible for his death.

I think it is "wrong" for him to be killed for doing his job. As this
was done on my behalf, I am not morally culpable for the outcome of
someone else's action.

Since killing humans is illegal, as well as being declared immoral, I am
now the "hitman". I paid my government to act on my behalf and pave and
reline the roads.

Is this a correct application of your thinking?