Ron wrote:
> 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.

No. You didn't honestly consider my example. Do that,
then maybe you can try again.