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. His death can be
traced backed to me as "the first cause". If I hadn't wanted or needed
meat he wouldn't have been slaughtering the cattle and wouldn't have
died. His spouse wouldn't be widowed, so I must now be responsible for
her. His children wouldn't be without a parent, so now I must be
responsible for them. All things can be traced back to me as the "first
cause".


> 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