In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> >> Ron is a troll and a time-waster, he doesn't believe a word he's
> >> >> saying.
> >> >
> >> > Your continued ability to read my mind, to know my thinking and my
> >> > beliefs is just awe-inspiring. Do it again.
> >>
> >> OK, you are either a colossal idiot or you are playing a little game of
> >> devils-advocate. I haven't figured out which.
>
> > Once again... those who fail to conform to Dutch's beliefs are vilified.
> > Dutch! Keeper of all knowledge and truth. Never disagree. dutch's truth
> > is the ONLY truth. Dutch, who when he walks into a store, food growers
> > and farmers the world over are compelled to submit to his power in the
> > world and kill animals directly and indirectly. Dutch is the centre of
> > the universe. All that happens flow from him.
> >
> > I wonder though, If I don't buy meat for the next 3 days, and farmers
> > kill animals who is responsible for the killing? If the vegan doesn't
> > buy meat again, who is responsible for the killing of livestock?
>
> Think about it, I'm sure you'll figure it out, after all you attended
> college, right?

An interesting diversion from the point that was being discussed.

PS. People who disclose online prior use of pot shouldn't throw 'shrooms
at the rest of us who can clearly outline an argument. And since we are
going to divert then, I am no expert but it is possible that you are
suffering from a drug induced psychosis. You did disclose some rather
interesting drug use. It is possible that you are currently suffering as
a result of all those 70s drugs. As I said, this is speculation, but I'm
sure that I could google some studies on the effects of drugs on the
thought processes and lasting damage.

I'm curious, Dutch. How much is responsible pot use before the thought
process of the individual are affected?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> >> Ron is a troll and a time-waster, he doesn't believe a word he's
> >> >> saying.
> >> >
> >> > Your continued ability to read my mind, to know my thinking and my
> >> > beliefs is just awe-inspiring. Do it again.
> >>
> >> OK, you are either a colossal idiot or you are playing a little game of
> >> devils-advocate. I haven't figured out which.
>
> > Once again... those who fail to conform to Dutch's beliefs are vilified.
> > Dutch! Keeper of all knowledge and truth. Never disagree. dutch's truth
> > is the ONLY truth. Dutch, who when he walks into a store, food growers
> > and farmers the world over are compelled to submit to his power in the
> > world and kill animals directly and indirectly. Dutch is the centre of
> > the universe. All that happens flow from him.
> >
> > I wonder though, If I don't buy meat for the next 3 days, and farmers
> > kill animals who is responsible for the killing? If the vegan doesn't
> > buy meat again, who is responsible for the killing of livestock?
>
> Think about it, I'm sure you'll figure it out, after all you attended
> college, right?

An interesting diversion from the point that was being discussed.

PS. People who disclose online prior use of pot shouldn't throw 'shrooms
at the rest of us who can clearly outline an argument. And since we are
going to divert then, I am no expert but it is possible that you are
suffering from a drug induced psychosis. You did disclose some rather
interesting drug use. It is possible that you are currently suffering as
a result of all those 70s drugs. As I said, this is speculation, but I'm
sure that I could google some studies on the effects of drugs on the
thought processes and lasting damage.

I'm curious, Dutch. How much is responsible pot use before the thought
process of the individual are affected?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote nothing
>
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

That's unusual. Those who don't use pot "responsibly" seem to be able to
understand and respond. Oh, well. Have a nice nap.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote nothing
>
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

That's unusual. Those who don't use pot "responsibly" seem to be able to
understand and respond. Oh, well. Have a nice nap.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> Enticing or inciting to commit murder is immoral and illegal.
>> >
>> > Yes, it is illegal and a demonstration of the childlike thinking that
>> > is
>> > pervasive in our culture.
>> >
>> > "He made me do it." "Honestly, your honour. If he didn't give me the
>> > money, I wouldn't have pulled the trigger. It's all his fault. Don't
>> > blame me for my actions, blame him for causing me to do it. I pulled
>> > the
>> > trigger but he paid me."
>>
>> You might have a point if that were a legitimate defense against a murder
>> charge, but it isn't, It doesn't excuse the killer. The person who paid
>> the
>> shooter is just another criminal.
>>
>> It's over Ron.
>>
>> Now repeat after me, "I will troll no more."
>
> There you go again, using one vague instance in law as support for your
> position. Sadly, the rest of us are quite clear that this is the
> reasoning used by children.

It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
morality, and logic.

> Someone paid me $10 to type this. I cannot be held responsible for my
> actions or the outcomes.

False conclusion, you AND he are now *both* responsible.

> I have been coerced and influenced. I am
> unwilling to assert myself. I must now blame the person who aids and
> abets my action.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> Enticing or inciting to commit murder is immoral and illegal.
>> >
>> > Yes, it is illegal and a demonstration of the childlike thinking that
>> > is
>> > pervasive in our culture.
>> >
>> > "He made me do it." "Honestly, your honour. If he didn't give me the
>> > money, I wouldn't have pulled the trigger. It's all his fault. Don't
>> > blame me for my actions, blame him for causing me to do it. I pulled
>> > the
>> > trigger but he paid me."
>>
>> You might have a point if that were a legitimate defense against a murder
>> charge, but it isn't, It doesn't excuse the killer. The person who paid
>> the
>> shooter is just another criminal.
>>
>> It's over Ron.
>>
>> Now repeat after me, "I will troll no more."
>
> There you go again, using one vague instance in law as support for your
> position. Sadly, the rest of us are quite clear that this is the
> reasoning used by children.

It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
morality, and logic.

> Someone paid me $10 to type this. I cannot be held responsible for my
> actions or the outcomes.

False conclusion, you AND he are now *both* responsible.

> I have been coerced and influenced. I am
> unwilling to assert myself. I must now blame the person who aids and
> abets my action.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >> > As much as I would enjoy another entertaining round of "he made me
>> >> > do
>> >> > it", I think this approach might be best.
>> >>
>> >> You don't think.
>> >
>> > the only evidence that I can find to support your position is one entry
>> > in the criminal code that you continually refer back to. I have given
>> > multiple examples to illustrate how this feature of the law with
>> > respect
>> > to this ONE act is similar to the thinking of children and pervasive in
>> > our culture. Troll, indeed.
>>
>> You have been utterly incoherent.
>>
>> > I have previously demonstrated that this position is inconsistent
>> > within
>> > the criminal code as well.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> >
>> > Where did you learn that I was responsible for the actions and outcomes
>> > of others. It certainly wasn't taught in any classroom or university
>> > that I attended.
>>
>> Attended but were tossed out unceremoniously for inability to think.
>
> I'm curious. Please do tell. Where did you learn this? Was it in school?
> An ethics class? From a favourite professor or loved one? Who taught you
> that you are responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions. I
> would suggest that our knowledge of the law regarding a hitman doesn't
> come until much later in life, likely our teens. I'm guessing then, that
> this is a lesson most often learned in the home where faulty logic is
> passed from one generation to the next.
>
> So, who taught you that you or I are responsible for the outcome of
> other people's actions.

You're responsible for YOUR OWN actions, i.e. hiring hitmen.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >> > As much as I would enjoy another entertaining round of "he made me
>> >> > do
>> >> > it", I think this approach might be best.
>> >>
>> >> You don't think.
>> >
>> > the only evidence that I can find to support your position is one entry
>> > in the criminal code that you continually refer back to. I have given
>> > multiple examples to illustrate how this feature of the law with
>> > respect
>> > to this ONE act is similar to the thinking of children and pervasive in
>> > our culture. Troll, indeed.
>>
>> You have been utterly incoherent.
>>
>> > I have previously demonstrated that this position is inconsistent
>> > within
>> > the criminal code as well.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> >
>> > Where did you learn that I was responsible for the actions and outcomes
>> > of others. It certainly wasn't taught in any classroom or university
>> > that I attended.
>>
>> Attended but were tossed out unceremoniously for inability to think.
>
> I'm curious. Please do tell. Where did you learn this? Was it in school?
> An ethics class? From a favourite professor or loved one? Who taught you
> that you are responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions. I
> would suggest that our knowledge of the law regarding a hitman doesn't
> come until much later in life, likely our teens. I'm guessing then, that
> this is a lesson most often learned in the home where faulty logic is
> passed from one generation to the next.
>
> So, who taught you that you or I are responsible for the outcome of
> other people's actions.

You're responsible for YOUR OWN actions, i.e. hiring hitmen.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>> >> Who is forcing you to do business with animal-killing farmers Ronny?
>> >> Who
>> >> is
>> >> making you do it? Why are you attempting to avoid responsibility for
>> >> your
>> >> personal choices?
>> >
>> > My choice was to buy tomatoes today. That you've magnified that act
>> > into
>> > some deed of evil is more about you than me. I needed some tomatoes
>> > today. I bought the ones that conformed to my needs.
>>
>> Indeed, and the animal-killing farmers in Mexico thank you for your
>> contributions. They'll be clearing and spraying some more land to meet
>> your
>> insatiable appetite for tomatoes.
>
> Let's recap.
>
> I have purchased tomatoes in the past past 2 weeks, three times. Prior
> to this, I purchased some in approximately May of 2004. Imagine my
> surprise and chagrin to note that farmers still kill animals, use
> pesticides, clear land and all of those things when I don't buy their
> products. Could it be that they are responsible for their own actions? I
> don't control the universe. They will still do what they do independent
> of my actions.

They are not independent of your actions, in fact they DEPEND on your
demand. The reason nothing changes is that your demand is very small, but
significant in principle.


>> > Evil, immoral me. Shoot me now. I bought tomatoes. I'm goin to hell in
>> > a
>> > handbasket now. I'm just a heathen tomato eater.
>>
>> Nah, I'll hire someone else to it, nothing wrong with that, right?
>
> That's right. The person who acts on it is the one I want in prison --
> or farming, or both.

Farmers in prison huh? Who is going to kill animals on your behalf then?

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>> >> Who is forcing you to do business with animal-killing farmers Ronny?
>> >> Who
>> >> is
>> >> making you do it? Why are you attempting to avoid responsibility for
>> >> your
>> >> personal choices?
>> >
>> > My choice was to buy tomatoes today. That you've magnified that act
>> > into
>> > some deed of evil is more about you than me. I needed some tomatoes
>> > today. I bought the ones that conformed to my needs.
>>
>> Indeed, and the animal-killing farmers in Mexico thank you for your
>> contributions. They'll be clearing and spraying some more land to meet
>> your
>> insatiable appetite for tomatoes.
>
> Let's recap.
>
> I have purchased tomatoes in the past past 2 weeks, three times. Prior
> to this, I purchased some in approximately May of 2004. Imagine my
> surprise and chagrin to note that farmers still kill animals, use
> pesticides, clear land and all of those things when I don't buy their
> products. Could it be that they are responsible for their own actions? I
> don't control the universe. They will still do what they do independent
> of my actions.

They are not independent of your actions, in fact they DEPEND on your
demand. The reason nothing changes is that your demand is very small, but
significant in principle.


>> > Evil, immoral me. Shoot me now. I bought tomatoes. I'm goin to hell in
>> > a
>> > handbasket now. I'm just a heathen tomato eater.
>>
>> Nah, I'll hire someone else to it, nothing wrong with that, right?
>
> That's right. The person who acts on it is the one I want in prison --
> or farming, or both.

Farmers in prison huh? Who is going to kill animals on your behalf then?

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Ron is a troll and a time-waster, he doesn't believe a word he's
>> >> >> saying.
>> >> >
>> >> > Your continued ability to read my mind, to know my thinking and my
>> >> > beliefs is just awe-inspiring. Do it again.
>> >>
>> >> OK, you are either a colossal idiot or you are playing a little game
>> >> of
>> >> devils-advocate. I haven't figured out which.
>>
>> > Once again... those who fail to conform to Dutch's beliefs are
>> > vilified.
>> > Dutch! Keeper of all knowledge and truth. Never disagree. dutch's truth
>> > is the ONLY truth. Dutch, who when he walks into a store, food growers
>> > and farmers the world over are compelled to submit to his power in the
>> > world and kill animals directly and indirectly. Dutch is the centre of
>> > the universe. All that happens flow from him.
>> >
>> > I wonder though, If I don't buy meat for the next 3 days, and farmers
>> > kill animals who is responsible for the killing? If the vegan doesn't
>> > buy meat again, who is responsible for the killing of livestock?
>>
>> Think about it, I'm sure you'll figure it out, after all you attended
>> college, right?

Nothing is being discussed. I'm toying with you now.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Ron is a troll and a time-waster, he doesn't believe a word he's
>> >> >> saying.
>> >> >
>> >> > Your continued ability to read my mind, to know my thinking and my
>> >> > beliefs is just awe-inspiring. Do it again.
>> >>
>> >> OK, you are either a colossal idiot or you are playing a little game
>> >> of
>> >> devils-advocate. I haven't figured out which.
>>
>> > Once again... those who fail to conform to Dutch's beliefs are
>> > vilified.
>> > Dutch! Keeper of all knowledge and truth. Never disagree. dutch's truth
>> > is the ONLY truth. Dutch, who when he walks into a store, food growers
>> > and farmers the world over are compelled to submit to his power in the
>> > world and kill animals directly and indirectly. Dutch is the centre of
>> > the universe. All that happens flow from him.
>> >
>> > I wonder though, If I don't buy meat for the next 3 days, and farmers
>> > kill animals who is responsible for the killing? If the vegan doesn't
>> > buy meat again, who is responsible for the killing of livestock?
>>
>> Think about it, I'm sure you'll figure it out, after all you attended
>> college, right?

Nothing is being discussed. I'm toying with you now.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote nothing
>>
>> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>
> That's unusual. Those who don't use pot "responsibly" seem to be able to
> understand and respond. Oh, well. Have a nice nap.

Buzz off troll.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote nothing
>>
>> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>
> That's unusual. Those who don't use pot "responsibly" seem to be able to
> understand and respond. Oh, well. Have a nice nap.

Buzz off troll.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Enticing or inciting to commit murder is immoral and illegal.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, it is illegal and a demonstration of the childlike thinking that
> >> > is
> >> > pervasive in our culture.
> >> >
> >> > "He made me do it." "Honestly, your honour. If he didn't give me the
> >> > money, I wouldn't have pulled the trigger. It's all his fault. Don't
> >> > blame me for my actions, blame him for causing me to do it. I pulled
> >> > the
> >> > trigger but he paid me."
> >>
> >> You might have a point if that were a legitimate defense against a murder
> >> charge, but it isn't, It doesn't excuse the killer. The person who paid
> >> the
> >> shooter is just another criminal.
> >>
> >> It's over Ron.
> >>
> >> Now repeat after me, "I will troll no more."
> >
> > There you go again, using one vague instance in law as support for your
> > position. Sadly, the rest of us are quite clear that this is the
> > reasoning used by children.
>
> It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
> morality, and logic.

Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would appreciate
what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in law. I
would also be curious why this fundamental principles is applied so
rarely and inconsistently.

> > Someone paid me $10 to type this. I cannot be held responsible for my
> > actions or the outcomes.
>
> False conclusion, you AND he are now *both* responsible.

He is responsible for what I type. More of the same. He and the money
controls my fingers, muscles, tendons, words and so on.

> > I have been coerced and influenced. I am
> > unwilling to assert myself. I must now blame the person who aids and
> > abets my action.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Enticing or inciting to commit murder is immoral and illegal.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, it is illegal and a demonstration of the childlike thinking that
> >> > is
> >> > pervasive in our culture.
> >> >
> >> > "He made me do it." "Honestly, your honour. If he didn't give me the
> >> > money, I wouldn't have pulled the trigger. It's all his fault. Don't
> >> > blame me for my actions, blame him for causing me to do it. I pulled
> >> > the
> >> > trigger but he paid me."
> >>
> >> You might have a point if that were a legitimate defense against a murder
> >> charge, but it isn't, It doesn't excuse the killer. The person who paid
> >> the
> >> shooter is just another criminal.
> >>
> >> It's over Ron.
> >>
> >> Now repeat after me, "I will troll no more."
> >
> > There you go again, using one vague instance in law as support for your
> > position. Sadly, the rest of us are quite clear that this is the
> > reasoning used by children.
>
> It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
> morality, and logic.

Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would appreciate
what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in law. I
would also be curious why this fundamental principles is applied so
rarely and inconsistently.

> > Someone paid me $10 to type this. I cannot be held responsible for my
> > actions or the outcomes.
>
> False conclusion, you AND he are now *both* responsible.

He is responsible for what I type. More of the same. He and the money
controls my fingers, muscles, tendons, words and so on.

> > I have been coerced and influenced. I am
> > unwilling to assert myself. I must now blame the person who aids and
> > abets my action.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > As much as I would enjoy another entertaining round of "he made me
> >> >> > do
> >> >> > it", I think this approach might be best.
> >> >>
> >> >> You don't think.
> >> >
> >> > the only evidence that I can find to support your position is one entry
> >> > in the criminal code that you continually refer back to. I have given
> >> > multiple examples to illustrate how this feature of the law with
> >> > respect
> >> > to this ONE act is similar to the thinking of children and pervasive in
> >> > our culture. Troll, indeed.
> >>
> >> You have been utterly incoherent.
> >>
> >> > I have previously demonstrated that this position is inconsistent
> >> > within
> >> > the criminal code as well.
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Where did you learn that I was responsible for the actions and outcomes
> >> > of others. It certainly wasn't taught in any classroom or university
> >> > that I attended.
> >>
> >> Attended but were tossed out unceremoniously for inability to think.
> >
> > I'm curious. Please do tell. Where did you learn this? Was it in school?
> > An ethics class? From a favourite professor or loved one? Who taught you
> > that you are responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions. I
> > would suggest that our knowledge of the law regarding a hitman doesn't
> > come until much later in life, likely our teens. I'm guessing then, that
> > this is a lesson most often learned in the home where faulty logic is
> > passed from one generation to the next.
> >
> > So, who taught you that you or I are responsible for the outcome of
> > other people's actions.
>
> You're responsible for YOUR OWN actions, i.e. hiring hitmen.

Nice try, Dutch, or should I say pass the dutchie to the right hand side.

The question was who taught you that you or I was responsible for the
outcomes of other people's actions.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > As much as I would enjoy another entertaining round of "he made me
> >> >> > do
> >> >> > it", I think this approach might be best.
> >> >>
> >> >> You don't think.
> >> >
> >> > the only evidence that I can find to support your position is one entry
> >> > in the criminal code that you continually refer back to. I have given
> >> > multiple examples to illustrate how this feature of the law with
> >> > respect
> >> > to this ONE act is similar to the thinking of children and pervasive in
> >> > our culture. Troll, indeed.
> >>
> >> You have been utterly incoherent.
> >>
> >> > I have previously demonstrated that this position is inconsistent
> >> > within
> >> > the criminal code as well.
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Where did you learn that I was responsible for the actions and outcomes
> >> > of others. It certainly wasn't taught in any classroom or university
> >> > that I attended.
> >>
> >> Attended but were tossed out unceremoniously for inability to think.
> >
> > I'm curious. Please do tell. Where did you learn this? Was it in school?
> > An ethics class? From a favourite professor or loved one? Who taught you
> > that you are responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions. I
> > would suggest that our knowledge of the law regarding a hitman doesn't
> > come until much later in life, likely our teens. I'm guessing then, that
> > this is a lesson most often learned in the home where faulty logic is
> > passed from one generation to the next.
> >
> > So, who taught you that you or I are responsible for the outcome of
> > other people's actions.
>
> You're responsible for YOUR OWN actions, i.e. hiring hitmen.

Nice try, Dutch, or should I say pass the dutchie to the right hand side.

The question was who taught you that you or I was responsible for the
outcomes of other people's actions.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> [..]
> >> >> Who is forcing you to do business with animal-killing farmers Ronny?
> >> >> Who
> >> >> is
> >> >> making you do it? Why are you attempting to avoid responsibility for
> >> >> your
> >> >> personal choices?
> >> >
> >> > My choice was to buy tomatoes today. That you've magnified that act
> >> > into
> >> > some deed of evil is more about you than me. I needed some tomatoes
> >> > today. I bought the ones that conformed to my needs.
> >>
> >> Indeed, and the animal-killing farmers in Mexico thank you for your
> >> contributions. They'll be clearing and spraying some more land to meet
> >> your
> >> insatiable appetite for tomatoes.
> >
> > Let's recap.
> >
> > I have purchased tomatoes in the past past 2 weeks, three times. Prior
> > to this, I purchased some in approximately May of 2004. Imagine my
> > surprise and chagrin to note that farmers still kill animals, use
> > pesticides, clear land and all of those things when I don't buy their
> > products. Could it be that they are responsible for their own actions? I
> > don't control the universe. They will still do what they do independent
> > of my actions.
>
> They are not independent of your actions, in fact they DEPEND on your
> demand. The reason nothing changes is that your demand is very small, but
> significant in principle.

Now you've changed the argument. They act independent of my action as
was demonstrated.

> >> > Evil, immoral me. Shoot me now. I bought tomatoes. I'm goin to hell in
> >> > a
> >> > handbasket now. I'm just a heathen tomato eater.
> >>
> >> Nah, I'll hire someone else to it, nothing wrong with that, right?
> >
> > That's right. The person who acts on it is the one I want in prison --
> > or farming, or both.
>
> Farmers in prison huh? Who is going to kill animals on your behalf then?

If they were all nicely tucked away, I would give up meat. The community
would be safe.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >> Ron is a troll and a time-waster, he doesn't believe a word he's
> >> >> >> saying.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Your continued ability to read my mind, to know my thinking and my
> >> >> > beliefs is just awe-inspiring. Do it again.
> >> >>
> >> >> OK, you are either a colossal idiot or you are playing a little game
> >> >> of
> >> >> devils-advocate. I haven't figured out which.
> >>
> >> > Once again... those who fail to conform to Dutch's beliefs are
> >> > vilified.
> >> > Dutch! Keeper of all knowledge and truth. Never disagree. dutch's truth
> >> > is the ONLY truth. Dutch, who when he walks into a store, food growers
> >> > and farmers the world over are compelled to submit to his power in the
> >> > world and kill animals directly and indirectly. Dutch is the centre of
> >> > the universe. All that happens flow from him.
> >> >
> >> > I wonder though, If I don't buy meat for the next 3 days, and farmers
> >> > kill animals who is responsible for the killing? If the vegan doesn't
> >> > buy meat again, who is responsible for the killing of livestock?
> >>
> >> Think about it, I'm sure you'll figure it out, after all you attended
> >> college, right?
>
> Nothing is being discussed. I'm toying with you now.

I know. You've employed this tactic previously. It seems that when some
people have declared themselves "great minds" and are impotent to make
good on the claim, that these diversion become common.

Chronic (oops, responsible) drug use does have its downside.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >> Ron is a troll and a time-waster, he doesn't believe a word he's
> >> >> >> saying.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Your continued ability to read my mind, to know my thinking and my
> >> >> > beliefs is just awe-inspiring. Do it again.
> >> >>
> >> >> OK, you are either a colossal idiot or you are playing a little game
> >> >> of
> >> >> devils-advocate. I haven't figured out which.
> >>
> >> > Once again... those who fail to conform to Dutch's beliefs are
> >> > vilified.
> >> > Dutch! Keeper of all knowledge and truth. Never disagree. dutch's truth
> >> > is the ONLY truth. Dutch, who when he walks into a store, food growers
> >> > and farmers the world over are compelled to submit to his power in the
> >> > world and kill animals directly and indirectly. Dutch is the centre of
> >> > the universe. All that happens flow from him.
> >> >
> >> > I wonder though, If I don't buy meat for the next 3 days, and farmers
> >> > kill animals who is responsible for the killing? If the vegan doesn't
> >> > buy meat again, who is responsible for the killing of livestock?
> >>
> >> Think about it, I'm sure you'll figure it out, after all you attended
> >> college, right?
>
> Nothing is being discussed. I'm toying with you now.

I know. You've employed this tactic previously. It seems that when some
people have declared themselves "great minds" and are impotent to make
good on the claim, that these diversion become common.

Chronic (oops, responsible) drug use does have its downside.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote nothing
> >>
> >> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> >
> > That's unusual. Those who don't use pot "responsibly" seem to be able to
> > understand and respond. Oh, well. Have a nice nap.
>
> Buzz off troll.

You accused me of incoherence, babbling and other things. I put forward
that perhaps it is your prior drug use that has made you unable to
respond to the issues at hand. Even occasional or responsible pot use
does have its harms.

My recent question remains unanswered. Who taught you that you or I are
responsible for the outcome of the actions of others. You stated it was
a legal principle. Can you cite the text, or professor, or legal
professional who informed you of this?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote nothing
> >>
> >> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> >
> > That's unusual. Those who don't use pot "responsibly" seem to be able to
> > understand and respond. Oh, well. Have a nice nap.
>
> Buzz off troll.

You accused me of incoherence, babbling and other things. I put forward
that perhaps it is your prior drug use that has made you unable to
respond to the issues at hand. Even occasional or responsible pot use
does have its harms.

My recent question remains unanswered. Who taught you that you or I are
responsible for the outcome of the actions of others. You stated it was
a legal principle. Can you cite the text, or professor, or legal
professional who informed you of this?

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:04:24 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:33:38 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>>Nobody believes that changing one's position on something makes you a liar
>>>or a hypocrite.
>>
>> In his quotes below he states that he dislikes flesh,
>> so how does learning from one's mistakes, as he
>> claims, suddenly change his tastes for food items?
>
>Quite easily, he was parroting things that vegans typically say.

Are you asserting that he lied about his tastes in foods
when pretending to be a vegan, or, like you, was he
intentionally deluding himself during that time? He
clearly stated he dislikes flesh, yet now he eats it.
How does learning from one's mistakes, as he claims
to have done,

1) change his tastes for certain foods?
2) change his perception that it was bad for him?
3) change his perception that it was bad for animals?
4) change his perception that it was bad for his
environment?
5) change his perception that it was bad for the World?
6) change his perception that veganism costs less,
regardless of socio-economic environs?
7) change his perception that it costs more to produce
dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains, vegetables and
legumes?

Look at his quotes you snipped away and explain how
"learning from his mistakes" changed every position
his once held, including his dislike for flesh.

<restore>
"I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan
are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live
a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of
meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my
environment, and the whole world. Is that first part
selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other,
more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal
must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less
pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.)
mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long
and without serious health problems associated with
an animal-based diet?"
usual suspect Date: 2002-09-09

and

"Veganism costs less regardless of socio-economic
environs. Indeed, lesser well-off people are far more
likely to subsist on vegetarian diets; meat and dairy
are a product of 'advanced' society. It costs more to
produce dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains,
vegetables, legumes; indeed, you must first raise the
latter to fatten the former. Skip the former entirely
and you have much more of the latter to feed the
world."
usual suspect Date: 2002-12-26

And that's just a start. Since being beaten into
submission by Jonathan, he not only changed his
stance on veganism and all that went with it, but his
interpretation of God's word as well. In response to
a comment from "Bart" on whether our dominion
over animals meant that we should eat them, 'usual
suspect' quoted Genesis 1:29-30 as THE ANSWER
to that question.

[start - Bart to usual suspect]
Bart said:
> So, according to the bible, God gave us dominion
> over the animal kingdom.

Does dominion include slaughtering and eating them? The
answer is found immediately following one of the verses
you quoted:

Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And God
said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed
which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose
fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every
beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything
that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given
every green herb for food"; and it was so.
[end]
usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8

From that, 'usual suspect' clearly believed our dominion
over animals never meant that we should eat them, but
he sings a different tune these days. How did learning
by his mistakes change his belief in God's word and the
bible?

He's also on record as stating;
"I also favor humane treatment, which to me means
not killing them simply for my own benefit."
usual suspect 2002-10-09

But now, since his mesalliance with meat pushers, his
view on what he considers humane treatment has
changed completely;

"THE METHOD OF BURNING THE BIRDS IS
*NOT* BARBARIC."
usual suspect 2004-02-12

and

"A little kindness? They're made for deep-frying."
'usual suspect' 25 July 2003 15:23

The list is endless. In fact I doubt that there's a single
position that he hasn't contradicted since his new
position as a meat pusher.

"I am vegan"
usual suspect 2002-05-09

"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
usual suspect 2003-06-10

"No thanks, I'm a vegan."
usual suspect 2003-08-14

"You'll find my views have been consistent."
usual suspect 2003-09-05

What a joke!

And then there's YOUR quotes which show the stark
inconsistencies of YOUR stance on the proposition of
animal rights over the years to consider as well;

"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch Date: 2001-02-12

"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species."
Dutch Date: 2001-02-23

"I recently signed a petition online supporting an
'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch. Date: 2003-09-18

[start ipse dixit]
> You've stated now that you believe animals do
> in fact hold rights against us and thus must be
> treated humanely.
[Dutch]
Correct
[end]
Dutch 2004-04-13

"Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004

"Animals are moral agents."
Dutch 2001-02-22

From those quotes there's no doubt that you believed
animals held certain rights against us, yet your other
quote (below) implies you don't believe animals hold
rights at all, and that a World of animals holding rights
is a laugh.

"They have no rights because the very idea
of a world of animals with rights is a laugh."
Dutch Date: 2001-08-07

Both of you are all over the place, but when the
evidence of your quotes are shown to prove it you
merely snip them away in embarrassment. What a
way to carry on. Why do they even bother?

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:04:24 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:33:38 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>>Nobody believes that changing one's position on something makes you a liar
>>>or a hypocrite.
>>
>> In his quotes below he states that he dislikes flesh,
>> so how does learning from one's mistakes, as he
>> claims, suddenly change his tastes for food items?
>
>Quite easily, he was parroting things that vegans typically say.

Are you asserting that he lied about his tastes in foods
when pretending to be a vegan, or, like you, was he
intentionally deluding himself during that time? He
clearly stated he dislikes flesh, yet now he eats it.
How does learning from one's mistakes, as he claims
to have done,

1) change his tastes for certain foods?
2) change his perception that it was bad for him?
3) change his perception that it was bad for animals?
4) change his perception that it was bad for his
environment?
5) change his perception that it was bad for the World?
6) change his perception that veganism costs less,
regardless of socio-economic environs?
7) change his perception that it costs more to produce
dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains, vegetables and
legumes?

Look at his quotes you snipped away and explain how
"learning from his mistakes" changed every position
his once held, including his dislike for flesh.

<restore>
"I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan
are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live
a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of
meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my
environment, and the whole world. Is that first part
selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other,
more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal
must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less
pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.)
mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long
and without serious health problems associated with
an animal-based diet?"
usual suspect Date: 2002-09-09

and

"Veganism costs less regardless of socio-economic
environs. Indeed, lesser well-off people are far more
likely to subsist on vegetarian diets; meat and dairy
are a product of 'advanced' society. It costs more to
produce dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains,
vegetables, legumes; indeed, you must first raise the
latter to fatten the former. Skip the former entirely
and you have much more of the latter to feed the
world."
usual suspect Date: 2002-12-26

And that's just a start. Since being beaten into
submission by Jonathan, he not only changed his
stance on veganism and all that went with it, but his
interpretation of God's word as well. In response to
a comment from "Bart" on whether our dominion
over animals meant that we should eat them, 'usual
suspect' quoted Genesis 1:29-30 as THE ANSWER
to that question.

[start - Bart to usual suspect]
Bart said:
> So, according to the bible, God gave us dominion
> over the animal kingdom.

Does dominion include slaughtering and eating them? The
answer is found immediately following one of the verses
you quoted:

Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And God
said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed
which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose
fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every
beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything
that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given
every green herb for food"; and it was so.
[end]
usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8

From that, 'usual suspect' clearly believed our dominion
over animals never meant that we should eat them, but
he sings a different tune these days. How did learning
by his mistakes change his belief in God's word and the
bible?

He's also on record as stating;
"I also favor humane treatment, which to me means
not killing them simply for my own benefit."
usual suspect 2002-10-09

But now, since his mesalliance with meat pushers, his
view on what he considers humane treatment has
changed completely;

"THE METHOD OF BURNING THE BIRDS IS
*NOT* BARBARIC."
usual suspect 2004-02-12

and

"A little kindness? They're made for deep-frying."
'usual suspect' 25 July 2003 15:23

The list is endless. In fact I doubt that there's a single
position that he hasn't contradicted since his new
position as a meat pusher.

"I am vegan"
usual suspect 2002-05-09

"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
usual suspect 2003-06-10

"No thanks, I'm a vegan."
usual suspect 2003-08-14

"You'll find my views have been consistent."
usual suspect 2003-09-05

What a joke!

And then there's YOUR quotes which show the stark
inconsistencies of YOUR stance on the proposition of
animal rights over the years to consider as well;

"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch Date: 2001-02-12

"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species."
Dutch Date: 2001-02-23

"I recently signed a petition online supporting an
'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch. Date: 2003-09-18

[start ipse dixit]
> You've stated now that you believe animals do
> in fact hold rights against us and thus must be
> treated humanely.
[Dutch]
Correct
[end]
Dutch 2004-04-13

"Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004

"Animals are moral agents."
Dutch 2001-02-22

From those quotes there's no doubt that you believed
animals held certain rights against us, yet your other
quote (below) implies you don't believe animals hold
rights at all, and that a World of animals holding rights
is a laugh.

"They have no rights because the very idea
of a world of animals with rights is a laugh."
Dutch Date: 2001-08-07

Both of you are all over the place, but when the
evidence of your quotes are shown to prove it you
merely snip them away in embarrassment. What a
way to carry on. Why do they even bother?

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]
> > >> >> Enticing or inciting to commit murder is immoral and illegal.
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes, it is illegal and a demonstration of the childlike thinking
that
> > >> > is
> > >> > pervasive in our culture.
> > >> >
> > >> > "He made me do it." "Honestly, your honour. If he didn't give me
the
> > >> > money, I wouldn't have pulled the trigger. It's all his fault.
Don't
> > >> > blame me for my actions, blame him for causing me to do it. I
pulled
> > >> > the
> > >> > trigger but he paid me."
> > >>
> > >> You might have a point if that were a legitimate defense against a
murder
> > >> charge, but it isn't, It doesn't excuse the killer. The person who
paid
> > >> the
> > >> shooter is just another criminal.
> > >>
> > >> It's over Ron.
> > >>
> > >> Now repeat after me, "I will troll no more."
> > >
> > > There you go again, using one vague instance in law as support for
your
> > > position. Sadly, the rest of us are quite clear that this is the
> > > reasoning used by children.
> >
> > It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
> > morality, and logic.
>
> Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would appreciate
> what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in law. I
> would also be curious why this fundamental principles is applied so
> rarely and inconsistently.

It's applied as consistently as any legal principle. When a crime is
committed, anyone complicit in the crime is also held accountable. They are
named as accessories.

> > > Someone paid me $10 to type this. I cannot be held responsible for my
> > > actions or the outcomes.
> >
> > False conclusion, you AND he are now *both* responsible.
>
> He is responsible for what I type. More of the same. He and the money
> controls my fingers, muscles, tendons, words and so on.

In a sense yes. They contributed to the act by entering into an agreement
whereby they compensate you for doing it. If it were an illegal act they
would also be guilty of a crime.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]
> > >> >> Enticing or inciting to commit murder is immoral and illegal.
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes, it is illegal and a demonstration of the childlike thinking
that
> > >> > is
> > >> > pervasive in our culture.
> > >> >
> > >> > "He made me do it." "Honestly, your honour. If he didn't give me
the
> > >> > money, I wouldn't have pulled the trigger. It's all his fault.
Don't
> > >> > blame me for my actions, blame him for causing me to do it. I
pulled
> > >> > the
> > >> > trigger but he paid me."
> > >>
> > >> You might have a point if that were a legitimate defense against a
murder
> > >> charge, but it isn't, It doesn't excuse the killer. The person who
paid
> > >> the
> > >> shooter is just another criminal.
> > >>
> > >> It's over Ron.
> > >>
> > >> Now repeat after me, "I will troll no more."
> > >
> > > There you go again, using one vague instance in law as support for
your
> > > position. Sadly, the rest of us are quite clear that this is the
> > > reasoning used by children.
> >
> > It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
> > morality, and logic.
>
> Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would appreciate
> what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in law. I
> would also be curious why this fundamental principles is applied so
> rarely and inconsistently.

It's applied as consistently as any legal principle. When a crime is
committed, anyone complicit in the crime is also held accountable. They are
named as accessories.

> > > Someone paid me $10 to type this. I cannot be held responsible for my
> > > actions or the outcomes.
> >
> > False conclusion, you AND he are now *both* responsible.
>
> He is responsible for what I type. More of the same. He and the money
> controls my fingers, muscles, tendons, words and so on.

In a sense yes. They contributed to the act by entering into an agreement
whereby they compensate you for doing it. If it were an illegal act they
would also be guilty of a crime.

"Ron" > wrote

> The question was who taught you that you or I was responsible for the
> outcomes of other people's actions.

It's called complicity. In legal jargon it's "accessory".

"Ron" > wrote

> The question was who taught you that you or I was responsible for the
> outcomes of other people's actions.

It's called complicity. In legal jargon it's "accessory".

"Ron" > wrote
> Dutch" >

> > > I have purchased tomatoes in the past past 2 weeks, three times. Prior
> > > to this, I purchased some in approximately May of 2004. Imagine my
> > > surprise and chagrin to note that farmers still kill animals, use
> > > pesticides, clear land and all of those things when I don't buy their
> > > products. Could it be that they are responsible for their own actions?
I
> > > don't control the universe. They will still do what they do
independent
> > > of my actions.
> >
> > They are not independent of your actions, in fact they DEPEND on your
> > demand. The reason nothing changes is that your demand is very small,
but
> > significant in principle.
>
> Now you've changed the argument. They act independent of my action as
> was demonstrated.

No, in theory supply responds 1:1 with fluctuations in demand. In reality
supply does not change unless there is a significant and peristent change.

"Ron" > wrote
> Dutch" >

> > > I have purchased tomatoes in the past past 2 weeks, three times. Prior
> > > to this, I purchased some in approximately May of 2004. Imagine my
> > > surprise and chagrin to note that farmers still kill animals, use
> > > pesticides, clear land and all of those things when I don't buy their
> > > products. Could it be that they are responsible for their own actions?
I
> > > don't control the universe. They will still do what they do
independent
> > > of my actions.
> >
> > They are not independent of your actions, in fact they DEPEND on your
> > demand. The reason nothing changes is that your demand is very small,
but
> > significant in principle.
>
> Now you've changed the argument. They act independent of my action as
> was demonstrated.

No, in theory supply responds 1:1 with fluctuations in demand. In reality
supply does not change unless there is a significant and peristent change.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]
> > >> >> >> Ron is a troll and a time-waster, he doesn't believe a word
he's
> > >> >> >> saying.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Your continued ability to read my mind, to know my thinking and
my
> > >> >> > beliefs is just awe-inspiring. Do it again.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> OK, you are either a colossal idiot or you are playing a little
game
> > >> >> of
> > >> >> devils-advocate. I haven't figured out which.
> > >>
> > >> > Once again... those who fail to conform to Dutch's beliefs are
> > >> > vilified.
> > >> > Dutch! Keeper of all knowledge and truth. Never disagree. dutch's
truth
> > >> > is the ONLY truth. Dutch, who when he walks into a store, food
growers
> > >> > and farmers the world over are compelled to submit to his power in
the
> > >> > world and kill animals directly and indirectly. Dutch is the centre
of
> > >> > the universe. All that happens flow from him.
> > >> >
> > >> > I wonder though, If I don't buy meat for the next 3 days, and
farmers
> > >> > kill animals who is responsible for the killing? If the vegan
doesn't
> > >> > buy meat again, who is responsible for the killing of livestock?
> > >>
> > >> Think about it, I'm sure you'll figure it out, after all you attended
> > >> college, right?
> >
> > Nothing is being discussed. I'm toying with you now.
>
> I know. You've employed this tactic previously. It seems that when some
> people have declared themselves "great minds" and are impotent to make
> good on the claim, that these diversion become common.

No, you have just disqualified yourself as a legitimate poster.

> Chronic (oops, responsible) drug use does have its downside.

Well, well, what's this?

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]
> > >> >> >> Ron is a troll and a time-waster, he doesn't believe a word
he's
> > >> >> >> saying.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Your continued ability to read my mind, to know my thinking and
my
> > >> >> > beliefs is just awe-inspiring. Do it again.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> OK, you are either a colossal idiot or you are playing a little
game
> > >> >> of
> > >> >> devils-advocate. I haven't figured out which.
> > >>
> > >> > Once again... those who fail to conform to Dutch's beliefs are
> > >> > vilified.
> > >> > Dutch! Keeper of all knowledge and truth. Never disagree. dutch's
truth
> > >> > is the ONLY truth. Dutch, who when he walks into a store, food
growers
> > >> > and farmers the world over are compelled to submit to his power in
the
> > >> > world and kill animals directly and indirectly. Dutch is the centre
of
> > >> > the universe. All that happens flow from him.
> > >> >
> > >> > I wonder though, If I don't buy meat for the next 3 days, and
farmers
> > >> > kill animals who is responsible for the killing? If the vegan
doesn't
> > >> > buy meat again, who is responsible for the killing of livestock?
> > >>
> > >> Think about it, I'm sure you'll figure it out, after all you attended
> > >> college, right?
> >
> > Nothing is being discussed. I'm toying with you now.
>
> I know. You've employed this tactic previously. It seems that when some
> people have declared themselves "great minds" and are impotent to make
> good on the claim, that these diversion become common.

No, you have just disqualified yourself as a legitimate poster.

> Chronic (oops, responsible) drug use does have its downside.

Well, well, what's this?

"Ron" > wrote

> My recent question remains unanswered. Who taught you that you or I are
> responsible for the outcome of the actions of others. You stated it was
> a legal principle. Can you cite the text, or professor, or legal
> professional who informed you of this?

Accessory.

"Ron" > wrote

> My recent question remains unanswered. Who taught you that you or I are
> responsible for the outcome of the actions of others. You stated it was
> a legal principle. Can you cite the text, or professor, or legal
> professional who informed you of this?

Accessory.

"Derek" > wrote
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:04:24 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote
> >> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:33:38 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >>>Nobody believes that changing one's position on something makes you a
liar
> >>>or a hypocrite.
> >>
> >> In his quotes below he states that he dislikes flesh,
> >> so how does learning from one's mistakes, as he
> >> claims, suddenly change his tastes for food items?
> >
> >Quite easily, he was parroting things that vegans typically say.
>
> Are you asserting that he lied about his tastes in foods

No, he believed what he was saying, and since it was a statement of taste,
it was completely true, at that time.

"Derek" > wrote
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:04:24 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote
> >> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:33:38 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >>>Nobody believes that changing one's position on something makes you a
liar
> >>>or a hypocrite.
> >>
> >> In his quotes below he states that he dislikes flesh,
> >> so how does learning from one's mistakes, as he
> >> claims, suddenly change his tastes for food items?
> >
> >Quite easily, he was parroting things that vegans typically say.
>
> Are you asserting that he lied about his tastes in foods

No, he believed what he was saying, and since it was a statement of taste,
it was completely true, at that time.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:04:27 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:04:24 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"Derek" > wrote
>> >> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:33:38 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >
>> >>>Nobody believes that changing one's position on
>> >>>something makes you a liar or a hypocrite.
>> >>
>> >> In his quotes below he states that he dislikes flesh,
>> >> so how does learning from one's mistakes, as he
>> >> claims, suddenly change his tastes for food items?
>> >
>> >Quite easily, he was parroting things that vegans typically say.
>>
>> Are you asserting that he lied about his tastes in foods
>
>No, he believed what he was saying

Prior to that you told me "he was parroting things
that vegans typically say.", yet now you tell me "he
believed what he was saying." Let me know when
you've made up your mind, and after that, maybe you
can address the rest of my post which you snipped
away.

<restore>
He clearly stated he dislikes flesh, yet now he eats it.
How does learning from one's mistakes, as he claims
to have done,

1) change his tastes for certain foods?
2) change his perception that it was bad for him?
3) change his perception that it was bad for animals?
4) change his perception that it was bad for his
environment?
5) change his perception that it was bad for the World?
6) change his perception that veganism costs less,
regardless of socio-economic environs?
7) change his perception that it costs more to produce
dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains, vegetables and
legumes?

Look at his quotes you snipped away and explain how
"learning from his mistakes" changed every position
his once held, including his dislike for flesh.

<restore>
"I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan
are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live
a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of
meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my
environment, and the whole world. Is that first part
selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other,
more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal
must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less
pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.)
mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long
and without serious health problems associated with
an animal-based diet?"
usual suspect Date: 2002-09-09

and

"Veganism costs less regardless of socio-economic
environs. Indeed, lesser well-off people are far more
likely to subsist on vegetarian diets; meat and dairy
are a product of 'advanced' society. It costs more to
produce dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains,
vegetables, legumes; indeed, you must first raise the
latter to fatten the former. Skip the former entirely
and you have much more of the latter to feed the
world."
usual suspect Date: 2002-12-26

And that's just a start. Since being beaten into
submission by Jonathan, he not only changed his
stance on veganism and all that went with it, but his
interpretation of God's word as well. In response to
a comment from "Bart" on whether our dominion
over animals meant that we should eat them, 'usual
suspect' quoted Genesis 1:29-30 as THE ANSWER
to that question.

[start - Bart to usual suspect]
Bart said:
> So, according to the bible, God gave us dominion
> over the animal kingdom.

Does dominion include slaughtering and eating them? The
answer is found immediately following one of the verses
you quoted:

Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And God
said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed
which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose
fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every
beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything
that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given
every green herb for food"; and it was so.
[end]
usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8

From that, 'usual suspect' clearly believed our dominion
over animals never meant that we should eat them, but
he sings a different tune these days. How did learning
by his mistakes change his belief in God's word and the
bible?

He's also on record as stating;
"I also favor humane treatment, which to me means
not killing them simply for my own benefit."
usual suspect 2002-10-09

But now, since his mesalliance with meat pushers, his
view on what he considers humane treatment has
changed completely;

"THE METHOD OF BURNING THE BIRDS IS
*NOT* BARBARIC."
usual suspect 2004-02-12

and

"A little kindness? They're made for deep-frying."
'usual suspect' 25 July 2003 15:23

The list is endless. In fact I doubt that there's a single
position that he hasn't contradicted since his new
position as a meat pusher.

"I am vegan"
usual suspect 2002-05-09

"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
usual suspect 2003-06-10

"No thanks, I'm a vegan."
usual suspect 2003-08-14

"You'll find my views have been consistent."
usual suspect 2003-09-05

What a joke!

And then there's YOUR quotes which show the stark
inconsistencies of YOUR stance on the proposition of
animal rights over the years to consider as well;

"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch Date: 2001-02-12

"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species."
Dutch Date: 2001-02-23

"I recently signed a petition online supporting an
'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch. Date: 2003-09-18

[start ipse dixit]
> You've stated now that you believe animals do
> in fact hold rights against us and thus must be
> treated humanely.
[Dutch]
Correct
[end]
Dutch 2004-04-13

"Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004

"Animals are moral agents."
Dutch 2001-02-22

From those quotes there's no doubt that you believed
animals held certain rights against us, yet your other
quote (below) implies you don't believe animals hold
rights at all, and that a World of animals holding rights
is a laugh.

"They have no rights because the very idea
of a world of animals with rights is a laugh."
Dutch Date: 2001-08-07

Both of you are all over the place, but when the
evidence of your quotes are shown to prove it you
merely snip them away in embarrassment. What a
way to carry on. Why do you even bother?
[..]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:04:27 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:04:24 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"Derek" > wrote
>> >> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:33:38 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >
>> >>>Nobody believes that changing one's position on
>> >>>something makes you a liar or a hypocrite.
>> >>
>> >> In his quotes below he states that he dislikes flesh,
>> >> so how does learning from one's mistakes, as he
>> >> claims, suddenly change his tastes for food items?
>> >
>> >Quite easily, he was parroting things that vegans typically say.
>>
>> Are you asserting that he lied about his tastes in foods
>
>No, he believed what he was saying

Prior to that you told me "he was parroting things
that vegans typically say.", yet now you tell me "he
believed what he was saying." Let me know when
you've made up your mind, and after that, maybe you
can address the rest of my post which you snipped
away.

<restore>
He clearly stated he dislikes flesh, yet now he eats it.
How does learning from one's mistakes, as he claims
to have done,

1) change his tastes for certain foods?
2) change his perception that it was bad for him?
3) change his perception that it was bad for animals?
4) change his perception that it was bad for his
environment?
5) change his perception that it was bad for the World?
6) change his perception that veganism costs less,
regardless of socio-economic environs?
7) change his perception that it costs more to produce
dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains, vegetables and
legumes?

Look at his quotes you snipped away and explain how
"learning from his mistakes" changed every position
his once held, including his dislike for flesh.

<restore>
"I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan
are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live
a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of
meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my
environment, and the whole world. Is that first part
selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other,
more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal
must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less
pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.)
mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long
and without serious health problems associated with
an animal-based diet?"
usual suspect Date: 2002-09-09

and

"Veganism costs less regardless of socio-economic
environs. Indeed, lesser well-off people are far more
likely to subsist on vegetarian diets; meat and dairy
are a product of 'advanced' society. It costs more to
produce dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains,
vegetables, legumes; indeed, you must first raise the
latter to fatten the former. Skip the former entirely
and you have much more of the latter to feed the
world."
usual suspect Date: 2002-12-26

And that's just a start. Since being beaten into
submission by Jonathan, he not only changed his
stance on veganism and all that went with it, but his
interpretation of God's word as well. In response to
a comment from "Bart" on whether our dominion
over animals meant that we should eat them, 'usual
suspect' quoted Genesis 1:29-30 as THE ANSWER
to that question.

[start - Bart to usual suspect]
Bart said:
> So, according to the bible, God gave us dominion
> over the animal kingdom.

Does dominion include slaughtering and eating them? The
answer is found immediately following one of the verses
you quoted:

Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And God
said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed
which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose
fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every
beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything
that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given
every green herb for food"; and it was so.
[end]
usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8

From that, 'usual suspect' clearly believed our dominion
over animals never meant that we should eat them, but
he sings a different tune these days. How did learning
by his mistakes change his belief in God's word and the
bible?

He's also on record as stating;
"I also favor humane treatment, which to me means
not killing them simply for my own benefit."
usual suspect 2002-10-09

But now, since his mesalliance with meat pushers, his
view on what he considers humane treatment has
changed completely;

"THE METHOD OF BURNING THE BIRDS IS
*NOT* BARBARIC."
usual suspect 2004-02-12

and

"A little kindness? They're made for deep-frying."
'usual suspect' 25 July 2003 15:23

The list is endless. In fact I doubt that there's a single
position that he hasn't contradicted since his new
position as a meat pusher.

"I am vegan"
usual suspect 2002-05-09

"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
usual suspect 2003-06-10

"No thanks, I'm a vegan."
usual suspect 2003-08-14

"You'll find my views have been consistent."
usual suspect 2003-09-05

What a joke!

And then there's YOUR quotes which show the stark
inconsistencies of YOUR stance on the proposition of
animal rights over the years to consider as well;

"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch Date: 2001-02-12

"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species."
Dutch Date: 2001-02-23

"I recently signed a petition online supporting an
'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch. Date: 2003-09-18

[start ipse dixit]
> You've stated now that you believe animals do
> in fact hold rights against us and thus must be
> treated humanely.
[Dutch]
Correct
[end]
Dutch 2004-04-13

"Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004

"Animals are moral agents."
Dutch 2001-02-22

From those quotes there's no doubt that you believed
animals held certain rights against us, yet your other
quote (below) implies you don't believe animals hold
rights at all, and that a World of animals holding rights
is a laugh.

"They have no rights because the very idea
of a world of animals with rights is a laugh."
Dutch Date: 2001-08-07

Both of you are all over the place, but when the
evidence of your quotes are shown to prove it you
merely snip them away in embarrassment. What a
way to carry on. Why do you even bother?
[..]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>In article >, "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]
>> It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
>> morality, and logic.
>
>Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would appreciate
>what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in law.

Dutch claims to have been a police officer, so the "legal mind"
behind this fundamental principle is his own, no doubt.

"In my life I was many things, a farmer, a police officer, and
a vegetarian, among other things."
Dutch 29 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3kbsb