John Deere wrote:
>>I repeat, it's not at all surprising that you choose to view the very
>>*intent* to follow veganism as admirable, since doing so reflects so
>>very well on your own self-image. Veganism is above all about
>
> This is way too schizoid.

How so?

> OF COURSE I think veganism is admirable. If I didn't, why
> would I be a vegan?

Why are you a vegan?

"John Deere" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>
> > I repeat, it's not at all surprising that you choose to view the very
>
> > *intent* to follow veganism as admirable, since doing so reflects so
> very
> > well on your own self-image. Veganism is above all about
>
> This is way too schizoid.
>
> OF COURSE I think veganism is admirable. If I didn't, why
> would I be a vegan?

Ahem... self-promotion.

"John Deere" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>
> > I repeat, it's not at all surprising that you choose to view the very
>
> > *intent* to follow veganism as admirable, since doing so reflects so
> very
> > well on your own self-image. Veganism is above all about
>
> This is way too schizoid.
>
> OF COURSE I think veganism is admirable. If I didn't, why
> would I be a vegan?

Ahem... self-promotion.

In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> >>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
> >>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
> >>humane slaughter which they object.
> >
> >
> > Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>
> You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
> at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
> pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
> feebly attempting to defend them.

Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*

I find you evasive. Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
vegan is violating.

In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> >>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
> >>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
> >>>>humane slaughter which they object.
> >>>
> >>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
> >>
> >>Ipse dixit, in any case it's irrelevant, the vegan hires this person to do
> >>his dirty work for him and thus is equally culpable. If you go to the
> >>street
> >>and ask a common thief to steal you a stereo, you are complicit in that
> >>crime when it is committed.
> >
> > It's the lesser "evil".
>
> How is it a lesser evil? You're making a mockery of what little you were
> taught in your intro to logic course, you dopey little twink.

Sorry. I find you too abusive to spend some time responding to your
questions.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
> > > >> I'm not arguing absolutes, that's a strawman. There is wide gap
> between
> > > >> acknowledging a valid principle and calling it absolute. In human
> affairs
> > > >> very little is absolute. In other words, you are not refuting my
> > > >> arguments
> > > >> by asserting that they are not absolute.
> > > >
> > > > Dutch, we've covered this and it was easily disputed.
> > >
> > > No it wasn't. I told you, you have NOT refuted anything I have stated,
> > > whereas I refute virtually everything you say. That will continue to be
> the
> > > case, get used to it.
> > >
> > > > For example, you
> > > > claimed that eating meat was not wrong.
> > >
> > > It isn't.
> > >
> > > > Well, that isn't true based on
> > > > the definitions that you provided. Tiger meat is meat. Camel meat is
> > > > meat. Panda meat is meat. Clearly not _all_ meal is not wrong to eat
> in
> > > > North America. Stating eating meat is not wrong is still an statement
> of
> > > > absoluteness.
> > >
> > > Wrong again, "eating meat is not wrong" is a generalization, and a
> response
> > > to a specific charge by vegans within the context of a discussion on the
> > > relative ethics of certain diets. It is NOT an absolute statement.
> Vegans
> > > are not referring to endangered species when they say it, they are
> referring
> > > to [all] animals in general, and I am accepting the parameters of the
> charge
> > > in my response.
> >
> > We call that hypocrisy where I live -- for the vegan, animal refers to
> > all animals (an absolute),
>
> Actually.. you're wrong again. To the vegan or ARA it refers to animals
> exploited and/or *killed* for the purpose of human use, they have no moral
> objection to using animals that die of natural causes.

The same two issues emerge. HOw is this a violation of the principle of
the golden rule and why must they follow the golden rule because it is
common to Christianity and Western nations?

> > but meat doesn't refer to all meat (a
> > generalization).
>
> They are both generalizations.
>
> > > > To further demonstrate the circular reasoning that you've employed by
> > > > using law and morality interchangeably is for me to ask the quesiton
> why
> > > > is it right to eat cow meat in North America but not camel or tiger
> meat?
> > >
> > > First of all, bonehead, asking that question will not produce any proof
> of
> > > "circular reasoning", a) because I haven't used any, and b) because
> *you*
> > > asking a question can't provide evidence of a position of mine. Camel
> and
> > > tiger meat are simply not part of the group of animals accepted by
> western
> > > culture as food, for various reasons involving cultural biases and
> > > endangered species status among others.
> >
> > Thank you for finally agreeing to what I stated likely 2 weeks ago. My
> > moral codes are that which I learned within my culture and family and
> > are not inherent.
>
> They are not exclusively either one. There are inherent properties or
> principles in moralities as well as cultural specifics. For example, morals
> almost always hinge on some sort of harm, if there is no harm then there is
> no reason for a moral precept to exist.

There is nothing "inherent" in the golden rule that requires action to
be harm free. Please clarify what you are reading into the principle "do
unto others as you would have them do unto you."

> > In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
> > is not right but determined by such things as time and location.
>
> Eating meat is "not wrong" in the context of the specific discussion between
> myself and a vegan. I *may* believe it is wrong under other circumstances.
> Wrong itself is also a rather vague term.

Yet, you use the term.

> > > > Even further, why is it morally acceptable to breed and herd cows for
> > > > slaughter, but not tigers and camels?
> > >
> > > Are you asking because you don't understand why or because you think I
> > > don't?
> >
> > Neither. I'm asking because it is easier to show the errors of logic by
> > having you put your responses in the newsgroup as you did above.
>
> Trouble is, I'm not making errors in logic.

Arguments from popularity are exactly that. Once again, I ask how is the
golden rule the required morality for any human? I agree it is common to
North American and to Christians. I agree that a multitude or religions
and nations support variations or earlier versions of the moral code.
Again, how does what is popular or common constitute logic.

> > I can
> > retrive from the archives where I clearly stated that morality on eating
> > meat and morality in general was subjective and determined by the vary
> > factors that you FINALLY acknowledge above.
>
> I have never denied that there is a large component of subjectivity in
> morality, in fact I have given several illustrations of that very principle
> over the past couple of weeks. In one case I go out and commit premeditated
> murder and conclude that I have done something moral.

Once again, you integrate legal codes with moral codes.

There is nothing inherent in the golden rule that requires one to view
killing as immoral. The act of killing another (do unto others) is the
desire to be killed (as you would have them do unto you). The principle
itself doesn't make suicide or homicide immoral.

> > You look foolish disagreeing with me then and agreeing with me now.
> > Further, claims of morality are ridiculous, when all we are really
> > speaking of is when a group of humans (X) thinks Y about any given issue.
>
> Why is it ridiculous to give credence to what humans think?

That wasn't my point at all.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
> > > >> I'm not arguing absolutes, that's a strawman. There is wide gap
> between
> > > >> acknowledging a valid principle and calling it absolute. In human
> affairs
> > > >> very little is absolute. In other words, you are not refuting my
> > > >> arguments
> > > >> by asserting that they are not absolute.
> > > >
> > > > Dutch, we've covered this and it was easily disputed.
> > >
> > > No it wasn't. I told you, you have NOT refuted anything I have stated,
> > > whereas I refute virtually everything you say. That will continue to be
> the
> > > case, get used to it.
> > >
> > > > For example, you
> > > > claimed that eating meat was not wrong.
> > >
> > > It isn't.
> > >
> > > > Well, that isn't true based on
> > > > the definitions that you provided. Tiger meat is meat. Camel meat is
> > > > meat. Panda meat is meat. Clearly not _all_ meal is not wrong to eat
> in
> > > > North America. Stating eating meat is not wrong is still an statement
> of
> > > > absoluteness.
> > >
> > > Wrong again, "eating meat is not wrong" is a generalization, and a
> response
> > > to a specific charge by vegans within the context of a discussion on the
> > > relative ethics of certain diets. It is NOT an absolute statement.
> Vegans
> > > are not referring to endangered species when they say it, they are
> referring
> > > to [all] animals in general, and I am accepting the parameters of the
> charge
> > > in my response.
> >
> > We call that hypocrisy where I live -- for the vegan, animal refers to
> > all animals (an absolute),
>
> Actually.. you're wrong again. To the vegan or ARA it refers to animals
> exploited and/or *killed* for the purpose of human use, they have no moral
> objection to using animals that die of natural causes.

The same two issues emerge. HOw is this a violation of the principle of
the golden rule and why must they follow the golden rule because it is
common to Christianity and Western nations?

> > but meat doesn't refer to all meat (a
> > generalization).
>
> They are both generalizations.
>
> > > > To further demonstrate the circular reasoning that you've employed by
> > > > using law and morality interchangeably is for me to ask the quesiton
> why
> > > > is it right to eat cow meat in North America but not camel or tiger
> meat?
> > >
> > > First of all, bonehead, asking that question will not produce any proof
> of
> > > "circular reasoning", a) because I haven't used any, and b) because
> *you*
> > > asking a question can't provide evidence of a position of mine. Camel
> and
> > > tiger meat are simply not part of the group of animals accepted by
> western
> > > culture as food, for various reasons involving cultural biases and
> > > endangered species status among others.
> >
> > Thank you for finally agreeing to what I stated likely 2 weeks ago. My
> > moral codes are that which I learned within my culture and family and
> > are not inherent.
>
> They are not exclusively either one. There are inherent properties or
> principles in moralities as well as cultural specifics. For example, morals
> almost always hinge on some sort of harm, if there is no harm then there is
> no reason for a moral precept to exist.

There is nothing "inherent" in the golden rule that requires action to
be harm free. Please clarify what you are reading into the principle "do
unto others as you would have them do unto you."

> > In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
> > is not right but determined by such things as time and location.
>
> Eating meat is "not wrong" in the context of the specific discussion between
> myself and a vegan. I *may* believe it is wrong under other circumstances.
> Wrong itself is also a rather vague term.

Yet, you use the term.

> > > > Even further, why is it morally acceptable to breed and herd cows for
> > > > slaughter, but not tigers and camels?
> > >
> > > Are you asking because you don't understand why or because you think I
> > > don't?
> >
> > Neither. I'm asking because it is easier to show the errors of logic by
> > having you put your responses in the newsgroup as you did above.
>
> Trouble is, I'm not making errors in logic.

Arguments from popularity are exactly that. Once again, I ask how is the
golden rule the required morality for any human? I agree it is common to
North American and to Christians. I agree that a multitude or religions
and nations support variations or earlier versions of the moral code.
Again, how does what is popular or common constitute logic.

> > I can
> > retrive from the archives where I clearly stated that morality on eating
> > meat and morality in general was subjective and determined by the vary
> > factors that you FINALLY acknowledge above.
>
> I have never denied that there is a large component of subjectivity in
> morality, in fact I have given several illustrations of that very principle
> over the past couple of weeks. In one case I go out and commit premeditated
> murder and conclude that I have done something moral.

Once again, you integrate legal codes with moral codes.

There is nothing inherent in the golden rule that requires one to view
killing as immoral. The act of killing another (do unto others) is the
desire to be killed (as you would have them do unto you). The principle
itself doesn't make suicide or homicide immoral.

> > You look foolish disagreeing with me then and agreeing with me now.
> > Further, claims of morality are ridiculous, when all we are really
> > speaking of is when a group of humans (X) thinks Y about any given issue.
>
> Why is it ridiculous to give credence to what humans think?

That wasn't my point at all.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
> > > >> > As I stated previously, it is consistent with the thinking of a
> child
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > think that one is responsible for the outcome of other people's
> > > >> > actions.
> > > >> > It is what many of us are taught as children. As adults, however,
> we
> > > >> > recognize the accountability and responsibility of the individual
> for
> > > >> > their own actions.
> > > >>
> > > >> Aiding and/or abetting are NOT actions? Why are we responsible for
> our
> > > >> own
> > > >> actions in other cases but not then?
> > > >
> > > > How do I perform the act of aiding if you are going to insist that it
> is
> > > > an action?
> > >
> > > Any number of ways, read the article I linked below.
> > >
> > > >> > > > Who taught the indigenous populations of Africa
> > > >> > > > or Australia that they were responsible for the outcomes of
> other
> > > >> > > > people's actions?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > See above
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Read http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tcmplicty.html
> > > >> >
> > > >> > This is further evidence of the problem of such thinking.
> > > >>
> > > >> Define the problem.
> > > >>
> > > >> > An accomplice
> > > >> > to murder is not the murderer. An accomplice to theft is not the
> thief.
> > > >>
> > > >> An accomplice is an accomplice, to use your tautological form.
> > > >
> > > > Yup. An accomplice is an accomplice. We agree.
> > >
> > > Well, I'm happy we can at least agree on self-evident truths. An
> accomplice
> > > is held accountable *as* such, not for "the actions of another person"
> as
> > > you have so often and wrongly alleged.
> >
> > Now, that we have that in print, I ask again -- when a farmer in Mexico
> > kills an amphibian in Mexico and a consumer is in Canada who is
> > responsible for the action and the outcome of growing the food and
> > killing the amphibian?
>
> As with any "act", responsibility is distributed among all parties who
> knowingly participate in it for their benefit.

What part of the moral code of "do unto others" are you finding this?

> In this case the "act" is rooted in your hunger, your desire for tomatoes,
> and through your ability to pay it is linked via wholesalers and retailers
> to a farmer in Mexico who receives a portion of your dollar to kill an
> amphibian in the process of cultivating the tomato field. The tomato is more
> than a red vegetable, it tells a story.

Sorry. You've argued that the moral principle at work is the golden
rule. I agree that this is common to North America and Christianity. I,
however, fail to see how complicity is in any way related to this moral
code. Please clarify.

> > Further, since the act of growing tomatoes is not illegal, how have you
> > determined that the Canadian in the example to be an accomplice?
>
> There you go confusing legality and moral complicity again.

See above. Complicity has nothing to do with the statement or phrase "do
unto others as you would have them do unto you." It seems there are
other moral codes being operationalized that you are not stating here.

> > > > The problem, Dutch, has been defined.
> > > >
> > > > When and were is the notion of accomplices extant or the principle
> valid?
> > >
> > > I don't know precisely, but I suspect it began very early in the
> development
> > > of homo sapiens social groups.
> >
> > An opinion? A belief? Something that you hold as true without evidence.
>
> A suspicion. I haven't read anything about that specifically. It would be
> under anthropology.
>
> > One might even call that faith.
>
> Or a guess.

Same thing -- different word.

> > One could even regard the criminal code
> > as the sacred text of a religion and be consistent with this as religion
> > by form and function.
>
> That could be argued, but to what purpose?

I'm noting your observation of the vegan seems to be how you are
treating the law -- a religion in form and function. The law becomes the
sacred text. There are "prophets" that are quoted as being the
authorities and so on. Beliefs, moral codes, rules of conduct (where our
disagreement appears) are the requirements of the practice of the
religion.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
> > > >> > As I stated previously, it is consistent with the thinking of a
> child
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > think that one is responsible for the outcome of other people's
> > > >> > actions.
> > > >> > It is what many of us are taught as children. As adults, however,
> we
> > > >> > recognize the accountability and responsibility of the individual
> for
> > > >> > their own actions.
> > > >>
> > > >> Aiding and/or abetting are NOT actions? Why are we responsible for
> our
> > > >> own
> > > >> actions in other cases but not then?
> > > >
> > > > How do I perform the act of aiding if you are going to insist that it
> is
> > > > an action?
> > >
> > > Any number of ways, read the article I linked below.
> > >
> > > >> > > > Who taught the indigenous populations of Africa
> > > >> > > > or Australia that they were responsible for the outcomes of
> other
> > > >> > > > people's actions?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > See above
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Read http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tcmplicty.html
> > > >> >
> > > >> > This is further evidence of the problem of such thinking.
> > > >>
> > > >> Define the problem.
> > > >>
> > > >> > An accomplice
> > > >> > to murder is not the murderer. An accomplice to theft is not the
> thief.
> > > >>
> > > >> An accomplice is an accomplice, to use your tautological form.
> > > >
> > > > Yup. An accomplice is an accomplice. We agree.
> > >
> > > Well, I'm happy we can at least agree on self-evident truths. An
> accomplice
> > > is held accountable *as* such, not for "the actions of another person"
> as
> > > you have so often and wrongly alleged.
> >
> > Now, that we have that in print, I ask again -- when a farmer in Mexico
> > kills an amphibian in Mexico and a consumer is in Canada who is
> > responsible for the action and the outcome of growing the food and
> > killing the amphibian?
>
> As with any "act", responsibility is distributed among all parties who
> knowingly participate in it for their benefit.

What part of the moral code of "do unto others" are you finding this?

> In this case the "act" is rooted in your hunger, your desire for tomatoes,
> and through your ability to pay it is linked via wholesalers and retailers
> to a farmer in Mexico who receives a portion of your dollar to kill an
> amphibian in the process of cultivating the tomato field. The tomato is more
> than a red vegetable, it tells a story.

Sorry. You've argued that the moral principle at work is the golden
rule. I agree that this is common to North America and Christianity. I,
however, fail to see how complicity is in any way related to this moral
code. Please clarify.

> > Further, since the act of growing tomatoes is not illegal, how have you
> > determined that the Canadian in the example to be an accomplice?
>
> There you go confusing legality and moral complicity again.

See above. Complicity has nothing to do with the statement or phrase "do
unto others as you would have them do unto you." It seems there are
other moral codes being operationalized that you are not stating here.

> > > > The problem, Dutch, has been defined.
> > > >
> > > > When and were is the notion of accomplices extant or the principle
> valid?
> > >
> > > I don't know precisely, but I suspect it began very early in the
> development
> > > of homo sapiens social groups.
> >
> > An opinion? A belief? Something that you hold as true without evidence.
>
> A suspicion. I haven't read anything about that specifically. It would be
> under anthropology.
>
> > One might even call that faith.
>
> Or a guess.

Same thing -- different word.

> > One could even regard the criminal code
> > as the sacred text of a religion and be consistent with this as religion
> > by form and function.
>
> That could be argued, but to what purpose?

I'm noting your observation of the vegan seems to be how you are
treating the law -- a religion in form and function. The law becomes the
sacred text. There are "prophets" that are quoted as being the
authorities and so on. Beliefs, moral codes, rules of conduct (where our
disagreement appears) are the requirements of the practice of the
religion.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > > >> > Hmm. So it is subjectively wrong (ie. relative to time and
> location) or
> > > >> > absolutely wrong (universal through time and space) to be an
> accomplice
> > > >> > or accessory.
> > > >>
> > > >> It depends on the nature of the act to which you are an accomplice
> and
> > > >> the
> > > >> nature of the complicity. Every case requires a moral and/or legal
> > > >> evaluation.
> > > >
> > > > Buying pot for glaucoma treatment and buying pot for selling to
> > > > teenagers is the SAME act. Please describe the differences in the
> > > > *actions* to warrant different moral or legal responses.
> > >
> > > One relieves the symptoms of a disease, the other condemns young people
> to a
> > > life of menial jobs and unfulfilled potential.
> >
> > My question was, what is different about the actions?
>
> I answered it.
> >
> > > Two actions may be identical in physical form
> >
> > Thank you, so they are identical actions that are treated and regarded
> > differently despite your claims that they are not the same actions.
>
> The same actions in different circumstances.
>
> > > but completely dissimiliar
> > > when the entire circumstances are assessed morally. You must know this
> or
> > > else you are sociopathic.
> >
> > The circumstances are the the same.
>
> No they aren't. The presence of the disease of glaucoma is a different
> circumstance.
>
> > The reasoning or thinking is what is
> > being assessed and having label of morality applied.
>
> No, there is an actual physically different set of circumstances in this
> instance.
>
> > What you are calling moral, is merely a question of what is popular and
> > socially acceptable. I grew out of that phase by the 8th grade. If being
> > an assertive adults constitutes being a sociopath then, so be it.
>
> You have a complex about *not* being thought of as a child, resulting in the
> adoption of childish notions. Ironic..
>
> > I imagine then that your willingness to agree with what is popular or
> > common is an avoidance to be labeled as a sociopath. Keeping you in line
> > is a breeze.
>
> Your self-professed "free thinking" is a pose. You are a prisoner of your
> abject fear of being viewed as "normal" or "conventional" or "a child" of
> being manipulated or controlled. You have lost all objectivity as a result.
> You are just as "in line" as I am, except that I understand why.

roflmao, okay...

I hope you weren't expecting payment for your armchair analysis.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > > >> > Hmm. So it is subjectively wrong (ie. relative to time and
> location) or
> > > >> > absolutely wrong (universal through time and space) to be an
> accomplice
> > > >> > or accessory.
> > > >>
> > > >> It depends on the nature of the act to which you are an accomplice
> and
> > > >> the
> > > >> nature of the complicity. Every case requires a moral and/or legal
> > > >> evaluation.
> > > >
> > > > Buying pot for glaucoma treatment and buying pot for selling to
> > > > teenagers is the SAME act. Please describe the differences in the
> > > > *actions* to warrant different moral or legal responses.
> > >
> > > One relieves the symptoms of a disease, the other condemns young people
> to a
> > > life of menial jobs and unfulfilled potential.
> >
> > My question was, what is different about the actions?
>
> I answered it.
> >
> > > Two actions may be identical in physical form
> >
> > Thank you, so they are identical actions that are treated and regarded
> > differently despite your claims that they are not the same actions.
>
> The same actions in different circumstances.
>
> > > but completely dissimiliar
> > > when the entire circumstances are assessed morally. You must know this
> or
> > > else you are sociopathic.
> >
> > The circumstances are the the same.
>
> No they aren't. The presence of the disease of glaucoma is a different
> circumstance.
>
> > The reasoning or thinking is what is
> > being assessed and having label of morality applied.
>
> No, there is an actual physically different set of circumstances in this
> instance.
>
> > What you are calling moral, is merely a question of what is popular and
> > socially acceptable. I grew out of that phase by the 8th grade. If being
> > an assertive adults constitutes being a sociopath then, so be it.
>
> You have a complex about *not* being thought of as a child, resulting in the
> adoption of childish notions. Ironic..
>
> > I imagine then that your willingness to agree with what is popular or
> > common is an avoidance to be labeled as a sociopath. Keeping you in line
> > is a breeze.
>
> Your self-professed "free thinking" is a pose. You are a prisoner of your
> abject fear of being viewed as "normal" or "conventional" or "a child" of
> being manipulated or controlled. You have lost all objectivity as a result.
> You are just as "in line" as I am, except that I understand why.

roflmao, okay...

I hope you weren't expecting payment for your armchair analysis.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> [..]
>
> > > > How did you determine that it is "right" to give back the reward?
> > >
> > > By moral evaluation based on "The Golden Rule", a principle that has
> > > equivalents in many cultures.
> >
> > Yes. A logical argument based on popularity.
>
> It's not based on popularity, it's based on the power of the concept, which
> in turn makes it popular.

It doesn't take much research for anyone who is not experiencing
confirmation bias to find a variety of thinking on the problems and
consequences of the moral code or principle of the Golden Rule.

What I am prepared to agree with you on is:
1) The code is common and popular to North America and Christianity
2) The code does seem to have variations in other nations and within
other religions

> > This is generally
> > considered a logical fallacy.
>
> It's not argumentum ad populum, you don't know what you're talking about.

It meets the requirements of an argument from popularity.

> > How have you translated something that is effectively "do unto
> > others..." into one must not give or accept a reward?
>
> I would return someone's wallet because I would hope they would do the same
> for me, not because I expect to be paid.

How is the expectation of compensation, an honorarium or reward contrary
to the notion of "do unto others..."?

> > Now, if the golden rule applies, when Rick refers to me as pansy boy,
> > application of this principle would mean it is he who wishes to be
> > treated this way and called pansy boy -- do unto others.
>
> Not an unreasonable conclusion, although he probably would prefer you come
> up with your own epithets.

It's the golden rule operationalized.

> > > > Accepting a reward is not illegal.
> > >
> > > I didn't say it was. There you go confusing legality with morality
> again,
> > > the very mistake you keep accusing me of.
> >
> > Now that we have that in print,
>
> Good, I'm pleased you acknowledge that you keep doing it.
>
> > please establish how you have determined
> > that it would be wrong to accept the reward or to give it in the
> > situation.
>
> See above.
>
> > I know the golden rule in principle. I know that many follow it. I am
> > curious how you have determined that this principle is moral though.
>
> Morality, as I said before, hinges on the idea of harm, avoiding and
> preventing it.

That is your worldview. Please stop assuming that the rest of us must
act as you. Contrary to the common philosophy that you inconsistently
perpetuate here, I take a position of 'redemption philosophy'. As such,
not all harm needs to be removed or minimized. Please don't confuse me
with others are vulnerable and afraid and use legal and moral codes to
feel safety and sanctuary in the world.

> Since most of us have an aversion to being harmed, we
> naturally wish that others do not harm us. If we all refrain from causing
> harm to one-another, that will best minimize the chance of each of us
> suffering harm. Therefore the golden rule makes perfect sense. It's the
> perfect moral rule.

That is easily disputed in psychology with the 'death instinct'. It is
practicallly demonstrated as false by the common actions of humans.
Humans are equally drawn to harmfree and harmful activities. It's only a
question of whether an individual is open enough to acknowledge and see
those things.

> > > >> > > > Further, if one encourages one to use pot responsibly and they
> die
> > > >> > > > as
> > > >> a
> > > >> > > > result of the responsible pot use then too are complicit in
> that
> > > >> death?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Encouraging responsible pot use to a pot user probably *adds*
> years
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> their
> > > >> > > life.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Irrelevant. It is the encouragement of illegal activities.
> > > >>
> > > >> I thought we agreed that legality is not the issue.
> > > >
> > > > Nice avoidance.
> > >
> > > Why is it avoidance to point out your constant shifting of the
> goalposts?
> > >
> > > > When you google legal issues to support moral claims,
> > > > you make it an issue.
> > >
> > > Tch tch Ron, don't blame me for your inconsistency.
> > >
> > > Here is the exchange where I provided that link. You specifically asked
> for
> > > a legal opinion.
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > You:
> > >
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > Me:
> > >
> > > Study this...
> > >
> > > The Law of Complicity
> > > This section examines the law of complicity. This deals with the
> liability
> > > of individuals who assist or encourage others to commit an offence.
> > >
> > > http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tcmplicty.html
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > I repeat, I am NOT confusing the ideas of legality and morality, I
> > > understand the distinction between them. I wonder if you do though, your
> > > thinking seems quite confused.
> >
> > Not at all and now that we have this in print.
>
> Right, we do, proof positive that you are moving the goalposts to and from
> between morality and legality. Why?

Not at all. I've been asking you to clarify what falls to legality and
what falls to morality. You've indicated that the moral code being
operationailzed is the golden rule. Yet, you continue to avoid stating
how any of these issues is contrary to the notion of "do unto others".

> > Please explain for us,
> > how you have determined the difference between morality and legality.
>
> Laws are written in law books.

And where is morality written? Where is the golden rule, for example,
written?

> > You've state the golden rule as logic, I state is merely common.
>
> See above.
>
> >
> > > >> > It is the
> > > >> > encouragement for trafficking and possession. It is aiding and
> abetting
> > > >> > criminal activity. It is acting with knowledge before and after the
> > > >> > fact
> > > >> > -- it is being an accessory. Please turn yourself in to the nearest
> > > >> > authorities.
> > > >>
> > > >> You have forgotten my entire comments. I recommended that the best
> course
> > > >> of
> > > >> action is to abstain altogether, but *if* one is to use drugs, so so
> > > >> responsibly.
> > > >
> > > > Which is still "counselling" for the use of drugs. Which is still
> aiding
> > > > someone to break the law. Which is still providing support to someone
> > > > after using drugs. Slice it anyway you want, please turn yourself over
> > > > to the authorities.
> > >
> > > Very black and white thinking there Ron, not very enlightened for a
> > > self-professed free-thinker.
> >
> > THANK YOU! I know.
>
> Black and white thinking is not good, you should not be proud of it.
>
> > I applied current morality and current law to the
> > situation and you were able to see it as black and white. Go figure.
> > When I do it, you can easily see it, when you do it you deny it. What's
> > that about?
>
> It's just more of your utterly shallow thinking. Once I *advise* someone to
> refrain from pot, that is my primary moral, and sensible position. If I say
> *if* you choose to smoke it, do so responsibly, I am NOT advising them to
> smoke it or condoning it, I have stipulated that they already made that
> decision on their own, contrary to my advice.

Yes, you are advocating when you take that stance. By comparison, if I
deem it not sensible for 12 year olds to be having sex, but then state
that they should do it responsibly, it would seem that I am advocating
for them to behave in a certain way.

> > > >> > > > Should we discuss the Good Samaritan laws as further examples
> of
> > > >> > > > where
> > > >> > > > you are mistaken.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > You haven't found a single instance where I have been mistaken
> yet,
> > > >> > > but
> > > >> you
> > > >> > > will eventually if you keep trying long enough. You will
> pronounce
> > > >> yourself
> > > >> > > victorious at that point in time no doubt.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Single? I found many. Failing to 'snitch' or 'rat' in any
> circumstance
> > > >> > of illegal activity (such as the possession of marijuana -- a
> crime) is
> > > >> > protecting someone from the outcome of criminal activities.
> > > >>
> > > >> Failure to report something that one has not direct evidence of is
> not
> > > >> immoral OR a crime.
> > > >
> > > > How did you decide that it was moral?
> > >
> > > A complex, on-the-fly moral evalution, including testing for complicity.
> >
> > Really. What in the golden rule of "do unto others..." refers to
> > complicity or being an accomplice. As I've stated, you have confused
> > legality and morality.
>
> LOL!!! That's rich Ron.

Don't back off now, Dutch. You've stated the moral principle as the
golden rule. What in the principle refers to complicity or being an
accomplice?

> -snip-
>
> The rest is such nonsense I can't bear to read it.

The golden rule -- can we assume that you no longer wish me to read your
remarks.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> [..]
>
> > > > How did you determine that it is "right" to give back the reward?
> > >
> > > By moral evaluation based on "The Golden Rule", a principle that has
> > > equivalents in many cultures.
> >
> > Yes. A logical argument based on popularity.
>
> It's not based on popularity, it's based on the power of the concept, which
> in turn makes it popular.

It doesn't take much research for anyone who is not experiencing
confirmation bias to find a variety of thinking on the problems and
consequences of the moral code or principle of the Golden Rule.

What I am prepared to agree with you on is:
1) The code is common and popular to North America and Christianity
2) The code does seem to have variations in other nations and within
other religions

> > This is generally
> > considered a logical fallacy.
>
> It's not argumentum ad populum, you don't know what you're talking about.

It meets the requirements of an argument from popularity.

> > How have you translated something that is effectively "do unto
> > others..." into one must not give or accept a reward?
>
> I would return someone's wallet because I would hope they would do the same
> for me, not because I expect to be paid.

How is the expectation of compensation, an honorarium or reward contrary
to the notion of "do unto others..."?

> > Now, if the golden rule applies, when Rick refers to me as pansy boy,
> > application of this principle would mean it is he who wishes to be
> > treated this way and called pansy boy -- do unto others.
>
> Not an unreasonable conclusion, although he probably would prefer you come
> up with your own epithets.

It's the golden rule operationalized.

> > > > Accepting a reward is not illegal.
> > >
> > > I didn't say it was. There you go confusing legality with morality
> again,
> > > the very mistake you keep accusing me of.
> >
> > Now that we have that in print,
>
> Good, I'm pleased you acknowledge that you keep doing it.
>
> > please establish how you have determined
> > that it would be wrong to accept the reward or to give it in the
> > situation.
>
> See above.
>
> > I know the golden rule in principle. I know that many follow it. I am
> > curious how you have determined that this principle is moral though.
>
> Morality, as I said before, hinges on the idea of harm, avoiding and
> preventing it.

That is your worldview. Please stop assuming that the rest of us must
act as you. Contrary to the common philosophy that you inconsistently
perpetuate here, I take a position of 'redemption philosophy'. As such,
not all harm needs to be removed or minimized. Please don't confuse me
with others are vulnerable and afraid and use legal and moral codes to
feel safety and sanctuary in the world.

> Since most of us have an aversion to being harmed, we
> naturally wish that others do not harm us. If we all refrain from causing
> harm to one-another, that will best minimize the chance of each of us
> suffering harm. Therefore the golden rule makes perfect sense. It's the
> perfect moral rule.

That is easily disputed in psychology with the 'death instinct'. It is
practicallly demonstrated as false by the common actions of humans.
Humans are equally drawn to harmfree and harmful activities. It's only a
question of whether an individual is open enough to acknowledge and see
those things.

> > > >> > > > Further, if one encourages one to use pot responsibly and they
> die
> > > >> > > > as
> > > >> a
> > > >> > > > result of the responsible pot use then too are complicit in
> that
> > > >> death?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Encouraging responsible pot use to a pot user probably *adds*
> years
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> their
> > > >> > > life.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Irrelevant. It is the encouragement of illegal activities.
> > > >>
> > > >> I thought we agreed that legality is not the issue.
> > > >
> > > > Nice avoidance.
> > >
> > > Why is it avoidance to point out your constant shifting of the
> goalposts?
> > >
> > > > When you google legal issues to support moral claims,
> > > > you make it an issue.
> > >
> > > Tch tch Ron, don't blame me for your inconsistency.
> > >
> > > Here is the exchange where I provided that link. You specifically asked
> for
> > > a legal opinion.
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > You:
> > >
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > Me:
> > >
> > > Study this...
> > >
> > > The Law of Complicity
> > > This section examines the law of complicity. This deals with the
> liability
> > > of individuals who assist or encourage others to commit an offence.
> > >
> > > http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tcmplicty.html
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > I repeat, I am NOT confusing the ideas of legality and morality, I
> > > understand the distinction between them. I wonder if you do though, your
> > > thinking seems quite confused.
> >
> > Not at all and now that we have this in print.
>
> Right, we do, proof positive that you are moving the goalposts to and from
> between morality and legality. Why?

Not at all. I've been asking you to clarify what falls to legality and
what falls to morality. You've indicated that the moral code being
operationailzed is the golden rule. Yet, you continue to avoid stating
how any of these issues is contrary to the notion of "do unto others".

> > Please explain for us,
> > how you have determined the difference between morality and legality.
>
> Laws are written in law books.

And where is morality written? Where is the golden rule, for example,
written?

> > You've state the golden rule as logic, I state is merely common.
>
> See above.
>
> >
> > > >> > It is the
> > > >> > encouragement for trafficking and possession. It is aiding and
> abetting
> > > >> > criminal activity. It is acting with knowledge before and after the
> > > >> > fact
> > > >> > -- it is being an accessory. Please turn yourself in to the nearest
> > > >> > authorities.
> > > >>
> > > >> You have forgotten my entire comments. I recommended that the best
> course
> > > >> of
> > > >> action is to abstain altogether, but *if* one is to use drugs, so so
> > > >> responsibly.
> > > >
> > > > Which is still "counselling" for the use of drugs. Which is still
> aiding
> > > > someone to break the law. Which is still providing support to someone
> > > > after using drugs. Slice it anyway you want, please turn yourself over
> > > > to the authorities.
> > >
> > > Very black and white thinking there Ron, not very enlightened for a
> > > self-professed free-thinker.
> >
> > THANK YOU! I know.
>
> Black and white thinking is not good, you should not be proud of it.
>
> > I applied current morality and current law to the
> > situation and you were able to see it as black and white. Go figure.
> > When I do it, you can easily see it, when you do it you deny it. What's
> > that about?
>
> It's just more of your utterly shallow thinking. Once I *advise* someone to
> refrain from pot, that is my primary moral, and sensible position. If I say
> *if* you choose to smoke it, do so responsibly, I am NOT advising them to
> smoke it or condoning it, I have stipulated that they already made that
> decision on their own, contrary to my advice.

Yes, you are advocating when you take that stance. By comparison, if I
deem it not sensible for 12 year olds to be having sex, but then state
that they should do it responsibly, it would seem that I am advocating
for them to behave in a certain way.

> > > >> > > > Should we discuss the Good Samaritan laws as further examples
> of
> > > >> > > > where
> > > >> > > > you are mistaken.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > You haven't found a single instance where I have been mistaken
> yet,
> > > >> > > but
> > > >> you
> > > >> > > will eventually if you keep trying long enough. You will
> pronounce
> > > >> yourself
> > > >> > > victorious at that point in time no doubt.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Single? I found many. Failing to 'snitch' or 'rat' in any
> circumstance
> > > >> > of illegal activity (such as the possession of marijuana -- a
> crime) is
> > > >> > protecting someone from the outcome of criminal activities.
> > > >>
> > > >> Failure to report something that one has not direct evidence of is
> not
> > > >> immoral OR a crime.
> > > >
> > > > How did you decide that it was moral?
> > >
> > > A complex, on-the-fly moral evalution, including testing for complicity.
> >
> > Really. What in the golden rule of "do unto others..." refers to
> > complicity or being an accomplice. As I've stated, you have confused
> > legality and morality.
>
> LOL!!! That's rich Ron.

Don't back off now, Dutch. You've stated the moral principle as the
golden rule. What in the principle refers to complicity or being an
accomplice?

> -snip-
>
> The rest is such nonsense I can't bear to read it.

The golden rule -- can we assume that you no longer wish me to read your
remarks.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> [..]
> > IOW, we are who we are because we are individuals AND we have been
> > taught to be who we are -- a socialization process. Any argument of
> > innateness of anything requires significant evidence from my
> > perspective.
>
> Every living organism is hard-wired for survival, to avoid and recoil from
> harm. That is innate.

We disagree. That just means humans experience fear and have knowledge
about death. If you are going to claim that this is hard wired, please
describe the 'hard wiring'. Please describe the genetic sequence that
requires any of us to recoil from harm, yet to actively seek out harmful
situations contrary to our 'wiring'.

> Moral precepts, like The Golden Rule, are just ways to
> organize behaviour in an attempt to minimize harm. Moral codes are flawed
> and inconsistent, but they are all based on the fundamental inherent drive
> to avoid harm. The suggestion that they are simply random cultural artifacts
> is wrong.

LOL. That is YOUR objective and worldview. I find our culture extremely
paranoid and fearful - some moreso than others. In most cases, I find
that people tend to overestimate the degree of risk and harm that is
likely to happen.

All harm is not bad. As I stated, I consider a 'redemption philosophy'
to be wholly realistic in that many 'bad' or 'evil' things in the world
can also be demonstrated to have positive effects and outcomes.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> [..]
> > IOW, we are who we are because we are individuals AND we have been
> > taught to be who we are -- a socialization process. Any argument of
> > innateness of anything requires significant evidence from my
> > perspective.
>
> Every living organism is hard-wired for survival, to avoid and recoil from
> harm. That is innate.

We disagree. That just means humans experience fear and have knowledge
about death. If you are going to claim that this is hard wired, please
describe the 'hard wiring'. Please describe the genetic sequence that
requires any of us to recoil from harm, yet to actively seek out harmful
situations contrary to our 'wiring'.

> Moral precepts, like The Golden Rule, are just ways to
> organize behaviour in an attempt to minimize harm. Moral codes are flawed
> and inconsistent, but they are all based on the fundamental inherent drive
> to avoid harm. The suggestion that they are simply random cultural artifacts
> is wrong.

LOL. That is YOUR objective and worldview. I find our culture extremely
paranoid and fearful - some moreso than others. In most cases, I find
that people tend to overestimate the degree of risk and harm that is
likely to happen.

All harm is not bad. As I stated, I consider a 'redemption philosophy'
to be wholly realistic in that many 'bad' or 'evil' things in the world
can also be demonstrated to have positive effects and outcomes.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> [..]
> > IOW, we are who we are because we are individuals AND we have been
> > taught to be who we are -- a socialization process. Any argument of
> > innateness of anything requires significant evidence from my
> > perspective.
>
> Every living organism is hard-wired for survival, to avoid and recoil from
> harm. That is innate.

We disagree. That just means humans experience fear and have knowledge
about death. If you are going to claim that this is hard wired, please
describe the 'hard wiring'. Please describe the genetic sequence that
requires any of us to recoil from harm, yet to actively seek out harmful
situations contrary to our 'wiring'.

> Moral precepts, like The Golden Rule, are just ways to
> organize behaviour in an attempt to minimize harm. Moral codes are flawed
> and inconsistent, but they are all based on the fundamental inherent drive
> to avoid harm. The suggestion that they are simply random cultural artifacts
> is wrong.

LOL. That is YOUR objective and worldview. I find our culture extremely
paranoid and fearful - some moreso than others. In most cases, I find
that people tend to overestimate the degree of risk and harm that is
likely to happen.

All harm is not bad. As I stated, I consider a 'redemption philosophy'
to be wholly realistic in that many 'bad' or 'evil' things in the world
can also be demonstrated to have positive effects and outcomes.

Twink Ron wrote:
>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>
>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>
>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>
> Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*

Drama queen.

> I find you evasive.

Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
written extensively that I'm too blunt.

> Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
> vegan is violating.

Easy: *their own*.

Twink Ron wrote:
>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>
>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>
>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>
> Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*

Drama queen.

> I find you evasive.

Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
written extensively that I'm too blunt.

> Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
> vegan is violating.

Easy: *their own*.

Twink Ron wrote:
>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>
>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>
>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>
> Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*

Drama queen.

> I find you evasive.

Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
written extensively that I'm too blunt.

> Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
> vegan is violating.

Easy: *their own*.

Twink Ron wrote:
>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>>>
>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>>>
>>>>Ipse dixit, in any case it's irrelevant, the vegan hires this person to do
>>>>his dirty work for him and thus is equally culpable. If you go to the
>>>>street
>>>>and ask a common thief to steal you a stereo, you are complicit in that
>>>>crime when it is committed.
>>>
>>>It's the lesser "evil".
>>
>>How is it a lesser evil? You're making a mockery of what little you were
>>taught in your intro to logic course, you dopey little twink.
>
>
> Sorry. I find you too abusive to spend some time responding to your
> questions.

And you called me evasive, lol.

Twink Ron wrote:
>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>>>
>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>>>
>>>>Ipse dixit, in any case it's irrelevant, the vegan hires this person to do
>>>>his dirty work for him and thus is equally culpable. If you go to the
>>>>street
>>>>and ask a common thief to steal you a stereo, you are complicit in that
>>>>crime when it is committed.
>>>
>>>It's the lesser "evil".
>>
>>How is it a lesser evil? You're making a mockery of what little you were
>>taught in your intro to logic course, you dopey little twink.
>
>
> Sorry. I find you too abusive to spend some time responding to your
> questions.

And you called me evasive, lol.

Twink Ron wrote:
>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>>>
>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>>>
>>>>Ipse dixit, in any case it's irrelevant, the vegan hires this person to do
>>>>his dirty work for him and thus is equally culpable. If you go to the
>>>>street
>>>>and ask a common thief to steal you a stereo, you are complicit in that
>>>>crime when it is committed.
>>>
>>>It's the lesser "evil".
>>
>>How is it a lesser evil? You're making a mockery of what little you were
>>taught in your intro to logic course, you dopey little twink.
>
>
> Sorry. I find you too abusive to spend some time responding to your
> questions.

And you called me evasive, lol.

In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Twink Ron wrote:
> >>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
> >>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
> >>>>humane slaughter which they object.
> >>>
> >>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
> >>
> >>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
> >>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
> >>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
> >>feebly attempting to defend them.
> >
> > Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>
> Drama queen.

*bats eye lashes in flattered state*

> > I find you evasive.
>
> Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
> written extensively that I'm too blunt.

Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.

> > Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
> > vegan is violating.
>
> Easy: *their own*.

I'll clarify, what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
code. Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
code?

In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Twink Ron wrote:
> >>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
> >>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
> >>>>humane slaughter which they object.
> >>>
> >>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
> >>
> >>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
> >>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
> >>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
> >>feebly attempting to defend them.
> >
> > Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>
> Drama queen.

*bats eye lashes in flattered state*

> > I find you evasive.
>
> Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
> written extensively that I'm too blunt.

Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.

> > Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
> > vegan is violating.
>
> Easy: *their own*.

I'll clarify, what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
code. Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
code?

In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Twink Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
> >>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
> >>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
> >>>>
> >>>>Ipse dixit, in any case it's irrelevant, the vegan hires this person to
> >>>>do
> >>>>his dirty work for him and thus is equally culpable. If you go to the
> >>>>street
> >>>>and ask a common thief to steal you a stereo, you are complicit in that
> >>>>crime when it is committed.
> >>>
> >>>It's the lesser "evil".
> >>
> >>How is it a lesser evil? You're making a mockery of what little you were
> >>taught in your intro to logic course, you dopey little twink.
> >
> >
> > Sorry. I find you too abusive to spend some time responding to your
> > questions.
>
> And you called me evasive, lol.

This is your style, so I'll leave you to it.

In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Twink Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
> >>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
> >>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
> >>>>
> >>>>Ipse dixit, in any case it's irrelevant, the vegan hires this person to
> >>>>do
> >>>>his dirty work for him and thus is equally culpable. If you go to the
> >>>>street
> >>>>and ask a common thief to steal you a stereo, you are complicit in that
> >>>>crime when it is committed.
> >>>
> >>>It's the lesser "evil".
> >>
> >>How is it a lesser evil? You're making a mockery of what little you were
> >>taught in your intro to logic course, you dopey little twink.
> >
> >
> > Sorry. I find you too abusive to spend some time responding to your
> > questions.
>
> And you called me evasive, lol.

This is your style, so I'll leave you to it.

In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Twink Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
> >>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
> >>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
> >>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
> >>>>
> >>>>Ipse dixit, in any case it's irrelevant, the vegan hires this person to
> >>>>do
> >>>>his dirty work for him and thus is equally culpable. If you go to the
> >>>>street
> >>>>and ask a common thief to steal you a stereo, you are complicit in that
> >>>>crime when it is committed.
> >>>
> >>>It's the lesser "evil".
> >>
> >>How is it a lesser evil? You're making a mockery of what little you were
> >>taught in your intro to logic course, you dopey little twink.
> >
> >
> > Sorry. I find you too abusive to spend some time responding to your
> > questions.
>
> And you called me evasive, lol.

This is your style, so I'll leave you to it.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> usual suspect > wrote:
>
>> Twink Ron wrote:
>> >>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>> >>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>> >>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>> >>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>> >>>
>> >>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>> >>
>> >>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce
>> >>food
>> >>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>> >>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>> >>feebly attempting to defend them.
>> >
>> > Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>>
>> Drama queen.
>
> *bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>
>> > I find you evasive.
>>
>> Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>> written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>
> Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
> elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>
>> > Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>> > vegan is violating.
>>
>> Easy: *their own*.
>
> I'll clarify, what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
> violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
> code. Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
> code?
===================
Thanks for continuing to display your ignorance on the subject. Well, any
subject actually. Vegans make a claim that *their* lifestyle causes
no/less/fewer animals to die. They claim that that is *their*
ethics/morality. They then violate that ethic by not even trying to
determine which foods they eat actually causes no/less/fewer deaths of
animals. Instead, they follow only a simple rule for their simple minds,
'eat no meat.' So, you can blather on all you want pretending to be a
junior philosophy cadet, but your ignorance is still readily apparent,
queer-boy.... As to what the 'name' of that code is, ask the vegan, you
stupid fool. It's *their* code.
Man, you really are just too stupid for this, aren't you, pansy?

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> usual suspect > wrote:
>
>> Twink Ron wrote:
>> >>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>> >>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>> >>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>> >>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>> >>>
>> >>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>> >>
>> >>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce
>> >>food
>> >>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>> >>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>> >>feebly attempting to defend them.
>> >
>> > Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>>
>> Drama queen.
>
> *bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>
>> > I find you evasive.
>>
>> Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>> written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>
> Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
> elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>
>> > Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>> > vegan is violating.
>>
>> Easy: *their own*.
>
> I'll clarify, what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
> violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
> code. Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
> code?
===================
Thanks for continuing to display your ignorance on the subject. Well, any
subject actually. Vegans make a claim that *their* lifestyle causes
no/less/fewer animals to die. They claim that that is *their*
ethics/morality. They then violate that ethic by not even trying to
determine which foods they eat actually causes no/less/fewer deaths of
animals. Instead, they follow only a simple rule for their simple minds,
'eat no meat.' So, you can blather on all you want pretending to be a
junior philosophy cadet, but your ignorance is still readily apparent,
queer-boy.... As to what the 'name' of that code is, ask the vegan, you
stupid fool. It's *their* code.
Man, you really are just too stupid for this, aren't you, pansy?

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> usual suspect > wrote:
>
>> Twink Ron wrote:
>> >>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>> >>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>> >>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>> >>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>> >>>
>> >>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>> >>
>> >>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce
>> >>food
>> >>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>> >>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>> >>feebly attempting to defend them.
>> >
>> > Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>>
>> Drama queen.
>
> *bats eye lashes in flattered state*
>
>> > I find you evasive.
>>
>> Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>> written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>
> Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
> elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.
>
>> > Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>> > vegan is violating.
>>
>> Easy: *their own*.
>
> I'll clarify, what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
> violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
> code. Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
> code?
===================
Thanks for continuing to display your ignorance on the subject. Well, any
subject actually. Vegans make a claim that *their* lifestyle causes
no/less/fewer animals to die. They claim that that is *their*
ethics/morality. They then violate that ethic by not even trying to
determine which foods they eat actually causes no/less/fewer deaths of
animals. Instead, they follow only a simple rule for their simple minds,
'eat no meat.' So, you can blather on all you want pretending to be a
junior philosophy cadet, but your ignorance is still readily apparent,
queer-boy.... As to what the 'name' of that code is, ask the vegan, you
stupid fool. It's *their* code.
Man, you really are just too stupid for this, aren't you, pansy?

Twink Ron wrote:
>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>>>
>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>>>
>>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
>>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>>>
>>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>>
>>Drama queen.
>
> *bats eye lashes in flattered state*

It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.

>>>I find you evasive.
>>
>>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>
> Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
> elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.

Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.

>>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>>>vegan is violating.
>>
>>Easy: *their own*.
>
> I'll clarify,

You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
parts.

> what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
> violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
> code.

It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
of hypocrisy and sanctimony.

> Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
> code?

It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."

Twink Ron wrote:
>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>>>
>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>>>
>>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
>>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>>>
>>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>>
>>Drama queen.
>
> *bats eye lashes in flattered state*

It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.

>>>I find you evasive.
>>
>>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>
> Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
> elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.

Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.

>>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>>>vegan is violating.
>>
>>Easy: *their own*.
>
> I'll clarify,

You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
parts.

> what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
> violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
> code.

It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
of hypocrisy and sanctimony.

> Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
> code?

It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."

Twink Ron wrote:
>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>>>
>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>>>
>>>>You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
>>>>at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
>>>>pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
>>>>feebly attempting to defend them.
>>>
>>>Scumbag? *hand goes to forehead in shock and horror*
>>
>>Drama queen.
>
> *bats eye lashes in flattered state*

It's not flattery. Well, not to normal people.

>>>I find you evasive.
>>
>>Pot calling the kettle black. You write I'm evasive, while others have
>>written extensively that I'm too blunt.
>
> Blunt, as in being rude and abusive is different than evasive, as in
> elaborating on any point further than ....well, you know the drill.

Some consider the elaborating to be rude and abusive: the truth hurts.

>>>Please clarify what ethical or moral code that any
>>>vegan is violating.
>>
>>Easy: *their own*.
>
> I'll clarify,

You're not clarifying, Twink, you're trying to evade the issue. Vegans
prate about their high standards and then have a perverse indifference
to the net results of their diet. Their standard is not causing animal
suffering and death. The *results* of their lifestyles are filled with
animal suffering and death. They have other options available to them to
minimize animal suffering and death, but they're content to make
meaningless gestures, such as their irrational obsessions about animal
parts.

> what is the moral principle that you believe the vegan is
> violating when you state that they are not following their own moral
> code.

It's a peculiar one of their own design, applied with tremendous amounts
of hypocrisy and sanctimony.

> Is this the platinum rule, the golden, or some other unnamed moral
> code?

It's an oxymoron called "vegan ethics."

Twink Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ipse dixit, in any case it's irrelevant, the vegan hires this person to
>>>>>>do
>>>>>>his dirty work for him and thus is equally culpable. If you go to the
>>>>>>street
>>>>>>and ask a common thief to steal you a stereo, you are complicit in that
>>>>>>crime when it is committed.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's the lesser "evil".
>>>>
>>>>How is it a lesser evil? You're making a mockery of what little you were
>>>>taught in your intro to logic course, you dopey little twink.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sorry. I find you too abusive to spend some time responding to your
>>>questions.
>>
>>And you called me evasive, lol.
>
> This is your style, so I'll leave you to it.

And you called me evasive, lol.

Twink Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ipse dixit, in any case it's irrelevant, the vegan hires this person to
>>>>>>do
>>>>>>his dirty work for him and thus is equally culpable. If you go to the
>>>>>>street
>>>>>>and ask a common thief to steal you a stereo, you are complicit in that
>>>>>>crime when it is committed.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's the lesser "evil".
>>>>
>>>>How is it a lesser evil? You're making a mockery of what little you were
>>>>taught in your intro to logic course, you dopey little twink.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sorry. I find you too abusive to spend some time responding to your
>>>questions.
>>
>>And you called me evasive, lol.
>
> This is your style, so I'll leave you to it.

And you called me evasive, lol.

Twink Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ipse dixit, in any case it's irrelevant, the vegan hires this person to
>>>>>>do
>>>>>>his dirty work for him and thus is equally culpable. If you go to the
>>>>>>street
>>>>>>and ask a common thief to steal you a stereo, you are complicit in that
>>>>>>crime when it is committed.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's the lesser "evil".
>>>>
>>>>How is it a lesser evil? You're making a mockery of what little you were
>>>>taught in your intro to logic course, you dopey little twink.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sorry. I find you too abusive to spend some time responding to your
>>>questions.
>>
>>And you called me evasive, lol.
>
> This is your style, so I'll leave you to it.

And you called me evasive, lol.

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

[..]

> > > We call that hypocrisy where I live -- for the vegan, animal refers to
> > > all animals (an absolute),
> >
> > Actually.. you're wrong again. To the vegan or ARA it refers to animals
> > exploited and/or *killed* for the purpose of human use, they have no
moral
> > objection to using animals that die of natural causes.
>
> The same two issues emerge. HOw is this a violation of the principle of
> the golden rule and why must they follow the golden rule because it is
> common to Christianity and Western nations?

You are just slipping out of one noose and into another. This will just go
on forever as long as you continue this knee-jerk thinking.

[..]
> > > Thank you for finally agreeing to what I stated likely 2 weeks ago. My
> > > moral codes are that which I learned within my culture and family and
> > > are not inherent.
> >
> > They are not exclusively either one. There are inherent properties or
> > principles in moralities as well as cultural specifics. For example,
morals
> > almost always hinge on some sort of harm, if there is no harm then there
is
> > no reason for a moral precept to exist.
>
> There is nothing "inherent" in the golden rule that requires action to
> be harm free. Please clarify what you are reading into the principle "do
> unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Again, you're floundering here. The Golden Rule is a different issue.

> > > In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
> > > is not right but determined by such things as time and location.
> >
> > Eating meat is "not wrong" in the context of the specific discussion
between
> > myself and a vegan. I *may* believe it is wrong under other
circumstances.
> > Wrong itself is also a rather vague term.
>
> Yet, you use the term.

Yes, when the term is applied to my lifestyle, I question the person who
uses it, then when I understand the context I respond accordingly.

It's called communication. What you are doing is called obfuscation.

> > > > > Even further, why is it morally acceptable to breed and herd cows
for
> > > > > slaughter, but not tigers and camels?
> > > >
> > > > Are you asking because you don't understand why or because you think
I
> > > > don't?
> > >
> > > Neither. I'm asking because it is easier to show the errors of logic
by
> > > having you put your responses in the newsgroup as you did above.
> >
> > Trouble is, I'm not making errors in logic.
>
> Arguments from popularity are exactly that.

Popular ideas are not necessarily wrong. People who support popular ideas
are not doing so necessarily *because* those ideas are popular. You are
suffering under a delusion.

> Once again, I ask how is the
> golden rule the required morality for any human?

Strawman.

> I agree it is common to
> North American and to Christians. I agree that a multitude or religions
> and nations support variations or earlier versions of the moral code.
> Again, how does what is popular or common constitute logic.

I would ask you that question, since you introduced the concept of
popularity.

> > > I can
> > > retrive from the archives where I clearly stated that morality on
eating
> > > meat and morality in general was subjective and determined by the vary
> > > factors that you FINALLY acknowledge above.
> >
> > I have never denied that there is a large component of subjectivity in
> > morality, in fact I have given several illustrations of that very
principle
> > over the past couple of weeks. In one case I go out and commit
premeditated
> > murder and conclude that I have done something moral.
>
> Once again, you integrate legal codes with moral codes.

I did the exact opposite.

> There is nothing inherent in the golden rule that requires one to view
> killing as immoral. The act of killing another (do unto others) is the
> desire to be killed (as you would have them do unto you). The principle
> itself doesn't make suicide or homicide immoral.

You have latched onto the "Golden Rule" like a dog with a bone. You are not
being coherent.

> > > You look foolish disagreeing with me then and agreeing with me now.
> > > Further, claims of morality are ridiculous, when all we are really
> > > speaking of is when a group of humans (X) thinks Y about any given
issue.
> >
> > Why is it ridiculous to give credence to what humans think?
>
> That wasn't my point at all.

It's precisely what you said right above. "claims of morality are
ridiculous, when all we are really speaking of is when a group of humans (X)
thinks Y about any given issue."

You explicity said that claims of morality are ridiculous because they
involve what a group of humans think.

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

> > -snip-
> >
> > The rest is such nonsense I can't bear to read it.
>
> The golden rule -- can we assume that you no longer wish me to read your
> remarks.

That would be great.

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

> > -snip-
> >
> > The rest is such nonsense I can't bear to read it.
>
> The golden rule -- can we assume that you no longer wish me to read your
> remarks.

That would be great.

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

> > -snip-
> >
> > The rest is such nonsense I can't bear to read it.
>
> The golden rule -- can we assume that you no longer wish me to read your
> remarks.

That would be great.