In article .com>,
"Jay Santos" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Jay Santos" > wrote:
> >
> > > anal leakage wrote:
> > > > In article
> . com>,
> > > > "Jay Santos" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > dribbling homo wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > .com>,
> > > > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As usual, no substance. The pattern is clear. Whenever
> you
> > > are proved
> > > > > > > wrong, your ego won't let you do either of the two correct
> > > responses -
> > > > > > > admit your error, or say nothing. Instead, you are driven
> to
> > > make a
> > > > > > > substance-free snarky response.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which vegan killed what animal
> > > > >
> > > > > It doesn't matter.
> > > >
> > > > I think it does matter.
> > >
> > > It doesn't, I don't even think you believe it does; you're just
> taking
> > > a shit.
> > >
> > > > Which vegan killed what animal?
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter.
> >
> > I notice your objection to
>
> You notice my refusal to let you waste my time on your terms. I may
> waste some time on you, but it will always be on my terms, you impotent
> self-loathing little homo.
>
> How's your HIV doing?

roflmao

Such a simple question. So much for the club of the great minds.

What vegan killed what animal? What animal did I kill when I purchased
my tomatoes this past week?

Ah, the disappointment, but i"ll manage.

Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Jay Santos" > wrote:
>
> > anal leakage wrote:
> > > In article
.com>,
> > > "Jay Santos" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > anal leakage wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > . com>,
> > > > > "Jay Santos" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > dribbling homo wrote:
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > .com>,
> > > > > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As usual, no substance.
> > > > > Which vegan killed what animal?
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't matter.
> > >
> > > I notice your objection to
> >
> > You notice my refusal to let you waste my time on your terms. I
may
> > waste some time on you, but it will always be on my terms, you
impotent
> > self-loathing little homo.
> >
> > How's your HIV doing?
>
> roflmao

You laugh at the fact you have the HIV?

>
> Such a simple question.

Simple-minded, homo. It's a simple-minded, it's not serious, it's a
waste of time.

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Jay Santos" > wrote:
> >
> > > anal leakage wrote:
> > > > In article
> .com>,
> > > > "Jay Santos" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > anal leakage wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > . com>,
> > > > > > "Jay Santos" > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > dribbling homo wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > .com>,
> > > > > > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As usual, no substance.
> > > > > > Which vegan killed what animal?
> > > > >
> > > > > It doesn't matter.
> > > >
> > > > I notice your objection to
> > >
> > > You notice my refusal to let you waste my time on your terms. I
> may
> > > waste some time on you, but it will always be on my terms, you
> impotent
> > > self-loathing little homo.
> > >
> > > How's your HIV doing?
> >
> > roflmao
>
> You laugh at the fact you have the HIV?

I laugh at the diversion and the intellectual dishonesty.

> > Such a simple question.
>
> Simple-minded, homo. It's a simple-minded, it's not serious, it's a
> waste of time.

Which vegan killed what animal?

Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > anal leakage wrote:
> > > In article
.com>,
> > > "Jay Santos" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > anal leakage wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > .com>,
> > > > >
> > > > > I notice your objection to
> > > >
> > > > You notice my refusal to let you waste my time on your terms.
I may
> > > > waste some time on you, but it will always be on my terms, you
impotent
> > > > self-loathing little homo.
> > > >
> > > > How's your HIV doing?
> > >
> > > roflmao
> >
> > You laugh at the fact you have the HIV?
>
> I laugh at the diversion and the intellectual dishonesty.

You may well laugh at them, little homo, but you are the one practicing
them. You are overly amused by your intellectual dishonesty.

>
> > > Such a simple question.
> >
> > Simple-minded, homo. It's a simple-minded, it's not serious, it's
a
> > waste of time.

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> > > anal leakage wrote:
> > > > In article
> .com>,
> > > > "Jay Santos" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > anal leakage wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > .com>,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I notice your objection to
> > > > >
> > > > > You notice my refusal to let you waste my time on your terms.
> I may
> > > > > waste some time on you, but it will always be on my terms, you
> impotent
> > > > > self-loathing little homo.
> > > > >
> > > > > How's your HIV doing?
> > > >
> > > > roflmao
> > >
> > > You laugh at the fact you have the HIV?
> >
> > I laugh at the diversion and the intellectual dishonesty.
>
> You may well laugh at them, little homo, but you are the one practicing
> them. You are overly amused by your intellectual dishonesty.

Indeed. HIV has nothing to do with the discussion, so diversion noted.

and you deleted the question of which vegan killed what animals.


> > > > Such a simple question.
> > >
> > > Simple-minded, homo. It's a simple-minded, it's not serious, it's
> a
> > > waste of time.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> > Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law, the
>> > new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.
>>
>> They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain food.
>
> I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week

How do you know?

> Just curious, what did you do to stop the sodomizing of children today?

I kept you occupied.

>> >> > 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.
>> >>
>> >> Not convincing.
>> >
>> > I think it is quite convincing. What is being demanded of the vegan
>> > fits
>> > quite well with my observation of the law as a religion by function.
>>
>> I don't understand what you're saying, but if it is that veganism
>> resembles
>> a religion in some ways, I agree.
>
> Now, what I'm saying is that your approach is very similar to theists.
> You just use a different bible -- the law and different prophets -- the
> experts.

I use my ability to reason.

You take conventional wisdom and in knee-jerk fashion disagree with all of
it in the hope that someone will mistake you for clever.

You are exactly as much of a dimwit as the one who takes conventional wisdom
and in knee-jerk fashion agrees with all of it.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >>
> >> > Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law, the
> >> > new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.
> >>
> >> They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain food.
> >
> > I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week
>
> How do you know?

Please identify the animals that I killed.

> > Just curious, what did you do to stop the sodomizing of children today?
>
> I kept you occupied.
>
> >> >> > 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.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not convincing.
> >> >
> >> > I think it is quite convincing. What is being demanded of the vegan
> >> > fits
> >> > quite well with my observation of the law as a religion by function.
> >>
> >> I don't understand what you're saying, but if it is that veganism
> >> resembles
> >> a religion in some ways, I agree.
> >
> > Now, what I'm saying is that your approach is very similar to theists.
> > You just use a different bible -- the law and different prophets -- the
> > experts.
>
> I use my ability to reason.

Reason for us

Which vegan has killed what animal?

> You take conventional wisdom and in knee-jerk fashion disagree with all of
> it in the hope that someone will mistake you for clever.

When you can't respond to such a few simple question, I would agree that
it is conventional but hardly wisdom.

> You are exactly as much of a dimwit as the one who takes conventional wisdom
> and in knee-jerk fashion agrees with all of it.

I do think that is an acknowledgment. Finally, progress.

The overwhelming majority do seem to introject the commonly held
beliefs. It is a choice of what one is willing to be spoonfed and accept.

"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.
>> >
>> > Good thing that we view moral codes differently.
>>
>> It's definitely good for me that I don't think like you.
>
> I know, it is good for you. Being one of those who accepts every piece
> of information thrown their way with no thought or consideration is
> exactly what makes you better than me. You rock, Dutch.

I am reading, considering, and dismissing virtually everything you say as
irrational claptrap, therefore that can't be true, Ron.

> No please respond to the latest question, if it isn't too much trouble.
>
> When I advocate for the removal of a law (legalization) am I, or am I
> not advocating for that action or behaviour?

You may, but not necessarily. In the case of pot smoking you may be
acknowledging that the status of illegal results in more net harm than
having it legal. Of course you are then required to make the case, and many
people, including myself, have done so.

Now please do yourself a favour and go back to whatever *** people do well..

"Ron" > wrote

> How can you claim goodness, Dutch. The amount of time that you've spent
> responding to me is time that you could have been using against those
> who sodomize children.

I trust that I have been killing two birds with one stone, so to speak.

Intolerably weak response by the way..

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

>> Recoiling and/or defending from threats is
>> instinctive in all organisms.
>
> Who is being threatened and by whom? Sorry, dutch, the paranoia meter is
> just going off the scale.
>
> Responding to a real threat is different than responding to an imagine
> threats. (Oops, there's my shadow.)

Your participation in these discussions is a real threat to your carefully
groomed terminal stupidity, and you are recoiling from it.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.
> >> >
> >> > Good thing that we view moral codes differently.
> >>
> >> It's definitely good for me that I don't think like you.
> >
> > I know, it is good for you. Being one of those who accepts every piece
> > of information thrown their way with no thought or consideration is
> > exactly what makes you better than me. You rock, Dutch.
>
> I am reading, considering, and dismissing virtually everything you say as
> irrational claptrap, therefore that can't be true, Ron.
>
> > No please respond to the latest question, if it isn't too much trouble.
> >
> > When I advocate for the removal of a law (legalization) am I, or am I
> > not advocating for that action or behaviour?
>
> You may, but not necessarily. In the case of pot smoking you may be
> acknowledging that the status of illegal results in more net harm than
> having it legal. Of course you are then required to make the case, and many
> people, including myself, have done so.
>
> Now please do yourself a favour and go back to whatever *** people do well..

Your inability to respond to the question is noted.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> > How can you claim goodness, Dutch. The amount of time that you've spent
> > responding to me is time that you could have been using against those
> > who sodomize children.
>
> I trust that I have been killing two birds with one stone, so to speak.
>
> Intolerably weak response by the way..

I merely hold you to the standard that you demand of the vegan. How sad
that you can't live up to your own requirements.

I'll close of this chapter of the discussion with a friendly reminder
for when you read of the next sodomized child, or premeditated and how
your time was spent with me rather than ....well, you know the drill.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> Recoiling and/or defending from threats is
> >> instinctive in all organisms.
> >
> > Who is being threatened and by whom? Sorry, dutch, the paranoia meter is
> > just going off the scale.
> >
> > Responding to a real threat is different than responding to an imagine
> > threats. (Oops, there's my shadow.)
>
> Your participation in these discussions is a real threat to your carefully
> groomed terminal stupidity, and you are recoiling from it.

Indeed. Unfortunately, you've failed to respond in the past, so this is
unlikely to be different.

What is the likelihood of any of us being murdered versus the likelihood
of any specific person being murder with factors that may make such an
act more likely to happen?

Imagined and real threats are different for anyone with an ability to
reason. One could be murdered, killed in a car wreck and so on, the
chances of these events happening though are quite slim for anyone of us.

Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
>
>>anal leakage wrote:
>>
>>>In article .com>,
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>anal leakage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article .com>,
>>>>> "Jay Santos" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>anal leakage wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article .com>,
>>>>
>>>>>>>I notice your objection to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You notice my refusal to let you waste my time on your terms. I may
>>>>>>waste some time on you, but it will always be on my terms, you
>>>>>>impotent self-loathing little homo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How's your HIV doing?
>>>>>
>>>>>roflmao
>>>>
>>>>You laugh at the fact you have the HIV?
>>>
>>>I laugh at the diversion and the intellectual dishonesty.
>>
>>You may well laugh at them, little homo, but you are the one practicing
>>them. You are overly amused by your intellectual dishonesty.
>
>
> Indeed.

Yes. You shouldn't be amused by your intellectual
dishonesty at all.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> > Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law,
>> >> > the
>> >> > new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.
>> >>
>> >> They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain food.
>> >
>> > I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week
>>
>> How do you know?
>
> Please identify the animals that I killed.

Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
posturing, not invent new ways to do so.

>> > Just curious, what did you do to stop the sodomizing of children today?
>>
>> I kept you occupied.
>>
>> >> >> > 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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not convincing.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think it is quite convincing. What is being demanded of the vegan
>> >> > fits
>> >> > quite well with my observation of the law as a religion by function.
>> >>
>> >> I don't understand what you're saying, but if it is that veganism
>> >> resembles
>> >> a religion in some ways, I agree.
>> >
>> > Now, what I'm saying is that your approach is very similar to theists.
>> > You just use a different bible -- the law and different prophets -- the
>> > experts.
>>
>> I use my ability to reason.
>
> Reason for us

Grey matter, use it, it works.

> Which vegan has killed what animal?

Not relevant. Grey matter...

>> You take conventional wisdom and in knee-jerk fashion disagree with all
>> of
>> it in the hope that someone will mistake you for clever.
>
> When you can't respond to such a few simple question, I would agree that
> it is conventional but hardly wisdom.

Your questions are irrelevant, you're tap dancing, you don't know how to get
to the essence.

>> You are exactly as much of a dimwit as the one who takes conventional
>> wisdom
>> and in knee-jerk fashion agrees with all of it.
>
> I do think that is an acknowledgment. Finally, progress.

Where is the acknowledgement of your knee-jerk approach to conventional
wisdom? That's what is missing here, and without it there is no progress.

> The overwhelming majority do seem to introject the commonly held
> beliefs. It is a choice of what one is willing to be spoonfed and accept.

I repeat, knee-jerk rejection of commonly held beliefs is no different. What
is necessary is rational assessment of all beliefs and ideas. Stop trying to
outwit people, it isn't working.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "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.
>> >> >
>> >> > Good thing that we view moral codes differently.
>> >>
>> >> It's definitely good for me that I don't think like you.
>> >
>> > I know, it is good for you. Being one of those who accepts every piece
>> > of information thrown their way with no thought or consideration is
>> > exactly what makes you better than me. You rock, Dutch.
>>
>> I am reading, considering, and dismissing virtually everything you say as
>> irrational claptrap, therefore that can't be true, Ron.
>>
>> > No please respond to the latest question, if it isn't too much trouble.
>> >
>> > When I advocate for the removal of a law (legalization) am I, or am I
>> > not advocating for that action or behaviour?
>>
>> You may, but not necessarily. In the case of pot smoking you may be
>> acknowledging that the status of illegal results in more net harm than
>> having it legal. Of course you are then required to make the case, and
>> many
>> people, including myself, have done so.
>>
>> Now please do yourself a favour and go back to whatever *** people do
>> well..
>
> Your inability to respond to the question is noted.

Your inability to comprehend already well established and further confirmed.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> > How can you claim goodness, Dutch. The amount of time that you've spent
>> > responding to me is time that you could have been using against those
>> > who sodomize children.
>>
>> I trust that I have been killing two birds with one stone, so to speak.
>>
>> Intolerably weak response by the way..
>
> I merely hold you to the standard that you demand of the vegan. How sad
> that you can't live up to your own requirements.

You merely make irrational propositions that demonstrate an appalling lack
of comprehension of the issues.

> I'll close of this chapter of the discussion with a friendly reminder
> for when you read of the next sodomized child, or premeditated and how
> your time was spent with me rather than ....well, you know the drill.

Do you usually close chapters without understanding the first thing about
what transpired in them?

I suggest you try some reading on active and passive moral obligations.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >> Recoiling and/or defending from threats is
>> >> instinctive in all organisms.
>> >
>> > Who is being threatened and by whom? Sorry, dutch, the paranoia meter
>> > is
>> > just going off the scale.
>> >
>> > Responding to a real threat is different than responding to an imagine
>> > threats. (Oops, there's my shadow.)
>>
>> Your participation in these discussions is a real threat to your
>> carefully
>> groomed terminal stupidity, and you are recoiling from it.
>
> Indeed.

Then stop trying so hard.

> Unfortunately, you've failed to respond in the past, so this is
> unlikely to be different.

Unfortunately you have a habit of asking nonsensical questions.

> What is the likelihood of any of us being murdered versus the likelihood
> of any specific person being murder with factors that may make such an
> act more likely to happen?

Absolutely incoherent.

> Imagined and real threats are different for anyone with an ability to
> reason. One could be murdered, killed in a car wreck and so on, the
> chances of these events happening though are quite slim for anyone of us.

All righty then...

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> > Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law,
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.
> >> >>
> >> >> They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain food.
> >> >
> >> > I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week
> >>
> >> How do you know?
> >
> > Please identify the animals that I killed.
>
> Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
> posturing, not invent new ways to do so.

If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name of
the person who was killed as a result.

I have taken this standard of evidence of proof and applied it to the
example under discussion.

Which vegan paid what money to which person for the killing of what
animal?

I didn't have a contract with my grocer to kill an animal so that I
could get my tomatoes. My grocer didn't kill an animal to secure the
tomatoes and then sell them to me. The exchange of money for was a
barter if you will or an exchange of money for a product.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Recoiling and/or defending from threats is
> >> >> instinctive in all organisms.
> >> >
> >> > Who is being threatened and by whom? Sorry, dutch, the paranoia meter
> >> > is
> >> > just going off the scale.
> >> >
> >> > Responding to a real threat is different than responding to an imagine
> >> > threats. (Oops, there's my shadow.)
> >>
> >> Your participation in these discussions is a real threat to your
> >> carefully
> >> groomed terminal stupidity, and you are recoiling from it.
> >
> > Indeed.
>
> Then stop trying so hard.
>
> > Unfortunately, you've failed to respond in the past, so this is
> > unlikely to be different.
>
> Unfortunately you have a habit of asking nonsensical questions.
>
> > What is the likelihood of any of us being murdered versus the likelihood
> > of any specific person being murder with factors that may make such an
> > act more likely to happen?
>
> Absolutely incoherent.
>
> > Imagined and real threats are different for anyone with an ability to
> > reason. One could be murdered, killed in a car wreck and so on, the
> > chances of these events happening though are quite slim for anyone of us.
>
> All righty then...

I was discussing risk assessment -- actual risk versus perceived risk.
You appear to be declining that discussion. I'll move on.

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> "Dutch" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law,
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain food.
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week
>>>>
>>>>How do you know?
>>>
>>>Please identify the animals that I killed.
>>
>>Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
>>posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
>
>
> If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
> killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
> of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name of
> the person who was killed as a result.

We aren't talking about legal liability for murder or
complicity to murder. We're talking about moral
liability for deaths of animals, where those deaths are
not considered illegal. It is the *principle* of
complicity that is demonstrated by reference to the
criminal law. No one is suggesting that "vegans'"
complicity in the deaths of animals is illegal; just
that it is immoral, according to *their* alleged
"ethics". It IS immoral with respect to their alleged
"ethics", and it is not necessary to know which
"vegans" killed which animals.

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> "Dutch" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law,
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain food.
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week
>>>>
>>>>How do you know?
>>>
>>>Please identify the animals that I killed.
>>
>>Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
>>posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
>
>
> If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
> killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
> of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name of
> the person who was killed as a result.

We aren't talking about legal liability for murder or
complicity to murder. We're talking about moral
liability for deaths of animals, where those deaths are
not considered illegal. It is the *principle* of
complicity that is demonstrated by reference to the
criminal law. No one is suggesting that "vegans'"
complicity in the deaths of animals is illegal; just
that it is immoral, according to *their* alleged
"ethics". It IS immoral with respect to their alleged
"ethics", and it is not necessary to know which
"vegans" killed which animals.

In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Ron" > wrote
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Dutch" >
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law,
> >>>>>>>the
> >>>>>>>new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain food.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week
> >>>>
> >>>>How do you know?
> >>>
> >>>Please identify the animals that I killed.
> >>
> >>Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
> >>posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
> >
> >
> > If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
> > killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
> > of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name of
> > the person who was killed as a result.
>
> We aren't talking about legal liability for murder or
> complicity to murder. We're talking about moral
> liability for deaths of animals, where those deaths are
> not considered illegal. It is the *principle* of
> complicity that is demonstrated by reference to the
> criminal law.

Let's run this through...

I go to the store. Through my action of wanting to purchase meat, I now
create demand. As a result of my action a series of successive actions
then takes place which you are tracing back to me as the originating
cause.

An animal dies, as part of this reasoning you hold me accountable for
the death of the animal.

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


> No one is suggesting that "vegans'"
> complicity in the deaths of animals is illegal; just
> that it is immoral, according to *their* alleged
> "ethics". It IS immoral with respect to their alleged
> "ethics", and it is not necessary to know which
> "vegans" killed which animals.

Then please explain why one is

In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Ron" > wrote
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Dutch" >
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law,
> >>>>>>>the
> >>>>>>>new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain food.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week
> >>>>
> >>>>How do you know?
> >>>
> >>>Please identify the animals that I killed.
> >>
> >>Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
> >>posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
> >
> >
> > If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
> > killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
> > of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name of
> > the person who was killed as a result.
>
> We aren't talking about legal liability for murder or
> complicity to murder. We're talking about moral
> liability for deaths of animals, where those deaths are
> not considered illegal. It is the *principle* of
> complicity that is demonstrated by reference to the
> criminal law.

Let's run this through...

I go to the store. Through my action of wanting to purchase meat, I now
create demand. As a result of my action a series of successive actions
then takes place which you are tracing back to me as the originating
cause.

An animal dies, as part of this reasoning you hold me accountable for
the death of the animal.

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


> No one is suggesting that "vegans'"
> complicity in the deaths of animals is illegal; just
> that it is immoral, according to *their* alleged
> "ethics". It IS immoral with respect to their alleged
> "ethics", and it is not necessary to know which
> "vegans" killed which animals.

Then please explain why one is

Ron wrote:

> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Dutch" >
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law,
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain food.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How do you know?
>>>>>
>>>>>Please identify the animals that I killed.
>>>>
>>>>Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
>>>>posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
>>>
>>>
>>>If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
>>>killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
>>>of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name of
>>>the person who was killed as a result.
>>
>>We aren't talking about legal liability for murder or
>>complicity to murder. We're talking about moral
>>liability for deaths of animals, where those deaths are
>>not considered illegal. It is the *principle* of
>>complicity that is demonstrated by reference to the
>>criminal law.
>
>
> Let's run this through...
>
> I go to the store. Through my action of wanting to purchase meat, I now
> create demand. As a result of my action a series of successive actions
> then takes place which you are tracing back to me as the originating
> cause.
>
> An animal dies, as part of this reasoning you hold me accountable for
> the death of the animal.
>
> Now, if the farmer has a stroke in the process of slaughtering cattle
> for me then, I must also be responsible for his death.

No. You already know why not.

> His death can be
> traced backed to me as "the first cause".

Nope.

> If I hadn't wanted or needed
> meat he wouldn't have been slaughtering the cattle and wouldn't have
> died.

Would have been doing something else, and died.

> [...]
>
>
>
>> No one is suggesting that "vegans'"
>>complicity in the deaths of animals is illegal; just
>>that it is immoral, according to *their* alleged
>>"ethics". It IS immoral with respect to their alleged
>>"ethics", and it is not necessary to know which
>>"vegans" killed which animals.
>
>
> Then please explain why one is

Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
consider immoral.

In article > ,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>"Dutch" >
> >>>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law,
> >>>>>>>>>the
> >>>>>>>>>new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain food.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>How do you know?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Please identify the animals that I killed.
> >>>>
> >>>>Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
> >>>>posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
> >>>killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
> >>>of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name of
> >>>the person who was killed as a result.
> >>
> >>We aren't talking about legal liability for murder or
> >>complicity to murder. We're talking about moral
> >>liability for deaths of animals, where those deaths are
> >>not considered illegal. It is the *principle* of
> >>complicity that is demonstrated by reference to the
> >>criminal law.
> >
> >
> > Let's run this through...
> >
> > I go to the store. Through my action of wanting to purchase meat, I now
> > create demand. As a result of my action a series of successive actions
> > then takes place which you are tracing back to me as the originating
> > cause.
> >
> > An animal dies, as part of this reasoning you hold me accountable for
> > the death of the animal.
> >
> > Now, if the farmer has a stroke in the process of slaughtering cattle
> > for me then, I must also be responsible for his death.
>
> No. You already know why not.
>
> > His death can be
> > traced backed to me as "the first cause".
>
> Nope.
>
> > If I hadn't wanted or needed
> > meat he wouldn't have been slaughtering the cattle and wouldn't have
> > died.
>
> Would have been doing something else, and died.
>
> > [...]
> >
> >
> >
> >> No one is suggesting that "vegans'"
> >>complicity in the deaths of animals is illegal; just
> >>that it is immoral, according to *their* alleged
> >>"ethics". It IS immoral with respect to their alleged
> >>"ethics", and it is not necessary to know which
> >>"vegans" killed which animals.
> >
> >
> > Then please explain why one is
>
> Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
> participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
> consider immoral.

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

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

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

Is this a correct application of your thinking?

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

>> > Please identify the animals that I killed.
>>
>> Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
>> posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
>
> If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
> killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
> of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name of
> the person who was killed as a result.

That's completely different and you know it, quit fooling around.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Recoiling and/or defending from threats is
>> >> >> instinctive in all organisms.
>> >> >
>> >> > Who is being threatened and by whom? Sorry, dutch, the paranoia
>> >> > meter
>> >> > is
>> >> > just going off the scale.
>> >> >
>> >> > Responding to a real threat is different than responding to an
>> >> > imagine
>> >> > threats. (Oops, there's my shadow.)
>> >>
>> >> Your participation in these discussions is a real threat to your
>> >> carefully
>> >> groomed terminal stupidity, and you are recoiling from it.
>> >
>> > Indeed.
>>
>> Then stop trying so hard.
>>
>> > Unfortunately, you've failed to respond in the past, so this is
>> > unlikely to be different.
>>
>> Unfortunately you have a habit of asking nonsensical questions.
>>
>> > What is the likelihood of any of us being murdered versus the
>> > likelihood
>> > of any specific person being murder with factors that may make such an
>> > act more likely to happen?
>>
>> Absolutely incoherent.
>>
>> > Imagined and real threats are different for anyone with an ability to
>> > reason. One could be murdered, killed in a car wreck and so on, the
>> > chances of these events happening though are quite slim for anyone of
>> > us.
>>
>> All righty then...
>
> I was discussing risk assessment -- actual risk versus perceived risk.
> You appear to be declining that discussion. I'll move on.

I am presenting organisms as hard-wired for survival, harm-avoidance, which
I propose forms the basis for morality. How does actual risk versus
perceived risk advance the discussion? It seems like a non-sequitor.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Recoiling and/or defending from threats is
>> >> >> instinctive in all organisms.
>> >> >
>> >> > Who is being threatened and by whom? Sorry, dutch, the paranoia
>> >> > meter
>> >> > is
>> >> > just going off the scale.
>> >> >
>> >> > Responding to a real threat is different than responding to an
>> >> > imagine
>> >> > threats. (Oops, there's my shadow.)
>> >>
>> >> Your participation in these discussions is a real threat to your
>> >> carefully
>> >> groomed terminal stupidity, and you are recoiling from it.
>> >
>> > Indeed.
>>
>> Then stop trying so hard.
>>
>> > Unfortunately, you've failed to respond in the past, so this is
>> > unlikely to be different.
>>
>> Unfortunately you have a habit of asking nonsensical questions.
>>
>> > What is the likelihood of any of us being murdered versus the
>> > likelihood
>> > of any specific person being murder with factors that may make such an
>> > act more likely to happen?
>>
>> Absolutely incoherent.
>>
>> > Imagined and real threats are different for anyone with an ability to
>> > reason. One could be murdered, killed in a car wreck and so on, the
>> > chances of these events happening though are quite slim for anyone of
>> > us.
>>
>> All righty then...
>
> I was discussing risk assessment -- actual risk versus perceived risk.
> You appear to be declining that discussion. I'll move on.

I am presenting organisms as hard-wired for survival, harm-avoidance, which
I propose forms the basis for morality. How does actual risk versus
perceived risk advance the discussion? It seems like a non-sequitor.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> > Please identify the animals that I killed.
> >>
> >> Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
> >> posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
> >
> > If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
> > killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
> > of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name of
> > the person who was killed as a result.
>
> That's completely different and you know it, quit fooling around.

Unfortunately, you edited my statements.

I clearly stated that I was applying the same standard that I would use
in one situation to the example under discussion. You seem to have an
objection to me applying the reasoning consistently.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> > Please identify the animals that I killed.
> >>
> >> Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
> >> posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
> >
> > If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
> > killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
> > of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name of
> > the person who was killed as a result.
>
> That's completely different and you know it, quit fooling around.

Unfortunately, you edited my statements.

I clearly stated that I was applying the same standard that I would use
in one situation to the example under discussion. You seem to have an
objection to me applying the reasoning consistently.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Recoiling and/or defending from threats is
> >> >> >> instinctive in all organisms.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Who is being threatened and by whom? Sorry, dutch, the paranoia
> >> >> > meter
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > just going off the scale.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Responding to a real threat is different than responding to an
> >> >> > imagine
> >> >> > threats. (Oops, there's my shadow.)
> >> >>
> >> >> Your participation in these discussions is a real threat to your
> >> >> carefully
> >> >> groomed terminal stupidity, and you are recoiling from it.
> >> >
> >> > Indeed.
> >>
> >> Then stop trying so hard.
> >>
> >> > Unfortunately, you've failed to respond in the past, so this is
> >> > unlikely to be different.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately you have a habit of asking nonsensical questions.
> >>
> >> > What is the likelihood of any of us being murdered versus the
> >> > likelihood
> >> > of any specific person being murder with factors that may make such an
> >> > act more likely to happen?
> >>
> >> Absolutely incoherent.
> >>
> >> > Imagined and real threats are different for anyone with an ability to
> >> > reason. One could be murdered, killed in a car wreck and so on, the
> >> > chances of these events happening though are quite slim for anyone of
> >> > us.
> >>
> >> All righty then...
> >
> > I was discussing risk assessment -- actual risk versus perceived risk.
> > You appear to be declining that discussion. I'll move on.
>
> I am presenting organisms as hard-wired for survival, harm-avoidance, which
> I propose forms the basis for morality. How does actual risk versus
> perceived risk advance the discussion? It seems like a non-sequitor.

Which assumes that we agree that we are hardwired for survival. It's
difficult to have a discussion on X when you refuse to accept that I
disagree with you on this point. There is ample evidence in humans and
other species that we operate contrary to survival which indicates to me
that this is NOT hardwired.

Feel free to believe what you do because it was taught to you, or you
read it, or it is the result of some other combination of factors.
Personally, I see evidence that contradicts the belief.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Recoiling and/or defending from threats is
> >> >> >> instinctive in all organisms.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Who is being threatened and by whom? Sorry, dutch, the paranoia
> >> >> > meter
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > just going off the scale.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Responding to a real threat is different than responding to an
> >> >> > imagine
> >> >> > threats. (Oops, there's my shadow.)
> >> >>
> >> >> Your participation in these discussions is a real threat to your
> >> >> carefully
> >> >> groomed terminal stupidity, and you are recoiling from it.
> >> >
> >> > Indeed.
> >>
> >> Then stop trying so hard.
> >>
> >> > Unfortunately, you've failed to respond in the past, so this is
> >> > unlikely to be different.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately you have a habit of asking nonsensical questions.
> >>
> >> > What is the likelihood of any of us being murdered versus the
> >> > likelihood
> >> > of any specific person being murder with factors that may make such an
> >> > act more likely to happen?
> >>
> >> Absolutely incoherent.
> >>
> >> > Imagined and real threats are different for anyone with an ability to
> >> > reason. One could be murdered, killed in a car wreck and so on, the
> >> > chances of these events happening though are quite slim for anyone of
> >> > us.
> >>
> >> All righty then...
> >
> > I was discussing risk assessment -- actual risk versus perceived risk.
> > You appear to be declining that discussion. I'll move on.
>
> I am presenting organisms as hard-wired for survival, harm-avoidance, which
> I propose forms the basis for morality. How does actual risk versus
> perceived risk advance the discussion? It seems like a non-sequitor.

Which assumes that we agree that we are hardwired for survival. It's
difficult to have a discussion on X when you refuse to accept that I
disagree with you on this point. There is ample evidence in humans and
other species that we operate contrary to survival which indicates to me
that this is NOT hardwired.

Feel free to believe what you do because it was taught to you, or you
read it, or it is the result of some other combination of factors.
Personally, I see evidence that contradicts the belief.

Ron wrote:
> In article > ,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Dutch" >
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law,
>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain food.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How do you know?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Please identify the animals that I killed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
>>>>>>posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
>>>>>killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
>>>>>of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name of
>>>>>the person who was killed as a result.
>>>>
>>>>We aren't talking about legal liability for murder or
>>>>complicity to murder. We're talking about moral
>>>>liability for deaths of animals, where those deaths are
>>>>not considered illegal. It is the *principle* of
>>>>complicity that is demonstrated by reference to the
>>>>criminal law.
>>>
>>>
>>>Let's run this through...
>>>
>>>I go to the store. Through my action of wanting to purchase meat, I now
>>>create demand. As a result of my action a series of successive actions
>>>then takes place which you are tracing back to me as the originating
>>>cause.
>>>
>>>An animal dies, as part of this reasoning you hold me accountable for
>>>the death of the animal.
>>>
>>>Now, if the farmer has a stroke in the process of slaughtering cattle
>>>for me then, I must also be responsible for his death.
>>
>>No. You already know why not.
>>
>>
>>>His death can be
>>>traced backed to me as "the first cause".
>>
>>Nope.
>>
>>
>>>If I hadn't wanted or needed
>>>meat he wouldn't have been slaughtering the cattle and wouldn't have
>>>died.
>>
>>Would have been doing something else, and died.
>>
>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>No one is suggesting that "vegans'"
>>>>complicity in the deaths of animals is illegal; just
>>>>that it is immoral, according to *their* alleged
>>>>"ethics". It IS immoral with respect to their alleged
>>>>"ethics", and it is not necessary to know which
>>>>"vegans" killed which animals.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then please explain why one is
>>
>>Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
>>participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
>>consider immoral.
>
>
> Let's apply this thinking to another example.

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

Ron wrote:
> In article > ,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Dutch" >
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law,
>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain food.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How do you know?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Please identify the animals that I killed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
>>>>>>posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
>>>>>killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
>>>>>of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name of
>>>>>the person who was killed as a result.
>>>>
>>>>We aren't talking about legal liability for murder or
>>>>complicity to murder. We're talking about moral
>>>>liability for deaths of animals, where those deaths are
>>>>not considered illegal. It is the *principle* of
>>>>complicity that is demonstrated by reference to the
>>>>criminal law.
>>>
>>>
>>>Let's run this through...
>>>
>>>I go to the store. Through my action of wanting to purchase meat, I now
>>>create demand. As a result of my action a series of successive actions
>>>then takes place which you are tracing back to me as the originating
>>>cause.
>>>
>>>An animal dies, as part of this reasoning you hold me accountable for
>>>the death of the animal.
>>>
>>>Now, if the farmer has a stroke in the process of slaughtering cattle
>>>for me then, I must also be responsible for his death.
>>
>>No. You already know why not.
>>
>>
>>>His death can be
>>>traced backed to me as "the first cause".
>>
>>Nope.
>>
>>
>>>If I hadn't wanted or needed
>>>meat he wouldn't have been slaughtering the cattle and wouldn't have
>>>died.
>>
>>Would have been doing something else, and died.
>>
>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>No one is suggesting that "vegans'"
>>>>complicity in the deaths of animals is illegal; just
>>>>that it is immoral, according to *their* alleged
>>>>"ethics". It IS immoral with respect to their alleged
>>>>"ethics", and it is not necessary to know which
>>>>"vegans" killed which animals.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then please explain why one is
>>
>>Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
>>participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
>>consider immoral.
>
>
> Let's apply this thinking to another example.

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

In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article > ,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article >, "Dutch"
> >
> >>>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>"Dutch" >
> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law,
> >>>>>>>>>>>the
> >>>>>>>>>>>new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain
> >>>>>>>>>>food.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>How do you know?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Please identify the animals that I killed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
> >>>>>>posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
> >>>>>killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
> >>>>>of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name of
> >>>>>the person who was killed as a result.
> >>>>
> >>>>We aren't talking about legal liability for murder or
> >>>>complicity to murder. We're talking about moral
> >>>>liability for deaths of animals, where those deaths are
> >>>>not considered illegal. It is the *principle* of
> >>>>complicity that is demonstrated by reference to the
> >>>>criminal law.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Let's run this through...
> >>>
> >>>I go to the store. Through my action of wanting to purchase meat, I now
> >>>create demand. As a result of my action a series of successive actions
> >>>then takes place which you are tracing back to me as the originating
> >>>cause.
> >>>
> >>>An animal dies, as part of this reasoning you hold me accountable for
> >>>the death of the animal.
> >>>
> >>>Now, if the farmer has a stroke in the process of slaughtering cattle
> >>>for me then, I must also be responsible for his death.
> >>
> >>No. You already know why not.
> >>
> >>
> >>>His death can be
> >>>traced backed to me as "the first cause".
> >>
> >>Nope.
> >>
> >>
> >>>If I hadn't wanted or needed
> >>>meat he wouldn't have been slaughtering the cattle and wouldn't have
> >>>died.
> >>
> >>Would have been doing something else, and died.
> >>
> >>
> >>>[...]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>No one is suggesting that "vegans'"
> >>>>complicity in the deaths of animals is illegal; just
> >>>>that it is immoral, according to *their* alleged
> >>>>"ethics". It IS immoral with respect to their alleged
> >>>>"ethics", and it is not necessary to know which
> >>>>"vegans" killed which animals.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Then please explain why one is
> >>
> >>Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
> >>participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
> >>consider immoral.
> >
> >
> > Let's apply this thinking to another example.
>
> No. You didn't honestly consider my example. Do that,
> then maybe you can try again.

All you've done is to provide me with more evidence that it is time that
we remove this feature from our laws.

In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article > ,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article >, "Dutch"
> >
> >>>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>"Dutch" >
> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law,
> >>>>>>>>>>>the
> >>>>>>>>>>>new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain
> >>>>>>>>>>food.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>How do you know?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Please identify the animals that I killed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
> >>>>>>posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
> >>>>>killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
> >>>>>of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name of
> >>>>>the person who was killed as a result.
> >>>>
> >>>>We aren't talking about legal liability for murder or
> >>>>complicity to murder. We're talking about moral
> >>>>liability for deaths of animals, where those deaths are
> >>>>not considered illegal. It is the *principle* of
> >>>>complicity that is demonstrated by reference to the
> >>>>criminal law.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Let's run this through...
> >>>
> >>>I go to the store. Through my action of wanting to purchase meat, I now
> >>>create demand. As a result of my action a series of successive actions
> >>>then takes place which you are tracing back to me as the originating
> >>>cause.
> >>>
> >>>An animal dies, as part of this reasoning you hold me accountable for
> >>>the death of the animal.
> >>>
> >>>Now, if the farmer has a stroke in the process of slaughtering cattle
> >>>for me then, I must also be responsible for his death.
> >>
> >>No. You already know why not.
> >>
> >>
> >>>His death can be
> >>>traced backed to me as "the first cause".
> >>
> >>Nope.
> >>
> >>
> >>>If I hadn't wanted or needed
> >>>meat he wouldn't have been slaughtering the cattle and wouldn't have
> >>>died.
> >>
> >>Would have been doing something else, and died.
> >>
> >>
> >>>[...]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>No one is suggesting that "vegans'"
> >>>>complicity in the deaths of animals is illegal; just
> >>>>that it is immoral, according to *their* alleged
> >>>>"ethics". It IS immoral with respect to their alleged
> >>>>"ethics", and it is not necessary to know which
> >>>>"vegans" killed which animals.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Then please explain why one is
> >>
> >>Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
> >>participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
> >>consider immoral.
> >
> >
> > Let's apply this thinking to another example.
>
> No. You didn't honestly consider my example. Do that,
> then maybe you can try again.

All you've done is to provide me with more evidence that it is time that
we remove this feature from our laws.

Ron wrote:

> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>>In article > ,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article >, "Dutch"
>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"Dutch" >
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain
>>>>>>>>>>>>food.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>How do you know?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Please identify the animals that I killed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
>>>>>>>>posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
>>>>>>>killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
>>>>>>>of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name of
>>>>>>>the person who was killed as a result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We aren't talking about legal liability for murder or
>>>>>>complicity to murder. We're talking about moral
>>>>>>liability for deaths of animals, where those deaths are
>>>>>>not considered illegal. It is the *principle* of
>>>>>>complicity that is demonstrated by reference to the
>>>>>>criminal law.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's run this through...
>>>>>
>>>>>I go to the store. Through my action of wanting to purchase meat, I now
>>>>>create demand. As a result of my action a series of successive actions
>>>>>then takes place which you are tracing back to me as the originating
>>>>>cause.
>>>>>
>>>>>An animal dies, as part of this reasoning you hold me accountable for
>>>>>the death of the animal.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now, if the farmer has a stroke in the process of slaughtering cattle
>>>>>for me then, I must also be responsible for his death.
>>>>
>>>>No. You already know why not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>His death can be
>>>>>traced backed to me as "the first cause".
>>>>
>>>>Nope.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If I hadn't wanted or needed
>>>>>meat he wouldn't have been slaughtering the cattle and wouldn't have
>>>>>died.
>>>>
>>>>Would have been doing something else, and died.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>No one is suggesting that "vegans'"
>>>>>>complicity in the deaths of animals is illegal; just
>>>>>>that it is immoral, according to *their* alleged
>>>>>>"ethics". It IS immoral with respect to their alleged
>>>>>>"ethics", and it is not necessary to know which
>>>>>>"vegans" killed which animals.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Then please explain why one is
>>>>
>>>>Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
>>>>participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
>>>>consider immoral.
>>>
>>>
>>>Let's apply this thinking to another example.
>>
>>No. You didn't honestly consider my example. Do that,
>>then maybe you can try again.
>
>
> All you've done is to provide me with more evidence that it is time that
> we remove this feature from our laws.

No. You actively support such laws. You WANT the
getaway driver in a robbery that results in a death to
be punished more harshly than the getaway driver in a
robbery that does not result in a death.

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article > ,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >,
> >>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article >, "Dutch"
> >
> >>>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>In article >, "Dutch"
> >
> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>"Dutch" >
> >>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>"Ron" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>law,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>They claim to believe that it is wrong to kill animals to obtain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>food.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>I didn't kill any animals when I bought my tomatoes this past week
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>How do you know?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Please identify the animals that I killed.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
> >>>>>>>>posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do
> >>>>>>>that
> >>>>>>>killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME
> >>>>>>>evidence
> >>>>>>>of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name
> >>>>>>>of
> >>>>>>>the person who was killed as a result.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>We aren't talking about legal liability for murder or
> >>>>>>complicity to murder. We're talking about moral
> >>>>>>liability for deaths of animals, where those deaths are
> >>>>>>not considered illegal. It is the *principle* of
> >>>>>>complicity that is demonstrated by reference to the
> >>>>>>criminal law.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Let's run this through...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I go to the store. Through my action of wanting to purchase meat, I now
> >>>>>create demand. As a result of my action a series of successive actions
> >>>>>then takes place which you are tracing back to me as the originating
> >>>>>cause.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>An animal dies, as part of this reasoning you hold me accountable for
> >>>>>the death of the animal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Now, if the farmer has a stroke in the process of slaughtering cattle
> >>>>>for me then, I must also be responsible for his death.
> >>>>
> >>>>No. You already know why not.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>His death can be
> >>>>>traced backed to me as "the first cause".
> >>>>
> >>>>Nope.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>If I hadn't wanted or needed
> >>>>>meat he wouldn't have been slaughtering the cattle and wouldn't have
> >>>>>died.
> >>>>
> >>>>Would have been doing something else, and died.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>[...]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>No one is suggesting that "vegans'"
> >>>>>>complicity in the deaths of animals is illegal; just
> >>>>>>that it is immoral, according to *their* alleged
> >>>>>>"ethics". It IS immoral with respect to their alleged
> >>>>>>"ethics", and it is not necessary to know which
> >>>>>>"vegans" killed which animals.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Then please explain why one is
> >>>>
> >>>>Because of their active, voluntary, fully aware
> >>>>participation in a *process* that leads to deaths they
> >>>>consider immoral.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Let's apply this thinking to another example.
> >>
> >>No. You didn't honestly consider my example. Do that,
> >>then maybe you can try again.
> >
> >
> > All you've done is to provide me with more evidence that it is time that
> > we remove this feature from our laws.
>
> No. You actively support such laws. You WANT the
> getaway driver in a robbery that results in a death to
> be punished more harshly than the getaway driver in a
> robbery that does not result in a death.

Typically, I don't concern myself with such things. I think it's time
that I do. I think it is time to take the this feature of a very
illogical system to task.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >> > Please identify the animals that I killed.
>> >>
>> >> Why does my inability to identify them matter? Your challenge is stop
>> >> posturing, not invent new ways to do so.
>> >
>> > If I were to be accused of killing someone or hiring someone to do that
>> > killing for me, I would assume that someone would provide SOME evidence
>> > of my complicity -- such as the name of the person paying or the name
>> > of
>> > the person who was killed as a result.
>>
>> That's completely different and you know it, quit fooling around.
>
> Unfortunately, you edited my statements.

I did not.

> I clearly stated that I was applying the same standard that I would use
> in one situation to the example under discussion. You seem to have an
> objection to me applying the reasoning consistently.

Rudy explained the difference, although he should not have had to.