In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>
> >> The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
> >> rebut it.
> >>
> >> The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
> >> it is wrong to kill animals.
> >
> > <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
> > animals then why do I feel good about lessening
> > their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
>
> If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much more
> than you are doing.

Thank you for repeating yourself...

If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much more
about sexually broomed children.

If your really thought it was wrong, you would find a way tod o much
more about the death of humans

If you really thought it was wrong....

Not that I've completely embarrased you, what next.



> The shocking thing is that you don't even think it's *bad*. Even if
> consuming meat would prevent some animal death you wouldn't do it, because
> of the TASTE!
>
> Eating more vegetables is good, eating all vegetables is fine. Assigning
> false moral significance to it is a mistake.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>>
>> >> The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
>> >> rebut it.
>> >>
>> >> The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
>> >> it is wrong to kill animals.
>> >
>> > <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
>> > animals then why do I feel good about lessening
>> > their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
>>
>> If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much more
>> than you are doing.
>
> Thank you for repeating yourself...

You're welcome. I hope you're writing some of this down..

> If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much more
> about sexually broomed children.

Passive vs active rights. Since I am not participating in any way with abuse
of children I am not morally obliged to find any to rescue. It would be OK
if I did, but I am not obliged.

> If your really thought it was wrong, you would find a way tod o much
> more about the death of humans

Passive vs active rights. Vegans are *subsiding* the killing of animals who
they claim to believe have basic right to life. They have an active
involvment with the *unmitigated* killing of those animals by farmers when
they purchase consumer goods.

> If you really thought it was wrong....
>
> Not that I've completely embarrased you, what next.

You actually thought that was a rock solid argument didn't you?

Get this Ronny, you are NOT going to outwit me or Jay Santos or usual
suspect, we're way out of your league. You should be saving our posts to
study from.

>> The shocking thing is that you don't even think it's *bad*. Even if
>> consuming meat would prevent some animal death you wouldn't do it,
>> because
>> of the TASTE!
>>
>> Eating more vegetables is good, eating all vegetables is fine. Assigning
>> false moral significance to it is a mistake.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> >>
> >> >> The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
> >> >> rebut it.
> >> >>
> >> >> The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
> >> >> it is wrong to kill animals.
> >> >
> >> > <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
> >> > animals then why do I feel good about lessening
> >> > their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
> >>
> >> If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much more
> >> than you are doing.
> >
> > Thank you for repeating yourself...
>
> You're welcome. I hope you're writing some of this down..
>
> > If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much more
> > about sexually broomed children.
>
> Passive vs active rights. Since I am not participating in any way with abuse
> of children I am not morally obliged to find any to rescue. It would be OK
> if I did, but I am not obliged.

There is a serious disconnect in your thinking here. If you are not
obligated because you don't participate with respect to the abuse of
children then, because you do participate with respect to our pot
smoking friend then you must be complicit there.

You have defined the terms of participation in the act of "rescue" only
where one is obliged through their actions. You have clearly stated your
goal to "rescue" her from her evil ways.

> > If your really thought it was wrong, you would find a way tod o much
> > more about the death of humans
>
> Passive vs active rights. Vegans are *subsiding* the killing of animals who
> they claim to believe have basic right to life. They have an active
> involvment with the *unmitigated* killing of those animals by farmers when
> they purchase consumer goods.

A nice phrase to remove responsibility. A justified killing is still a
killing. Killing an animal for food is still killing an animal. Just as
killing a human because they are robbing and threatening you is still
killing another human being. The human ability to rationalize is
"divine".

> > If you really thought it was wrong....
> >
> > Not that I've completely embarrased you, what next.
>
> You actually thought that was a rock solid argument didn't you?

Yes, and I'm still demonstrating that.

> Get this Ronny, you are NOT going to outwit me or Jay Santos or usual
> suspect, we're way out of your league. You should be saving our posts to
> study from.

Hmmm.

Too late. I've clearly demonstrated this. Despite your complaints of of
vegan post smoker, you are just as "guilty" as she is and on all counts.

> >> The shocking thing is that you don't even think it's *bad*. Even if
> >> consuming meat would prevent some animal death you wouldn't do it,
> >> because
> >> of the TASTE!
> >>
> >> Eating more vegetables is good, eating all vegetables is fine. Assigning
> >> false moral significance to it is a mistake.

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

>> >> >> The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
>> >> >> rebut it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
>> >> >> it is wrong to kill animals.
>> >> >
>> >> > <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
>> >> > animals then why do I feel good about lessening
>> >> > their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
>> >>
>> >> If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much
>> >> more
>> >> than you are doing.
>> >
>> > Thank you for repeating yourself...
>>
>> You're welcome. I hope you're writing some of this down..
>>
>> > If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much
>> > more
>> > about sexually broomed children.
>>
>> Passive vs active rights. Since I am not participating in any way with
>> abuse
>> of children I am not morally obliged to find any to rescue. It would be
>> OK
>> if I did, but I am not obliged.
>
> There is a serious disconnect in your thinking here. If you are not
> obligated because you don't participate with respect to the abuse of
> children then, because you do participate with respect to our pot
> smoking friend then you must be complicit there.

Attempting to impart information or give an opinion about an act is not
complicity in the act. If I tell my friend he oughta quit shoplifting, that
doesn't make me complicit in it. If I BUY some of the stuff, THEN I'm
complicit. Get the difference?

> You have defined the terms of participation in the act of "rescue" only
> where one is obliged through their actions. You have clearly stated your
> goal to "rescue" her from her evil ways.

That would not amount to complicity.

>> > If your really thought it was wrong, you would find a way tod o much
>> > more about the death of humans
>>
>> Passive vs active rights. Vegans are *subsiding* the killing of animals
>> who
>> they claim to believe have basic right to life. They have an active
>> involvment with the *unmitigated* killing of those animals by farmers
>> when
>> they purchase consumer goods.
>
> A nice phrase to remove responsibility

It defines responsibility, it doesn't remove it.

> A justified killing is still a
> killing.

Yes, what does justification have to do with it?

> Killing an animal for food is still killing an animal.

Naturally.

> Just as
> killing a human because they are robbing and threatening you is still
> killing another human being. The human ability to rationalize is
> "divine".

You take valid concepts and reduce them to absurdities. This is fallacious
thinking.

>> > If you really thought it was wrong....
>> >
>> > Not that I've completely embarrased you, what next.
>>
>> You actually thought that was a rock solid argument didn't you?
>
> Yes, and I'm still demonstrating that.

You aren't, you're groping in the dark. You have some agenda that is
preventing you from understanding basic concepts. You have brief lucid
periods which makes me discount the idea that you're just dumb.

>> Get this Ronny, you are NOT going to outwit me or Jay Santos or usual
>> suspect, we're way out of your league. You should be saving our posts to
>> study from.
>
> Hmmm.
>
> Too late. I've clearly demonstrated this. Despite your complaints of of
> vegan post smoker, you are just as "guilty" as she is and on all counts.

Not even remotely. I have taken no active role in her pot smoking, in fact I
have attempted to discourage it. Following from that, if she quit because of
my advice and subsequently had a negative outcome, it could be argued that I
was morally complicit, although not really, as I have offered my advice on a
take-it-or-leave-it basis.


>> >> The shocking thing is that you don't even think it's *bad*. Even if
>> >> consuming meat would prevent some animal death you wouldn't do it,
>> >> because
>> >> of the TASTE!
>> >>
>> >> Eating more vegetables is good, eating all vegetables is fine.
>> >> Assigning
>> >> false moral significance to it is a mistake.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
> >> >> >> rebut it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
> >> >> >> it is wrong to kill animals.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
> >> >> > animals then why do I feel good about lessening
> >> >> > their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
> >> >>
> >> >> If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much
> >> >> more
> >> >> than you are doing.
> >> >
> >> > Thank you for repeating yourself...
> >>
> >> You're welcome. I hope you're writing some of this down..
> >>
> >> > If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much
> >> > more
> >> > about sexually broomed children.
> >>
> >> Passive vs active rights. Since I am not participating in any way with
> >> abuse
> >> of children I am not morally obliged to find any to rescue. It would be
> >> OK
> >> if I did, but I am not obliged.
> >
> > There is a serious disconnect in your thinking here. If you are not
> > obligated because you don't participate with respect to the abuse of
> > children then, because you do participate with respect to our pot
> > smoking friend then you must be complicit there.
>
> Attempting to impart information or give an opinion about an act is not
> complicity in the act. If I tell my friend he oughta quit shoplifting, that
> doesn't make me complicit in it. If I BUY some of the stuff, THEN I'm
> complicit. Get the difference?
>
> > You have defined the terms of participation in the act of "rescue" only
> > where one is obliged through their actions. You have clearly stated your
> > goal to "rescue" her from her evil ways.
>
> That would not amount to complicity.
>
> >> > If your really thought it was wrong, you would find a way tod o much
> >> > more about the death of humans
> >>
> >> Passive vs active rights. Vegans are *subsiding* the killing of animals
> >> who
> >> they claim to believe have basic right to life. They have an active
> >> involvment with the *unmitigated* killing of those animals by farmers
> >> when
> >> they purchase consumer goods.
> >
> > A nice phrase to remove responsibility
>
> It defines responsibility, it doesn't remove it.
>
> > A justified killing is still a
> > killing.
>
> Yes, what does justification have to do with it?
>
> > Killing an animal for food is still killing an animal.
>
> Naturally.
>
> > Just as
> > killing a human because they are robbing and threatening you is still
> > killing another human being. The human ability to rationalize is
> > "divine".
>
> You take valid concepts and reduce them to absurdities. This is fallacious
> thinking.
>
> >> > If you really thought it was wrong....
> >> >
> >> > Not that I've completely embarrased you, what next.
> >>
> >> You actually thought that was a rock solid argument didn't you?
> >
> > Yes, and I'm still demonstrating that.
>
> You aren't, you're groping in the dark. You have some agenda that is
> preventing you from understanding basic concepts. You have brief lucid
> periods which makes me discount the idea that you're just dumb.
>
> >> Get this Ronny, you are NOT going to outwit me or Jay Santos or usual
> >> suspect, we're way out of your league. You should be saving our posts to
> >> study from.
> >
> > Hmmm.
> >
> > Too late. I've clearly demonstrated this. Despite your complaints of of
> > vegan post smoker, you are just as "guilty" as she is and on all counts.
>
> Not even remotely. I have taken no active role in her pot smoking, in fact I
> have attempted to discourage it. Following from that, if she quit because of
> my advice and subsequently had a negative outcome, it could be argued that I
> was morally complicit, although not really, as I have offered my advice on a
> take-it-or-leave-it basis.

We disagree. The website you asked me to read supports legalization of
pot. Therefore, you are at least involved in allowing her legal access
to the very drug that you claim is harmful to her personal and social
well-being.

You've stated that you support legalization of pot, at least I think it
was your post. As a result of your condoning this behaviour in society,
you have made it "okay" for her to do so. You attempt to "mitigate" your
responsibility by lecturing her on the "responsible" use of the drug.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> >>
> >> >> The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
> >> >> rebut it.
> >> >>
> >> >> The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
> >> >> it is wrong to kill animals.
> >> >
> >> > <rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
> >> > animals then why do I feel good about lessening
> >> > their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
> >>
> >> If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much more
> >> than you are doing.
> >
> > Thank you for repeating yourself...
>
> You're welcome. I hope you're writing some of this down..
>
> > If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much more
> > about sexually broomed children.
>
> Passive vs active rights. Since I am not participating in any way with abuse
> of children I am not morally obliged to find any to rescue. It would be OK
> if I did, but I am not obliged.

There is a serious disconnect in your thinking here. If you are not
obligated because you don't participate with respect to the abuse of
children then, because you do participate with respect to our pot
smoking friend then you must be complicit there.

You have defined the terms of participation in the act of "rescue" only
where one is obliged through their actions. You have clearly stated your
goal to "rescue" her from her evil ways.

> > If your really thought it was wrong, you would find a way tod o much
> > more about the death of humans
>
> Passive vs active rights. Vegans are *subsiding* the killing of animals who
> they claim to believe have basic right to life. They have an active
> involvment with the *unmitigated* killing of those animals by farmers when
> they purchase consumer goods.

A nice phrase to remove responsibility. A justified killing is still a
killing. Killing an animal for food is still killing an animal. Just as
killing a human because they are robbing and threatening you is still
killing another human being. The human ability to rationalize is
"divine".

> > If you really thought it was wrong....
> >
> > Not that I've completely embarrased you, what next.
>
> You actually thought that was a rock solid argument didn't you?

Yes, and I'm still demonstrating that.

> Get this Ronny, you are NOT going to outwit me or Jay Santos or usual
> suspect, we're way out of your league. You should be saving our posts to
> study from.

Hmmm.

Too late. I've clearly demonstrated this. Despite your complaints of of
vegan post smoker, you are just as "guilty" as she is and on all counts.

> >> The shocking thing is that you don't even think it's *bad*. Even if
> >> consuming meat would prevent some animal death you wouldn't do it,
> >> because
> >> of the TASTE!
> >>
> >> Eating more vegetables is good, eating all vegetables is fine. Assigning
> >> false moral significance to it is a mistake.

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>>The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
>>>>rebut it.
>>>>
>>>>The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
>>>>it is wrong to kill animals.
>>>
>>><rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
>>>animals then why do I feel good about lessening
>>>their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
>>
>>If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much more
>>than you are doing.
>
>
> Thank you for repeating yourself...
>
> If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much more
> about sexually broomed children.

No, we're talking about YOU not doing any of something
that YOU consider absolutely wrong. Until you stop
doing it, you have no basis for trying to prevent
others from doing it.

Why do you deliberately do that which you consider
absolutely wrong, stupid homo?

In article t>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> >>
> >>
> >>>>The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
> >>>>rebut it.
> >>>>
> >>>>The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
> >>>>it is wrong to kill animals.
> >>>
> >>><rebut> If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
> >>>animals then why do I feel good about lessening
> >>>their deaths? Huh? </rebut>
> >>
> >>If you really thought it was "wrong" you would find a way to do much more
> >>than you are doing.
> >
> >
> > Thank you for repeating yourself...
> >
> > If you really thought it was wrong, you would find a way to do much more
> > about sexually broomed children.
>
> No, we're talking about YOU not doing any of something
> that YOU consider absolutely wrong. Until you stop
> doing it, you have no basis for trying to prevent
> others from doing it.

This is a contradiction to the position of moral requirements. I ask
again, is brooming children wrong. Have stopped yourself from doing? If
yes, then you are now obligated to stop others from doing.

What a loon.

> Why do you deliberately do that which you consider
> absolutely wrong, stupid homo?

I'll tell ya about it when you blow me.