"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >> [..]
>> >>
>> >> >> > The vegan mitigates their responsibility by following all the
>> >> >> > rules
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > the laws associated with killing animals.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There are no rules and laws associated with killing animals, no
>> >> >> such
>> >> >> law
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> even feasible. Vegans have fabricated a morality outside the normal
>> >> >> one,
>> >> >> with moral rules involving animals that go far beyond it, yet they
>> >> >> live
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> the comfort and protection of the normal moral system with it's
>> >> >> cheap
>> >> >> affordable food and health care. If they are going to preach an
>> >> >> outlandish
>> >> >> moral system and preach to me that I ought to follow it, they need
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> follow
>> >> >> it first. Cutting down on animal products is not nearly enough to
>> >> >> validate
>> >> >> their alleged moral system.
>> >> >
>> >> > "Normal moral system?" What's that about. I was taught to eat meat
>> >> > and
>> >> > I
>> >> > was taught which meats were acceptable and socially acceptable eat.
>> >>
>> >> Customs.
>> >
>> > Thank you. Customs are taught and learned. They are not biological or
>> > genetic. They are common and popular.
>>
>> Therefore bad according to you.
>>
>> >> > Of course, your argument has been disputed and your simply ignored
>> >> > the
>> >> > formations that clearly demonstrated the double standard that you
>> >> > applied to the vegan.
>> >>
>> >> Not at all, you have utterly misconstrued the arguments all along the
>> >> way.
>> >>
>> >> >> > Come on, Dutch. You lost.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Phaw.. in your dreams. Wake up!
>> >> >
>> >> > I clearly demonstrated this. When your own logic was presented with
>> >> > a
>> >> > different example, you simply commented that you didn't have the
>> >> > time
>> >> > to
>> >> > do all that was necessary to follow through.
>> >>
>> >> Your examples were nothing but a convoluted mess based on fallacies. I
>> >> do
>> >> not have the time to completely untangle your mixed-up thinking, you
>> >> must
>> >> do
>> >> some of the work yourself.
>> >
>> > the work was done. All the was required was that you clarify why you
>> > applied one standard to the vegan and another to yourself.
>> >
>> >> If you would learn to listen, instead of playing devil's advocate on
>> >> every
>> >> point to attempt to "score", you might get somewhere. Playing devil's
>> >> advocate is exactly as valid as agreeing with everything you read.
>> >
>> > Listen? I'm reading your comments.
>>
>> You're reading but graspinf anything. I typically make a series of
>> replies
>> in a post, most of which you breeze over because you are being corrected,
>> than you insert some non-sequitor knee-jerk remark at the end.
>>
>> Your approach is WORTHLESS.
>>
>> > Where you consider me being Devil's Advocate, I consider you blindly
>> > introjecting what is spoonfed.
>>
>> False, unlike you I do NOT blindly reject that which is "spoonfed" in
>> favour
>> of irrational claptrap.
>
> Dutch, others can read this as well as the fact the archives of this
> discussion will be around for a bit of time.

Mores the pity for you, flyweight.

> I have clearly given you opportunities to clarify information which you
> have posted and asked me to accept simply because it is common.

Your "opportunities to clarify" are nonsensical, they're poses. You're not
bright and you're proving it.