In article t>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article . net>,
> > Jay Santos > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Sophomore Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article .net>,
> >>> Jay Santos > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article et>,
> >>>>>Jay Santos > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I asked you to respond with a yes or a no, sophomoric
> >>>>>>shitbag. "Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with
> >>>>>>your usual blowhard windy equivocation."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Answer the question, Sophomore Ron, and answer it with
> >>>>>>a yes or a no: Do you believe sodomizing small
> >>>>>>children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes
> >>>>>>or no, shitbag; no one is interested in your sophistry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Do you?
> >>>>
> >>>>Answer the question, shitbag. Do you believe
> >>>>sodomizing small children with broom handles to be
> >>>>morally wrong?
> >>>>
> >>>>Answer yes or no, shitbag. No one is interested in
> >>>>reading yet more of your trite sophistry.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>We both must think it okay.
> >>
> >>No, don't speak for me, cocksucker.
> >>
> >>Anyway, I'll take that as a "Yes, cocksucker Ron
> >>believe it to be morally wrong for adults to sodomize
> >>children", although given your sexual orientation, I'm
> >>not sure I believe you. Anyway, what took you so long
> >>to answer, cocksucker?
> >>
> >>
> >>>Since we have time to discuss anything here.
> >>>Since neither of us is championing the poor broomed children, we must
> >>>not view it as objectively or absolutely wrong.
> >>
> >>****wit - I'm not talking about what others might do to
> >>stop psychopath degenerates like you from sodomizing
> >>children. That isn't the issue, and my belief that it
> >>is absolutely wrong does not compel me to try to stop
> >>you from doing it. It DOES allow me to declare you
> >>evil for doing it.
> >>
> >>The point in asking the question, cocksucker, is to get
> >>Skanky Carpetmuncher and you to see that if YOU believe
> >>it is absolutely wrong, then YOU must not do it at all.
> >>It isn't about me preventing you from doing
> >>something, cocksucker; it's about YOU recognizing what
> >>your belief in moral absolutes necessarily dictates to
> >>YOU about YOUR behavior.
> >
> >
> > You don't have the power to stop me from doing anything.
>
> That's probably false, but beside the point. It isn't
> my personal and direct obligation to stop you from
> committing evil acts.

Nor is it the vegan's responsibility to stop others from killing animals
-- if we accept your reasoning.

LOL.

In article t>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article t>,
> > Jay Santos > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article .net>,
> >>> Jay Santos > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Who are you to say whether pollution is morally
> >>>>>>>>>wrong or not?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>It isn't. No one views it as morally wrong.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I do.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No, you don't. No one does. You view it as
> >>>>>>undesirable, not morally wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I view it as morally wrong to willfully
> >>>>
> >>>>No, you don't - you pollute daily, on an egregious level.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Killing people as well as animals. Is it morally right, wrong or morally
> >>>netural to kill people under these circumstances, Jay.
> >>
> >>I'm asking the questions here, cocksucker.
> >
> >
> > Dominate
>
> Answer the question, cocksucker.

Your female partner might be concerned should you disclose your
continued conversation with me -- a known cocksucker.

But now that I've painted you into a nice little box, please explain the
contradictions that your arguments present. You are holding the vegan to
a standard that you don't hold for yourself.

Ron wrote:

> In article t>,
> Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article t>,
>>> Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article .net>,
>>>>>Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Who are you to say whether pollution is morally
>>>>>>>>>>>wrong or not?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It isn't. No one views it as morally wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, you don't. No one does. You view it as
>>>>>>>>undesirable, not morally wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I view it as morally wrong to willfully
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, you don't - you pollute daily, on an egregious level.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Killing people as well as animals. Is it morally right, wrong or morally
>>>>>netural to kill people under these circumstances, Jay.
>>>>
>>>>I'm asking the questions here, cocksucker.
>>>
>>>
>>>Dominate
>>
>>Answer the question, cocksucker.
>
>
> Your

Answer the question, cocksucker.

In article t>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article t>,
> > Jay Santos > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>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.
> >>
> >>No, it isn't. It is absolutely essential to "moral
> >>requirements".
> >>
> >>You stupid gerbil-abusing homo.
> >
> >
> > I assume that you don't and never have broomed children. I further
> > assume since that you have stopped or never started that you know accept
> > your moral responsibility to stop all others from this action.
>
> No, recognizing that something is absolutely wrong does
> not make it my personal responsibility to stop others
> from doing it. You keep asserting that it does, and
> you are wrong.

But you do make this a requirement for the vegan.

The vegan is not responsible for stopping the farmer, or the petro
executive who does kill animals because of her belief of an absolute
wrong.


> > Do be clear in your thinking, Dutch!
>
> Get Bruce's 3 centimeters out of your ass, Ron, and
> keep track of whom you're responding to. Stupid
> brain-damaged homo; the HIV is that advanced, eh?

I apologized to Dutch already for the misattribution.

PS. Who is Bruce?

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

[..]

>> > And if humans have a basic right to life then, you too must go further.
>>
>> And humans do go further to mitigate danger to humans, much, much
>> further.
>>
>> > (It is the same theory and I am just using examples to demonstrate the
>> > double standards that are involved.)
>>
>> I have already explained the principle of mitigation, although it ought
>> to
>> be self-apparent. Please go back and read it again.
>
> I agree that you explained how humans are hypocritical and develop a
> thought system to justify the things that we claim are wrong in some,
> but still allow us to do them. It's called justification.

Mitigation of danger has nothing to do with rationalization. It means taking
concrete measures, instituting safety systems, installing safe equipment,
training and education. The worker who uses safe work procedures is
mitigating the risk to himself and others. The driver who exercises all due
caution and obeys all the rules designed to protect lives will not be found
culpable should his car accidentally collide with another and kill someone.
He has mitigated the risk to the best of his ability, yet in this world,
shit happens. The driver who speeds down the wrong side of the road and
kills someone is not mitigating risk, he will be found guilty of dangerous
driving and/or manslughter.

> Such
> justification leads to all sorts of logical errors as we've seen with
> your approach to the topic of veganism and pot smoking.

Pfffhhht, what a joker you are. You aren't even trying to get any of this,
you're just desperate to redeem your sorry ass.

>> > So, do humans have a basic right to life or not? Is this an absolute
>> > right.
>>
>> Yes, and no.

In article t>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article t>,
> > Jay Santos > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article . net>,
> >>> Jay Santos > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article .net>,
> >>>>>Jay Santos > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article et>,
> >>>>>>>Jay Santos > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>I asked you to respond with a yes or a no, sophomoric
> >>>>>>>>shitbag. "Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with
> >>>>>>>>your usual blowhard windy equivocation."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Answer the question, Sophomore Ron, and answer it with
> >>>>>>>>a yes or a no: Do you believe sodomizing small
> >>>>>>>>children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes
> >>>>>>>>or no, shitbag; no one is interested in your sophistry.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Do you?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Answer the question, shitbag. Do you believe
> >>>>>>sodomizing small children with broom handles to be
> >>>>>>morally wrong?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Answer yes or no, shitbag. No one is interested in
> >>>>>>reading yet more of your trite sophistry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>We both must think it okay.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, don't speak for me, cocksucker.
> >>>>
> >>>>Anyway, I'll take that as a "Yes, cocksucker Ron
> >>>>believe it to be morally wrong for adults to sodomize
> >>>>children", although given your sexual orientation, I'm
> >>>>not sure I believe you. Anyway, what took you so long
> >>>>to answer, cocksucker?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Since we have time to discuss anything here.
> >>>>>Since neither of us is championing the poor broomed children, we must
> >>>>>not view it as objectively or absolutely wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>>****wit - I'm not talking about what others might do to
> >>>>stop psychopath degenerates like you from sodomizing
> >>>>children. That isn't the issue, and my belief that it
> >>>>is absolutely wrong does not compel me to try to stop
> >>>>you from doing it. It DOES allow me to declare you
> >>>>evil for doing it.
> >>>>
> >>>>The point in asking the question, cocksucker, is to get
> >>>>Skanky Carpetmuncher and you to see that if YOU believe
> >>>>it is absolutely wrong, then YOU must not do it at all.
> >>>>It isn't about me preventing you from doing
> >>>>something, cocksucker; it's about YOU recognizing what
> >>>>your belief in moral absolutes necessarily dictates to
> >>>>YOU about YOUR behavior.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You don't have the power to stop me from doing anything.
> >>
> >>That's probably false, but beside the point. It isn't
> >>my personal and direct obligation to stop you from
> >>committing evil acts.
> >
> >
> > Nor is it the vegan's responsibility to stop others from killing animals
> > -- if we accept your reasoning.
>
> I never suggested it was, homo. I said it is the
> "vegan's" responsibility not to participate in the
> process, in any way, that leads to killing animals.
> Buying from a producer who you know kills animals is
> participating. You can't believe the killing of
> animals is wrong and participate in the process.

Of course, she can. We participate in the process of pollution and
migrant worker exploitation.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> > 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.
>
> It also points out several dangerous myths about pot. It presents a balanced
> picture, despite it's apparent underlying bias. Try and find some vegan
> website half that objective.

Please explain your position more clearly. I certainly recall you
stating you supported the decriminalization of pot.

Do you think pot is harmful? The evidence thus far would seem to
indicate that you do.

Do you think pot is wrong? Given your attempt to influence the vegan and
help her, I would say yes.

Given the evidence seems to be that you think pot harmful and wrong, how
can you take the position of decriminalizing the drug?

> 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.
>
> Legalization won't make pot more harmful.

It won't make it less harmful either.

Why are you wanting harmful products on the open market place for
individuals when your position is that it can and does lead to social
and individual problems?

> > 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.
>
> I didn't condone it, it's currently illegal. I actually suggested that she
> quit.

Stating that it should be decriminalized is just that. My request was
that it be taxed. Decriminalizing pot is condoning it.

By example, if we decriminalize murder, are we condoning murder?

> > You attempt to "mitigate" your
> > responsibility by lecturing her on the "responsible" use of the drug.
>
> My lecture preceded my statement that I support legalization. But you used
> the word right there.

How odd that you would claim something so deliterious to human
well-being at the individual and social level and then take the position
that you want it to be legal.

What's that about, Dutch?

In your opinion, Dutch, is the legalization of pot going to have no
effect on the use of the drug, see a decline, or see an increase in use?

Given your reiteration of the Balitmore numbers, does this mean you want
34.7 of the population in trauma centres, more than that, or less than
that?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> > And if humans have a basic right to life then, you too must go further.
> >>
> >> And humans do go further to mitigate danger to humans, much, much
> >> further.
> >>
> >> > (It is the same theory and I am just using examples to demonstrate the
> >> > double standards that are involved.)
> >>
> >> I have already explained the principle of mitigation, although it ought
> >> to
> >> be self-apparent. Please go back and read it again.
> >
> > I agree that you explained how humans are hypocritical and develop a
> > thought system to justify the things that we claim are wrong in some,
> > but still allow us to do them. It's called justification.
>
> Mitigation of danger has nothing to do with rationalization.

Of course, it does. Check a few synonyms for the word. Mitigating is a
way to make the action appear less harsh. Killing is killing. Killing
somone because they are convicted of a crime, robbing me, breaking into
your home, out of sociopathy, etc. are all examples of killing another
human. We like "alleviate" or reduce the harshness of the reality and
talk about "mitigating" circumstances.

Killing is killing.

> It means taking
> concrete measures, instituting safety systems, installing safe equipment,
> training and education. The worker who uses safe work procedures is
> mitigating the risk to himself and others.

The workers is also demonstrating fear. The worker is also exhibiting
unrealistic asessment skills on the potential dangers versus the actual
dangers involved.

Don't worry, I won't ask you to run with scissors.

> The driver who exercises all due
> caution and obeys all the rules designed to protect lives will not be found
> culpable should his car accidentally collide with another and kill someone.
> He has mitigated the risk to the best of his ability, yet in this world,
> shit happens. The driver who speeds down the wrong side of the road and
> kills someone is not mitigating risk, he will be found guilty of dangerous
> driving and/or manslughter.

If you don't want to be held accountable then stay off the road.

> > Such
> > justification leads to all sorts of logical errors as we've seen with
> > your approach to the topic of veganism and pot smoking.
>
> Pfffhhht, what a joker you are. You aren't even trying to get any of this,
> you're just desperate to redeem your sorry ass.

Redeem? Okay.

The vegan mitigates their responsibility by following all the rules and
the laws associated with killing animals.

Come on, Dutch. You lost.


> >> > So, do humans have a basic right to life or not? Is this an absolute
> >> > right.
> >>
> >> Yes, and no.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>> Ron wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> No, it isn't. It is absolutely essential to "moral
>> requirements".
>>
>> You stupid gerbil-abusing homo.
>
> I assume that you don't and never have broomed children. I further
> assume since that you have stopped or never started that you know accept
> your moral responsibility to stop all others from this action.
>
> Do be clear in your thinking, Dutch!

Who me?

You get your jollies by being silly and making people angry, don't you
naughty boy?

Fess up.

"Ron" > wrote>
> I apologized to Dutch already for the misattribution.

Now apologize for your willful stupidity.

Ron wrote:

> In article t>,
> Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article t>,
>>> Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article . net>,
>>>>>Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article .net>,
>>>>>>>Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article et>,
>>>>>>>>>Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I asked you to respond with a yes or a no, sophomoric
>>>>>>>>>>shitbag. "Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with
>>>>>>>>>>your usual blowhard windy equivocation."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Answer the question, Sophomore Ron, and answer it with
>>>>>>>>>>a yes or a no: Do you believe sodomizing small
>>>>>>>>>>children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes
>>>>>>>>>>or no, shitbag; no one is interested in your sophistry.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Do you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Answer the question, shitbag. Do you believe
>>>>>>>>sodomizing small children with broom handles to be
>>>>>>>>morally wrong?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Answer yes or no, shitbag. No one is interested in
>>>>>>>>reading yet more of your trite sophistry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We both must think it okay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, don't speak for me, cocksucker.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Anyway, I'll take that as a "Yes, cocksucker Ron
>>>>>>believe it to be morally wrong for adults to sodomize
>>>>>>children", although given your sexual orientation, I'm
>>>>>>not sure I believe you. Anyway, what took you so long
>>>>>>to answer, cocksucker?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Since we have time to discuss anything here.
>>>>>>>Since neither of us is championing the poor broomed children, we must
>>>>>>>not view it as objectively or absolutely wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>****wit - I'm not talking about what others might do to
>>>>>>stop psychopath degenerates like you from sodomizing
>>>>>>children. That isn't the issue, and my belief that it
>>>>>>is absolutely wrong does not compel me to try to stop
>>>>>>you from doing it. It DOES allow me to declare you
>>>>>>evil for doing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The point in asking the question, cocksucker, is to get
>>>>>>Skanky Carpetmuncher and you to see that if YOU believe
>>>>>>it is absolutely wrong, then YOU must not do it at all.
>>>>>>It isn't about me preventing you from doing
>>>>>>something, cocksucker; it's about YOU recognizing what
>>>>>>your belief in moral absolutes necessarily dictates to
>>>>>>YOU about YOUR behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't have the power to stop me from doing anything.
>>>>
>>>>That's probably false, but beside the point. It isn't
>>>>my personal and direct obligation to stop you from
>>>>committing evil acts.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nor is it the vegan's responsibility to stop others from killing animals
>>>-- if we accept your reasoning.
>>
>>I never suggested it was, homo. I said it is the
>>"vegan's" responsibility not to participate in the
>>process, in any way, that leads to killing animals.
>>Buying from a producer who you know kills animals is
>>participating. You can't believe the killing of
>>animals is wrong and participate in the process.
>
>
> Of course, she can.

No, she can't. To participate means one doesn't really
believe it's wrong.

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

[..]

>> > We disagree. The website you asked me to read supports legalization of
>> > pot.
>>
>> It also points out several dangerous myths about pot. It presents a
>> balanced
>> picture, despite it's apparent underlying bias. Try and find some vegan
>> website half that objective.
>
> Please explain your position more clearly. I certainly recall you
> stating you supported the decriminalization of pot.

No, legalization.

> Do you think pot is harmful? The evidence thus far would seem to
> indicate that you do.

Potentially.

> Do you think pot is wrong?

Pot can't be wrong, that's a moral value.

>Given your attempt to influence the vegan and
> help her, I would say yes.

It's potentially harmful.

> Given the evidence seems to be that you think pot harmful and wrong, how
> can you take the position of decriminalizing the drug?

Criminalization makes the problem worse.

>> 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.
>>
>> Legalization won't make pot more harmful.
>
> It won't make it less harmful either.

Yes it will.

> Why are you wanting harmful products on the open market place for
> individuals when your position is that it can and does lead to social
> and individual problems?

It's already on the open marketplace.

>> > 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.
>>
>> I didn't condone it, it's currently illegal. I actually suggested that
>> she
>> quit.
>
> Stating that it should be decriminalized is just that. My request was
> that it be taxed. Decriminalizing pot is condoning it.

I don't want to decriminalize it, and one cannot condone a plant.

> By example, if we decriminalize murder, are we condoning murder?

Yes.

>> > You attempt to "mitigate" your
>> > responsibility by lecturing her on the "responsible" use of the drug.
>>
>> My lecture preceded my statement that I support legalization. But you
>> used
>> the word right there.
>
> How odd that you would claim something so deliterious to human
> well-being at the individual and social level and then take the position
> that you want it to be legal.

Pot isn't that harmful if used responsibly.

> What's that about, Dutch?
>
> In your opinion, Dutch, is the legalization of pot going to have no
> effect on the use of the drug, see a decline, or see an increase in use?

I would expect an initial increase of the number of users but a decrease in
the amount of abuse due to the vast amount of money that will be available
for treatment and education.

The coffers of our government will be overflowing with money. Our health
care system will be fixed overnight.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]

>> >> > And if humans have a basic right to life then, you too must go
>> >> > further.
>> >>
>> >> And humans do go further to mitigate danger to humans, much, much
>> >> further.
>> >>
>> >> > (It is the same theory and I am just using examples to demonstrate
>> >> > the
>> >> > double standards that are involved.)
>> >>
>> >> I have already explained the principle of mitigation, although it
>> >> ought
>> >> to
>> >> be self-apparent. Please go back and read it again.
>> >
>> > I agree that you explained how humans are hypocritical and develop a
>> > thought system to justify the things that we claim are wrong in some,
>> > but still allow us to do them. It's called justification.
>>
>> Mitigation of danger has nothing to do with rationalization.
>
> Of course, it does. Check a few synonyms for the word. Mitigating is a
> way to make the action appear less harsh.

I'm not talking about mitigating "appearances", I specifically said
migitation of risks.

> Killing is killing.

Not really, except in the semantic sense, a=a.

> Killing
> somone because they are convicted of a crime, robbing me, breaking into
> your home, out of sociopathy, etc. are all examples of killing another
> human.

And....?
> We like "alleviate" or reduce the harshness of the reality and
> talk about "mitigating" circumstances.

You appear to be attempting to deliberately misconstrue my words, is that
not a fair statement?

> Killing is killing.

No

>> It means taking
>> concrete measures, instituting safety systems, installing safe equipment,
>> training and education. The worker who uses safe work procedures is
>> mitigating the risk to himself and others.
>
> The workers is also demonstrating fear. The worker is also exhibiting
> unrealistic asessment skills on the potential dangers versus the actual
> dangers involved.

According to whom?

> Don't worry, I won't ask you to run with scissors.
>
>> The driver who exercises all due
>> caution and obeys all the rules designed to protect lives will not be
>> found
>> culpable should his car accidentally collide with another and kill
>> someone.
>> He has mitigated the risk to the best of his ability, yet in this world,
>> shit happens. The driver who speeds down the wrong side of the road and
>> kills someone is not mitigating risk, he will be found guilty of
>> dangerous
>> driving and/or manslughter.
>
> If you don't want to be held accountable then stay off the road.

Not necessary, just mitigate the risks.

>> > Such
>> > justification leads to all sorts of logical errors as we've seen with
>> > your approach to the topic of veganism and pot smoking.
>>
>> Pfffhhht, what a joker you are. You aren't even trying to get any of
>> this,
>> you're just desperate to redeem your sorry ass.
>
> Redeem? Okay.
>
> 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.

> Come on, Dutch. You lost.

Phaw.. in your dreams. Wake up!

>> >> > So, do humans have a basic right to life or not? Is this an absolute
>> >> > right.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, and no.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> > We disagree. The website you asked me to read supports legalization of
> >> > pot.
> >>
> >> It also points out several dangerous myths about pot. It presents a
> >> balanced
> >> picture, despite it's apparent underlying bias. Try and find some vegan
> >> website half that objective.
> >
> > Please explain your position more clearly. I certainly recall you
> > stating you supported the decriminalization of pot.
>
> No, legalization.

Nothing can be "legalized". Criminal acts can be decriminalized. The law
doesn't denote what is legal, but does indicate what is illegal.

> > Do you think pot is harmful? The evidence thus far would seem to
> > indicate that you do.
>
> Potentially.

That was a logical question, a True or False is acceptable.

Your response of potentially discredits your earlier statement as to the
harm. In each case, you avoided using the term "potentially". Further,
stating drugs are potentially harmful is like saying that are "a bit
wrong".
>
> > Do you think pot is wrong?
>
> Pot can't be wrong, that's a moral value.

Correction: do you think that pot use is wrong or right?

> >Given your attempt to influence the vegan and
> > help her, I would say yes.
>
> It's potentially harmful.

Why the change. You have consistently commented that there is harm. I
questioned you on "worst case scenarios". Now, you have modified your
position from harmful to potentially harmful.

> > Given the evidence seems to be that you think pot harmful and wrong, how
> > can you take the position of decriminalizing the drug?
>
> Criminalization makes the problem worse.

Please make your case.

> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Legalization won't make pot more harmful.
> >
> > It won't make it less harmful either.
>
> Yes it will.

Please make your case.

> > Why are you wanting harmful products on the open market place for
> > individuals when your position is that it can and does lead to social
> > and individual problems?
>
> It's already on the open marketplace.

It is an illegal product. It is in the underground marketplace. It is
rare to find pot as a legal substance. In those instances, it qualifies
as a controlled substance.

> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> I didn't condone it, it's currently illegal. I actually suggested that
> >> she
> >> quit.
> >
> > Stating that it should be decriminalized is just that. My request was
> > that it be taxed. Decriminalizing pot is condoning it.
>
> I don't want to decriminalize it, and one cannot condone a plant.

Can you indicate a law that "legalizes" something versus a law that
decriminalizes a thing?

> > By example, if we decriminalize murder, are we condoning murder?
>
> Yes.

So then, legalizing/decriminalizing pot is condoning it. You are
condoning pot by seeking legalization. Yet, you state it as harmful.

> >> > You attempt to "mitigate" your
> >> > responsibility by lecturing her on the "responsible" use of the drug.
> >>
> >> My lecture preceded my statement that I support legalization. But you
> >> used
> >> the word right there.
> >
> > How odd that you would claim something so deliterious to human
> > well-being at the individual and social level and then take the position
> > that you want it to be legal.
>
> Pot isn't that harmful if used responsibly.

Ya, like saying it's a bit wrong. It's only a bit harmful if you use as
you would like people to use.

> > What's that about, Dutch?
> >
> > In your opinion, Dutch, is the legalization of pot going to have no
> > effect on the use of the drug, see a decline, or see an increase in use?
>
> I would expect an initial increase of the number of users but a decrease in
> the amount of abuse due to the vast amount of money that will be available
> for treatment and education.

Please explain.

There is nothing in your position thus far that indicates that "abuse"
would drop off in any way, shape or form.

> The coffers of our government will be overflowing with money. Our health
> care system will be fixed overnight.

Wishful thinking. "Harm reduction" models the world over don't produce
those results. Would you care to reason how this would happen?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> [..]
>
> >> >> > And if humans have a basic right to life then, you too must go
> >> >> > further.
> >> >>
> >> >> And humans do go further to mitigate danger to humans, much, much
> >> >> further.
> >> >>
> >> >> > (It is the same theory and I am just using examples to demonstrate
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > double standards that are involved.)
> >> >>
> >> >> I have already explained the principle of mitigation, although it
> >> >> ought
> >> >> to
> >> >> be self-apparent. Please go back and read it again.
> >> >
> >> > I agree that you explained how humans are hypocritical and develop a
> >> > thought system to justify the things that we claim are wrong in some,
> >> > but still allow us to do them. It's called justification.
> >>
> >> Mitigation of danger has nothing to do with rationalization.
> >
> > Of course, it does. Check a few synonyms for the word. Mitigating is a
> > way to make the action appear less harsh.
>
> I'm not talking about mitigating "appearances", I specifically said
> migitation of risks.
>
> > Killing is killing.
>
> Not really, except in the semantic sense, a=a.
>
> > Killing
> > somone because they are convicted of a crime, robbing me, breaking into
> > your home, out of sociopathy, etc. are all examples of killing another
> > human.
>
> And....?
> > We like "alleviate" or reduce the harshness of the reality and
> > talk about "mitigating" circumstances.
>
> You appear to be attempting to deliberately misconstrue my words, is that
> not a fair statement?
>
> > Killing is killing.
>
> No
>
> >> It means taking
> >> concrete measures, instituting safety systems, installing safe equipment,
> >> training and education. The worker who uses safe work procedures is
> >> mitigating the risk to himself and others.
> >
> > The workers is also demonstrating fear. The worker is also exhibiting
> > unrealistic asessment skills on the potential dangers versus the actual
> > dangers involved.
>
> According to whom?
>
> > Don't worry, I won't ask you to run with scissors.
> >
> >> The driver who exercises all due
> >> caution and obeys all the rules designed to protect lives will not be
> >> found
> >> culpable should his car accidentally collide with another and kill
> >> someone.
> >> He has mitigated the risk to the best of his ability, yet in this world,
> >> shit happens. The driver who speeds down the wrong side of the road and
> >> kills someone is not mitigating risk, he will be found guilty of
> >> dangerous
> >> driving and/or manslughter.
> >
> > If you don't want to be held accountable then stay off the road.
>
> Not necessary, just mitigate the risks.
>
> >> > Such
> >> > justification leads to all sorts of logical errors as we've seen with
> >> > your approach to the topic of veganism and pot smoking.
> >>
> >> Pfffhhht, what a joker you are. You aren't even trying to get any of
> >> this,
> >> you're just desperate to redeem your sorry ass.
> >
> > Redeem? Okay.
> >
> > 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.

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.

> > 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.

> >> >> > So, do humans have a basic right to life or not? Is this an absolute
> >> >> > right.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, and no.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> [..]
>
> >> >> > And if humans have a basic right to life then, you too must go
> >> >> > further.
> >> >>
> >> >> And humans do go further to mitigate danger to humans, much, much
> >> >> further.
> >> >>
> >> >> > (It is the same theory and I am just using examples to demonstrate
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > double standards that are involved.)
> >> >>
> >> >> I have already explained the principle of mitigation, although it
> >> >> ought
> >> >> to
> >> >> be self-apparent. Please go back and read it again.
> >> >
> >> > I agree that you explained how humans are hypocritical and develop a
> >> > thought system to justify the things that we claim are wrong in some,
> >> > but still allow us to do them. It's called justification.
> >>
> >> Mitigation of danger has nothing to do with rationalization.
> >
> > Of course, it does. Check a few synonyms for the word. Mitigating is a
> > way to make the action appear less harsh.
>
> I'm not talking about mitigating "appearances", I specifically said
> migitation of risks.
>
> > Killing is killing.
>
> Not really, except in the semantic sense, a=a.
>
> > Killing
> > somone because they are convicted of a crime, robbing me, breaking into
> > your home, out of sociopathy, etc. are all examples of killing another
> > human.
>
> And....?
> > We like "alleviate" or reduce the harshness of the reality and
> > talk about "mitigating" circumstances.
>
> You appear to be attempting to deliberately misconstrue my words, is that
> not a fair statement?
>
> > Killing is killing.
>
> No
>
> >> It means taking
> >> concrete measures, instituting safety systems, installing safe equipment,
> >> training and education. The worker who uses safe work procedures is
> >> mitigating the risk to himself and others.
> >
> > The workers is also demonstrating fear. The worker is also exhibiting
> > unrealistic asessment skills on the potential dangers versus the actual
> > dangers involved.
>
> According to whom?
>
> > Don't worry, I won't ask you to run with scissors.
> >
> >> The driver who exercises all due
> >> caution and obeys all the rules designed to protect lives will not be
> >> found
> >> culpable should his car accidentally collide with another and kill
> >> someone.
> >> He has mitigated the risk to the best of his ability, yet in this world,
> >> shit happens. The driver who speeds down the wrong side of the road and
> >> kills someone is not mitigating risk, he will be found guilty of
> >> dangerous
> >> driving and/or manslughter.
> >
> > If you don't want to be held accountable then stay off the road.
>
> Not necessary, just mitigate the risks.
>
> >> > Such
> >> > justification leads to all sorts of logical errors as we've seen with
> >> > your approach to the topic of veganism and pot smoking.
> >>
> >> Pfffhhht, what a joker you are. You aren't even trying to get any of
> >> this,
> >> you're just desperate to redeem your sorry ass.
> >
> > Redeem? Okay.
> >
> > 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.

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.

> > 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.

> >> >> > So, do humans have a basic right to life or not? Is this an absolute
> >> >> > right.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, and no.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote>
> > I apologized to Dutch already for the misattribution.
>
> Now apologize for your willful stupidity.

The diversions continue....

Ron wrote:
> In article t>,
> Jay Santos > wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> >
> > > In article t>,
> > > Jay Santos > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Ron wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>In article t>,
> > >>> Jay Santos > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>Ron wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>In article
. net>,
> > >>>>>Jay Santos > wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>In article
.net>,
> > >>>>>>>Jay Santos > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>In article
et>,
> > >>>>>>>>>Jay Santos > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>I asked you to respond with a yes or a no, sophomoric
> > >>>>>>>>>>shitbag. "Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with
> > >>>>>>>>>>your usual blowhard windy equivocation."
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>Answer the question, Sophomore Ron, and answer it with
> > >>>>>>>>>>a yes or a no: Do you believe sodomizing small
> > >>>>>>>>>>children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes
> > >>>>>>>>>>or no, shitbag; no one is interested in your sophistry.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>Do you?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Answer the question, shitbag. Do you believe
> > >>>>>>>>sodomizing small children with broom handles to be
> > >>>>>>>>morally wrong?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Answer yes or no, shitbag. No one is interested in
> > >>>>>>>>reading yet more of your trite sophistry.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>We both must think it okay.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>No, don't speak for me, cocksucker.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Anyway, I'll take that as a "Yes, cocksucker Ron
> > >>>>>>believe it to be morally wrong for adults to sodomize
> > >>>>>>children", although given your sexual orientation, I'm
> > >>>>>>not sure I believe you. Anyway, what took you so long
> > >>>>>>to answer, cocksucker?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>Since we have time to discuss anything here.
> > >>>>>>>Since neither of us is championing the poor broomed
children, we must
> > >>>>>>>not view it as objectively or absolutely wrong.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>****wit - I'm not talking about what others might do to
> > >>>>>>stop psychopath degenerates like you from sodomizing
> > >>>>>>children. That isn't the issue, and my belief that it
> > >>>>>>is absolutely wrong does not compel me to try to stop
> > >>>>>>you from doing it. It DOES allow me to declare you
> > >>>>>>evil for doing it.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>The point in asking the question, cocksucker, is to get
> > >>>>>>Skanky Carpetmuncher and you to see that if YOU believe
> > >>>>>>it is absolutely wrong, then YOU must not do it at all.
> > >>>>>>It isn't about me preventing you from doing
> > >>>>>>something, cocksucker; it's about YOU recognizing what
> > >>>>>>your belief in moral absolutes necessarily dictates to
> > >>>>>>YOU about YOUR behavior.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>You don't have the power to stop me from doing anything.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>That's probably false, but beside the point. It isn't
> > >>>>my personal and direct obligation to stop you from
> > >>>>committing evil acts.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Nor is it the vegan's responsibility to stop others from killing
animals
> > >>>-- if we accept your reasoning.
> > >>
> > >>I never suggested it was, homo. I said it is the
> > >>"vegan's" responsibility not to participate in the
> > >>process, in any way, that leads to killing animals.
> > >>Buying from a producer who you know kills animals is
> > >>participating. You can't believe the killing of
> > >>animals is wrong and participate in the process.
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course, she can.
> >
> > No, she can't. To participate means one doesn't really
> > believe it's wrong.
>
> I clearly articulated the difficulty with this position

No, you didn't demonstrate any difficulty at all with the position,
Brucie. Run along now.

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

> Ron wrote:
> > In article t>,
> > Jay Santos > wrote:
> >
> > > Ron wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article t>,
> > > > Jay Santos > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Ron wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>In article t>,
> > > >>> Jay Santos > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>Ron wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>In article
> . net>,
> > > >>>>>Jay Santos > wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>In article
> .net>,
> > > >>>>>>>Jay Santos > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>In article
> et>,
> > > >>>>>>>>>Jay Santos > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>Sophomore Ron wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>I asked you to respond with a yes or a no, sophomoric
> > > >>>>>>>>>>shitbag. "Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>your usual blowhard windy equivocation."
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>Answer the question, Sophomore Ron, and answer it with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>a yes or a no: Do you believe sodomizing small
> > > >>>>>>>>>>children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes
> > > >>>>>>>>>>or no, shitbag; no one is interested in your sophistry.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>Do you?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>Answer the question, shitbag. Do you believe
> > > >>>>>>>>sodomizing small children with broom handles to be
> > > >>>>>>>>morally wrong?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>Answer yes or no, shitbag. No one is interested in
> > > >>>>>>>>reading yet more of your trite sophistry.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>We both must think it okay.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>No, don't speak for me, cocksucker.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>Anyway, I'll take that as a "Yes, cocksucker Ron
> > > >>>>>>believe it to be morally wrong for adults to sodomize
> > > >>>>>>children", although given your sexual orientation, I'm
> > > >>>>>>not sure I believe you. Anyway, what took you so long
> > > >>>>>>to answer, cocksucker?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>Since we have time to discuss anything here.
> > > >>>>>>>Since neither of us is championing the poor broomed
> children, we must
> > > >>>>>>>not view it as objectively or absolutely wrong.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>****wit - I'm not talking about what others might do to
> > > >>>>>>stop psychopath degenerates like you from sodomizing
> > > >>>>>>children. That isn't the issue, and my belief that it
> > > >>>>>>is absolutely wrong does not compel me to try to stop
> > > >>>>>>you from doing it. It DOES allow me to declare you
> > > >>>>>>evil for doing it.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>The point in asking the question, cocksucker, is to get
> > > >>>>>>Skanky Carpetmuncher and you to see that if YOU believe
> > > >>>>>>it is absolutely wrong, then YOU must not do it at all.
> > > >>>>>>It isn't about me preventing you from doing
> > > >>>>>>something, cocksucker; it's about YOU recognizing what
> > > >>>>>>your belief in moral absolutes necessarily dictates to
> > > >>>>>>YOU about YOUR behavior.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>You don't have the power to stop me from doing anything.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>That's probably false, but beside the point. It isn't
> > > >>>>my personal and direct obligation to stop you from
> > > >>>>committing evil acts.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Nor is it the vegan's responsibility to stop others from killing
> animals
> > > >>>-- if we accept your reasoning.
> > > >>
> > > >>I never suggested it was, homo. I said it is the
> > > >>"vegan's" responsibility not to participate in the
> > > >>process, in any way, that leads to killing animals.
> > > >>Buying from a producer who you know kills animals is
> > > >>participating. You can't believe the killing of
> > > >>animals is wrong and participate in the process.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course, she can.
> > >
> > > No, she can't. To participate means one doesn't really
> > > believe it's wrong.
> >
> > I clearly articulated the difficulty with this position
>
> No, you didn't demonstrate any difficulty at all with the position,
> Brucie. Run along now.

Sore losers, are such a tragedy.

Tofu for everyone, it's on me.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> >> > We disagree. The website you asked me to read supports legalization
>> >> > of
>> >> > pot.
>> >>
>> >> It also points out several dangerous myths about pot. It presents a
>> >> balanced
>> >> picture, despite it's apparent underlying bias. Try and find some
>> >> vegan
>> >> website half that objective.
>> >
>> > Please explain your position more clearly. I certainly recall you
>> > stating you supported the decriminalization of pot.
>>
>> No, legalization.
>
> Nothing can be "legalized". Criminal acts can be decriminalized. The law
> doesn't denote what is legal, but does indicate what is illegal.

You are mistaken, the term decriminalization refers to half-measures like
not pursuing users while leaving production and trafficking illegal.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/sec...nalization.asp

>> > Do you think pot is harmful? The evidence thus far would seem to
>> > indicate that you do.

>> Potentially.
>
> That was a logical question, a True or False is acceptable.

You demand a yes or no answer when both are inferior responses?

> Your response of potentially discredits your earlier statement as to the
> harm.

Not at all.

> In each case, you avoided using the term "potentially". Further,
> stating drugs are potentially harmful is like saying that are "a bit
> wrong".

Not at all, lots of activities are potentially dangerous or harmful if not
done with care, caution and/or moderation, like driving a car, or
jaywalking.

>> > Do you think pot is wrong?
>>
>> Pot can't be wrong, that's a moral value.
>
> Correction: do you think that pot use is wrong or right?

Nope.

>> >Given your attempt to influence the vegan and
>> > help her, I would say yes.
>>
>> It's potentially harmful.
>
> Why the change. You have consistently commented that there is harm. I
> questioned you on "worst case scenarios". Now, you have modified your
> position from harmful to potentially harmful.

The facts about drugs use and smoking are as plain as can be, why are you
having such difficulty grasping them?

>> > Given the evidence seems to be that you think pot harmful and wrong,
>> > how
>> > can you take the position of decriminalizing the drug?
>>
>> Criminalization makes the problem worse.
>
> Please make your case.

Long story, see "War on Drugs" see "Overloaded Prisons" see tax dollars down
the drain, see kids with criminal records, see no resources for education,
and I still think you're trolling.

>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> Legalization won't make pot more harmful.
>> >
>> > It won't make it less harmful either.
>>
>> Yes it will.
>
> Please make your case.

See above.

>> > Why are you wanting harmful products on the open market place for
>> > individuals when your position is that it can and does lead to social
>> > and individual problems?
>>
>> It's already on the open marketplace.
>
> It is an illegal product. It is in the underground marketplace. It is
> rare to find pot as a legal substance. In those instances, it qualifies
> as a controlled substance.

It's easily available to anyone who wants it.

>> >> > 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.
>> >>
>> >> I didn't condone it, it's currently illegal. I actually suggested that
>> >> she
>> >> quit.
>> >
>> > Stating that it should be decriminalized is just that. My request was
>> > that it be taxed. Decriminalizing pot is condoning it.
>>
>> I don't want to decriminalize it, and one cannot condone a plant.
>
> Can you indicate a law that "legalizes" something versus a law that
> decriminalizes a thing?

I see your logic, but you're wrong. Legalizing means removing from the
criminal code.

>> > By example, if we decriminalize murder, are we condoning murder?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> So then, legalizing/decriminalizing pot is condoning it. You are
> condoning pot by seeking legalization. Yet, you state it as harmful.

Potentially, yes, if one does not heed the advice of people like me.

>> >> > You attempt to "mitigate" your
>> >> > responsibility by lecturing her on the "responsible" use of the
>> >> > drug.
>> >>
>> >> My lecture preceded my statement that I support legalization. But you
>> >> used
>> >> the word right there.
>> >
>> > How odd that you would claim something so deliterious to human
>> > well-being at the individual and social level and then take the
>> > position
>> > that you want it to be legal.
>>
>> Pot isn't that harmful if used responsibly.
>
> Ya, like saying it's a bit wrong. It's only a bit harmful if you use as
> you would like people to use.

Basically, yes, once in a while, at a party or concert, not constantly after
work and on weekends.
>
>> > What's that about, Dutch?
>> >
>> > In your opinion, Dutch, is the legalization of pot going to have no
>> > effect on the use of the drug, see a decline, or see an increase in
>> > use?
>>
>> I would expect an initial increase of the number of users but a decrease
>> in
>> the amount of abuse due to the vast amount of money that will be
>> available
>> for treatment and education.
>
> Please explain.

No, troll.

> There is nothing in your position thus far that indicates that "abuse"
> would drop off in any way, shape or form.
>
>> The coffers of our government will be overflowing with money. Our health
>> care system will be fixed overnight.
>
> Wishful thinking. "Harm reduction" models the world over don't produce
> those results.

Example?

> Would you care to reason how this would happen?

Simple, produce pot and sell it, reap the profits, save the money currently
spent on enforcement and put a fraction back into treatment and education.

"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.

> 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.

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.


[..]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote>
>> > I apologized to Dutch already for the misattribution.
>>
>> Now apologize for your willful stupidity.
>
> The diversions continue....

Come now, apologize.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> [..]
> >>
> >> >> > We disagree. The website you asked me to read supports legalization
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > pot.
> >> >>
> >> >> It also points out several dangerous myths about pot. It presents a
> >> >> balanced
> >> >> picture, despite it's apparent underlying bias. Try and find some
> >> >> vegan
> >> >> website half that objective.
> >> >
> >> > Please explain your position more clearly. I certainly recall you
> >> > stating you supported the decriminalization of pot.
> >>
> >> No, legalization.
> >
> > Nothing can be "legalized". Criminal acts can be decriminalized. The law
> > doesn't denote what is legal, but does indicate what is illegal.
>
> You are mistaken, the term decriminalization refers to half-measures like
> not pursuing users while leaving production and trafficking illegal.
> http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/sec...dDecriminaliza
> tion.asp

Cut and paste -- again.

I asked and you don't seem to have responded. Please give an example of
a law that "legalizes" a product or action?

> >> > Do you think pot is harmful? The evidence thus far would seem to
> >> > indicate that you do.
>
> >> Potentially.
> >
> > That was a logical question, a True or False is acceptable.
>
> You demand a yes or no answer when both are inferior responses?

I'll rephrase: is pot use absolustely harmful or a bit harmful?

> > Your response of potentially discredits your earlier statement as to the
> > harm.
>
> Not at all.

Of course, it does. Your presentation was that pot use was harmful save
for a fun high. Your entire presentation relied on an argument that the
substance was negative and harmful. Then, you revised your position to
one of potential harm. I ask you to clarify, as a question of logic and
a true or false answer...is pot harmful, or is pot not harmful, or is
pot a bit harmful?

> > In each case, you avoided using the term "potentially". Further,
> > stating drugs are potentially harmful is like saying that are "a bit
> > wrong".
>
> Not at all, lots of activities are potentially dangerous or harmful if not
> done with care, caution and/or moderation, like driving a car, or
> jaywalking.

So then, we can say that pot use is not absolutely harmful. We can say
that pot us is only a bit harmful.

> >> > Do you think pot is wrong?
> >>
> >> Pot can't be wrong, that's a moral value.
> >
> > Correction: do you think that pot use is wrong or right?
>
> Nope.

Is the use of pot a good thing, or the right thing to do?

> >> >Given your attempt to influence the vegan and
> >> > help her, I would say yes.
> >>
> >> It's potentially harmful.
> >
> > Why the change. You have consistently commented that there is harm. I
> > questioned you on "worst case scenarios". Now, you have modified your
> > position from harmful to potentially harmful.
>
> The facts about drugs use and smoking are as plain as can be, why are you
> having such difficulty grasping them?

I've offered several times to review any study publicly that you would
care to use to support such a contention, you have avoided/declined.
Parotting was is common and popular doesn't make it right or accurate,
it only makes it common and popular.

I'd be happy to revier the SEER statistics with you publicly which does
show some discrepancies about smoking and cancer rates.

> >> > Given the evidence seems to be that you think pot harmful and wrong,
> >> > how
> >> > can you take the position of decriminalizing the drug?
> >>
> >> Criminalization makes the problem worse.
> >
> > Please make your case.
>
> Long story, see "War on Drugs" see "Overloaded Prisons" see tax dollars down
> the drain, see kids with criminal records, see no resources for education,
> and I still think you're trolling.

Are you incapable of making the case on your own?

> >> >> 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.
> >> >>
> >> >> Legalization won't make pot more harmful.
> >> >
> >> > It won't make it less harmful either.
> >>
> >> Yes it will.
> >
> > Please make your case.
>
> See above.
>
> >> > Why are you wanting harmful products on the open market place for
> >> > individuals when your position is that it can and does lead to social
> >> > and individual problems?
> >>
> >> It's already on the open marketplace.
> >
> > It is an illegal product. It is in the underground marketplace. It is
> > rare to find pot as a legal substance. In those instances, it qualifies
> > as a controlled substance.
>
> It's easily available to anyone who wants it.

I didn't find it in any open market place. It is available through the
"black market" or "underground" economy. However, if we use your
reasoning, a nuke is available to anyone who wants it.

> >> >> > 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.
> >> >>
> >> >> I didn't condone it, it's currently illegal. I actually suggested that
> >> >> she
> >> >> quit.
> >> >
> >> > Stating that it should be decriminalized is just that. My request was
> >> > that it be taxed. Decriminalizing pot is condoning it.
> >>
> >> I don't want to decriminalize it, and one cannot condone a plant.
> >
> > Can you indicate a law that "legalizes" something versus a law that
> > decriminalizes a thing?
>
> I see your logic, but you're wrong. Legalizing means removing from the
> criminal code.

This is a common social fallacy. It is not, for example, illegal to use
the word "theif", however, the use of such a word could lead to libel
and slander charges or lawsuit. Clearly, the use of the word is "legaL"
which still leaves it free to be used in a civil lawsuit.

> >> > By example, if we decriminalize murder, are we condoning murder?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >
> > So then, legalizing/decriminalizing pot is condoning it. You are
> > condoning pot by seeking legalization. Yet, you state it as harmful.
>
> Potentially, yes, if one does not heed the advice of people like me.

So, if one heeds your advice and does become an addict you are then
responsible. If one heeds your advice for responsible pot use and dies
as a result of their usage or attends a trauma centre, you are now
complicit.

> >> >> > You attempt to "mitigate" your
> >> >> > responsibility by lecturing her on the "responsible" use of the
> >> >> > drug.
> >> >>
> >> >> My lecture preceded my statement that I support legalization. But you
> >> >> used
> >> >> the word right there.
> >> >
> >> > How odd that you would claim something so deliterious to human
> >> > well-being at the individual and social level and then take the
> >> > position
> >> > that you want it to be legal.
> >>
> >> Pot isn't that harmful if used responsibly.

It's only a bit harmful. It's isn't that bad. It isn't that wrong. Hmmmm.

> > Ya, like saying it's a bit wrong. It's only a bit harmful if you use as
> > you would like people to use.
>
> Basically, yes, once in a while, at a party or concert, not constantly after
> work and on weekends.

I see. We only need to convince people to be responsible. Only to kill,
rape, rob, use heroin or crack periodically.

> >> > What's that about, Dutch?
> >> >
> >> > In your opinion, Dutch, is the legalization of pot going to have no
> >> > effect on the use of the drug, see a decline, or see an increase in
> >> > use?
> >>
> >> I would expect an initial increase of the number of users but a decrease
> >> in
> >> the amount of abuse due to the vast amount of money that will be
> >> available
> >> for treatment and education.
> >
> > Please explain.
>
> No, troll.

Can you provide an example where an act or product was
decriminalized/legalized and the government/society experienced such a
winfall?

Canada and the US experienced "dry"ness over prohibition of alcohol.
Legal restrictions were lifted and the product even taxed. No such
winfal wiping out health or other costs were realized.

> > There is nothing in your position thus far that indicates that "abuse"
> > would drop off in any way, shape or form.
> >
> >> The coffers of our government will be overflowing with money. Our health
> >> care system will be fixed overnight.
> >
> > Wishful thinking. "Harm reduction" models the world over don't produce
> > those results.
>
> Example?

Amsterdam. Large metropolitan centres like Vancouver and Toronto. Harm
reduction programs do not provide the winfall that is believed to occur.
Public health departments operate such programs throughout North America
without such winfalls. How much for example has Toronto or vancouver
gained financially from their needle exchange, safe sex and crack kit
distribution programs? How much "new" money has Amsterdam realized for
the accessibilty of pot?

> > Would you care to reason how this would happen?
>
> Simple, produce pot and sell it, reap the profits, save the money currently
> spent on enforcement and put a fraction back into treatment and education.

Enforcement? Let's look at history. How many police were retired and let
go through attrition when prohibition ended in the US? Clearly, with the
legalization of alcohol there was no need for local, state or national
authorities to provide police services. What of the court and prison
systems? What were the number of layoffs because there were "fewer"
criminals to prosecute and incarcerate?

Law enforcement costs? What are the total number of arrests in any city
with pot use charges. There are so few arrests for possession of pot
now, that the city of Toronto might be able to terminate one officer,
but that's about it.

For a would be dealer though, this is quite another situation. If a
cigarette manufacter can be held civilly liable then, so to should the
grower/dealer.

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.

> > 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.

Where you consider me being Devil's Advocate, I consider you blindly
introjecting what is spoonfed.

"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.

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.

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

"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.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.

Astonish me then. Which point from the website that you asked me to read
should we review, publicly. Do you need to check with the clique before
you can respond?

You seemed to view it as credible and reputable, when you asked me more
than once to read it.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "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.
>
> Astonish me then.

You are unavailable for processing incoming information, except to knee-jerk
reject it.

> Which point from the website that you asked me to read
> should we review, publicly. Do you need to check with the clique before
> you can respond?

How about this part..

Myth: No one has ever died from using marijuana
The Kaiser study also found that daily pot users have a 30% higher risk of
injuries, presumably from accidents. These figures are significant, though
not as high as comparable risks for heavy drinkers or tobacco addicts. That
pot can cause accidents is scarcely surprising, since marijuana has been
shown to degrade short-term memory, concentration, judgment, and
coordination at complex tasks including driving.(1) There have been numerous
reports of pot-related accidents --- some of them fatal, belying the
attractive myth that no one has ever died from marijuana. One survey of 1023
emergency room trauma patients in Baltimore found that fully 34.7% were
under the influence of marijuana, more even than alcohol (33.5%); half of
these (16.5%) used both pot and alcohol in combination.(2) This is perhaps
the most troublesome research ever reported about marijuana; as we shall
see, other accident studies have generally found pot to be less dangerous
than alcohol. Nonetheless, it is important to be informed on all sides of
the issue. Pot smokers should be aware that accidents are the number one
hazard of moderate pot use. In addition, of course, the psychoactive effects
of cannabis can have many other adverse effects on performance, school work,
and productivity.

> You seemed to view it as credible and reputable, when you asked me more
> than once to read it.

Well? What is your complaint with the above paragraph? Surely it made that
knee jerk.

Do you advocate legal pot?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "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.
> >
> > Astonish me then.
>
> You are unavailable for processing incoming information, except to knee-jerk
> reject it.
>
> > Which point from the website that you asked me to read
> > should we review, publicly. Do you need to check with the clique before
> > you can respond?
>
> How about this part..
>
> Myth: No one has ever died from using marijuana
> The Kaiser study also found that daily pot users have a 30% higher risk of
> injuries, presumably from accidents. These figures are significant, though
> not as high as comparable risks for heavy drinkers or tobacco addicts. That
> pot can cause accidents is scarcely surprising, since marijuana has been
> shown to degrade short-term memory, concentration, judgment, and
> coordination at complex tasks including driving.(1) There have been numerous
> reports of pot-related accidents --- some of them fatal, belying the
> attractive myth that no one has ever died from marijuana. One survey of 1023
> emergency room trauma patients in Baltimore found that fully 34.7% were
> under the influence of marijuana, more even than alcohol (33.5%); half of
> these (16.5%) used both pot and alcohol in combination.(2) This is perhaps
> the most troublesome research ever reported about marijuana; as we shall
> see, other accident studies have generally found pot to be less dangerous
> than alcohol. Nonetheless, it is important to be informed on all sides of
> the issue. Pot smokers should be aware that accidents are the number one
> hazard of moderate pot use. In addition, of course, the psychoactive effects
> of cannabis can have many other adverse effects on performance, school work,
> and productivity.

Are you prepared to defend this study? Cut and paste is not a substitute
for clear thinking.

"Ron" > wrote

>> > Which point from the website that you asked me to read
>> > should we review, publicly. Do you need to check with the clique before
>> > you can respond?
>>
>> How about this part..
>>
>> Myth: No one has ever died from using marijuana
>> The Kaiser study also found that daily pot users have a 30% higher risk
>> of
>> injuries, presumably from accidents. These figures are significant,
>> though
>> not as high as comparable risks for heavy drinkers or tobacco addicts.
>> That
>> pot can cause accidents is scarcely surprising, since marijuana has been
>> shown to degrade short-term memory, concentration, judgment, and
>> coordination at complex tasks including driving.(1) There have been
>> numerous
>> reports of pot-related accidents --- some of them fatal, belying the
>> attractive myth that no one has ever died from marijuana. One survey of
>> 1023
>> emergency room trauma patients in Baltimore found that fully 34.7% were
>> under the influence of marijuana, more even than alcohol (33.5%); half of
>> these (16.5%) used both pot and alcohol in combination.(2) This is
>> perhaps
>> the most troublesome research ever reported about marijuana; as we shall
>> see, other accident studies have generally found pot to be less dangerous
>> than alcohol. Nonetheless, it is important to be informed on all sides of
>> the issue. Pot smokers should be aware that accidents are the number one
>> hazard of moderate pot use. In addition, of course, the psychoactive
>> effects
>> of cannabis can have many other adverse effects on performance, school
>> work,
>> and productivity.
>
> Are you prepared to defend this study? Cut and paste is not a substitute
> for clear thinking.

I'm waiting...

"Ron" > wrote

>> > Which point from the website that you asked me to read
>> > should we review, publicly. Do you need to check with the clique before
>> > you can respond?
>>
>> How about this part..
>>
>> Myth: No one has ever died from using marijuana
>> The Kaiser study also found that daily pot users have a 30% higher risk
>> of
>> injuries, presumably from accidents. These figures are significant,
>> though
>> not as high as comparable risks for heavy drinkers or tobacco addicts.
>> That
>> pot can cause accidents is scarcely surprising, since marijuana has been
>> shown to degrade short-term memory, concentration, judgment, and
>> coordination at complex tasks including driving.(1) There have been
>> numerous
>> reports of pot-related accidents --- some of them fatal, belying the
>> attractive myth that no one has ever died from marijuana. One survey of
>> 1023
>> emergency room trauma patients in Baltimore found that fully 34.7% were
>> under the influence of marijuana, more even than alcohol (33.5%); half of
>> these (16.5%) used both pot and alcohol in combination.(2) This is
>> perhaps
>> the most troublesome research ever reported about marijuana; as we shall
>> see, other accident studies have generally found pot to be less dangerous
>> than alcohol. Nonetheless, it is important to be informed on all sides of
>> the issue. Pot smokers should be aware that accidents are the number one
>> hazard of moderate pot use. In addition, of course, the psychoactive
>> effects
>> of cannabis can have many other adverse effects on performance, school
>> work,
>> and productivity.
>
> Are you prepared to defend this study? Cut and paste is not a substitute
> for clear thinking.

I'm waiting...

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> >> > Which point from the website that you asked me to read
> >> > should we review, publicly. Do you need to check with the clique before
> >> > you can respond?
> >>
> >> How about this part..
> >>
> >> Myth: No one has ever died from using marijuana
> >> The Kaiser study also found that daily pot users have a 30% higher risk
> >> of
> >> injuries, presumably from accidents. These figures are significant,
> >> though
> >> not as high as comparable risks for heavy drinkers or tobacco addicts.
> >> That
> >> pot can cause accidents is scarcely surprising, since marijuana has been
> >> shown to degrade short-term memory, concentration, judgment, and
> >> coordination at complex tasks including driving.(1) There have been
> >> numerous
> >> reports of pot-related accidents --- some of them fatal, belying the
> >> attractive myth that no one has ever died from marijuana. One survey of
> >> 1023
> >> emergency room trauma patients in Baltimore found that fully 34.7% were
> >> under the influence of marijuana, more even than alcohol (33.5%); half of
> >> these (16.5%) used both pot and alcohol in combination.(2) This is
> >> perhaps
> >> the most troublesome research ever reported about marijuana; as we shall
> >> see, other accident studies have generally found pot to be less dangerous
> >> than alcohol. Nonetheless, it is important to be informed on all sides of
> >> the issue. Pot smokers should be aware that accidents are the number one
> >> hazard of moderate pot use. In addition, of course, the psychoactive
> >> effects
> >> of cannabis can have many other adverse effects on performance, school
> >> work,
> >> and productivity.
> >
> > Are you prepared to defend this study? Cut and paste is not a substitute
> > for clear thinking.
>
> I'm waiting...

Provide the study. I'm assuming you've read it in its entirety before
quickly jumping to the conclusion that is unbiased or accurate. What was
your impression of the methodology?

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> >> > Which point from the website that you asked me to read
>> >> > should we review, publicly. Do you need to check with the clique
>> >> > before
>> >> > you can respond?
>> >>
>> >> How about this part..
>> >>
>> >> Myth: No one has ever died from using marijuana
>> >> The Kaiser study also found that daily pot users have a 30% higher
>> >> risk
>> >> of
>> >> injuries, presumably from accidents. These figures are significant,
>> >> though
>> >> not as high as comparable risks for heavy drinkers or tobacco addicts.
>> >> That
>> >> pot can cause accidents is scarcely surprising, since marijuana has
>> >> been
>> >> shown to degrade short-term memory, concentration, judgment, and
>> >> coordination at complex tasks including driving.(1) There have been
>> >> numerous
>> >> reports of pot-related accidents --- some of them fatal, belying the
>> >> attractive myth that no one has ever died from marijuana. One survey
>> >> of
>> >> 1023
>> >> emergency room trauma patients in Baltimore found that fully 34.7%
>> >> were
>> >> under the influence of marijuana, more even than alcohol (33.5%); half
>> >> of
>> >> these (16.5%) used both pot and alcohol in combination.(2) This is
>> >> perhaps
>> >> the most troublesome research ever reported about marijuana; as we
>> >> shall
>> >> see, other accident studies have generally found pot to be less
>> >> dangerous
>> >> than alcohol. Nonetheless, it is important to be informed on all sides
>> >> of
>> >> the issue. Pot smokers should be aware that accidents are the number
>> >> one
>> >> hazard of moderate pot use. In addition, of course, the psychoactive
>> >> effects
>> >> of cannabis can have many other adverse effects on performance, school
>> >> work,
>> >> and productivity.
>> >
>> > Are you prepared to defend this study? Cut and paste is not a
>> > substitute
>> > for clear thinking.
>>
>> I'm waiting...
>
> Provide the study. I'm assuming you've read it in its entirety before
> quickly jumping to the conclusion that is unbiased or accurate. What was
> your impression of the methodology?

I didn't read either study. I looked at the conclusions and they confirm
everything I know about pot based on nearly forty years of exposure to it. I
know for a fact that pot contributes to automobile accidents, I know for a
fact that it affects memory, concentration, judgment, and coordination. It
is also not insignificant that this paragraph is on a website advocating
legalization, which alleviates the probablity of negative bias. The
statements conclude that care and caution are important when using pot,
rather than blithely belieiving it is harmless. Undeniable. I don't care how
about the numbers and how they arrived at them, I assume since the studies
were published that they are probably relatively reliable. Now if you are
convinced that these studies and conclusions, against all reason, are
misguided or wrong, then what are the errors in the studies and what are the
correct conclusions? Stop with the disinformation and start looking for the
truth.

Jay Santos wrote:
> "If the spices I needed were available locally I would
> [consume only locally grown produce]."
>
> - Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
>
>
> The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
> cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
> argument.
>
> All "vegans" begin by following a logical fallacy in
> order to arrive at the totality of "veganism": the
> rule, Do Not Consume Animal Parts. The fallacy is this:
>
> If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering
> and death of animals.
>
> I do not consume animal parts;
>
> therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death
> of animals.
>
> This argument embodies a classic fallacy, Denying the
> Antecedent. A person can cause suffering and death of
> animals by means other than consuming things made from
> animal parts. The most important way in which this
> occurs that is relevant to "vegans" is collateral
> animal deaths in agriculture (CDs). The cultivation,
> harvest, storage and distrbution of many grain crops in
> particular causes suffering and death to animals on a
> massive scale. None of the animal slaughter is
> "necessary", but it is inevitable given current methods
> of farming. "vegans" buy vegetables and fruits without
> any consideration whatever about how many animals were
> killed in the course of their production.
>
> When and if they learn about CDs, "vegans" are forced
> to acknowledge that they do not live a "cruelty free"
> life, merely by following the "vegan" rule of "do not
> consume animal parts." The usual course of retreat is
> to make an intermediate stop at the false claim, "I am
> doing the best I can to reduce animal death." This is
> quickly seen to be a false claim: different vegetable
> crops cause different numbers of CDs. The production
> of rice, for example, is exceptionally lethal to
> animals, far more so than other starchy grains. To the
> extent the "vegan" eats rice rather than other, less
> lethal grains, she is not "doing the best she can" not
> to cause animal death.
>
> Once "vegans" see that their intermediate position is
> untenable, they make a second retreat to the weakest
> position of all, the one that reveals "veganism" to be
> utterly specious as an ethical choice: "At least I'm
> doing better than you omnivores." This claim ALSO is
> false, as one can easily show that a meat-including
> diet can cause fewer deaths than virtually any "vegan"
> diet. However, there is no further room for retreat,
> so "vegans" simply close their eyes to the obvious, and
> either stick with the "I'm doing better than you"
> position, which illustrates the utter moral bankruptcy
> of "veganism", or attempt to claw their way back to
> their intermediate claim of "doing the best I can."
>
> This position - "doing the best I can" - is the one
> Skanky Carpetmuncher is currently trying vainly to
> defend, even though she has already abandoned it to
> make her second retreat. The quote at the top is her
> reply to someone who asked her why she doesn't buy only
> locally produced foods and spices (the implication
> being that local production somehow necessarily causes
> fewer deaths than distant production.) Her answer
> implicitly *accepts* that locally produced means fewer
> deaths than remotely produced, but we see that she
> makes the reduction of animal deaths subordinate to her
> aesthetic desire for more flavorful food. She doesn't
> NEED spices at all; she merely wants them. How can a
> supposedly absolute ethical value - "it is wrong to
> kill animals" - take a back seat to her aesthetic wish
> for flavor variety, and still be called a valid ethics?
>
> It can't.
>
> In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
> out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
> is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
> in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
> she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
> death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
> believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
> revealing:
>
> You can't accept that I find an improvement good
> enough.
> You want me to strive for a veganic perfection that
> only
> you [expletive] seems to see. I do MY best which
> is good
> enough for me to be content.
>
> There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
> as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
> SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
> best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
> doing better than you, which is good enough for me."
>
> In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
> "veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
> they don't really believe their absolute claim that
> killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
> effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
> see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.

You are putting forth a very contrived logical position.

It's possible that every time I drive north in the night, the
light from my headlights ultimately ends up proving
fatal to certain life-forms on an alien planet.

That does not make me a killer. Even if more
of these life-forms die than an axe-wielding
murderer kills, still the axe-wielding murderer
is a killer, and I am not. If you don't see the
logic of that, you have no fundamental concept
of justice. I doubt that, though -- I think you
do have the necessary fundamental concepts, you
simply choose to hide them from yourself.

There is no "logic" in your position, it's merely
an extremely convoluted self-justification. Moreover,
it's clear that your position is deriving from your
desire to eat meat and reconcile yourself with
the guilt you feel about it. Your position is
not deriving from pure unbiased thought/logic.
Pretending strenuously is not going to make
it so. Sorry.

John Deere wrote:

> Jay Santos wrote:
>
>>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
>>[consume only locally grown produce]."
>>
>>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
>>
>>
>>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
>>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
>>argument.
>>
>>All "vegans" begin by following a logical fallacy in
>>order to arrive at the totality of "veganism": the
>>rule, Do Not Consume Animal Parts. The fallacy is this:
>>
>> If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering
>>and death of animals.
>>
>> I do not consume animal parts;
>>
>> therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death
>>of animals.
>>
>>This argument embodies a classic fallacy, Denying the
>>Antecedent. A person can cause suffering and death of
>>animals by means other than consuming things made from
>>animal parts. The most important way in which this
>>occurs that is relevant to "vegans" is collateral
>>animal deaths in agriculture (CDs). The cultivation,
>>harvest, storage and distrbution of many grain crops in
>>particular causes suffering and death to animals on a
>>massive scale. None of the animal slaughter is
>>"necessary", but it is inevitable given current methods
>>of farming. "vegans" buy vegetables and fruits without
>>any consideration whatever about how many animals were
>>killed in the course of their production.
>>
>>When and if they learn about CDs, "vegans" are forced
>>to acknowledge that they do not live a "cruelty free"
>>life, merely by following the "vegan" rule of "do not
>>consume animal parts." The usual course of retreat is
>>to make an intermediate stop at the false claim, "I am
>>doing the best I can to reduce animal death." This is
>>quickly seen to be a false claim: different vegetable
>>crops cause different numbers of CDs. The production
>>of rice, for example, is exceptionally lethal to
>>animals, far more so than other starchy grains. To the
>>extent the "vegan" eats rice rather than other, less
>>lethal grains, she is not "doing the best she can" not
>>to cause animal death.
>>
>>Once "vegans" see that their intermediate position is
>>untenable, they make a second retreat to the weakest
>>position of all, the one that reveals "veganism" to be
>>utterly specious as an ethical choice: "At least I'm
>>doing better than you omnivores." This claim ALSO is
>>false, as one can easily show that a meat-including
>>diet can cause fewer deaths than virtually any "vegan"
>>diet. However, there is no further room for retreat,
>>so "vegans" simply close their eyes to the obvious, and
>>either stick with the "I'm doing better than you"
>>position, which illustrates the utter moral bankruptcy
>>of "veganism", or attempt to claw their way back to
>>their intermediate claim of "doing the best I can."
>>
>>This position - "doing the best I can" - is the one
>>Skanky Carpetmuncher is currently trying vainly to
>>defend, even though she has already abandoned it to
>>make her second retreat. The quote at the top is her
>>reply to someone who asked her why she doesn't buy only
>>locally produced foods and spices (the implication
>>being that local production somehow necessarily causes
>>fewer deaths than distant production.) Her answer
>>implicitly *accepts* that locally produced means fewer
>>deaths than remotely produced, but we see that she
>>makes the reduction of animal deaths subordinate to her
>>aesthetic desire for more flavorful food. She doesn't
>>NEED spices at all; she merely wants them. How can a
>>supposedly absolute ethical value - "it is wrong to
>>kill animals" - take a back seat to her aesthetic wish
>>for flavor variety, and still be called a valid ethics?
>>
>>It can't.
>>
>>In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
>>out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
>>is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
>>in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
>>she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
>>death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
>>believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
>>revealing:
>>
>> You can't accept that I find an improvement good
>>enough.
>> You want me to strive for a veganic perfection that
>>only
>> you [expletive] seems to see. I do MY best which
>>is good
>> enough for me to be content.
>>
>>There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
>>as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
>>SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
>>best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
>>doing better than you, which is good enough for me."
>>
>>In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
>>"veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
>>they don't really believe their absolute claim that
>>killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
>>effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
>>see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.
>
>
> You are putting forth a very contrived logical position.

No, it isn't. It's a very well reasoned position, one
that is essentially accepted even by most "vegans".

> >>This position - "doing the best I can" - is the one
> >>Skanky Carpetmuncher is currently trying vainly to
> >>defend, even though she has already abandoned it to
> >>make her second retreat. The quote at the top is her
> >>reply to someone who asked her why she doesn't buy only
> >>locally produced foods and spices (the implication
> >>being that local production somehow necessarily causes
> >>fewer deaths than distant production.) Her answer
> >>implicitly *accepts* that locally produced means fewer
> >>deaths than remotely produced, but we see that she
> >>makes the reduction of animal deaths subordinate to her
> >>aesthetic desire for more flavorful food. She doesn't
> >>NEED spices at all; she merely wants them. How can a
> >>supposedly absolute ethical value - "it is wrong to
> >>kill animals" - take a back seat to her aesthetic wish
> >>for flavor variety, and still be called a valid ethics?

I have no way of knowing what farmers do what. I'm not
responsible for any deaths personally. You are trying
to put an 'absoluteness' on the whole thing, when in
fact you know full well that I am content with the death
reductions I have made (knowing that it's currently
impossible to do better). You say I'm not allowed to
feel content, something you have no say in. I am
doing the best I can and I'm happy with that. I have
seen no indications that foreign grown foods cause
more deaths than local ones, by the way.

> >>In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
> >>out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
> >>is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
> >>in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
> >>she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
> >>death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
> >>believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
> >>revealing:

You're the one putting absolute in there. I do indeed
believe that killing animals is wrong and I find some
farmers like Lundbergs commendable for reducing
accidental deaths. As for other commercial foods,
I'm content know there's less deaths from vegan foods
than in the meat and dairy industry as a whole due to
cds in crop/feed growing.

> >>There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
> >>as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
> >>SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
> >>best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
> >>doing better than you, which is good enough for me."

You're putting words in my mouth. Maybe this is the
root of why you're so antivegan. You think they all
hate you personally. I never said "I think I'm better
than you", admit it. This is again one of your implied
things, isn't it.

> >>In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
> >>"veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
> >>they don't really believe their absolute claim that
> >>killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
> >>effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
> >>see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.

Stop forcing the word absolute into the above and
into your expectations of vegans.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>This position - "doing the best I can" - is the one
>>>>Skanky Carpetmuncher is currently trying vainly to
>>>>defend, even though she has already abandoned it to
>>>>make her second retreat. The quote at the top is her
>>>>reply to someone who asked her why she doesn't buy only
>>>>locally produced foods and spices (the implication
>>>>being that local production somehow necessarily causes
>>>>fewer deaths than distant production.) Her answer
>>>>implicitly *accepts* that locally produced means fewer
>>>>deaths than remotely produced, but we see that she
>>>>makes the reduction of animal deaths subordinate to her
>>>>aesthetic desire for more flavorful food. She doesn't
>>>>NEED spices at all; she merely wants them. How can a
>>>>supposedly absolute ethical value - "it is wrong to
>>>>kill animals" - take a back seat to her aesthetic wish
>>>>for flavor variety, and still be called a valid ethics?
>
>
> I have no way of knowing what farmers do what.

That's false. NOW, you know exactly what they do:
they chop little animals to bits in the course of
producing food for you. Previously, you didn't know,
but now you do know. It is your knowledge of what
happens that implicates you.

> I'm not
> responsible for any deaths personally.

You are responsible for the deaths of the animals
chopped up in the field in order to feed you in exactly
the same way a meat eater is responsible for the deaths
of animals he eats.

> You are trying
> to put an 'absoluteness' on the whole thing

It is just there, based on YOUR belief in the absolute
wrongness of killing animals.

> when in
> fact you know full well that I am content with the death
> reductions I have made (knowing that it's currently
> impossible to do better).

You have no reason to be content, and it IS possible
for you to do better. It is EASILY possible for you to
do better, but you never cared in the first place. You
are content solely with doing the easiest, most emptily
symbolic act you can find.

> You say I'm not allowed to
> feel content, something you have no say in.

I do have say. You are not entitled to your feeling of
contentment. You haven't done anything morally
significant.

> I am doing the best I can

You are NOT doing the best you can. Stop lying.


>
>>>>In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
>>>>out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
>>>>is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
>>>>in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
>>>>she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
>>>>death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
>>>>believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
>>>>revealing:
>
>
> You're the one putting absolute in there.

No, it is just there.

> I do indeed
> believe that killing animals is wrong

Then you have no reason for feeling "content", because
you are STILL causing the death of animals with your
consumption patterns.

>
>
>>>>There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
>>>>as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
>>>>SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
>>>>best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
>>>>doing better than you, which is good enough for me."
>
>
> You're putting words in my mouth.

No. That is the essence of what you're saying.

>
>
>>>>In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
>>>>"veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
>>>>they don't really believe their absolute claim that
>>>>killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
>>>>effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
>>>>see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.
>
>
> Stop forcing the word absolute into the above

I'm not. It's just there, whether you like it or not.

> > I have no way of knowing what farmers do what.
>
> That's false. NOW, you know exactly what they do:
> they chop little animals to bits in the course of
> producing food for you. Previously, you didn't know,
> but now you do know. It is your knowledge of what
> happens that implicates you.

Let me rephrase that. I have no way of knowing
WHICH farmers do what. Short of starving
myself, eating vegan provides the least
accidental deaths. We all know how that
works, I'm not repeating it over again.

> > I'm not
> > responsible for any deaths personally.
>
> You are responsible for the deaths of the animals
> chopped up in the field in order to feed you in exactly
> the same way a meat eater is responsible for the deaths
> of animals he eats.

My responsibility stops where I no longer have
control. In my case, that's most of what I eat,
excepting of course that I prefer Lundberg
both for lessening deaths on their farms, and
for just being the best quality brown rice.

> > You are trying
> > to put an 'absoluteness' on the whole thing
>
> It is just there, based on YOUR belief in the absolute
> wrongness of killing animals.

It's wrong, but I accept that some of it I can't control.
I'm not a superhero. Do you really think the word
absolute fits in this case? I mean considering that
you insist vegans should abstain absolutely from
all food grown by bad farmers.

> > when in
> > fact you know full well that I am content with the death
> > reductions I have made (knowing that it's currently
> > impossible to do better).
>
> You have no reason to be content, and it IS possible
> for you to do better. It is EASILY possible for you to
> do better, but you never cared in the first place. You
> are content solely with doing the easiest, most emptily
> symbolic act you can find.

Your way of doing it better is to eat wild meat, a
resource that would go extinct pretty fast if all
meat eaters switched to it. I could counter that
wild meat with wild tubers and berries etc. That's
0 deaths compared to your 1 (minimum) death.

Of course I will not eat meat. That's not a
valid thing to offer a vegetarian. You do
realize that, don't you?

> > You say I'm not allowed to
> > feel content, something you have no say in.
>
> I do have say. You are not entitled to your feeling of
> contentment. You haven't done anything morally
> significant.

I can feel content and you can't stop me. I don't
have to prove any moral points to you in order
to do so. You don't have say. Do you think I
have any say in YOUR contentment level?

> > I am doing the best I can
>
> You are NOT doing the best you can. Stop lying.

Yes I am. I know my abilities and limits. You don't.

> >>>>In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
> >>>>out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
> >>>>is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
> >>>>in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
> >>>>she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
> >>>>death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
> >>>>believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
> >>>>revealing:
> >
> >
> > You're the one putting absolute in there.
>
> No, it is just there.

Who put it there? You, as far as I can see. Your words,
your wording.

> >>>>There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
> >>>>as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
> >>>>SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
> >>>>best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
> >>>>doing better than you, which is good enough for me."
> >
> >
> > You're putting words in my mouth.
>
> No. That is the essence of what you're saying.

Oh, now you're calling it 'essence'? Earlier you
called these things 'implied'. You put words
in my mouth. It's what your paranoid side sees
as vegans hating you and being the enemy.

> > Stop forcing the word absolute into the above
>
> I'm not. It's just there, whether you like it or not.

You put it there.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>I have no way of knowing what farmers do what.
>>
>>That's false. NOW, you know exactly what they do:
>>they chop little animals to bits in the course of
>>producing food for you. Previously, you didn't know,
>>but now you do know. It is your knowledge of what
>>happens that implicates you.
>
>
> Let me rephrase that.

No. It's plainly weaseling.

> I have no way of knowing
> WHICH farmers do what.

Irrelevant. You know farmers do it, and you know you
buy from farmers who do it. You aren't doing the best
you can.

> Short of starving
> myself, eating vegan provides the least
> accidental deaths.

That's no good. Killing animals is ABSOLUTELY wrong in
your view, just as broom-****ing children is
ABSOLUTELY wrong. You DO view killing animals as
absolutely wrong, and you have no valid rationale for
stopping at some allegedly reduced amount.


>>>I'm not
>>>responsible for any deaths personally.
>>
>>You are responsible for the deaths of the animals
>>chopped up in the field in order to feed you in exactly
>>the same way a meat eater is responsible for the deaths
>>of animals he eats.
>
>
> My responsibility stops where I no longer have
> control.

You have control over what you buy. You don't "need"
to buy anything from anyone.


>>>You are trying
>>>to put an 'absoluteness' on the whole thing
>>
>>It is just there, based on YOUR belief in the absolute
>>wrongness of killing animals.
>
>
> It's wrong, but I accept that some of it I can't control.

You don't have to have ANY amount of business with
those who do it.

> I'm not a superhero.

Oh, we know that.

>
>
>>>when in
>>>fact you know full well that I am content with the death
>>>reductions I have made (knowing that it's currently
>>>impossible to do better).
>>
>>You have no reason to be content, and it IS possible
>>for you to do better. It is EASILY possible for you to
>>do better, but you never cared in the first place. You
>>are content solely with doing the easiest, most emptily
>>symbolic act you can find.
>
>
> Your way of doing it better

You aren't DOING anything. You falsely conclude from
something you're NOT doing - putting meat in your mouth
- that you're somehow "doing better". You aren't.
Your position simply is morally empty.

>
>>>You say I'm not allowed to
>>>feel content, something you have no say in.
>>
>>I do have say. You are not entitled to your feeling of
>>contentment. You haven't done anything morally
>>significant.
>
>
> I can feel content and you can't stop me.

I can point out that your basis for feeling content is
meaningless, and that your contentment is unearned and
unwarranted.

>>>I am doing the best I can
>>
>>You are NOT doing the best you can. Stop lying.
>
>
> Yes I am.

No, you are NOT. You could EASILY do better.

>
>
>>>>>>In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
>>>>>>out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
>>>>>>is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
>>>>>>in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
>>>>>>she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
>>>>>>death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
>>>>>>believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
>>>>>>revealing:
>>>
>>>
>>>You're the one putting absolute in there.
>>
>>No, it is just there.
>
>
> Who put it there?

You. It's based on YOUR belief that killing animals is
absolutely wrong, just as you believe broom-****ing
children is absolutely wrong.

>
>>>>>>There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
>>>>>>as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
>>>>>>SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
>>>>>>best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
>>>>>>doing better than you, which is good enough for me."
>>>
>>>
>>>You're putting words in my mouth.
>>
>>No. That is the essence of what you're saying.
>
>
> Oh, now you're calling it 'essence'? Earlier you
> called these things 'implied'.

The essence of your belief is implied by all the things
you say.

>
>
>>>Stop forcing the word absolute into the above
>>
>>I'm not. It's just there, whether you like it or not.
>
>
> You put it there.

No, YOU put it there. You put it there, and now you
don't like the implications of what you've done.