"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> > "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Reynard" > wrote
>> >> > They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining
>> >> > from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher.
>> >>
>> >> It's not about "pushing meat", it's about reminding vegans that their
>> >> diets
>> >> are not bloodless.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, arguments such as the one that Dutch makes assumes a
>> > degree of responsibility for the actions of others that defies any
>> > logical rationalization.
>>
>> If it's illogical then why are people who hire killers sent to prison?
>
> I see. It's in the law so it must be logical. Humans craft laws. Humans
> are often times illogical. Ergo, it is possible to find instances of
> illogic in the law.
>
> Dutch, are you going to claim that the law conforms to logic?

Quit dodging and answer the question. Should we be able to hire murderers
with impunity?

>> > I admire vegans in that they do seem to be able to live up to their
>> > ethical values. Vegans are certainly better than I am. They can live
>> > their daily lives without having to kill.
>>
>> Who or what will you kill today?
>
> I don't need to kill. There are plenty of others who willingly take on
> that role for me.

Exactly, just like vegans. Thanks for illustrating my point

[..]

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >>
> >> > "Dutch" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Reynard" > wrote
> >> >> > They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining
> >> >> > from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's not about "pushing meat", it's about reminding vegans that their
> >> >> diets
> >> >> are not bloodless.
> >> >
> >> > Unfortunately, arguments such as the one that Dutch makes assumes a
> >> > degree of responsibility for the actions of others that defies any
> >> > logical rationalization.
> >>
> >> If it's illogical then why are people who hire killers sent to prison?
> >
> > I see. It's in the law so it must be logical. Humans craft laws. Humans
> > are often times illogical. Ergo, it is possible to find instances of
> > illogic in the law.
> >
> > Dutch, are you going to claim that the law conforms to logic?
>
> Quit dodging and answer the question. Should we be able to hire murderers
> with impunity?

Of course, we can and do and the answer is yes. That some idiot is
prepared to kill another on the promise of few pennies is just an excuse
for their original desire anyway.

Soldiers are hired killers. We justify their actions and so do they.
Executioners in states with death penalties are hired killers. Some
people argue doctors are killers in that abortion is killing and those
are paid acts. The US is currently invovled in war, many people are
being hired for those killings.

Now, don't dodge my question. Are you going to claim that the law is an
example of logic. I just provided several examples where the law DOES
allow for the hiring of killers.

> >> > I admire vegans in that they do seem to be able to live up to their
> >> > ethical values. Vegans are certainly better than I am. They can live
> >> > their daily lives without having to kill.
> >>
> >> Who or what will you kill today?
> >
> > I don't need to kill. There are plenty of others who willingly take on
> > that role for me.
>
> Exactly, just like vegans. Thanks for illustrating my point

Once again, you hold others (the vegan) responsible for what others (the
killers and farmers) do. I find passing responsibility is a consistent
position for the vegan hater. The vegan is certainly better than me that
they will choose to avoid harming an animal, but then I have my reasons
to see that harm to animals continue to avoid harm to others.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> > "Dutch" >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Reynard" > wrote
>> >> >> > They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining
>> >> >> > from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's not about "pushing meat", it's about reminding vegans that
>> >> >> their
>> >> >> diets
>> >> >> are not bloodless.
>> >> >
>> >> > Unfortunately, arguments such as the one that Dutch makes assumes a
>> >> > degree of responsibility for the actions of others that defies any
>> >> > logical rationalization.
>> >>
>> >> If it's illogical then why are people who hire killers sent to prison?
>> >
>> > I see. It's in the law so it must be logical. Humans craft laws. Humans
>> > are often times illogical. Ergo, it is possible to find instances of
>> > illogic in the law.
>> >
>> > Dutch, are you going to claim that the law conforms to logic?
>>
>> Quit dodging and answer the question. Should we be able to hire murderers
>> with impunity?
>
> Of course, we can and do and the answer is yes. That some idiot is
> prepared to kill another on the promise of few pennies is just an excuse
> for their original desire anyway.
>
> Soldiers are hired killers. We justify their actions and so do they.
> Executioners in states with death penalties are hired killers. Some
> people argue doctors are killers in that abortion is killing and those
> are paid acts. The US is currently invovled in war, many people are
> being hired for those killings.
>
> Now, don't dodge my question. Are you going to claim that the law is an
> example of logic. I just provided several examples where the law DOES
> allow for the hiring of killers.
>
>> >> > I admire vegans in that they do seem to be able to live up to their
>> >> > ethical values. Vegans are certainly better than I am. They can live
>> >> > their daily lives without having to kill.
>> >>
>> >> Who or what will you kill today?
>> >
>> > I don't need to kill. There are plenty of others who willingly take on
>> > that role for me.
>>
>> Exactly, just like vegans. Thanks for illustrating my point
>
> Once again, you hold others (the vegan) responsible for what others (the
> killers and farmers) do. I find passing responsibility is a consistent
> position for the vegan hater.
===========================
I find your ignorance to be far more consistant, fool. In the cases you
try to use above, you fail miserably. Why? Because those are actions we
are responsible for. We pay for them, we back them. We aren't claiming one
thing, and then doing another. That is the difference between us and
vegans. They claim that their *actions* result in either no death of animsl
or ferwer. Both are false. Vegnas have achoice of actions to take. The
ones here on usenet invariably take the selfish, easy, conveninet route.
They take actions that they *know* results in the death and suffering of
animals, despite their claim of living a life that causes none/less/fewer.
So, you can continue your troll now, knowing that your ignorance is well
known, fool.



The vegan is certainly better than me that
> they will choose to avoid harming an animal, but then I have my reasons
> to see that harm to animals continue to avoid harm to others.
==============
Ignorance on display....

In article . net>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> > "Dutch" >
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Reynard" > wrote
> >> >> >> > They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining
> >> >> >> > from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's not about "pushing meat", it's about reminding vegans that
> >> >> >> their
> >> >> >> diets
> >> >> >> are not bloodless.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Unfortunately, arguments such as the one that Dutch makes assumes a
> >> >> > degree of responsibility for the actions of others that defies any
> >> >> > logical rationalization.
> >> >>
> >> >> If it's illogical then why are people who hire killers sent to prison?
> >> >
> >> > I see. It's in the law so it must be logical. Humans craft laws. Humans
> >> > are often times illogical. Ergo, it is possible to find instances of
> >> > illogic in the law.
> >> >
> >> > Dutch, are you going to claim that the law conforms to logic?
> >>
> >> Quit dodging and answer the question. Should we be able to hire murderers
> >> with impunity?
> >
> > Of course, we can and do and the answer is yes. That some idiot is
> > prepared to kill another on the promise of few pennies is just an excuse
> > for their original desire anyway.
> >
> > Soldiers are hired killers. We justify their actions and so do they.
> > Executioners in states with death penalties are hired killers. Some
> > people argue doctors are killers in that abortion is killing and those
> > are paid acts. The US is currently invovled in war, many people are
> > being hired for those killings.
> >
> > Now, don't dodge my question. Are you going to claim that the law is an
> > example of logic. I just provided several examples where the law DOES
> > allow for the hiring of killers.
> >
> >> >> > I admire vegans in that they do seem to be able to live up to their
> >> >> > ethical values. Vegans are certainly better than I am. They can live
> >> >> > their daily lives without having to kill.
> >> >>
> >> >> Who or what will you kill today?
> >> >
> >> > I don't need to kill. There are plenty of others who willingly take on
> >> > that role for me.
> >>
> >> Exactly, just like vegans. Thanks for illustrating my point
> >
> > Once again, you hold others (the vegan) responsible for what others (the
> > killers and farmers) do. I find passing responsibility is a consistent
> > position for the vegan hater.
> ===========================
> I find your ignorance to be far more consistant, fool. In the cases you
> try to use above, you fail miserably. Why? Because those are actions we
> are responsible for. We pay for them, we back them. We aren't claiming one
> thing, and then doing another. That is the difference between us and
> vegans. They claim that their *actions* result in either no death of animsl
> or ferwer. Both are false. Vegnas have achoice of actions to take. The
> ones here on usenet invariably take the selfish, easy, conveninet route.
> They take actions that they *know* results in the death and suffering of
> animals, despite their claim of living a life that causes none/less/fewer.
> So, you can continue your troll now, knowing that your ignorance is well
> known, fool.

I'm more than a little concerned about your desire to take
responsibility for the actions of others. Feel free to blame yourself
for what bloodthirsty people do, but personally, I know that I am
responsible for my actions only. Unlike those who raise and kill animals
en masse, I have the ability to control my behaviour and my emotions --
they don't. To blame myself for their actions is just foolishness.

People who inflict pain and suffering on animals for fun, food and
profit do so because they get their rocks off doing it. I allow it to
happen to save myself and the community from that type of mental
illness. It is a choice and I also leave responsibility where it
belongs. Their violence is their problem.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:
>

snips...
>> >> Exactly, just like vegans. Thanks for illustrating my point
>> >
>> > Once again, you hold others (the vegan) responsible for what others
>> > (the
>> > killers and farmers) do. I find passing responsibility is a consistent
>> > position for the vegan hater.
>> ===========================
>> I find your ignorance to be far more consistant, fool. In the cases you
>> try to use above, you fail miserably. Why? Because those are actions we
>> are responsible for. We pay for them, we back them. We aren't claiming
>> one
>> thing, and then doing another. That is the difference between us and
>> vegans. They claim that their *actions* result in either no death of
>> animsl
>> or ferwer. Both are false. Vegnas have achoice of actions to take. The
>> ones here on usenet invariably take the selfish, easy, conveninet route.
>> They take actions that they *know* results in the death and suffering of
>> animals, despite their claim of living a life that causes
>> none/less/fewer.
>> So, you can continue your troll now, knowing that your ignorance is well
>> known, fool.
>
> I'm more than a little concerned about your desire to take
> responsibility for the actions of others. Feel free to blame yourself
> for what bloodthirsty people do, but personally, I know that I am
> responsible for my actions only.
=====================
Exactly, fool. The actions you take lead delberatly to animal death and
suffering. you could take other actions, but you don't. Your actionms lead
to those deaths, making you culpably. The difference here between you and
vegans is that you understand that your choices cause death and suffering.
They keep making claims that their choices do not.

Unlike those who raise and kill animals
> en masse, I have the ability to control my behaviour and my emotions --
> they don't. To blame myself for their actions is just foolishness.
=====================
Yes, your foolishness in clearly displayed, dolt.

>
> People who inflict pain and suffering on animals for fun, food and
> profit do so because they get their rocks off doing it.
======================
Really? Care to prove that little bit of delusional idiocy, mr freud?

I allow it to
> happen to save myself and the community from that type of mental
> illness. It is a choice and I also leave responsibility where it
> belongs. Their violence is their problem.
================
Ignorance on display. Thanks for a look at mental idiocy, pansy-boy.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:
>

snips...
>> >> Exactly, just like vegans. Thanks for illustrating my point
>> >
>> > Once again, you hold others (the vegan) responsible for what others
>> > (the
>> > killers and farmers) do. I find passing responsibility is a consistent
>> > position for the vegan hater.
>> ===========================
>> I find your ignorance to be far more consistant, fool. In the cases you
>> try to use above, you fail miserably. Why? Because those are actions we
>> are responsible for. We pay for them, we back them. We aren't claiming
>> one
>> thing, and then doing another. That is the difference between us and
>> vegans. They claim that their *actions* result in either no death of
>> animsl
>> or ferwer. Both are false. Vegnas have achoice of actions to take. The
>> ones here on usenet invariably take the selfish, easy, conveninet route.
>> They take actions that they *know* results in the death and suffering of
>> animals, despite their claim of living a life that causes
>> none/less/fewer.
>> So, you can continue your troll now, knowing that your ignorance is well
>> known, fool.
>
> I'm more than a little concerned about your desire to take
> responsibility for the actions of others. Feel free to blame yourself
> for what bloodthirsty people do, but personally, I know that I am
> responsible for my actions only.
=====================
Exactly, fool. The actions you take lead delberatly to animal death and
suffering. you could take other actions, but you don't. Your actionms lead
to those deaths, making you culpably. The difference here between you and
vegans is that you understand that your choices cause death and suffering.
They keep making claims that their choices do not.

Unlike those who raise and kill animals
> en masse, I have the ability to control my behaviour and my emotions --
> they don't. To blame myself for their actions is just foolishness.
=====================
Yes, your foolishness in clearly displayed, dolt.

>
> People who inflict pain and suffering on animals for fun, food and
> profit do so because they get their rocks off doing it.
======================
Really? Care to prove that little bit of delusional idiocy, mr freud?

I allow it to
> happen to save myself and the community from that type of mental
> illness. It is a choice and I also leave responsibility where it
> belongs. Their violence is their problem.
================
Ignorance on display. Thanks for a look at mental idiocy, pansy-boy.

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

>> Quit dodging and answer the question. Should we be able to hire murderers
>> with impunity?
>
> Of course, we can and do and the answer is yes. That some idiot is
> prepared to kill another on the promise of few pennies is just an excuse
> for their original desire anyway.

So a smart and moral thing to do in Rons' World if you get fed up with an
annoying spouse, child or in-law would be to simply hire someone to bump
them off, with impunity. Pretty scary world.

> Soldiers are hired killers. We justify their actions and so do they.
> Executioners in states with death penalties are hired killers. Some
> people argue doctors are killers in that abortion is killing and those
> are paid acts. The US is currently invovled in war, many people are
> being hired for those killings.

None of those exceptional circumstances gives us the right to have any
person killed we choose to kill.

> Now, don't dodge my question. Are you going to claim that the law is an
> example of logic.

Yes it is. If it is considered immoral to hire killers, then it is logical
to make it illegal.

> I just provided several examples where the law DOES
> allow for the hiring of killers.

Neither exceptions nor violations invalidate a moral rule. Morality is not
mathematics, it's a social construct that is used to modify behaviour.

>> >> > I admire vegans in that they do seem to be able to live up to their
>> >> > ethical values. Vegans are certainly better than I am. They can live
>> >> > their daily lives without having to kill.
>> >>
>> >> Who or what will you kill today?
>> >
>> > I don't need to kill. There are plenty of others who willingly take on
>> > that role for me.
>>
>> Exactly, just like vegans. Thanks for illustrating my point
>
> Once again, you hold others (the vegan) responsible for what others (the
> killers and farmers) do. I find passing responsibility is a consistent
> position for the vegan hater. The vegan is certainly better than me that
> they will choose to avoid harming an animal, but then I have my reasons
> to see that harm to animals continue to avoid harm to others.

According to your logic neither you nor the vegan is responsible for what
others do, and since neither of you is killing any animals, how do you
conclude that the vegan is better than you?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> [..]
>
> >> Quit dodging and answer the question. Should we be able to hire murderers
> >> with impunity?
> >
> > Of course, we can and do and the answer is yes. That some idiot is
> > prepared to kill another on the promise of few pennies is just an excuse
> > for their original desire anyway.
>
> So a smart and moral thing to do in Rons' World if you get fed up with an
> annoying spouse, child or in-law would be to simply hire someone to bump
> them off, with impunity. Pretty scary world.

Nope, just the killer goes to prison. Once again, Dutch is relying on a
very inconsistent legal system as grounds for a logical argument.

> > Soldiers are hired killers. We justify their actions and so do they.
> > Executioners in states with death penalties are hired killers. Some
> > people argue doctors are killers in that abortion is killing and those
> > are paid acts. The US is currently invovled in war, many people are
> > being hired for those killings.
>
> None of those exceptional circumstances gives us the right to have any
> person killed we choose to kill.

I can't make you do anything that you haven't made a choice to do.
Blaming others is just convenient.

> > Now, don't dodge my question. Are you going to claim that the law is an
> > example of logic.
>
> Yes it is. If it is considered immoral to hire killers, then it is logical
> to make it illegal.

I don't consider it immoral, so you are wrong. It is illegal. Anyone
idiot willing to kill for a handful of cash is foolish and ought to be
penalized for their actions. Blaming others is irrelevant to the action.

> > I just provided several examples where the law DOES
> > allow for the hiring of killers.
>
> Neither exceptions nor violations invalidate a moral rule. Morality is not
> mathematics, it's a social construct that is used to modify behaviour.

LOL. Yes, it does. Clearly, hiring killers is legal and therefore moral
in many circumstances. As we discussed, using the logically
inconsistency of law as a basis for morality or logic is just flawed.

Frankly, hire as many hit men as you see fit. The one who I choose to
see penalized is the one who pulls the trigger. They are the ones who
are responsible. But feel better in a frightening world with such laws.
A law against hiring a killer doesn't stop anyone from doing anything --
it's a feel good proposition for people who feel afraid and vulnerable.

> >> >> > I admire vegans in that they do seem to be able to live up to their
> >> >> > ethical values. Vegans are certainly better than I am. They can live
> >> >> > their daily lives without having to kill.
> >> >>
> >> >> Who or what will you kill today?
> >> >
> >> > I don't need to kill. There are plenty of others who willingly take on
> >> > that role for me.
> >>
> >> Exactly, just like vegans. Thanks for illustrating my point
> >
> > Once again, you hold others (the vegan) responsible for what others (the
> > killers and farmers) do. I find passing responsibility is a consistent
> > position for the vegan hater. The vegan is certainly better than me that
> > they will choose to avoid harming an animal, but then I have my reasons
> > to see that harm to animals continue to avoid harm to others.
>
> According to your logic neither you nor the vegan is responsible for what
> others do, and since neither of you is killing any animals, how do you
> conclude that the vegan is better than you?

The vegan isn't willing to see an animal suffer for a human to live. I
am. I'd say they are quite right to take the "moral high ground". On
further reflection, I am similar to the vegan, we just have different
approaches to resolving the same problem of human aggression and
violence.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>> [..]
>>
>> >> Quit dodging and answer the question. Should we be able to hire
>> >> murderers
>> >> with impunity?
>> >
>> > Of course, we can and do and the answer is yes. That some idiot is
>> > prepared to kill another on the promise of few pennies is just an
>> > excuse
>> > for their original desire anyway.
>>
>> So a smart and moral thing to do in Rons' World if you get fed up with an
>> annoying spouse, child or in-law would be to simply hire someone to bump
>> them off, with impunity. Pretty scary world.
>
> Nope, just the killer goes to prison. Once again, Dutch is relying on a
> very inconsistent legal system as grounds for a logical argument.

That's not logical, hiring someone to commit murder is just as bad as
actually comitting murder. Both acts contribute to an unjust death. The
killer would not do it without a motive, the one doing the hiring provides
that.

>> > Soldiers are hired killers. We justify their actions and so do they.
>> > Executioners in states with death penalties are hired killers. Some
>> > people argue doctors are killers in that abortion is killing and those
>> > are paid acts. The US is currently invovled in war, many people are
>> > being hired for those killings.
>>
>> None of those exceptional circumstances gives us the right to have any
>> person killed we choose to kill.
>
> I can't make you do anything that you haven't made a choice to do.
> Blaming others is just convenient.

It doesn't matter that you can't "make" me do it, it only matters that you
attempt to coerce me to do it and believe that I will carry it out.

>> > Now, don't dodge my question. Are you going to claim that the law is
an
>> > example of logic.
>>
>> Yes it is. If it is considered immoral to hire killers, then it is
>> logical
>> to make it illegal.
>
> I don't consider it immoral, so you are wrong. It is illegal. Anyone
> idiot willing to kill for a handful of cash is foolish and ought to be
> penalized for their actions. Blaming others is irrelevant to the action.

Those who hire murderers deserve to be blamed for doing so.

>> > I just provided several examples where the law DOES
>> > allow for the hiring of killers.
>>
>> Neither exceptions nor violations invalidate a moral rule. Morality is
>> not
>> mathematics, it's a social construct that is used to modify behaviour.
>
> LOL. Yes, it does. Clearly, hiring killers is legal and therefore moral
> in many circumstances. As we discussed, using the logically
> inconsistency of law as a basis for morality or logic is just flawed.

It's not logically inconsistent, morality is always situational. Murder is
defined as an "unlawful" killing. Killing an enemy soldier in battle is not
unlawful.

> Frankly, hire as many hit men as you see fit.

Bad idea.

> The one who I choose to
> see penalized is the one who pulls the trigger. They are the ones who
> are responsible.

Not the only ones.

> But feel better in a frightening world with such laws.
> A law against hiring a killer doesn't stop anyone from doing anything --
> it's a feel good proposition for people who feel afraid and vulnerable.

Sure it does, every time an undercover cop takes money to perform a hit, a
criminal goes to prison and a murder is averted.

>> >> >> > I admire vegans in that they do seem to be able to live up to
>> >> >> > their
>> >> >> > ethical values. Vegans are certainly better than I am. They can
>> >> >> > live
>> >> >> > their daily lives without having to kill.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Who or what will you kill today?
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't need to kill. There are plenty of others who willingly take
>> >> > on
>> >> > that role for me.
>> >>
>> >> Exactly, just like vegans. Thanks for illustrating my point
>> >
>> > Once again, you hold others (the vegan) responsible for what others
>> > (the
>> > killers and farmers) do. I find passing responsibility is a consistent
>> > position for the vegan hater. The vegan is certainly better than me
>> > that
>> > they will choose to avoid harming an animal, but then I have my reasons
>> > to see that harm to animals continue to avoid harm to others.
>>
>> According to your logic neither you nor the vegan is responsible for what
>> others do, and since neither of you is killing any animals, how do you
>> conclude that the vegan is better than you?
>
> The vegan isn't willing to see an animal suffer for a human to live.

You haven't been listening, vegans are quite willing to see animals suffer
to live.

> I
> am.

So are they.

> I'd say they are quite right to take the "moral high ground".

They haven't taken the moral high ground, they've taken on a self-serving
illusion, not much more rational than your hilarious rationalization of
keeping the killers occupied in the slaughterhouses.

> On
> further reflection, I am similar to the vegan, we just have different
> approaches to resolving the same problem of human aggression and
> violence.

You are similiar indeed, you are both quite willing to see animals die to
serve your desires, and you are both deluded about it. Except, as I said,
you're just trolling.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> > "Dutch" >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Reynard" > wrote
>> >> >> > They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining
>> >> >> > from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's not about "pushing meat", it's about reminding vegans that
>> >> >> their
>> >> >> diets
>> >> >> are not bloodless.
>> >> >
>> >> > Unfortunately, arguments such as the one that Dutch makes assumes a
>> >> > degree of responsibility for the actions of others that defies any
>> >> > logical rationalization.
>> >>
>> >> If it's illogical then why are people who hire killers sent to prison?
>> >
>> > I see. It's in the law so it must be logical. Humans craft laws. Humans
>> > are often times illogical. Ergo, it is possible to find instances of
>> > illogic in the law.
>> >
>> > Dutch, are you going to claim that the law conforms to logic?
>>
>> Quit dodging and answer the question. Should we be able to hire murderers
>> with impunity?
>
> Of course, we can and do and the answer is yes. That some idiot is
> prepared to kill another on the promise of few pennies is just an excuse
> for their original desire anyway.
>
> Soldiers are hired killers. We justify their actions and so do they.
> Executioners in states with death penalties are hired killers. Some
> people argue doctors are killers in that abortion is killing and those
> are paid acts. The US is currently invovled in war, many people are
> being hired for those killings.
>
> Now, don't dodge my question. Are you going to claim that the law is an
> example of logic. I just provided several examples where the law DOES
> allow for the hiring of killers.
>
>> >> > I admire vegans in that they do seem to be able to live up to their
>> >> > ethical values. Vegans are certainly better than I am. They can live
>> >> > their daily lives without having to kill.
>> >>
>> >> Who or what will you kill today?
>> >
>> > I don't need to kill. There are plenty of others who willingly take on
>> > that role for me.
>>
>> Exactly, just like vegans. Thanks for illustrating my point
>
> Once again, you hold others (the vegan) responsible for what others (the
> killers and farmers) do. I find passing responsibility is a consistent
> position for the vegan hater.
===========================
I find your ignorance to be far more consistant, fool. In the cases you
try to use above, you fail miserably. Why? Because those are actions we
are responsible for. We pay for them, we back them. We aren't claiming one
thing, and then doing another. That is the difference between us and
vegans. They claim that their *actions* result in either no death of animsl
or ferwer. Both are false. Vegnas have achoice of actions to take. The
ones here on usenet invariably take the selfish, easy, conveninet route.
They take actions that they *know* results in the death and suffering of
animals, despite their claim of living a life that causes none/less/fewer.
So, you can continue your troll now, knowing that your ignorance is well
known, fool.



The vegan is certainly better than me that
> they will choose to avoid harming an animal, but then I have my reasons
> to see that harm to animals continue to avoid harm to others.
==============
Ignorance on display....