The theory of shared moral responsibility is why anyone is a "vegan"
Jonathan Ball
animal collateral deaths in agriculture. Too bad; he
is responsible for them, for the same reason that he
and all other "vegans" don't eat meat.
All "vegans" believe in the theory. It's why they're
"vegans". Clearly *eating* the meat isn't an immoral
act; the animal is already dead, and the diner
typically didn't kill it. It's the killing that
"vegans" feel is immoral, and they understand, albeit
imperfectly, that demand for meat leads to killing
animals. They don't eat meat because they don't want
to share in the moral responsibility for the death of
animals killed for meat, and they know they would share
in it if the ate meat.
Unfortunately, the same logic extends to eating
vegetables whose production and distribution killed the
collateral deaths of animals. In practice, that means
*all* fruits and vegetables, as "vegans" buy most of
their food in markets, and the farmers who grow for
these markets don't care to avoid killing animals.
It doesn't matter that you don't do the killing
yourself. Remember, that's true for almost all meat
eaters as well, yet "vegans" *still* won't eat meat,
because they know that to do so ties them intimately to
the killing. It is the same with vegetables: "vegans"
might say they "wish" the animals weren't killed, but
they *are* killed, and no one forces "vegans" to eat
food whose production and distribution caused the
deaths of animals; they do it voluntarily and knowingly.
Camcompany
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3ECB247D...@whitehouse.not...
> Dreck Nash doesn't want to be held responsible for
> animal collateral deaths in agriculture. Too bad; he
> is responsible for them, for the same reason that he
> and all other "vegans" don't eat meat.
Not so ~~Jonnie. The farmer is responsible for CDs. We should also remember
that CDs are *accidental* deaths.
>
> All "vegans" believe in the theory. It's why they're
> "vegans". Clearly *eating* the meat isn't an immoral
> act; the animal is already dead,
It would not be dead if there was no demand for it! In fact it would never
have lived in the first instance, something you should take up with DH.
and the diner
> typically didn't kill it. It's the killing that
> "vegans" feel is immoral,
Deliberate killing is immoral, it can *not* be compared to accidental
killing.
and they understand, albeit
> imperfectly, that demand for meat leads to killing
> animals. They don't eat meat because they don't want
> to share in the moral responsibility for the death of
> animals killed for meat, and they know they would share
> in it if the ate meat.
The old keyboard playing up again ~~Jonnie~~.
>
> Unfortunately, the same logic
*Your* logic ~~Jonnie~~
extends to eating
> vegetables whose production and distribution killed the
> collateral deaths of animals. In practice, that means
> *all* fruits and vegetables, as "vegans" buy most of
> their food in markets, and the farmers who grow for
> these markets don't care to avoid killing animals.
>
> It doesn't matter that you don't do the killing
> yourself. Remember, that's true for almost all meat
> eaters as well, yet "vegans" *still* won't eat meat,
> because they know that to do so ties them intimately to
> the killing. It is the same with vegetables: "vegans"
> might say they "wish" the animals weren't killed, but
> they *are* killed, and no one forces "vegans" to eat
> food whose production and distribution caused the
> deaths of animals; they do it voluntarily and knowingly.
A little difficult to follow ~~Jonnie~~, but I get your drift. You have no
interest in animals, you are just a timewaster.
>
Claudia Wittgenstein
>Dreck Nash doesn't want to be held responsible for
>animal collateral deaths in agriculture. Too bad; he
>is responsible for them, for the same reason that he
>and all other "vegans" don't eat meat.
*What is* that crap with CD, and why are people seriously responding
to it. The main principle of veganism is avoiding the avoidable and if
that means the death of earthworms than that is not avoidable.
Besides, the agriculture needed for livestock is multiple that -
therefore it is multiple the CD.
There are far more important issues to be discussed in agriculture:
For example the deliberate destruction of African farmers by the
dumping of subsidized American wheat e. g.
-C.
Jonathan Ball
> In alt.food.vegan, Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not>, wrote:
>
>
>>Dreck Nash doesn't want to be held responsible for
>>animal collateral deaths in agriculture. Too bad; he
>>is responsible for them, for the same reason that he
>>and all other "vegans" don't eat meat.
>
>
> *What is* that crap with CD, and why are people seriously responding
> to it.
Because it isn't crap. It illustrates a gaping hole in
the already Swiss cheese-like thinking of "vegans".
> The main principle of veganism is avoiding the avoidable
BZZZZT! Wrong.
First, there is no real "principle" behind "veganism".
There's a poorly thought out, childlike belief that
animals have "rights", and that killing them abridges
their "rights". "veganism" is the dietary expression
of a bogus, false-choice *rule*, not principle. The
rule is, don't eat animals or stuff made from animals.
The rule is based on a completely false and logically
invalid construct, in fact a classic example of the
classic fallacy, Denying the Antecedent:
If I eat meat, I cause animals to die for my diet;
I do not eat meat;
Therefore, I do not cause animals to die for my diet.
CDs are the proof that a "vegan" DOES indeed cause
animals to die for his diet. Shared moral
responsibility is what makes "vegans" morally
responsible for those animals their diet kills. The
theory *also* is why they don't eat meat: they feel,
correctly, that demanding meat ties them morally to the
death of the meat animals, if there is a moral
dimension to the deaths.
The EXACT same fuzzy theory that leads them to be
"vegans" in the first place is what MAKES them morally
responsible for the animal CDs in the course of
vegetable agriculture.
> and if
> that means the death of earthworms than that is not avoidable.
We're not talking about earthworms, you stupid
self-mutilated fat fuck. Does THIS look like a chopped
up earthworm, you stupid fuck:
http://www.bds.org.uk/Research/Silage/Laurentperrier.htm
Irrelevant that the dead animal was killed in the
course of producing silage; the production of food for
humans kills the same animals in the same way. Bon
appetit, killer.
> Besides, the agriculture needed for livestock is multiple that -
> therefore it is multiple the CD.
Irrelevant. We're not talking about a counting game.
We're talking about moral responsibility for the death
of animals that fuckwitted, morally confused "vegans" -
at least one of them a psychotic self-mutilated HeShe -
claim, wrongly, to have a "right" not to be killed by
humans. CDs of any number establish your moral
culpability.
>
> There are far more important issues to be discussed in agriculture:
Says you. You're wrong.
> For example the deliberate destruction of African farmers by the
> dumping of subsidized American wheat e. g.
That's a very interesting one, self-mutilated Claude.
In fact, virtually EVERY dumb-fuck "vegan" who posts
here advocates the "solution" of famine-level
starvation in the world by GIVING unlimited quantities
of food to starving people. "Dumping" is still selling
the stuff, albeit below cost. If selling below cost
destroys African (and other; what's with your
pseudo-concern only for Africans, Claude?) farmers'
livelihoods, and it does, imagine what outright
donation will do.
But your fuckwitted "vegan" buddies advocate exactly that.
Camcompany
"Claudia Wittgenstein" <claudia_wi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:j1incvkgj118v3uq5...@4ax.com...
100% behind you Claudia, the lower orders on this and other NGs latch on to
CD issue because it is their *only* tool.
They have not, and never will learn to differentiate between the
*deliberate* act of killing and the *accidental*.
Take the letters "CD" from the armoury of the "Dark Side", and they have
nothing left, just a guilty conscience. I assume that some of them do have a
conscience, I always like to give the benefit of the doubt!
As you correctly conclude it is 'Crap', but to some it is a religion.
Ray.
>
Claudia Wittgenstein
>> *What is* that crap with CD, and why are people seriously responding
>> to it.
>
>Because it isn't crap. It illustrates a gaping hole in
>the already Swiss cheese-like thinking of "vegans".
Of course it is crap. It's a silly argument thought out by antivegans
who seed to (are you ready?) pathologize veganism in order to construe
a negative image. It's ad hominem, that's all.
>> The main principle of veganism is avoiding the avoidable
>
>BZZZZT! Wrong.
BZZZZZT Right. I'm the vegan, I get to decide.
>First, there is no real "principle" behind "veganism".
> There's a poorly thought out, childlike belief that
Pathologizing...
>animals have "rights", and that killing them abridges
>their "rights". "veganism" is the dietary expression
>of a bogus, false-choice *rule*, not principle.
Pathologizing...
>The
>rule is, don't eat animals or stuff made from animals.
> The rule is based on a completely false and logically
>invalid construct, in fact a classic example of the
>classic fallacy, Denying the Antecedent:
Oh now that you created your own pretext you draw your conclusion?
That is so lame.
>CDs are the proof that a "vegan"
CD's are the hilarious and silly attempt to establish a
counter-argument to veganism. The dilemmas don't release us from the
responsibility to avoid all suffering in animals. It isn't only about
animal rights, it's about not murdering and exploiting billions of
beings. I mean how can you ignore that the plants having to be grown
for the livestock account for a much greater CD than if everyone was
vegan.
Besides, a 100% avoidance *is* possible, because since veganism is
about the avoidance of the avoidable, the things vegans avoid are
avoided for 100%.
>DOES indeed cause
>animals to die for his diet.
The animals dying as "CD" are no where near the billions that are
eating every year around the globe. To even pronounce this laughable
non-argument results in to automatic rejection from any relevance
whatsoever.
>Shared moral
>responsibility is what makes "vegans" morally
>responsible for those animals their diet kills.
This is just shifting the blame lamely. Scavenging corpse eaters are
responsible for billions of deaths each year.
Besides, the sheer concept of *Collateral Damage*, war-talk is the
very substance of pathologization. It's the lame attempt to construe a
negative connection with horrific human wars while at the same time
shifting the blame to *vegans* of all people, which it utterly
ludicrous given that vegans are responsible for the least animal
deaths on this planet. It is the absurd industries for the corpse
eaters which murder and exploit billions of beings. *Their* appetite
is not the Collateral Damage, their appetite is the MAIN damage, the
direct target: the avoidable killing billions for the sake of an
appetite!
>The
>theory *also* is why they don't eat meat: they feel,
>correctly, that demanding meat ties them morally to the
>death of the meat animals, if there is a moral
>dimension to the deaths.
The question is not morality, the question isn't even if the animal
has a soul or if there is God, the questions is: Does my action cause
suffering and pain. Animals can feel pain and they do have emotions
and suffer. So I as a thinking being realize that I have no right to
inflict such an inhumane damage onto another non-human being.
>
>The EXACT same fuzzy theory that leads them to be
>"vegans" in the first place is what MAKES them morally
>responsible for the animal CDs in the course of
>vegetable agriculture.
The concept of CD stand refuted.
>We're not talking about earthworms, you stupid
>self-mutilated fat fuck. Does THIS look like a chopped
>up earthworm, you stupid fuck:
>http://www.bds.org.uk/Research/Silage/Laurentperrier.htm
One dear? You make me waste my time weighing billions of animals
murdered for corpse eating scavengers with one tractor accident? Get
real. And HEY I am not fat.
>Irrelevant that the dead animal was killed in the
>course of producing silage; the production of food for
>humans kills the same animals in the same way. Bon
>appetit, killer.
Self-refuting pathologization... The killing of animals in farming
accidents is not intentional and weighs nowhere as near, nor in number
or *intent*, as the intentional mass murder of the industrial meat
production. Don't mention your arguments outside this NG, TrollPet,
because you'll get laffed at.
>
>> Besides, the agriculture needed for livestock is multiple that -
>> therefore it is multiple the CD.
>
>Irrelevant.
Oh *that* is irrelevant. <g>
>We're not talking about a counting game.
Sure we do. What makes you think you get to decide what and what not
we are talking about, and right now, we are talking about numbers,
symbolically:
Collateral Damage Meat Production
__________________ _______________
1 dear 1.000.000.000.000
I mean, what kind of retard are you, huh?
>We're talking about moral responsibility for the death
>of animals that fuckwitted, morally confused "vegans" -
>at least one of them a psychotic self-mutilated HeShe -
>claim, wrongly, to have a "right" not to be killed by
>humans. CDs of any number establish your moral
>culpability.
It establishes that you are a retard who really sucks in maths.
>That's a very interesting one, self-mutilated Claude.
Hey, I'm not self-mutilated you retard, my pussy was done by one of
the finest surgeons Europe has to offer and cost more than any car you
ever did or will drive. It is a work of art.
>In fact, virtually EVERY dumb-fuck "vegan" who posts
>here advocates the "solution" of famine-level
>starvation in the world by GIVING unlimited quantities
>of food to starving people.
We are not talking about starving people retard, we are talking about
the *production* of starving people. We are talking of *functional*
agriculture in *functional* economies, which are deliberately
*destroyed* by the dumping of subsidized wheat which then in turn
destroys the farming sector in these countries which then in turn
makes these countries dependable on food imports and then creates
famine because they aren't self-sufficiant anymore.
I mean your level of insanity has reached a hight that you are totally
incapable of separating cause and effect. It's all entirely twisted.
Anyway, you are refuted, good bye.
-C.
Kevin and Donna Brandon
>
> >Dreck Nash doesn't want to be held responsible for
> >animal collateral deaths in agriculture. Too bad; he
> >is responsible for them, for the same reason that he
> >and all other "vegans" don't eat meat.
>
> *What is* that crap with CD, and why are people seriously responding
> to it.
Because it's the hole in AR/veganism and that hole is big enough to
drive a tractor-trailer rig through.
The main principle of veganism is avoiding the avoidable and if
> that means the death of earthworms than that is not avoidable.
Of course it is, but who said anything about earthworms?
> Besides, the agriculture needed for livestock is multiple that -
> therefore it is multiple the CD.
Unsupported assertion. Prove that livestock agriculture "needs"
multiple _____ (fill in the blank with whatever the hell you meant by
your statement) as compared to plant agriculture.
>
> There are far more important issues to be discussed in agriculture:
Quit stating your unsupported opinions as facts.
For example: in my opinion (which is based on knowing what the fuck
I am talking about) it is far more important to discuss the following
issue:
I know for a fact that in plant agriculture; small mammals, birds,
reptiles, and amphibians are killed every time I crank up the John
Deere. On the other hand, the only time I know animals are killed in
livestock agriculture is when I put the bullet in the animal's brain
or when I harvest hay crops to feed them through the usually mild
winter season we have in my part of the country. Would you care to
guess which occurs more often?
> For example the deliberate destruction of African farmers by the
> dumping of subsidized American wheat e. g.
Actually, I am against farm subsidies, but you can't support that
claim either. In any event, what the hell does it have to do with the
issues being discussed?
Kevin
>
> -C.
rick etter
"Claudia Wittgenstein" <claudia_wi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:j1incvkgj118v3uq5...@4ax.com...
>
> >Dreck Nash doesn't want to be held responsible for
> >animal collateral deaths in agriculture. Too bad; he
> >is responsible for them, for the same reason that he
> >and all other "vegans" don't eat meat.
>
> *What is* that crap with CD,
It's only crap to you because it blows your whole deluded lifestyle faith
out of the water, killer.
and why are people seriously responding
> to it. The main principle of veganism is avoiding the avoidable and if
> that means the death of earthworms than that is not avoidable.
====================
We're aren't talking about worms and bugs, dolt. We talk of mammals, fish,
birds, reptiles and amphibians that you kill just for you selfish
convenience
and entertainent.
> Besides, the agriculture needed for livestock is multiple that -
> therefore it is multiple the CD.
==================
Another typical deluded ly. Not all meat is fed any produced crop. But,
*all*
you food produces many far more horrible deaths than any meat animal
suffers.
>
> There are far more important issues to be discussed in agriculture:
> For example the deliberate destruction of African farmers by the
> dumping of subsidized American wheat e. g.
==================
LOL Right. You really are a racist hoot, stupid.
>
> -C.
>
rick etter
> In alt.food.vegan, Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not>, wrote:
>
> >> *What is* that crap with CD, and why are people seriously responding
> >> to it.
> >
> >Because it isn't crap. It illustrates a gaping hole in
> >the already Swiss cheese-like thinking of "vegans".
>
> Of course it is crap. It's a silly argument thought out by antivegans
> who seed to (are you ready?) pathologize veganism in order to construe
> a negative image. It's ad hominem, that's all.
LOL We don't do anything to make you look bad stupid. You do a far
better job of that with each post, you ignorant racist nazi.
>
> >> The main principle of veganism is avoiding the avoidable
> >
> >BZZZZT! Wrong.
>
> BZZZZZT Right. I'm the vegan, I get to decide.
=====================
And, you decide yo kill for no more reason than your selfishness,
convenience,
and entertainment. Why do you make the choices to kill animals that way?
>
> >First, there is no real "principle" behind "veganism".
> > There's a poorly thought out, childlike belief that
>
> Pathologizing...
=================
Pathological liar that you are, you know the word, right killer?
>
> >animals have "rights", and that killing them abridges
> >their "rights". "veganism" is the dietary expression
> >of a bogus, false-choice *rule*, not principle.
>
> Pathologizing...
=================
Pathological liar that you are, you know the word, right killer?
>
> >The
> >rule is, don't eat animals or stuff made from animals.
> > The rule is based on a completely false and logically
> >invalid construct, in fact a classic example of the
> >classic fallacy, Denying the Antecedent:
>
> Oh now that you created your own pretext you draw your conclusion?
> That is so lame.
>
> >CDs are the proof that a "vegan"
>
> CD's are the hilarious and silly attempt to establish a
> counter-argument to veganism.
======================
Just a truthful explanation of your killing, hypocrite. Try again.
The dilemmas don't release us from the
> responsibility to avoid all suffering in animals. It isn't only about
> animal rights, it's about not murdering and exploiting billions of
> beings. I mean how can you ignore that the plants having to be grown
> for the livestock account for a much greater CD than if everyone was
> vegan.
=================
Another typical loony ly. You are full of them, aren't you killer?
>
> Besides, a 100% avoidance *is* possible, because since veganism is
> about the avoidance of the avoidable, the things vegans avoid are
> avoided for 100%.
>
> >DOES indeed cause
> >animals to die for his diet.
>
> The animals dying as "CD" are no where near the billions that are
> eating every year around the globe.
=====================
Prove that claim that animals don't die in large numbers for your lifsetyle,
killer.
You can't.
To even pronounce this laughable
> non-argument results in to automatic rejection from any relevance
> whatsoever.
>
> >Shared moral
snip of rest of ignorant lying spew....
rick etter
"Camcompany" <camco...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bagkfi$p7d$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> "Claudia Wittgenstein" <claudia_wi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:j1incvkgj118v3uq5...@4ax.com...
> > In alt.food.vegan, Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not>, wrote:
> >
> > >Dreck Nash doesn't want to be held responsible for
> > >animal collateral deaths in agriculture. Too bad; he
> > >is responsible for them, for the same reason that he
> > >and all other "vegans" don't eat meat.
> >
> > *What is* that crap with CD, and why are people seriously responding
> > to it. The main principle of veganism is avoiding the avoidable and if
> > that means the death of earthworms than that is not avoidable.
> > Besides, the agriculture needed for livestock is multiple that -
> > therefore it is multiple the CD.
> >
> > There are far more important issues to be discussed in agriculture:
> > For example the deliberate destruction of African farmers by the
> > dumping of subsidized American wheat e. g.
> >
> > -C.
>
> 100% behind you Claudia, the lower orders on this and other NGs latch on
to
> CD issue because it is their *only* tool.
> They have not, and never will learn to differentiate between the
> *deliberate* act of killing and the *accidental*.
LOL there is nothing accidental about poisoning millions and millions of
animals every year
just to keep your veggies, clean, cheap, and convenient, hypocrite.
>
> Take the letters "CD" from the armoury of the "Dark Side", and they have
> nothing left, just a guilty conscience. I assume that some of them do have
a
> conscience, I always like to give the benefit of the doubt!
>
> As you correctly conclude it is 'Crap', but to some it is a religion.
================
Yes, veganism is a religion.
>
> Ray.
> >
>
>
Jonathan Ball
> In alt.food.vegan, Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not>, wrote:
>
>
>>>*What is* that crap with CD, and why are people seriously responding
>>>to it.
>>
>>Because it isn't crap. It illustrates a gaping hole in
>>the already Swiss cheese-like thinking of "vegans".
>
>
> Of course it is crap.
Nope. It's illustrative of a gaping, absurd hole in
the logic of people who fuckwittedly follow a false choice.
> It's a silly argument thought out by antivegans
> who seed to (are you ready?) pathologize veganism in order to construe
> a negative image. It's ad hominem, that's all.
It isn't ad hominem in the least. You don't even know
what "ad hominem" is.
>
>
>>>The main principle of veganism is avoiding the avoidable
>>
>>BZZZZT! Wrong.
>
>
> BZZZZZT Right. I'm the vegan, I get to decide.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong. That isn't anyone's
definition of "veganism", not even yours. You're lying.
>
>
>>First, there is no real "principle" behind "veganism".
>> There's a poorly thought out, childlike belief that
>
>
> Pathologizing...
No. That's just a buzzword, anyway. It has no content.
>
>
>>animals have "rights", and that killing them abridges
>>their "rights". "veganism" is the dietary expression
>>of a bogus, false-choice *rule*, not principle.
>
>
> Pathologizing...
No. See above.
>
>
>>The rule is, don't eat animals or stuff made from animals.
>> The rule is based on a completely false and logically
>>invalid construct, in fact a classic example of the
>>classic fallacy, Denying the Antecedent:
>
>
> Oh now that you created your own pretext
No "pretext" creation involved. You speak okay English
for a self-mutilated Nazi kraut, but you commit some
real fuck-ups, too.
> you draw your conclusion?
> That is so lame.
Nope. It's what every "vegan" begins by doing. Many
stick to it unwaveringly. Others think they have seen
beyond it, but they haven't: the obsessive search for
Micrograms of Animal Parts in food proves it.
>
>
>>CDs are the proof that a "vegan"
>
>
> CD's are the hilarious and silly attempt to establish a
> counter-argument to veganism.
No. It isn't a "counterargument" to anything. It's a
terrible truth that guts "veganism" as an ethical choice.
>
> Besides, a 100% avoidance *is* possible, because since veganism is
> about the avoidance of the avoidable, the things vegans avoid are
> avoided for 100%.
Tautological. Self serving, tautological, and a lie.
>
>
>>DOES indeed cause
>>animals to die for his diet.
>
>
> The animals dying as "CD" are no where near the billions that are
> eating every year around the globe.
You have no way of knowing. Because you're a
self-flattering, other-pathologizing "vegan", you don't
care. You have a vested interest in not knowing.
>>Shared moral
>>responsibility is what makes "vegans" morally
>>responsible for those animals their diet kills.
>
>
> This is just shifting the blame lamely.
Not shifting any blame; correctly apportioning it.
> Scavenging corpse eaters are
> responsible for billions of deaths each year.
Irrelevant. We don't claim it's wrong to kill animals;
fuckwitted, lying, sanctimonious Nazi "vegans" - you,
in other words - do.
>
> Besides, the sheer concept of *Collateral Damage*, war-talk is the
> very substance of pathologization. Blah blah blah...
Your buzzword ran out of steam months ago. Everyone
just laughs at you when you use it. It's dead.
>
>
>>The theory *also* is why they don't eat meat: they feel,
>>correctly, that demanding meat ties them morally to the
>>death of the meat animals, if there is a moral
>>dimension to the deaths.
>
>
> The question is not morality,
Yes, it is. That's what a so-called "ethical
vegetarian" is concerned with.
> the question isn't even if the animal
> has a soul or if there is God,
Red herring.
> the questions is: Does my action cause
> suffering and pain.
The answer: an unambiguous "yes", and on a massive
scale, for "vegans". In fact, for everyone; but
"vegans" are the only ones lying about it.
> Animals can feel pain and they do have emotions
> and suffer. So I as a thinking being realize that I have no right to
> inflict such an inhumane damage onto another non-human being.
But you do it, daily, on a massive scale. You don't
even care. Because you don't *eat* the corpses, you
pretend you don't cause the suffering.
You still cling to the massive logical fallacy.
>
>
>>The EXACT same fuzzy theory that leads them to be
>>"vegans" in the first place is what MAKES them morally
>>responsible for the animal CDs in the course of
>>vegetable agriculture.
>
>
> The concept of CD stand refuted.
No. Certainly not by a self-mutilated dilettante
fainéant like you.
>
>
>>We're not talking about earthworms, you stupid
>>self-mutilated fat fuck. Does THIS look like a chopped
>>up earthworm, you stupid fuck:
>>http://www.bds.org.uk/Research/Silage/Laurentperrier.htm
>
>
> One dear?
DEER, you semi-literate fat fuck.
>
>
>>Irrelevant that the dead animal was killed in the
>>course of producing silage; the production of food for
>>humans kills the same animals in the same way. Bon
>>appetit, killer.
>
>
> Self-refuting pathologization...
buzzzzzzzzzzzz....
You're puttin' us to sleep, Claude.
>
>>>Besides, the agriculture needed for livestock is multiple that -
>>>therefore it is multiple the CD.
>>
>>Irrelevant.
>
>
> Oh *that* is irrelevant. <g>
Yep.
>
>>We're not talking about a counting game.
>
>
> Sure we do.
Nope. All it takes is showing that lying,
sanctimonious, hypocritical "vegans" treat animals in a
vastly different manner than they treat humans. CDs do
that.
> What makes you think you get to decide what and what not
> we are talking about,
Just take my word for it, you fat fuck, and then you
won't get hurt.
>
>
>>We're talking about moral responsibility for the death
>>of animals that fuckwitted, morally confused "vegans" -
>>at least one of them a psychotic self-mutilated HeShe -
>>claim, wrongly, to have a "right" not to be killed by
>>humans. CDs of any number establish your moral
>>culpability.
>
>
> It establishes that you are a retard who really sucks in maths.
There is no maths to be done.
>
>
>
>>That's a very interesting one, self-mutilated Claude.
>
>
> Hey, I'm not self-mutilated you retard, my pussy was done by one of
> the finest surgeons Europe has to offer and cost more than any car you
> ever did or will drive. It is a work of art.
It's a cesspool. You took steps to get it mutilated,
intentionally; you're self-mutilated, you fat fuck.
>
>
>>In fact, virtually EVERY dumb-fuck "vegan" who posts
>>here advocates the "solution" of famine-level
>>starvation in the world by GIVING unlimited quantities
>>of food to starving people.
>
>
> We are not talking about starving people retard, we are talking about
> the *production* of starving people.
No, self-mutilated Nazi fat fuck. We're talking about
what all the deluded fuckwitted lying "vegans" here
talk about: alleviating "starvation" in the third
world by giving them food, in perpetuity.
swamp
<camco...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>news:3ECB247D...@whitehouse.not...
>> Dreck Nash doesn't want to be held responsible for
>> animal collateral deaths in agriculture. Too bad; he
>> is responsible for them, for the same reason that he
>> and all other "vegans" don't eat meat.
>
>Not so ~~Jonnie. The farmer is responsible for CDs. We should also remember
>that CDs are *accidental* deaths.
Deliberately poisoning and plowing animals is "accidental?"
>> All "vegans" believe in the theory.
Why wouldn't they? It's convenient.
> It's why they're "vegans".
It's a mistaken belief which lets them off the hook. Pablum.
>>Clearly *eating* the meat isn't an immoral
>> act; the animal is already dead,
Bu isn't it the *killing* that's immoral from your pov?
>It would not be dead if there was no demand for it! In fact it would never
>have lived in the first instance, something you should take up with DH.
"It" would still be dead. That's the way life works. Do you care about
anmals or yourself? DH's posit has serious flaws.
>> and the diner
>> typically didn't kill it. It's the killing that
>> "vegans" feel is immoral,
Another escape... Wish I had your fast-food rationalization.
>Deliberate killing is immoral, it can *not* be compared to accidental
>killing.
The killing is deliberate, meat or veggies. It's not our fault or
flaw, however.
>> and they understand, albeit
>> imperfectly, that demand for meat leads to killing
>> animals. They don't eat meat because they don't want
>> to share in the moral responsibility for the death of
>> animals killed for meat, and they know they would share
>> in it if the ate meat.
But they share in the calculus anyway. It's inescapable.
>The old keyboard playing up again ~~Jonnie~~.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the same logic
Sound logic stays the same until challenged.
>*Your* logic ~~Jonnie~~
--swamp
"Who, me officer? What's a ferut? These guys?? No, they're Polish cats."
Jonathan Ball
> On Wed, 21 May 2003 18:07:03 +0000 (UTC), "Camcompany"
> <camco...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>>news:3ECB247D...@whitehouse.not...
>>
>>>Dreck Nash doesn't want to be held responsible for
>>>animal collateral deaths in agriculture. Too bad; he
>>>is responsible for them, for the same reason that he
>>>and all other "vegans" don't eat meat.
>>
>>Not so ~~Jonnie. The farmer is responsible for CDs. We should also remember
>>that CDs are *accidental* deaths.
>
>
> Deliberately poisoning and plowing animals is "accidental?"
>
>
>>>All "vegans" believe in the theory.
>>
>
> Why wouldn't they? It's convenient.
No, not really. You'll note that Dreck claims *not* to
believe in it when the implications of it make him
share moral responsibiity for animal CDs. But he
*does* believe in it: It's why he's "vegan" to begin with.
>
>
>>It's why they're "vegans".
>
>
> It's a mistaken belief which lets them off the hook. Pablum.
No, you're getting it backward. The belief they have
in shared moral responsibility is what gets them *on*
the hook with respect to CDs.
>
>
>>>Clearly *eating* the meat isn't an immoral
>>>act; the animal is already dead,
>>
>
> Bu isn't it the *killing* that's immoral from your pov?
You're getting mixed up on who wrote what. I wrote it.
I'm trying to show that not being "vegan" - that is,
including animal products in one's consumption - cannot
be immoral simply from the consumption per se; the
animals are already dead. Put another way, refusing to
eat a *single* piece of meat that might be offered to
you has no moral content; the animal killed to produce
the steak is already dead long before the offer is made.
"vegans" understand that not eating meat on an ongoing
basis absolves them of responsibility for the deaths of
the meat animals. That's why they're "vegan": they
don't want to share in the responsibility for killing
the animals. But the same belief in shared moral
responsibility, a belief they clearly hold, MAKES them
share in the responsibility for the CDs cause in the
course of vegetable farming. This is why Dreck's
denial of shared responsibility is so laughable: he
DOES believe in it; he's lying when he says he doesn't.
>
>
>>It would not be dead if there was no demand for it! In fact it would never
>>have lived in the first instance, something you should take up with DH.
>
>
> "It" would still be dead. That's the way life works. Do you care about
> anmals or yourself? DH's posit has serious flaws.
>
>
>>>and the diner
>>>typically didn't kill it. It's the killing that
>>>"vegans" feel is immoral,
>>
>
> Another escape... Wish I had your fast-food rationalization.
Go back and re-read the thread. You're mixing up
posters. Shitface wrote "It would not be dead if...";
*I* wrote "...and the diner typically didn't kill it."
I seriously think you haven't got my point.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3ECB247D...@whitehouse.not...
> Dreck Nash doesn't want to be held responsible for
> animal collateral deaths in agriculture.
Of course not. The farmer kills them, so why should I
or anyone take responsibility for what he does?
> Too bad; he
> is responsible for them, for the same reason that he
> and all other "vegans" don't eat meat.
>
Says you, but I don't accept your religious beliefs.
> All "vegans" believe in the theory.
No, we don't. You're guessing that we all follow your
illogical beliefs.
> It's why they're
> "vegans". Clearly *eating* the meat isn't an immoral
> act; the animal is already dead, and the diner
> typically didn't kill it. It's the killing that
> "vegans" feel is immoral, and they understand, albeit
> imperfectly, that demand for meat leads to killing
> animals. They don't eat meat because they don't want
> to share in the moral responsibility for the death of
> animals killed for meat, and they know they would share
> in it if the ate meat.
>
If you eat meat you are demanding that animals be killed
for your food and therefore become fully responsible for
those deaths in every way. Vegans don't make that
demand when they buy their veg and therefore aren't
responsible for those deaths caused by farmers during
its production.
> Unfortunately, the same logic extends to eating
> vegetables whose production and distribution killed the
> collateral deaths of animals.
Then show how. Show the logic which makes others
responsible for the deaths caused by farmers. Don't
just claim it without showing proof. Prove it for once
in your life and stop lying. You say you have proof but
we've seen precious little of it from you so far. You
won't because you can't, and that's because your claim
is nothing but a religious belief of some kind that you're
trying to force onto everyone. I don't buy it.
> In practice, that means
> *all* fruits and vegetables, as "vegans" buy most of
> their food in markets, and the farmers who grow for
> these markets don't care to avoid killing animals.
>
Huh, and the vegan is supposed to feel morally
responsible for the farmer's careless slaughter
of animals? No chance. He kills them, and he alone
is responsible for them because he needn't kill them
at all.
> It doesn't matter that you don't do the killing
> yourself. Remember, that's true for almost all meat
> eaters as well,
No. The meat eater demands animals be killed, and
this demand makes him responsible for them. Vegans
don't make any such demand. There's the big difference
that you choose to ignore. A vegan diet can be sourced
without the killing of animals which is poles apart from
the meatarian diet. You cannot eat meat from a
supermarket without first insisting an animal be killed
to replace the meat you bought. You are denying the
antecedent to your diet.
> yet "vegans" *still* won't eat meat,
> because they know that to do so ties them intimately to
> the killing. It is the same with vegetables:
It is not the same at all. Vegans don't instruct the deaths
animals. What part in that don't you understand?
> "vegans"
> might say they "wish" the animals weren't killed,
We insist on it.
> but they *are* killed,
... by the farmer, so he is fully responsible for each
and every one of them.
> and no one forces "vegans" to eat
> food whose production and distribution caused the
> deaths of animals; they do it voluntarily and knowingly.
>
"It" being the key word. The "it" is merely buying veg, not
killing the animals with cides and heavy machinery.
Michael Saunby
"Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:baivc6$9kvs$1...@ID-190488.news.dfncis.de...
> Trimmed alt.food.vegan.science
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3ECB247D...@whitehouse.not...
> > Dreck Nash doesn't want to be held responsible for
> > animal collateral deaths in agriculture.
>
> Of course not. The farmer kills them, so why should I
> or anyone take responsibility for what he does?
>
The farmer only kills them in order to provide idiots that will not eat
meat with an unreasonably large quantity of organic(?) fruit and veg. If
you adopted a more typical diet he wouldn't have to kill as many animals.
You, and others like you, have forced him into this position. What option
do you give him - to stop farming and allow innocent non-vegans to starve
too?
Of course if food were rationed we'd all get the same quanities of fruit
and veg so deaths caused per person would be the same. Fo now though the
evil vegans cause far more animal deaths than others. It's just that they
prefer to kill "lesser" animals such as mice, snails, butterflies, etc.
rather than chew on a lump of cow.
Michael Saunby
Jonathan Ball
> Trimmed alt.food.vegan.science
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3ECB247D...@whitehouse.not...
>
>>Dreck Nash doesn't want to be held responsible for
>>animal collateral deaths in agriculture.
>
>
> Of course not. The farmer kills them, so why should I
> or anyone take responsibility for what he does?
Because the farmer is farming to feed YOU. Without the
demand of consumers, there is no farmer. The consumer
and the farmer are intricately and intimately tied.
>
>
>>Too bad; he
>>is responsible for them, for the same reason that he
>>and all other "vegans" don't eat meat.
>>
>
> Says you, but I don't accept your religious beliefs.
It isn't a religious belief anyway, and yes, you DO
accept it: the same theory is why you are "vegan".
>
>
>>All "vegans" believe in the theory.
>
>
> No, we don't.
Yes, you do. It's the very reason you're "vegan".
> You're guessing that we all follow your
> illogical beliefs.
I know that you follow that particular and particularly
logical belief.
>
>
>> It's why they're
>>"vegans". Clearly *eating* the meat isn't an immoral
>>act; the animal is already dead, and the diner
>>typically didn't kill it. It's the killing that
>>"vegans" feel is immoral, and they understand, albeit
>>imperfectly, that demand for meat leads to killing
>>animals. They don't eat meat because they don't want
>>to share in the moral responsibility for the death of
>>animals killed for meat, and they know they would share
>>in it if the ate meat.
>>
>
> If you eat meat you are demanding that animals be killed
> for your food and therefore become fully responsible for
> those deaths in every way.
No, that's not *why* you're responsible. You're
responsible because the animals are killed in response
to your demand for food. Also, the consumer can't be
*fully* responsible, because the consumer doesn't
personally kill the animals. But thanks for admitting
that you accept the notion of shared moral
responsibility, which is what I intended to show.
> Vegans don't make that demand
"vegans" demand food, and farmers kill animals in the
course of meeting that demand, and "vegans" continue to
buy food from those farmers. The sharing of the
responsibility is clear.
>>Unfortunately, the same logic extends to eating
>>vegetables whose production and distribution killed the
>>collateral deaths of animals.
>
>
> Then show how. Show the logic which makes others
> responsible for the deaths caused by farmers.
You just did it yourself, above. Thanks.
> Don't just claim it without showing proof.
I haven't. You assisted in the proof. Thanks again,
sucker.
>
>
>>In practice, that means
>>*all* fruits and vegetables, as "vegans" buy most of
>>their food in markets, and the farmers who grow for
>>these markets don't care to avoid killing animals.
>>
>
> Huh, and the vegan is supposed to feel morally
> responsible for the farmer's careless slaughter
> of animals?
I don't care if the "vegan" "feels" responsible; he IS
responsible, right along with the farmer himself.
> No chance. He kills them, and he alone
> is responsible for them because he needn't kill them
> at all.
Irrelevant. The in-the-bank robbers didn't "need" to
kill anyone, either, but the getaway driver shares
moral AND legal responsibility for any death that
occurs in the course of the robbery.
I don't know why this is so hard for you. Actually, I
know that you DO get it; you just don't like it, and
because you are a lifelong moral shirker and liar,
you're trying to weasel your way out of it. You CAN'T
admit you're wrong, even though you clearly are,
because to do so would make the edifice of your shabby
morality crumble before your very eyes. What you don't
understand is that there never was any edifice. Your
"ethics" was a sham from the beginning.
>
>
>>It doesn't matter that you don't do the killing
>>yourself. Remember, that's true for almost all meat
>>eaters as well,
>
>
> No.
Yes: the meat eater doesn't kill the animal himself;
the slaughterhouse workers do.
> The meat eater demands animals be killed,
No, he demands meat. If meat producers find a way to
remove legs from cattle and hogs and lambs, then
regenerate replacement limbs for the animals, the meat
eater doesn't care. If meat producers are able to
develop hybrid animals who reach market weight and then
commit suicide, the meat eater doesn't care. The
demand is for meat, not the death of animals.
As meat is currently produced, it *means* the death of
animals. As vegetables are currently produced, it
*means* the collateral death of animals. Neither
consumer demands "death", but death is what both of
them get. If there is any moral responsibility for the
death, the consumer shares in it.
>
>
>>yet "vegans" *still* won't eat meat,
>>because they know that to do so ties them intimately to
>>the killing. It is the same with vegetables:
>
>
> It is not the same at all.
It is exactly the same: death results in the course of
satisfying a consumer demand. That's all that counts.
You keep refusing to address the salient issue: YOU DO
believe in shared moral responsibility; it's why you're
"vegan" to begin with.
>
>
>>"vegans"
>>might say they "wish" the animals weren't killed,
>
>
> We insist on it.
No, you don't. That's why you continue to buy from
known animal killers. That behavior absolutely guts
your claim about "insistence". The claim was a lie to
begin with.
>
>
>>but they *are* killed,
>
>
> ... by the farmer,
Satisfying your demand. You share responsibility.
>
>
>>and no one forces "vegans" to eat
>>food whose production and distribution caused the
>>deaths of animals; they do it voluntarily and knowingly.
>>
>
> "It" being the key word. The "it" is merely buying veg, not
> killing the animals with cides and heavy machinery.
Nope. The "it" is the process, a seamless process
where moral responsibility is concerned.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3ECD0531...@whitehouse.not...
> Derek wrote:
> > Trimmed alt.food.vegan.science
> >
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3ECB247D...@whitehouse.not...
> >
> >>Dreck Nash doesn't want to be held responsible for
> >>animal collateral deaths in agriculture.
> >
> > Of course not. The farmer kills them, so why should I
> > or anyone take responsibility for what he does?
>
> Because the farmer is farming to feed YOU.
So what. If he does a bad job of it and kills animals
along the way, then that's his fault - not mine. Blame
him.
> Without the demand of consumers, there is no farmer.
Why don't you state the obvious?
> The consumer
> and the farmer are intricately and intimately tied.
>
Not to the CD. They are an entirely seperate component
to crop production. They aren't antecedent to it - they are
contingent to it. Throw again.
> >
> >>Too bad; he
> >>is responsible for them, for the same reason that he
> >>and all other "vegans" don't eat meat.
> >
> > Says you, but I don't accept your religious beliefs.
>
> It isn't a religious belief anyway, and yes, you DO
> accept it: the same theory is why you are "vegan".
>
It is a religious belief in original sin, or something just as daft,
and I don't follow it, so go preach it to someone more gullible.
> >
> >>All "vegans" believe in the theory.
> >
> > No, we don't.
>
> Yes, you do. It's the very reason you're "vegan".
>
That's your opinion, and your opinion isn't shared by me.
> > You're guessing that we all follow your
> > illogical beliefs.
>
> I know that you follow that particular and particularly
> logical belief.
>
Why does your argument rely so heavily on mind reading?
Could it be that you have no fact or logic to base it upon?
> >
> >> It's why they're
> >>"vegans". Clearly *eating* the meat isn't an immoral
> >>act; the animal is already dead, and the diner
> >>typically didn't kill it. It's the killing that
> >>"vegans" feel is immoral, and they understand, albeit
> >>imperfectly, that demand for meat leads to killing
> >>animals. They don't eat meat because they don't want
> >>to share in the moral responsibility for the death of
> >>animals killed for meat, and they know they would share
> >>in it if the ate meat.
> >
> > If you eat meat you are demanding that animals be killed
> > for your food and therefore become fully responsible for
> > those deaths in every way.
>
> No, that's not *why* you're responsible. You're
> responsible because the animals are killed in response
> to your demand for food.
That's exactly what I said.
> Also, the consumer can't be
> *fully* responsible, because the consumer doesn't
> personally kill the animals.
The meatarian consumer takes on the responsibility
for the animals' death because he has demanded it.
Likewise I would be responsible for hiring out my
mad twin to murder you. The vegan doesn't make
this demand on the animals killed collaterally during
crop production and so cannot be held responsible
for them. Try and remember that, Jon.
> But thanks for admitting
> that you accept the notion of shared moral
> responsibility,
I didn't, and never have or will.
> which is what I intended to show.
>
You're mistaken.
> > Vegans don't make that demand
>
> "vegans" demand food,
And that is all they do demand. They don't demand
any collateral deaths with it. In fact they would be
most upset if they ever came across the rare dish
which had a CD antecedent.
> and farmers kill animals in the course of meeting that demand,
They don't have to. Vegetables can and are grown without
causing CD.
> and "vegans" continue to buy food from those farmers.
That's right, but they don't pay him to kill animals collaterally
while he does it. Those deaths are his doing, and he must
accept the responsibility for his own actions else he isn't
an autonomous moral agent with free will. Your argument
is too weak and depends on farmers being agents without
free will. Shall we talk about the difficulties in apportioning
blame to a causal determinist?
Jonathan Ball
> Trimmed alt.food.vegan.science
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3ECD0531...@whitehouse.not...
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>Trimmed alt.food.vegan.science
>>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3ECB247D...@whitehouse.not...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dreck Nash doesn't want to be held responsible for
>>>>animal collateral deaths in agriculture.
>>>
>>>Of course not. The farmer kills them, so why should I
>>>or anyone take responsibility for what he does?
>>
>>Because the farmer is farming to feed YOU.
>
>
> So what. If he does a bad job of it and kills animals
> along the way, then that's his fault - not mine. Blame
> him.
I blame you, too, because he is only trying to satisfy
you. If you find his work unsatisfactory, hire someone
else. Your continuing payment to him not only means
you find his work satisfactory, it intimately ties you
to all moral results of his work.
>
>
>>Without the demand of consumers, there is no farmer.
>
>
> Why don't you state the obvious?
I have. The point is to show that he is *your* farmer.
There's a famous quote attributed to Franklin
Roosevelt, concerning some tinhorn dictator in Central
America whom the U.S. supported. Someone pointed out
the guy was a son-of-a-bitch, and Roosevelt is alleged
to have responded, "Yes, but he's *our*
son-of-a-bitch." The U.S. and all its citizens indeed
bore some moral responsibility for the people that
dictator unjustly imprisoned or worse.
The farmer is *your* farmer: your payments to him make
him so. You share moral responsibility for what he
does. If you don't like what he does, find another
whose methods you do like, or do it yourself.
>
>
>>The consumer
>>and the farmer are intricately and intimately tied.
>>
>
> Not to the CD.
Yep: to all of it.
>
>>>>Too bad; he
>>>>is responsible for them, for the same reason that he
>>>>and all other "vegans" don't eat meat.
>>>
>>>Says you, but I don't accept your religious beliefs.
>>
>>It isn't a religious belief anyway, and yes, you DO
>>accept it: the same theory is why you are "vegan".
>>
>
> It is a religious belief in original sin, or something just as daft,
No, it isn't like that at all.
> and I don't follow it,
Yes, you do: it's the basis for your "veganism".
>>>>All "vegans" believe in the theory.
>>>
>>>No, we don't.
>>
>>Yes, you do. It's the very reason you're "vegan".
>>
>
> That's your opinion, and your opinion isn't shared by me.
It isn't my "opinion" at all. It's a fact, and you
have confirmed it. You are "vegan" because you don't
wish to be responsible for the deaths of meat animals,
and you know you would be responsible for them if you
ate meat. That is a demonstrated belief in shared
moral responsibility, and you've offered it up
yourself, even if you don't put it in those words.
>
>
>>>You're guessing that we all follow your
>>>illogical beliefs.
>>
>>I know that you follow that particular and particularly
>>logical belief.
>>
>
> Why does your argument rely so heavily on mind reading?
It doesn't rely on it.
> Could it be that you have no fact or logic to base it upon?
No, it couldn't be that. I have the facts of your
belief that eating meat would cause you to share in the
responsibility for the deaths of meat animals. You
clearly DO believe that, and it has nothing to do with
any "necessity" of killing the animals in order to eat
them. It's the deaths, stupid, whether necessary or not.
You ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE in shared moral responsibility;
that is in plain sight. Once it is established as it
is, then the principle ALSO makes you responsible for
the animal CDs.
>
>>>>It's why they're
>>>>"vegans". Clearly *eating* the meat isn't an immoral
>>>>act; the animal is already dead, and the diner
>>>>typically didn't kill it. It's the killing that
>>>>"vegans" feel is immoral, and they understand, albeit
>>>>imperfectly, that demand for meat leads to killing
>>>>animals. They don't eat meat because they don't want
>>>>to share in the moral responsibility for the death of
>>>>animals killed for meat, and they know they would share
>>>>in it if the ate meat.
>>>
>>>If you eat meat you are demanding that animals be killed
>>>for your food and therefore become fully responsible for
>>>those deaths in every way.
>>
>>No, that's not *why* you're responsible. You're
>>responsible because the animals are killed in response
>>to your demand for food.
>
>
> That's exactly what I said.
No, you were trying to tie it to some kind of inherent
"need" for the death, not to the fact of death itself.
You just lied, again.
>
>
>>Also, the consumer can't be
>>*fully* responsible, because the consumer doesn't
>>personally kill the animals.
>
>
> The meatarian
No such word.
> consumer takes on the responsibility
> for the animals' death because he has demanded it.
Nope. That isn't why. It's the death per se, not any
"demand" for it, which the meat consumer doesn't have
anyway, as I have shown.
> Likewise I would be responsible for hiring out my
> mad twin to murder you.
I'll blast him into little bits. A 10 gauge shotgun
will do that.
>>But thanks for admitting
>>that you accept the notion of shared moral
>>responsibility,
>
>
> I didn't, and never have or will.
You do. It's the basis for your being "vegan": you
don't want to share in the moral responsibility for
killing meat animals. You recognize the principle of
shared moral responsibility; useless for you to
continue to claim you don't. Now that it is
established that you DO believe in it, it is a
trivially easy exercise to show that the principle also
covers the deaths you cause by your demand for
vegetables. I have done it, repeatedly.
>
>
>>which is what I intended to show.
>>
>
> You're mistaken.
Nope.
>
>
>>>Vegans don't make that demand
>>
>>"vegans" demand food,
>
>
> And that is all they do demand. They don't demand
> any collateral deaths with it.
Irrelevant. CDs are what they get. They share in the
responsibility for them.
> In fact they would be
> most upset if they ever came across the rare dish
> which had a CD antecedent.
Not rare at all. Everything you eat has massive CDs
lurking behind it.
>
>
>>and farmers kill animals in the course of meeting that demand,
>
>
> They don't have to. Vegetables can and are grown without
> causing CD.
Enough are grown WITH causing CDs, and you eat them.
You continue to eat them, and you pay the farmer for
producing them. You share responsibility.
>
>
>>and "vegans" continue to buy food from those farmers.
>
>
> That's right,
QED.
Malcolm
<msa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>"Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>news:baivc6$9kvs$1...@ID-190488.news.dfncis.de...
>> Trimmed alt.food.vegan.science
>>
>> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>news:3ECB247D...@whitehouse.not...
>> > Dreck Nash doesn't want to be held responsible for
>> > animal collateral deaths in agriculture.
>>
>> Of course not. The farmer kills them, so why should I
>> or anyone take responsibility for what he does?
>>
>
>The farmer only kills them in order to provide idiots that will not eat
>meat with an unreasonably large quantity of organic(?) fruit and veg. If
>you adopted a more typical diet he wouldn't have to kill as many animals.
>You, and others like you, have forced him into this position. What option
>do you give him - to stop farming and allow innocent non-vegans to starve
>too?
Tell the lazy pervert ponce to get a proper job, see if he can get you
one while he is at it. That's a classic, the pervert is forced into
taking pictures of the children because that's what people want!! only
you could come up with that.
>Of course if food were rationed we'd all get the same quanities of fruit
>and veg so deaths caused per person would be the same. Fo now though the
>evil vegans cause far more animal deaths than others.
Simply a pure nonsense statement
> It's just that they
>prefer to kill "lesser" animals such as mice, snails, butterflies, etc.
>rather than chew on a lump of cow.
Much to your great upset.
--
So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?
I understand.
/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..
swamp
<jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>Go back and re-read the thread. You're mixing up
>posters. Shitface wrote "It would not be dead if...";
>*I* wrote "...and the diner typically didn't kill it."
> I seriously think you haven't got my point.
Hmm. I only read tpa, and was responding to:
Message-ID: <baivc6$9kvs$1...@ID-190488.news.dfncis.de>
I re-read and *think* I've got the attribs right. Derek is blaming the
farmer for the deaths he solicits, and calling them "accidental" at
the same time. Accidents are by nature blameless, so I find this ar/ev
tactic unconvincing to say the least. If I've made a technical mistake
here I'll retract. If your point is that ar/evs are attempting to duck
responsibility, I agree completely.
--swamp
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3ECD12BB...@whitehouse.not...
> Derek wrote:
> > Trimmed alt.food.vegan.science
> >
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3ECD0531...@whitehouse.not...
> >
> >>Derek wrote:
> >>
> >>>Trimmed alt.food.vegan.science
> >>>
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3ECB247D...@whitehouse.not...
> >>>
> >>>>Dreck Nash doesn't want to be held responsible for
> >>>>animal collateral deaths in agriculture.
> >>>
> >>>Of course not. The farmer kills them, so why should I
> >>>or anyone take responsibility for what he does?
> >>
> >>Because the farmer is farming to feed YOU.
> >
> > So what. If he does a bad job of it and kills animals
> > along the way, then that's his fault - not mine. Blame
> > him.
>
> I blame you, too, because he is only trying to satisfy
> you.
Irrelevant. He isn't doing his job to my satisfaction
or design.
> If you find his work unsatisfactory, hire someone
> else.
Another farmer?
> Your continuing payment to him not only means
> you find his work satisfactory,
I don't.
> it intimately ties you to all moral results of his work.
>
No, it doesn't.
> >
> >>Without the demand of consumers, there is no farmer.
> >
> > Why don't you state the obvious?
>
> I have. The point is to show that he is *your* farmer.
The plumber is my plumber too if I employ him, but I
can't be blamed if he botches the job I set him. He alone
would be responsible if he floods my carpet and I would
sue his sorry arse for compensation.
> There's a famous quote attributed to Franklin
> Roosevelt, concerning some tinhorn dictator in Central
> America whom the U.S. supported. Someone pointed out
> the guy was a son-of-a-bitch, and Roosevelt is alleged
> to have responded, "Yes, but he's *our*
> son-of-a-bitch." The U.S. and all its citizens indeed
> bore some moral responsibility for the people that
> dictator unjustly imprisoned or worse.
>
No, they didn't. That sort of thinking is utterly repugnant
in all of its manifestations and out of place in the thinking
of people in the twentieth century.
> The farmer is *your* farmer: your payments to him make
> him so. You share moral responsibility for what he
> does.
Those in my employ must accept full responsiblity
for any action they perform if it differs from what I
demand. If my taxi driver runs down a snotty kid
while taking me home from the pub, he alone is fully
responsible for his death. If a farmer kills animals
while producing my veg, he alone is fully responsible
for those deaths. Get a grip, Jon. What's the matter
with you?
[blurb]
Jonathan Ball
> Trimmed alt.food.vegan.science ( why are you trying to get me into trouble with Laurie? )
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3ECD12BB...@whitehouse.not...
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>Trimmed alt.food.vegan.science
>>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3ECD0531...@whitehouse.not...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Trimmed alt.food.vegan.science
>>>>>
>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3ECB247D...@whitehouse.not...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Dreck Nash doesn't want to be held responsible for
>>>>>>animal collateral deaths in agriculture.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course not. The farmer kills them, so why should I
>>>>>or anyone take responsibility for what he does?
>>>>
>>>>Because the farmer is farming to feed YOU.
>>>
>>>So what. If he does a bad job of it and kills animals
>>>along the way, then that's his fault - not mine. Blame
>>>him.
>>
>>I blame you, too, because he is only trying to satisfy
>>you.
>
>
> Irrelevant. He isn't doing his job to my satisfaction
> or design.
It's highly relevant. You should fire an employee who
isn't doing the job the way you think it should be done.
>
>
>> If you find his work unsatisfactory, hire someone
>>else.
>
>
> Another farmer?
Yes, or do it yourself.
>
>
>>Your continuing payment to him not only means
>>you find his work satisfactory,
>
>
> I don't.
You must, or you wouldn't keep paying him.
>
>
>>it intimately ties you to all moral results of his work.
>>
>
> No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does, according to the same theory of shared
moral reponsibility in which you already believe, and
which IS the basis for your "veganism".
>
>>>>Without the demand of consumers, there is no farmer.
>>>
>>>Why don't you state the obvious?
>>
>>I have. The point is to show that he is *your* farmer.
>
>
> The plumber is my plumber too if I employ him, but I
> can't be blamed if he botches the job I set him.
You *are* to blame if you keep using him once you know
he has botched the job.
> He alone
> would be responsible if he floods my carpet and I would
> sue his sorry arse for compensation.
***YOU*** are responsible if he floods your carpet a
second time. (He'd actually be doing you a favor by
drowning all the fleas and other vermin.) There
shouldn't BE a second and subsequent time.
I'd love to see what would happen in court if a
homeowner tried to sue an incompetent tradesman after
the tradesman had botched a third or fourth job for the
same homeowner. I suspect the jury as a matter of law
would have to find for the plaintiff, but would award
him negligible damages, on the belief that he should
have known better. Civil law recognizes a concept
called contributory negligence, and the homeowner would
clearly be held to have contributed to his own damage.
That's a nice new analogy for me to use.
>
>
>> There's a famous quote attributed to Franklin
>>Roosevelt, concerning some tinhorn dictator in Central
>>America whom the U.S. supported. Someone pointed out
>>the guy was a son-of-a-bitch, and Roosevelt is alleged
>>to have responded, "Yes, but he's *our*
>>son-of-a-bitch." The U.S. and all its citizens indeed
>>bore some moral responsibility for the people that
>>dictator unjustly imprisoned or worse.
>>
>
> No, they didn't.
Yes, they did.
>>The farmer is *your* farmer: your payments to him make
>>him so. You share moral responsibility for what he
>>does.
>
>
> Those in my employ must accept full responsiblity
> for any action they perform if it differs from what I
> demand.
Not if you continue to employ them, despite knowing
what they do and how they do it. It's that knowledge,
and the OBLIGATION you have to act upon it, that fucks
you over but good.
USual sUSpect
Derek wrote:
> Trimmed alt.food.vegan.science ( why are you trying to get me into trouble with Laurie? )
<snip>
>>I blame you, too, because he is only trying to satisfy
>>you.
>
> Irrelevant. He isn't doing his job to my satisfaction
> or design.
Then hire another one.
>> If you find his work unsatisfactory, hire someone
>>else.
>
> Another farmer?
No, a freaking tooth fairy. Until quite recently, you had little choice
about buying organic. As demand for organic produce has grown, more and
more farmers have deserted chemical fertilizers and pesticides to
satisfy that demand. Some consumers prefer low prices and continue
buying food grown with 'conventional' pesticides and fertilizers.
Demand, or the lack thereof, for CD-free foods would work the same way.
The only problem you have to solve is convincing enough people that
thrashing machinery and other means of causing collateral animal deaths
are as deleterious as pesiticide residues and chemical fertilizers. If
there is demand, a supply will rise to meet it.
<snip>
>>it intimately ties you to all moral results of his work.
>
> No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does. In terms of culpability, you're only slightly different
than someone who hires a hitman -- more like someone who hires a hitman
who ends up taking out additional witnesses to the original hit. Sure
it's bonus-killing and brings down the net cost of the original hit, but
it gets you in even more trouble.
<snip>
> The plumber is my plumber too if I employ him, but I
> can't be blamed if he botches the job I set him. He alone
> would be responsible if he floods my carpet and I would
> sue his sorry arse for compensation.
Would you actually keep calling the same plumber?
>>son-of-a-bitch." The U.S. and all its citizens indeed
>>bore some moral responsibility for the people that
>>dictator unjustly imprisoned or worse.
>
> No, they didn't. That sort of thinking is utterly repugnant
> in all of its manifestations and out of place in the thinking
> of people in the twentieth century.
Roosevelt's successor had another line which is ENTIRELY appropriate to
you, Derek: "The buck stops here." Come on and confess your own
responsibility.
>>The farmer is *your* farmer: your payments to him make
>>him so. You share moral responsibility for what he
>>does.
>
> Those in my employ must accept full responsiblity
> for any action they perform if it differs from what I
> demand. If my taxi driver runs down a snotty kid
> while taking me home from the pub, he alone is fully
> responsible for his death. If a farmer kills animals
> while producing my veg, he alone is fully responsible
> for those deaths. Get a grip, Jon. What's the matter
> with you?
More passing the buck.
Jonathan Ball
> Trimmed of afv. Why are you trying to get me in trouble with Fritz?
>
> Derek wrote:
>
>> Trimmed alt.food.vegan.science ( why are you trying to get me into
>> trouble with Laurie? )
>
> <snip>
>
>>> I blame you, too, because he is only trying to satisfy
>>> you.
>>
>>
>> Irrelevant. He isn't doing his job to my satisfaction
>> or design.
>
>
> Then hire another one.
>
>>> If you find his work unsatisfactory, hire someone
>>> else.
>>
>>
>> Another farmer?
>
>
> No, a freaking tooth fairy. Until quite recently, you had little choice
> about buying organic. As demand for organic produce has grown, more and
> more farmers have deserted chemical fertilizers and pesticides to
> satisfy that demand. Some consumers prefer low prices and continue
> buying food grown with 'conventional' pesticides and fertilizers.
> Demand, or the lack thereof, for CD-free foods would work the same way.
> The only problem you have to solve is convincing enough people that
> thrashing machinery and other means of causing collateral animal deaths
> are as deleterious as pesiticide residues and chemical fertilizers. If
> there is demand, a supply will rise to meet it.
Better yet is, grow it yourself. In this day and age,
it is orders of magnitude easier to take that approach.
There are thousands upon thousands of web pages and
books and support groups concerned with "living off the
grid", even to the point of personal autarky.
"Vegans" simply are lazy. They like the cheap, easy
symbolism of not eating meat, even though it isn't an
ethical solution.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3ECE332E...@whitehouse.not...
> Derek wrote:
> > Trimmed alt.food.vegan.science ( why are you trying to get me into trouble with Laurie? )
> >
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3ECD12BB...@whitehouse.not...
> >
> >>Derek wrote:
> >>
> >>>Trimmed alt.food.vegan.science
> >>>
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3ECD0531...@whitehouse.not...
> >>>
> >>>>Derek wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Trimmed alt.food.vegan.science
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3ECB247D...@whitehouse.not...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Dreck Nash doesn't want to be held responsible for
> >>>>>>animal collateral deaths in agriculture.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Of course not. The farmer kills them, so why should I
> >>>>>or anyone take responsibility for what he does?
> >>>>
> >>>>Because the farmer is farming to feed YOU.
> >>>
> >>>So what. If he does a bad job of it and kills animals
> >>>along the way, then that's his fault - not mine. Blame
> >>>him.
> >>
> >>I blame you, too, because he is only trying to satisfy
> >>you.
> >
> > Irrelevant. He isn't doing his job to my satisfaction
> > or design.
>
> It's highly relevant. You should fire an employee who
> isn't doing the job the way you think it should be done.
>
How do I fire a farmer, policeman, soldier or medical
researcher, Jon?
> >
> >> If you find his work unsatisfactory, hire someone
> >>else.
> >
> > Another farmer?
>
> Yes,
Will this farmer produce veg without causing CD?
> or do it yourself.
>
You know I can't do that.
> >
> >>Your continuing payment to him not only means
> >>you find his work satisfactory,
> >
> > I don't.
>
> You must, or you wouldn't keep paying him.
>
My payment isn't an indication that I condone his methods.
Likewise, my tax payments aren't an indication that I
condone American and British terrorism in Iraq and
Afghanistan either.
> >
> >>it intimately ties you to all moral results of his work.
> >
> > No, it doesn't.
>
> Yes, it does, according to the same theory of shared
> moral reponsibility in which you already believe, and
> which IS the basis for your "veganism".
>
Why don't you try tackling the real Derek Nash instead of
the one you invented? I don't believe in the things you say
I believe, and I do believe in the things you say I don't, so
what's your problem here, Jon. Why don't you stop pissing
about?
> >
> >>>>Without the demand of consumers, there is no farmer.
> >>>
> >>>Why don't you state the obvious?
> >>
> >>I have. The point is to show that he is *your* farmer.
> >
> > The plumber is my plumber too if I employ him, but I
> > can't be blamed if he botches the job I set him.
>
> You *are* to blame if you keep using him once you know
> he has botched the job.
>
What if every plumber I employ floods my carpet?
> > He alone
> > would be responsible if he floods my carpet and I would
> > sue his sorry arse for compensation.
>
> ***YOU*** are responsible if he floods your carpet a
> second time.
No. He would still be just as blameworthy the second
time around, and the third. I don't ask that he ruin my
carpet.
> (He'd actually be doing you a favor by
> drowning all the fleas and other vermin.) There
> shouldn't BE a second and subsequent time.
>
That's exactly my complaint to the farmer. Now we're
getting somewhere.
> I'd love to see what would happen in court if a
> homeowner tried to sue an incompetent tradesman after
> the tradesman had botched a third or fourth job for the
> same homeowner.
Didn't I hear correctly that you have something called
"a lemon law" in America where incompetent garage owners
are forced to reimburse the customer after several attempts
in getting the job done right fail?
> I suspect the jury as a matter of law
> would have to find for the plaintiff, but would award
> him negligible damages, on the belief that he should
> have known better.
See - there you go again. You cannot help but blame
someone else for another's incompetence on the basis
that THEY should've known better.
> Civil law recognizes a concept
> called contributory negligence, and the homeowner would
> clearly be held to have contributed to his own damage.
>
> That's a nice new analogy for me to use.
>
Try it. I'll burn it alive.
Michael Saunby
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > Irrelevant. He isn't doing his job to my satisfaction
> > or design.
>
> It's highly relevant. You should fire an employee who
> isn't doing the job the way you think it should be done.
>
Actually that isn't true is the (soon to be) Union of Socialist European
Republics. Employers first and foremost must execute the welfare policies
of the state; so you would first need to determine whether the employee was
a member of some disadvantaged or minority group (vegan?) or had a
dependent who is disadvantaged (ill educated?) in some way. Actually
making or doing stuff is what European employers do to provide therapy and
fulfilment for those in their employ; it's no longer their main purpose.
It's a bloody miracle we don't all starve - thank God for cheap imported
food.
Michael Saunby
T N Nurse
Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
> Derek wrote:
> > Trimmed alt.food.vegan.science ( why are you trying to get me into trouble
> > with Laurie? )
> >
> > The plumber is my plumber too if I employ him, but I
> > can't be blamed if he botches the job I set him.
>
> You *are* to blame if you keep using him once you know
> he has botched the job.
>
> > He alone
> > would be responsible if he floods my carpet and I would
> > sue his sorry arse for compensation.
>
> ***YOU*** are responsible if he floods your carpet a
> second time. (He'd actually be doing you a favor by
> drowning all the fleas and other vermin.) There
> shouldn't BE a second and subsequent time.
>
> I'd love to see what would happen in court if a
> homeowner tried to sue an incompetent tradesman after
> the tradesman had botched a third or fourth job for the
> same homeowner. I suspect the jury as a matter of law
> would have to find for the plaintiff, but would award
> him negligible damages, on the belief that he should
> have known better. Civil law recognizes a concept
> called contributory negligence, and the homeowner would
> clearly be held to have contributed to his own damage.
>
> That's a nice new analogy for me to use.
..and if he had home contents insurance and re-employed
this incompetant, the insurance company would hold the
home owner entirely liable for all costs for employing
someone he knew to be incompetant from previous experience.
What would probably happen in a UK court is that they would
find for the plaintiff but rule that the plaintiff's contributory
negligence was 100% of any award.
>
T N Nurse
"Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> The plumber is my plumber too if I employ him, but I
> can't be blamed if he botches the job I set him. He alone
> would be responsible if he floods my carpet and I would
> sue his sorry arse for compensation.
And would you go back to him again, and again, even if you knew
he'd botch the job each time? Of course not. Your insurance company
would tell you where to go and that you were entirely responsible for
the damage as you hired someone you already knew to be incompetant
and likely to cause damage. Thus the damage is your responsibility.
Jonathan Ball
> Trimmed alt.food.vegan.science
>
>>>>>>Because the farmer is farming to feed YOU.
>>>>>
>>>>>So what. If he does a bad job of it and kills animals
>>>>>along the way, then that's his fault - not mine. Blame
>>>>>him.
>>>>
>>>>I blame you, too, because he is only trying to satisfy
>>>>you.
>>>
>>>Irrelevant. He isn't doing his job to my satisfaction
>>>or design.
>>
>>It's highly relevant. You should fire an employee who
>>isn't doing the job the way you think it should be done.
>>
>
> How do I fire a farmer, policeman, soldier or medical
> researcher, Jon?
You can't lump them all together, dishonest Dreck, as
you have different relationships to all of them,
although the cop and the soldier are similar.
The farmer is the *easiest* for you to fire, Dreck. I
think you already know how to do it.
>
>>>>If you find his work unsatisfactory, hire someone
>>>>else.
>>>
>>>Another farmer?
>>
>>Yes,
>
>
> Will this farmer produce veg without causing CD?
Aren't you the one who needs to be asking him that,
before you hire him? Why the fuck are you asking me?
>
>
>>or do it yourself.
>>
>
> You know I can't do that.
I don't know any such thing. I currently help to make
and sell manufactured foodstuffs to high-end
restaurants, but I never handle any food at work, nor
do I ever call on any customers. At my prior client, I
helped to grow and sell garden plants to retail
nurseries, but I never cultivated any plants nor loaded
any on trucks nor contacted any customers.
You don't literally have to be the hands-on tiller of
soil in order to farm, Dreck. You and other
like-minded (fuckwitted, it goes without saying)
"vegans" can form a co-operative and farm the way you
think farming ought to be done. I'm sure there's
something useful for you to do on non-Animal Farm.
Perhaps you could read some Aristotle aloud to the
people working in the fields.
>
>>>>Your continuing payment to him not only means
>>>>you find his work satisfactory,
>>>
>>>I don't.
>>
>>You must, or you wouldn't keep paying him.
>>
>
> My payment isn't an indication that I condone his methods.
When you know what they are and you know he is
continuing to use them, yet you continue to buy from
him anyway, your payment IS indeed an expression of
approval of his methods. If you were the repair garage
owner, and your fuckwitted incompetent "spark" kept
fucking up customers' cars, and you knew it, and you
continued to employ him allowing him to fuck up still
other customers' cars, you are responsible.
> Likewise, my tax payments aren't an indication that I
> condone American and British terrorism in Iraq and
> Afghanistan either.
Taxes are different. You really don't have a
legitimate choice, as the lying sophist ~~ratfuck~~
dishonestly pretends.
>
>>>>it intimately ties you to all moral results of his work.
>>>
>>>No, it doesn't.
>>
>>Yes, it does, according to the same theory of shared
>>moral reponsibility in which you already believe, and
>>which IS the basis for your "veganism".
>>
>
> Why don't you try tackling the real Derek Nash instead of
> the one you invented?
I not only have tackled you, I've beaten your shitty
British teeth in.
>
>>>>>>Without the demand of consumers, there is no farmer.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why don't you state the obvious?
>>>>
>>>>I have. The point is to show that he is *your* farmer.
>>>
>>>The plumber is my plumber too if I employ him, but I
>>>can't be blamed if he botches the job I set him.
>>
>>You *are* to blame if you keep using him once you know
>>he has botched the job.
>>
>
> What if every plumber I employ floods my carpet?
Then you'll have to do it yourself. You don't have a
right to have things done to your satisfaction; your
right only extends to defining what you find
satisfying, and seeking to obtain it.
>
>
>>>He alone
>>>would be responsible if he floods my carpet and I would
>>>sue his sorry arse for compensation.
>>
>>***YOU*** are responsible if he floods your carpet a
>>second time.
>
>
> No. He would still be just as blameworthy the second
> time around, and the third. I don't ask that he ruin my
> carpet.
You would be responsible, because you kept hiring a
known incompetent. You would get no sympathy from
anyone, and everyone would view you as contributing to
the mess.
>
>
>>(He'd actually be doing you a favor by
>>drowning all the fleas and other vermin.) There
>>shouldn't BE a second and subsequent time.
>>
>
> That's exactly my complaint to the farmer. Now we're
> getting somewhere.
We certainly are. There ARE a second and third and
more times, and you know it, yet you keep buying from
the same killers. You don't need to have any business
relationship with them at all. You CHOOSE to do so.
>
>
>>I'd love to see what would happen in court if a
>>homeowner tried to sue an incompetent tradesman after
>>the tradesman had botched a third or fourth job for the
>>same homeowner.
>
>
> Didn't I hear correctly that you have something called
> "a lemon law" in America where incompetent garage owners
> are forced to reimburse the customer after several attempts
> in getting the job done right fail?
No, that's not quite what the "lemon laws" are about.
It has to do with a vehicle that clearly is not up to
standard and can't be repaired. It's based on the
incompetence of the manufacturer, not the repair shop.
I seem to recall reading that the laws have been
weakened somewhat over the last few years. It doesn't
matter as much, because cars have gotten so much
better; there just aren't as many lemons built any
more, certainly not as high a percentage but probably
not as many in absolute numbers, either.
>
>
>>I suspect the jury as a matter of law
>>would have to find for the plaintiff, but would award
>>him negligible damages, on the belief that he should
>>have known better.
>
>
> See - there you go again. You cannot help but blame
> someone else for another's incompetence on the basis
> that THEY should've known better.
It isn't the incompetence of the worker per se for
which you or another homeowner is being "blamed". It's
your OWN incompetence, or stupidity, for hiring him
after you know him to be incompetent. You clearly DO
share responsibility for the bad outcome in that case.
The same with the farmer. According to you, he is
incompetent when it comes to farming without killing
animals, and you feel the death of those animals is
immoral. Yet you keep buying from him, knowing that he
ALWAYS kills animals. That makes you responsible,
along with him, for the animal deaths.
Give up trying to refute the idea of shared moral
responsibility, Dreck; you clearly believe in it, as it
is undeniably the basis for your being "vegan" in the
first place. The only possible hope you have is to
show that, DESPITE your ardent and unshakable belief in
shared moral responsibility, the concept is
inapplicable IN THIS INSTANCE. I feel just a little
bit dirty having written that, because I think it's
obviously NOT possible to show it isn't applicable; I
perhaps should have written that it's the only
"conceivable" hope.
>
>
>>Civil law recognizes a concept
>>called contributory negligence, and the homeowner would
>>clearly be held to have contributed to his own damage.
>>
>>That's a nice new analogy for me to use.
>>
>
> Try it. I'll burn it alive.
You don't even have any matches.
You are contributorily negligent in the collateral
death of animals in agriculture. Yes...that has a
lovely ring to it.
Kevin and Donna Brandon
First he'll need to join the rest of us in the twenty-first century.
Kevin
Derek
"USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote in message news:3ECE33A3...@even.try...
>
> Derek wrote:
> > Those in my employ must accept full responsiblity
> > for any action they perform if it differs from what I
> > demand. If my taxi driver runs down a snotty kid
> > while taking me home from the pub, he alone is fully
> > responsible for his death. If a farmer kills animals
> > while producing my veg, he alone is fully responsible
> > for those deaths. Get a grip, Jon. What's the matter
> > with you?
>
> More passing the buck.
>
culprit who commits the bad act.
Derek
"T N Nurse" <tnnurse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:tnnurseNOUCE99-93E...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk...
> In article <balb5f$11s2s$1...@ID-190488.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > The plumber is my plumber too if I employ him, but I
> > can't be blamed if he botches the job I set him. He alone
> > would be responsible if he floods my carpet and I would
> > sue his sorry arse for compensation.
>
> And would you go back to him again, and again, even if you knew
> he'd botch the job each time? Of course not.
If he were like the farmer, who is like any other farmer and
always botches the job, I would have no option but to employ
him or his like again.
> Your insurance company
> would tell you where to go and that you were entirely responsible for
> the damage as you hired someone you already knew to be incompetant
> and likely to cause damage. Thus the damage is your responsibility.
No, it isn't.
Jonathan Ball
No. You're passing the buck, in your usual
deny-all-responsibility way. It's incoherent, too, as
you fully recognize and accept the principle of shared
moral responsibility that makes you responsible. You
stupidly think you can pick and choose the situations
to which it applies. You can't.
Jonathan Ball
> "T N Nurse" <tnnurse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:tnnurseNOUCE99-93E...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk...
>
>>In article <balb5f$11s2s$1...@ID-190488.news.dfncis.de>,
>> "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The plumber is my plumber too if I employ him, but I
>>>can't be blamed if he botches the job I set him. He alone
>>>would be responsible if he floods my carpet and I would
>>>sue his sorry arse for compensation.
>>
>>And would you go back to him again, and again, even if you knew
>>he'd botch the job each time? Of course not.
>
>
> If he were like the farmer, who is like any other farmer and
> always botches the job, I would have no option but to employ
> him or his like again.
That's completely false. First, you haven't even
looked for farmers who might farm differently. You
can't be bothered; you are all about ease and
convenience, and it's simply too easy and convenient to
keep buying whatever Sainsbury or Tesco happens to stock.
Second, you have the choice of doing it yourself. If
you can't do all of it yourself, you form a
co-operative or something.
You simply don't care.
>
>
>>Your insurance company
>>would tell you where to go and that you were entirely responsible for
>>the damage as you hired someone you already knew to be incompetant
>>and likely to cause damage. Thus the damage is your responsibility.
>
>
> No, it isn't.
Yes, it is.
Dutch
broken record technique
USual sUSpect
>>More passing the buck.
>
> No. I'm just keeping it where it should stay - with the
> culprit who commits the bad act.
No, you're shifting the blame, passing the buck, shirking from
responsibility. Take your pick. The farmer is your henchman (of sorts).
Were it not for you, he would sell insurance or drive a taxi.
Derek
"USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote in message news:3ED202DA...@even.try...
> Derek wrote:
> >>More passing the buck.
> >
> > No. I'm just keeping it where it should stay - with the
> > culprit who commits the bad act.
>
> No, you're shifting the blame, passing the buck, shirking from
> responsibility.
Seeing as it's the farmer who causes them, and that you're
the one passing his blame, responsibility, or whatever onto
others, it is you who is doing all the buck passing around
here, not I.
USual sUSpect
>>No, you're shifting the blame, passing the buck, shirking from
>>responsibility.
>
> Seeing as it's the farmer who causes them, and that you're
> the one passing his blame, responsibility, or whatever onto
> others, it is you who is doing all the buck passing around
> here, not I.
No, Derek, I accept my own responsibility and complicity in CDs. Why
can't you do the same?
Derek
"USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote in message news:3ED2183E...@even.try...
Your acceptance is mere lip service and proves you
have a very loose attitude with respect to responsibility.
Having responsibility for something requires more than
just nodding your head emptily when asked if you caused
something.
You claim you are responsible for the collateral deaths
surrounding your lifestyle. As yet we've only mentioned
the collateral deaths of animals, but are you also willing
to accept the same responsibility for the collateral deaths
accrued during other aspects of your life, including the
deaths of Afghani children?
Jonathan Ball
It's you. You are intimately tied to the farmer,
providing him with incentive to farm and money for
having farmed the way he does, yet you deny any
responsibility for the outcome.
I have shown that you are in an analogous position to
the robbery getaway driver and the buyer of stolen
property. You share in the moral responsibility for
the animal deaths the farmer causes.
Jonathan Ball
> "USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote in message news:3ED2183E...@even.try...
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>>No, you're shifting the blame, passing the buck, shirking from
>>>>responsibility.
>>>
>>>Seeing as it's the farmer who causes them, and that you're
>>>the one passing his blame, responsibility, or whatever onto
>>>others, it is you who is doing all the buck passing around
>>>here, not I.
>>
>>No, Derek, I accept my own responsibility and complicity in CDs.
>
>
> Your acceptance is mere lip service and proves you
> have a very loose attitude with respect to responsibility.
No, his acceptance proves he understands the same
concept of shared moral responsibility that you accept,
but that he doesn't stupidly attempt to deny its
applicability based on a wish to shirk.
> Having responsibility for something requires more than
> just nodding your head emptily when asked if you caused
> something.
In your case, Dreck, having responsibility mean
frantically denying it despite mountains of evidence to
show you're responsible.
>
> You claim you are responsible for the collateral deaths
> surrounding your lifestyle. As yet we've only mentioned
> the collateral deaths of animals, but are you also willing
> to accept the same responsibility for the collateral deaths
> accrued during other aspects of your life, including the
> deaths of Afghani children?
Tu quoque and ad hominem. You are attempting to
minimize your responsibility for something you consider
horrible by engaging in character assassination.
His and anyone else's responsibility for Afghani
children's deaths is not morally comparable to your
responsibility for animal CDs. It in fact has nothing
to do with your responsibility, and your bringing it up
is an obvious attempt at shirking yet again.
Dutch
>
> "USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote
> > Derek wrote:
> > >>No, you're shifting the blame, passing the buck, shirking from
> > >>responsibility.
> > >
> > > Seeing as it's the farmer who causes them, and that you're
> > > the one passing his blame, responsibility, or whatever onto
> > > others, it is you who is doing all the buck passing around
> > > here, not I.
> >
> > No, Derek, I accept my own responsibility and complicity in CDs.
>
> Your acceptance is mere lip service and proves you
> have a very loose attitude with respect to responsibility.
> Having responsibility for something requires more than
> just nodding your head emptily when asked if you caused
> something.
>
> You claim you are responsible for the collateral deaths
> surrounding your lifestyle. As yet we've only mentioned
> the collateral deaths of animals, but are you also willing
> to accept the same responsibility for the collateral deaths
> accrued during other aspects of your life, including the
> deaths of Afghani children?
The is no lifestyle change that one can make that can change the plight
of Afghani children. There are however lifestyle changes that one can
make which impact the plight of the animals harmed by farmers, you can
cease doing business with them. It's what vegans do when they avoid
animal products.
Jonathan Ball
Very good answer, which helps to clarify that the two
ethical dilemmas are not morally equivalent (which we
already knew).
Derek
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:vd4fbdi...@news.supernews.com...
Wrong. We will always do business with the farmer in a
very definite way that cannot be avoided by any lifestyle
change. We will always pay him money through our taxes.
Jonathan Ball
It isn't the payment of money through taxes that
establishes your moral responsibility. It is your more
direct payment for the goods he produces.
swamp
<dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>Wrong. We will always do business with the farmer in a
>very definite way that cannot be avoided by any lifestyle
>change. We will always pay him money through our taxes.
Speaking of "logical form," how do you reconcile your demand that we
accept responsibility for sweatshop labor, Afghani children, shoddy
construction in Algeria, and other such muckety-muck while denying our
direct responsibility for the animal deaths we willingly *cause* by
our active participation in the farmer's existence?
--swamp
Derek
"swamp" <sw...@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:io45dv0pnprl12a7o...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 May 2003 18:24:01 +0100, "Derek"
> <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> >Wrong. We will always do business with the farmer in a
> >very definite way that cannot be avoided by any lifestyle
> >change. We will always pay him money through our taxes.
>
> Speaking of "logical form," how do you reconcile your demand that we
> accept responsibility for sweatshop labor, Afghani children, shoddy
> construction in Algeria, and other such muckety-muck
I don't. If I have a sweater in my wardrobe that came from
sweatshop labour I wouldn't feel responsible for their bad
working conditions. I would blame the sweatshop owner
as I do the farmer for the deaths he causes, not myself or
his consumers. You might like to let him off because you
feel responsible for his actions, but I don't.
USual sUSpect
>>No, Derek, I accept my own responsibility and complicity in CDs.
>
> Your acceptance is mere lip service and proves you
> have a very loose attitude with respect to responsibility.
How is it mere lip service? How is it a loose attitude?
> Having responsibility for something requires more than
> just nodding your head emptily when asked if you caused
> something.
I grow about 60% of my own food. I am pretty sure there are no CDs in my
garden. The only foods I consume which probably carry some
responsibility for CDs are my grains and legumes. Unfortunately, it is
very impractical for me to grow my own rice up here.
> You claim you are responsible for the collateral deaths
> surrounding your lifestyle. As yet we've only mentioned
> the collateral deaths of animals, but are you also willing
> to accept the same responsibility for the collateral deaths
> accrued during other aspects of your life, including the
> deaths of Afghani children?
I don't like the collateral deaths of Afghan civilians, but that would
not stop me from targeting the people who either planned and paid for
terrorists who killed 3000+ people on 11 Sep 20001 or allowed said
people to practice their terrorism in their nation. With regard to
collateral deaths in any theater of operation, we take care of the
innocents we injure and make restitution. We also try to leave nations a
lot better off than we found them. At least the Afghans now have a
chance of freedom. Where's your sense of responsibility for protecting
your own nation from the threat of Islamo-fascist terror, and where's
your responsibility for promoting freedom for repressed people?
USual sUSpect
> Wrong. We will always do business with the farmer in a
> very definite way that cannot be avoided by any lifestyle
> change. We will always pay him money through our taxes.
Once again, you completely miss the point. PointS! You have no choice
about paying taxes. You do have choices about how you obtain your food.
You can grow it yourself, buy from a farmer who grows in a sensitive
enough manner to avoid CDs, or you can buy from a farmer who doesn't
care about CDs at all. You have chosen the latter not as a matter of
necessity but of sloth. The fact that you continue to deny this, and to
deny your complicity in CDs, patently reflects your irresponsibility.
Dutch
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:vd4fbdi...@news.supernews.com...
> > "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote
> > >
> > > "USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote
> > > > Derek wrote:
> > > > >>No, you're shifting the blame, passing the buck, shirking from
> > > > >>responsibility.
> > > > >
> > > > > Seeing as it's the farmer who causes them, and that you're
> > > > > the one passing his blame, responsibility, or whatever onto
> > > > > others, it is you who is doing all the buck passing around
> > > > > here, not I.
> > > >
> > > > No, Derek, I accept my own responsibility and complicity in CDs.
> > >
> > > Your acceptance is mere lip service and proves you
> > > have a very loose attitude with respect to responsibility.
> > > Having responsibility for something requires more than
> > > just nodding your head emptily when asked if you caused
> > > something.
> > >
> > > You claim you are responsible for the collateral deaths
> > > surrounding your lifestyle. As yet we've only mentioned
> > > the collateral deaths of animals, but are you also willing
> > > to accept the same responsibility for the collateral deaths
> > > accrued during other aspects of your life, including the
> > > deaths of Afghani children?
> >
plight
> > of Afghani children. There are however lifestyle changes that one can
> > make which impact the plight of the animals harmed by farmers, you can
> > cease doing business with them.
>
> Wrong. We will always do business with the farmer in a
> very definite way that cannot be avoided by any lifestyle
> change. We will always pay him money through our taxes.
Subsidies won't help a farmer if he has no customers.
Derek
"USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote in message news:3ED2A01B...@even.try...
> Derek wrote:
> >>No, Derek, I accept my own responsibility and complicity in CDs.
> >
> > Your acceptance is mere lip service and proves you
> > have a very loose attitude with respect to responsibility.
>
> How is it mere lip service? How is it a loose attitude?
>
collateral deaths of Afghani children, you merely concede
that you are and do nothing to halt them. That being so,
you either have a very weak sense of responsibility
generally, or you are lying and don't actually believe you
are responsible at all.
> > Having responsibility for something requires more than
> > just nodding your head emptily when asked if you caused
> > something.
>
> I grow about 60% of my own food. I am pretty sure there are no CDs in my
> garden. The only foods I consume which probably carry some
> responsibility for CDs are my grains and legumes. Unfortunately, it is
> very impractical for me to grow my own rice up here.
>
> > You claim you are responsible for the collateral deaths
> > surrounding your lifestyle. As yet we've only mentioned
> > the collateral deaths of animals, but are you also willing
> > to accept the same responsibility for the collateral deaths
> > accrued during other aspects of your life, including the
> > deaths of Afghani children?
>
> I don't like the collateral deaths of Afghan civilians, but that would
> not stop me from targeting the people who either planned and paid for
> terrorists who killed 3000+ people on 11 Sep 20001 or allowed said
> people to practice their terrorism in their nation. With regard to
> collateral deaths in any theater of operation, we take care of the
> innocents we injure and make restitution.
You haven't admitted whether you accept responsibility for
them or not. You say you don't like them, but you must accept
responsibility for them if you accept responsibility for collateral
deaths generally, as you claim to, so why do you still carry on
paying money to the government to keep killing them on your
behalf?
> We also try to leave nations a lot better off than we found them.
Irrelevant and false. You are trying to excuse the collateral deaths
by claiming we are doing their country a favour. That's unethical.
> At least the Afghans now have a chance of freedom.
No, they have a good chance in being killed by British and
American murdering cowards parading themselves as soldiers,
that's all.
> Where's your sense of responsibility for protecting
> your own nation from the threat of Islamo-fascist terror,
Our nation was not under any threat. The terrorist attack by
our countries on those Eastern countries is illegal and obviously
done to grab their oil.
> and where's
> your responsibility for promoting freedom for repressed people?
>
In the letters and petitions I sign to end our cowardly attacks
on them.
Derek
"USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote in message news:3ED2A4B5...@even.try...
> Derek wrote:
> > Wrong. We will always do business with the farmer in a
> > very definite way that cannot be avoided by any lifestyle
> > change. We will always pay him money through our taxes.
>
> Once again, you completely miss the point.
No, you did. My response was in answer to something Dutch
said which you snipped away. He claims I can cease doing
business with the farmer, but my reply refutes that claim in that
we will always be doing business with the farmer because he
takes a large portion of our tax money at source.
Derek
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:uxxAa.71905$3C2.2...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
Irrelevant. My task was to prove your claim wrong.
Contrary to what you claim we will always do business
with the farmer through our taxes.
>
>
USual sUSpect
>>How is it mere lip service? How is it a loose attitude?
>
> When asked about whether you are responsible for the
> collateral deaths of Afghani children, you merely concede
> that you are and do nothing to halt them. That being so,
Bullshit. We help survivors of collateral bombing and make restitution
to the surviving families of those who die. I won't attempt to halt them
because I favor dismantling terrorist infrastructure. If you want to
pass the blame to anyone the way you do to the farmers, blame the
terrorists for setting up camp and hiding around civilians, and blame
the Taliban for hosting groups like al-Qa'eda in their borders. My
nation doesn't do that. We take care of innocents we do not mean to harm.
> you either have a very weak sense of responsibility
> generally, or you are lying and don't actually believe you
> are responsible at all.
From how you just mischaracterized what I said, I would say I not only
have a strong sense of responsibility but a greater command of
comprehension than you. But I'm also man enough not to get personal
about it.
>>I don't like the collateral deaths of Afghan civilians, but that would
>>not stop me from targeting the people who either planned and paid for
>>terrorists who killed 3000+ people on 11 Sep 20001 or allowed said
>>people to practice their terrorism in their nation. With regard to
>>collateral deaths in any theater of operation, we take care of the
>>innocents we injure and make restitution.
>
> You haven't admitted whether you accept responsibility for
> them or not. You say you don't like them, but you must accept
> responsibility for them if you accept responsibility for collateral
> deaths generally, as you claim to, so why do you still carry on
> paying money to the government to keep killing them on your
> behalf?
Taxes are obligatory. I favor the war on terror. As now noted twice
before, we take care of those we injure and make restitution for losses.
Bigger point. You seem to think markets are obligatory and taxes are
optional enterprises. I think you're confused on the whole matter, and
your analogies prove it.
>>We also try to leave nations a lot better off than we found them.
>
> Irrelevant and false. You are trying to excuse the collateral deaths
> by claiming we are doing their country a favour. That's unethical.
Hardly. You're the one making irrelevant analogies.
>>At least the Afghans now have a chance of freedom.
>
> No, they have a good chance in being killed by British and
> American murdering cowards parading themselves as soldiers,
> that's all.
I dare you to go call such men cowards. You won't? So now you're the coward.
>>Where's your sense of responsibility for protecting
>>your own nation from the threat of Islamo-fascist terror,
>
> Our nation was not under any threat. The terrorist attack by
> our countries on those Eastern countries is illegal and obviously
> done to grab their oil.
You are misled. For starters, do you not recall the cell that was busted
earlier this year (or late last year)? They had some ricin, a horrible
poison that causes an agonizing death, they planned to put in your water
supply.
>>and where's
>>your responsibility for promoting freedom for repressed people?
>
> In the letters and petitions I sign to end our cowardly attacks
> on them.
I see. Go fight your military if you're so opposed to what they're
doing. Fight ours. Those men are braver than you'll ever be, and far
more noble in sacrificing their lives for causes greater than
themselves. You should try that sometime rather than sitting on your
butt and trying to play philosopher.
USual sUSpect
>>Once again, you completely miss the point.
>
> No, you did. My response was in answer to something Dutch
> said which you snipped away. He claims I can cease doing
> business with the farmer, but my reply refutes that claim in that
> we will always be doing business with the farmer because he
> takes a large portion of our tax money at source.
Then I should have snipped *your* reply instead of what Dutch said. What
you said is beside the point, and now you're adding further irrelevant
qualifications to your baseless argument. If you do not support CDs, you
*can* avoid farmers who kill animals regardless of whatever subsidies
they receive. Stop changing the focus or adding irrelevant data to your
argument. It's only worsening your position.
Derek
"USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote in message news:3ED2B041...@even.try...
> Derek wrote:
> >>How is it mere lip service? How is it a loose attitude?
> >
> > When asked about whether you are responsible for the
> > collateral deaths of Afghani children, you merely concede
> > that you are and do nothing to halt them. That being so,
>
> Bullshit. We help survivors of collateral bombing and make restitution
> to the surviving families of those who die.
Yes, I saw a young girl on the TV who had horrendous
burns all over her body caused by one of our brave
lads flown into a burns unit in Washington. A swaggering
yank stepped up to her and said, "Welcome to America."
I bet she was thankful.
> I won't attempt to halt them
> because I favor dismantling terrorist infrastructure.
In other words you are willing to violate the fundamental
rights of humans to bring about what you want.
> If you want to
> pass the blame to anyone the way you do to the farmers, blame the
> terrorists for setting up camp and hiding around civilians, and blame
> the Taliban for hosting groups like al-Qa'eda in their borders. My
> nation doesn't do that. We take care of innocents we do not mean to harm.
>
That's a lie.Our countries don't care who they kill. They
blow up whole buildings with innocent people still in them
after tip offs from people claiming Saddam is staying there.
Our cowardly soldiers couldn't give a hoot who they kill.
They are murderers.
> > you either have a very weak sense of responsibility
> > generally, or you are lying and don't actually believe you
> > are responsible at all.
>
> From how you just mischaracterized what I said, I would say I not only
> have a strong sense of responsibility but a greater command of
> comprehension than you.
Oh, here we go, the "I'm so much smarter than you" approach.
Grow up, sunshine.
> But I'm also man enough not to get personal about it.
>
You're not a man at all if you condone the killing of innocent
children to get what you want.
All soldiers currently killing kids for kicks can come visit
my house at
249, Southbourne Road
Eastbourne
E. Sussex BN22 8RE
and I'll tell them all that they are cowards to their murdering faces.
USual sUSpect
>>Subsidies won't help a farmer if he has no customers.
>
> Irrelevant. My task was to prove your claim wrong.
If that was your task, you failed.
> Contrary to what you claim we will always do business
> with the farmer through our taxes.
Irrelevant and wrong. A subsidy is a form of market interference but
*you* are still part of the market when you buy from a subsidized farmer
regardless of CDs. Your obligations to pay taxes (which are then passed
along as subsidies) do not diminish or mitigate your responsibility when
you buy CD-rich food. You are *again* passing the buck on your personal
participation in markets for CD-rich food.
Derek
"USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote in message news:3ED2B130...@even.try...
> Derek wrote:
> >>Once again, you completely miss the point.
> >
> > No, you did. My response was in answer to something Dutch
> > said which you snipped away. He claims I can cease doing
> > business with the farmer, but my reply refutes that claim in that
> > we will always be doing business with the farmer because he
> > takes a large portion of our tax money at source.
>
> Then I should have snipped *your* reply instead of what Dutch said. What
What I said is exactly the point. We do and always will
support farmers through our taxes whether we like it or not.
This is contrary to Dutch's claim that we can avoid any
business with him and proves that it is a false claim on his
part.
> and now you're adding further irrelevant qualifications to
> your baseless argument.
Paying them while Dutch claims I can end my business
with them is not an irrelevant point at all. It's very
relevant indeed, because it proves him wrong.
> If you do not support CDs, you
> *can* avoid farmers who kill animals regardless of whatever subsidies
> they receive.
How, by buying from another farmer who will only cause
just as many, or even more?
> Stop changing the focus or adding irrelevant data to your
> argument. It's only worsening your position.
>
My position is sound. You cannot prove or insist I am
responsible for the farmers' actions. You lose.
USual sUSpect
>>Bullshit. We help survivors of collateral bombing and make restitution
>>to the surviving families of those who die.
>
> Yes, I saw a young girl on the TV who had horrendous
> burns all over her body caused by one of our brave
> lads flown into a burns unit in Washington. A swaggering
> yank stepped up to her and said, "Welcome to America."
> I bet she was thankful.
At least we try to right our wrongs and take responsibility in such
instances. That's more than you've done with respect to CDs.
>>I won't attempt to halt them
>>because I favor dismantling terrorist infrastructure.
>
> In other words you are willing to violate the fundamental
> rights of humans to bring about what you want.
No. But I am willing to thoroughly decimate people who think God has
told them to fly airplanes into office buildings filled with innocent
men and women before they can get to the planes again.
> That's a lie.Our countries don't care who they kill. They
> blow up whole buildings with innocent people still in them
> after tip offs from people claiming Saddam is staying there.
It's the truth. In fact, both our governments have a lower threshhold
for collateral damage and deaths than you have for CDs in the production
of your food.
> Our cowardly soldiers couldn't give a hoot who they kill.
You're wrong and despicable. Rules of engagement are always clear and
precise about who's to be shot. Our soldiers and marines and airmen
don't like harming innocents.
> They are murderers.
So are you, CD-happy Derek.
>> From how you just mischaracterized what I said, I would say I not only
>>have a strong sense of responsibility but a greater command of
>>comprehension than you.
>
> Oh, here we go, the "I'm so much smarter than you" approach.
Here in Texas we have a saying: "It ain't braggin' if it's true." In
terms of this entire debate, you are your worst enemy.
> Grow up, sunshine.
Okay, buttercup.
>>But I'm also man enough not to get personal about it.
>
> You're not a man at all if you condone the killing of innocent
> children to get what you want.
Who ever said I condone it? It is not our method of operation. That's
why it's called collateral. You can talk all the trash you want, Derek,
but what kind of man insinuates his own military is nothing but a bunch
of hard-hearted baby killers?
>>Taxes are obligatory. I favor the war on terror. As now noted twice
>>before, we take care of those we injure and make restitution for losses.
>
> You haven't admitted whether you accept responsibility for
> them or not. You say you don't like them, but you must accept
> responsibility for them if you accept responsibility for collateral
> deaths generally, as you claim to, so why do you still carry on
> paying money to the government to keep killing them on your
> behalf?
I have accepted responsibility, as has my government by using even more
of my tax money to care for injured collateral parties.
>>I dare you to go call such men cowards. You won't? So now
>>you're the coward.
>
> All soldiers currently killing kids for kicks can come visit
<snip>
> and I'll tell them all that they are cowards to their murdering faces.
Just go on down to your nearest base and call them that; you've more
time on your hands than they do. BTW, does Eastbourne still smell of
fish and chip shops?
Derek
"USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote in message news:3ED2B4CB...@even.try...
> Derek wrote:
> >>Subsidies won't help a farmer if he has no customers.
> >
> > Irrelevant. My task was to prove your claim wrong.
>
> If that was your task, you failed.
>
> > Contrary to what you claim we will always do business
> > with the farmer through our taxes.
>
> Irrelevant and wrong.
It's not irrelevant, whatever you might think because we do
pay farmers a great deal of mony, and this is contrary to Dutch's
claim that we can end our business with him, so I win, easily.
> A subsidy is a form of market interference but
> *you* are still part of the market when you buy from a subsidized farmer
> regardless of CDs. Your obligations to pay taxes (which are then passed
> along as subsidies) do not diminish or mitigate your responsibility when
> you buy CD-rich food.
I don't claim that they do. I refute responsibility for the
farmer's CD on the basis that I don't cause them or ask
that they be caused, not because my obligations to pay
him via my taxes. The issue of my taxes is to show that
we all do business with him whether we like it or not.
> You are *again* passing the buck on your personal
> participation in markets for CD-rich food.
>
No. I'm keeping the buck where it should stay: with the
culprit who causes them rather than his consumers.
USual sUSpect
>>Then I should have snipped *your* reply instead of what Dutch said. What
>>you said is beside the point, .
>
> What I said is exactly the point. We do and always will
> support farmers through our taxes whether we like it or not.
Supports are interferences in free markets. You are still free to
participate in the market despite the interferences. You choose to do so
despite your "good" intentions.
> This is contrary to Dutch's claim that we can avoid any
> business with him and proves that it is a false claim on his
> part.
You can still avoid participating in the market despite the subsidy
taken from your taxes. Dutch is right. You are wrong and passing the buck.
>>and now you're adding further irrelevant qualifications to
>>your baseless argument.
>
> Paying them while Dutch claims I can end my business
> with them is not an irrelevant point at all. It's very
> relevant indeed, because it proves him wrong.
No, it's at best a technicality and a rather weak one for reasons
already given. In reality, you can run the farmer out of his current
manner of business by finding a means of production without CDs (whether
you do it yourself or find a more compassionate farmer). Your point is
thus irrelevant.
>>If you do not support CDs, you
>>*can* avoid farmers who kill animals regardless of whatever subsidies
>>they receive.
>
> How, by buying from another farmer who will only cause
> just as many, or even more?
Find one who is more compassionate. Or grow it yourself.
>>Stop changing the focus or adding irrelevant data to your
>>argument. It's only worsening your position.
>
> My position is sound. You cannot prove or insist I am
> responsible for the farmers' actions. You lose.
Already adequately accomplished:
AAEV 200,728,182
Derek 0
USual sUSpect
>>If that was your task, you failed.
>
> I proved it by referring to the taxes we pay him.
Subsidies are a market interference, they are not THE market except in
extreme examples which would preclude your being a part of the market.
The price you pay at the store is your bounty to the shopkeeper and the
farmer for the way they do business. Your "proof" is bogus.
>>Irrelevant and wrong.
>
> It's not irrelevant, whatever you might think because we do
> pay farmers a great deal of mony, and this is contrary to Dutch's
> claim that we can end our business with him, so I win, easily.
No, you don't. Regardless of subsidies, you participate in markets with
farmers who commit CDs. Subsidies are not a market exchange -- you do
not get stuff from farmers simply because you pay your taxes.
>>A subsidy is a form of market interference but
>>*you* are still part of the market when you buy from a subsidized farmer
>>regardless of CDs. Your obligations to pay taxes (which are then passed
>>along as subsidies) do not diminish or mitigate your responsibility when
>>you buy CD-rich food.
>
> I don't claim that they do. I refute responsibility for the
> farmer's CD on the basis that I don't cause them or ask
> that they be caused, not because my obligations to pay
> him via my taxes. The issue of my taxes is to show that
> we all do business with him whether we like it or not.
It is a bogus issue, Derek. What does the farmer give you when he
receives his subsidy after you pay your taxes? NOTHING. There is no
exchange. The subsidy interferes in the market, it does not enter you
into it.
>>You are *again* passing the buck on your personal
>>participation in markets for CD-rich food.
>
> No. I'm keeping the buck where it should stay: with the
> culprit who causes them rather than his consumers.
Nope, Dorothy, and all that clicking your heels won't get you there any
faster.
Dutch
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
[..]
> > > Wrong. We will always do business with the farmer in a
> > > very definite way that cannot be avoided by any lifestyle
> > > change. We will always pay him money through our taxes.
> >
> > Subsidies won't help a farmer if he has no customers.
>
> Irrelevant.
Highly relevant.
> My task was to prove your claim wrong.
Your task is to show why you are not complicit in the deaths of animals in
agriculture. You failed and you will always fail.
> Contrary to what you claim we will always do business
> with the farmer through our taxes.
Not if (collectively) you put him out of business, which would be the effect
of stopping doing business with him. If he does no business he gets no
government subsidies, and even if he gets the dole, he won't be killing
animals any more, except through agents like the rest of us.
Rat and Swan
> Derek wrote:
> > Wrong. We will always do business with the farmer in a
> > very definite way that cannot be avoided by any lifestyle
> > change. We will always pay him money through our taxes.
> Once again, you completely miss the point. PointS! You have no choice
> about paying taxes.
<snip>
Certainly you do. There are a variety of ways to avoid
paying taxes if you disapprove of what they finanace.
You could move to another country, drop out of your job
and live on handouts, take a low-paying job that is
below the tax level, or go to jail. The effort to avoid
taxes is no harder than the major life-style changes
which are demanded of vegans by people like you.
Your argument is seriously hypocritical
<snip>
Rat
Jonathan Ball
> USual sUSpect wrote:
>
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>Wrong. We will always do business with the farmer in a
>>>very definite way that cannot be avoided by any lifestyle
>>>change. We will always pay him money through our taxes.
>>
>
>
>>Once again, you completely miss the point. PointS! You have no choice
>>about paying taxes.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Certainly you do. There are a variety of ways to avoid
> paying taxes if you disapprove of what they finanace.
> You could move to another country,
Not a realistic option, and one that your side has
always decried as not a real choice.
> drop out of your job and live on handouts,
which you wouldn't have to do to avoid buying from farmers.
> take a low-paying job that is
> below the tax level,
Same as above.
> or go to jail.
Same as above.
None of your comparison is valid.
> The effort to avoid
> taxes is no harder than the major life-style changes
> which are demanded of vegans by people like you.
They are far, far harder.
>
> Your argument is seriously hypocritical
No.
The entire argument is bogus. This isn't about what we
do. It is about what "vegans" do and don't do. Any
discussion of others is pure tu quoque.
You treat animals differently than you treat humans.
You lie when you say you don't.
So-called "ethical" vegetarianism is a lie, from start
to finish.
Rat and Swan
> >>Derek wrote:
> > <snip>
Ipse dixit.
> > Your argument is seriously hypocritical
> No.
Yes.
> The entire argument is bogus. This isn't about what we
> do. It is about what "vegans" do and don't do. Any
> discussion of others is pure tu quoque.
No -- because (most) vegans _also_ pay taxes. It
is simply not true that people have "no choice"
about paying taxes. Anyone could avoid paying
taxes if they were willing to make the sacrifices
required.
> You treat animals differently than you treat humans.
I don't in most cases.
<snip>
Rat
Derek
"Rat and Swan" <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:3ED2F0...@pacbell.net...
>
> > > > > Derek wrote:
>
> > > > > Wrong. We will always do business with the farmer in a
> > > > > very definite way that cannot be avoided by any lifestyle
> > > > > change. We will always pay him money through our taxes.
>
> No -- because (most) vegans _also_ pay taxes. It
> is simply not true that people have "no choice"
> about paying taxes. Anyone could avoid paying
> taxes if they were willing to make the sacrifices
> required.
>
Yes, you are right and I withdraw my claim. Thanks for
pointing this out to me, Karen.
Derek
"USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote in message news:3ED2B7C1...@even.try...
> Derek wrote:
> >>Bullshit. We help survivors of collateral bombing and make restitution
> >>to the surviving families of those who die.
> >
> > Yes, I saw a young girl on the TV who had horrendous
> > burns all over her body caused by one of our brave
> > lads flown into a burns unit in Washington. A swaggering
> > yank stepped up to her and said, "Welcome to America."
> > I bet she was thankful.
>
> At least we try to right our wrongs and take responsibility in such
> instances.
That's pathetic. Can I take out an old lady's front teeth
with my boot and still retain my moral standard as long
as I offer to pay for her dental work?
> That's more than you've done with respect to CDs.
>
Realising that less CD accrue in producing a vegan diet
in comparison to the huge amount (70%) of crops grown
to feed livestock for a meatarian diet, I am morally bound
to opt for my diet over a typical meatarian one.
> >>I won't attempt to halt them
> >>because I favor dismantling terrorist infrastructure.
> >
> > In other words you are willing to violate the fundamental
> > rights of humans to bring about what you want.
>
> No. But I am willing to thoroughly decimate people who think God has
> told them to fly airplanes into office buildings filled with innocent
> men and women before they can get to the planes again.
>
You want to thoroughly decimate people for how they
think? Good luck with that, whoever you are.
> > That's a lie.Our countries don't care who they kill. They
> > blow up whole buildings with innocent people still in them
> > after tip offs from people claiming Saddam is staying there.
>
> It's the truth. In fact, both our governments have a lower threshhold
> for collateral damage and deaths than you have for CDs in the production
> of your food.
>
That was a neat little jump from one foot to the other.
> > Our cowardly soldiers couldn't give a hoot who they kill.
>
> You're wrong and despicable. Rules of engagement are always clear and
> precise about who's to be shot.
There are no rules of engagement for this war, or even a
proper declaration of it. It's an illegal terrorist attack on
a massive scale similar to a war, but not a war.
> Our soldiers and marines and airmen
> don't like harming innocents.
>
> > They are murderers.
>
> So are you, CD-happy Derek.
>
No. I don't kill or instruct others to kill on my behalf.
> >> From how you just mischaracterized what I said, I would say I not only
> >>have a strong sense of responsibility but a greater command of
> >>comprehension than you.
> >
> > Oh, here we go, the "I'm so much smarter than you" approach.
>
> Here in Texas we have a saying: "It ain't braggin' if it's true." In
> terms of this entire debate, you are your worst enemy.
>
How profound.
> > Grow up, sunshine.
>
> Okay, buttercup.
>
> >>But I'm also man enough not to get personal about it.
> >
> > You're not a man at all if you condone the killing of innocent
> > children to get what you want.
>
> Who ever said I condone it? It is not our method of operation. That's
> why it's called collateral.
Ditto wrt CD in ag. Thankyou for being so helpful all
of a sudden.
> You can talk all the trash you want, Derek,
> but what kind of man insinuates his own military is nothing but a bunch
> of hard-hearted baby killers?
Someone who served as a marine engineer mechanic in the Royal
Navy, d183083y Nash might.
>
> >>Taxes are obligatory. I favor the war on terror. As now noted twice
> >>before, we take care of those we injure and make restitution for losses.
> >
> > You haven't admitted whether you accept responsibility for
> > them or not. You say you don't like them, but you must accept
> > responsibility for them if you accept responsibility for collateral
> > deaths generally, as you claim to, so why do you still carry on
> > paying money to the government to keep killing them on your
> > behalf?
>
> I have accepted responsibility, as has my government by using even more
> of my tax money to care for injured collateral parties.
>
So, your money clears your conscience and paves the way
for you to violate the rights of innocent children. You won't
get me to agree with principles like those, whoever you are.
>
> >>I dare you to go call such men cowards. You won't? So now
> >>you're the coward.
> >
> > All soldiers currently killing kids for kicks can come visit
> <snip>
> > and I'll tell them all that they are cowards to their murdering faces.
>
> Just go on down to your nearest base and call them that; you've more
> time on your hands than they do. BTW, does Eastbourne still smell of
> fish and chip shops?
>
It's lovely here at the moment, and yes the chip shops are
half the reason why I moved here in the first place. I only
use one of them though, because they have guaranteed me
they don't use the same chip oil for any meats or fish.
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
No. We've been through it before. That I don't
painstakingly reproduce conclusive proofs you've seen
and couldn't refute before doesn't mean they haven't
been presented.
As always, you don't know what the fundamental terms of
logic really mean.
>
>
>>> Your argument is seriously hypocritical
>>
>
>
>>No.
>
>
> Yes.
No, it isn't, ~~ratfuck~~.
>
>
>>The entire argument is bogus. This isn't about what we
>>do. It is about what "vegans" do and don't do. Any
>>discussion of others is pure tu quoque.
>
>
> No
Yes.
> -- because (most) vegans _also_ pay taxes.
Irrelevant.
> It is simply not true that people have "no choice"
> about paying taxes.
It is true, but it's irrelevant. This isn't about
paying taxes. It's about "vegans" and their
point-blank, bloody minded refusal to live the "ethics"
they claim to follow.
>>You treat animals differently than you treat humans.
>
>
> I don't in most cases.
You do in all cases. You do not cause the death of
humans in the same casual, consequence-free way that
you cause the death of animals.
Jonathan Ball
No, she is wrong.
> Thanks for pointing this out to me, Karen.
Thanks for pointing out what unethical shitbags and
liars you and she are, Dreck. At least ~~ratfuck~~
hasn't broken a broomstick across the back of her dog
(who knows what she's done with a a broomstick on 'Swan').
Rat and Swan
> ~~rat~~ wrote:
<snip>
> >>> The effort to avoid
> >>> taxes is no harder than the major life-style changes
> >>> which are demanded of vegans by people like you.
<snip>
> >>The entire argument is bogus. This isn't about what we
> >>do. It is about what "vegans" do and don't do. Any
> >>discussion of others is pure tu quoque.
<snip>
> > -- because (most) vegans _also_ pay taxes.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> > It is simply not true that people have "no choice"
> > about paying taxes.
> It is true, but it's irrelevant.
It's highly relevant. You claim to believe in human
rights. You also claim that anyone who willingly
funds a person who commits immnoral acts is completely
at fault for such acts, as much at fault as the one who
does them. If both statements are true, you believe you
are responsible for racist police actions, military
and police brutality, corruption in government and in
corporatations which produce products you buy, and so
on. IOW, you are in the position you claim ARAs are in
wrt CDs. Now, we either must conclude you do not believe
in human rights, or that you do not believe in your theory
of collective responsibility. You are either a hypocrite,
a liar, or a moral weaking.
Since Derek and I do not believe in your theory of
collective responsibility, we are not violating our
ethical system in the same way you are violating your
ethical system.
So quit being sanctimonious, Jonnie.
<snip>
Rat
Derek
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>
>>~~rat~~ wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>> The effort to avoid
>>>>> taxes is no harder than the major life-style changes
>>>>> which are demanded of vegans by people like you.
>>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>The entire argument is bogus. This isn't about what we
>>>>do. It is about what "vegans" do and don't do. Any
>>>>discussion of others is pure tu quoque.
>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> -- because (most) vegans _also_ pay taxes.
>>
>>Irrelevant.
>>
>>
>>> It is simply not true that people have "no choice"
>>> about paying taxes.
>>
>
>
>>It is true, but it's irrelevant.
>
>
>
> It's highly relevant.
It's not relevant at all. The only issue under
discussion is whether or not your casual,
consequence-free participation in animal collateral
deaths demonstrates some different commitment to the
"rights" of animals, vis-a-vis your commitment to human
rights.
It does. It does in such an egregious way that it
demonstrates you do not believe in animal "rights" at
all. Having shown that, we conclude that you are a
sanctimonious hypocrite and a liar.
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>
>>~~ratfuck~~ wrote:
>
>
>
> collective responsibility,
You do believe in it. You MUST believe in it in order
to be "vegans". You in particular are lying,
~~ratfuck~~, because you have already openly admitted
to believing in it.
Stop lying, ~~ratfuck~~.
Dutch
[..]
> > At least we try to right our wrongs and take responsibility in such
> > instances.
>
> That's pathetic. Can I take out an old lady's front teeth
> with my boot and still retain my moral standard as long
> as I offer to pay for her dental work?
According to you, you can pay someone else to kick her teeth in and absolve
yourself of all responsibility, provided that you only demanded that the
person rob her.
[..]
Rat and Swan
> ~~rat~~
> > Since Derek and I do not believe in your theory of
> > collective responsibility,
> You do believe in it. You MUST believe in it in order
> to be "vegans".
Nope
> You in particular are lying,
> ~~rat~~, because you have already openly admitted
> to believing in it.
Nope.
I have said that the responsibility of providing a
motive and opportunity is different in kind from
the responsibility of acting directly. I do not
believe in your theory of collective responsibility.
I don't think you do either.
But if you do, you'd better stop paying taxes right
away, Jonnie.
<snip>
Rat
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>
>>~~ratfuck~~ lied:
>
>
>>> Since Derek and I do not believe in your theory of
>>> collective responsibility,
>>
>
>
>>You do believe in it. You MUST believe in it in order
>>to be "vegans".
>
>
> Nope
Yep.
>
>
>> You in particular are lying,
>>~~ratfuck~~, because you have already openly admitted
>>to believing in it.
>
>
> Nope.
Yep.
>
> I have said
Without support
> that the responsibility of providing a
> motive and opportunity is different in kind from
> the responsibility of acting directly. I do not
> believe in your theory of collective responsibility.
Yes, you do. It's why you are "vegan". You know that
you would share in the responsibility for causing the
deaths of a particular class of animals if you ate
meat. You don't want to share in that responsibility,
so you don't eat meat.
Unfortunately for you, the same shared responsibility
makes you responsible for the collateral deaths of
animals in vegetable farming.
>
> I don't think you do either.
Of course I do. All enlightened people do.
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>
>>~~ratfuck~~ lied:
>
>> You in particular are lying,
>>~~ratfuck~~, because you have already openly admitted
>>to believing in it.
>
>
> Nope.
Yes, you, ~~ratfuck~~:
> EV's are responsible for the deaths of animals
> caused by the production of their food,
Indirectly and as part of the shared responsibility
of all food customers -- including meat-eaters.
~~ratfuck~~
31 August 2001
There are others.
You believe in shared responsibility, ~~ratfuck~~. It
is the reason for your being "vegan".
Derek
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:7hUAa.76098$ro6.2...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
rob her, but if they did kick her teeth in while robbing her
they would be responsible for it, not I.
Jonathan Ball
You would be as well.
Dutch
news:bb1k40$4ma2v$1...@ID-190488.news.dfncis.de...
You're wrong, when you commission an act you implicitly condone all possible
forseeable outcomes from that act. If your hired robber had knocked her down
and she died from her injuries as happens frequently when elderly people are
assaulted, you would also be facing a charge of murder, as well as robbery
and probably conspiracy. You are not judged for what you wish for, but any
probable outcome that occurs.
Derek
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:TKYAa.77790$ro6.2...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:bb1k40$4ma2v$1...@ID-190488.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:7hUAa.76098$ro6.2...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > > "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote
> > > >
> > > > "USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote
> > > > > Derek wrote:
> > >
> > > [..]
> > > > > At least we try to right our wrongs and take responsibility in such
> > > > > instances.
> > > >
> > > > That's pathetic. Can I take out an old lady's front teeth
> > > > with my boot and still retain my moral standard as long
> > > > as I offer to pay for her dental work?
> > >
> > > According to you, you can pay someone else to kick her teeth in and
> absolve
> > > yourself of all responsibility, provided that you only demanded that the
> > > person rob her.
> > >
> > I wouldn't be paying anyone to kick her teeth in, only to
> > rob her, but if they did kick her teeth in while robbing her
> > they would be responsible for it, not I.
>
> You're wrong, when you commission an act you implicitly condone all possible
> forseeable outcomes from that act.
No, I don't.
USual sUSpect
>>>I wouldn't be paying anyone to kick her teeth in, only to
>>>rob her, but if they did kick her teeth in while robbing her
>>>they would be responsible for it, not I.
>>
>>You're wrong, when you commission an act you implicitly condone all possible
>>forseeable outcomes from that act.
>
> No, I don't.
Yes you do. You'd be charged at the very least as an accessory in most
jurisdictions, and it's possible in some that the charge could be
upgraded to murder for hire if the victim died in the commission of a
crime you hired another to carry out. Since the death would occur in the
commission of at least another felony (robbery), it would be treated as
a capital offense in states with the death penalty -- everyone involved
shares the guilt.
Michael Saunby
"USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote in message
Ah, but this doesn't apply - Derek lives in Great Britain, where such
things are the reverse of what you might normally expect. e.g.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/717511.stm "A farmer who opened fire on two
burglars who broke into his remote farmhouse has been found guilty of
murder. "
There is no death penalty in EU member states, it's not permitted by EU
law.
Michael Saunby
Rat and Swan
<snip>
>~~rat~~:>
> > EV's are responsible for the deaths of animals
> > caused by the production of their food,
> Indirectly and as part of the shared responsibility
> of all food customers -- including meat-eaters.
> ~~rat~~
> 31 August 2001
<snip>
> You believe in shared responsibility, ~~rat~~. It
> is the reason for your being "vegan".
As I said, customers bear an indirect and diffuse
responsibility as part of a large number of other customers,
because they provide motive and opportunity for the
producer. They do not cause the producer to produce in any
specific way. Therefore, their indirect and highly limited
responsibility is different _in kind_ from the responsibility
of direct action.
I do not believe in _your theory_ of collective
responsibility, Jonnie. Your theory is highly
offensive and unethical, and guts the concept of
real responsibility. It makes some little buyer of
ersatz butter in WW II Germany equally guilty with
the man who turned on the gas in the concentration
camps. It makes the concept of responsibility effectively
meaningless. It is a worthless and disgusting concept.
Rat
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>
>> ~~ratfuck~~ lied:
>
>
>
>> > EV's are responsible for the deaths of animals
>> > caused by the production of their food,
>
>
>
>> Indirectly and as part of the shared responsibility
>> of all food customers -- including meat-eaters.
>
>
>
>> 31 August 2001
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>You believe in shared responsibility, ~~ratfuck~~. It
>>is the reason for your being "vegan".
>
>
> As I said, customers bear an indirect and diffuse
> responsibility as part of a large number of other customers,
> because they provide motive and opportunity for the
> producer.
No matter how many or what kind of adjectives you slop
in front of it, ~~ratfuck~~, there is responsibility,
and you believe in it. You participate willingly in a
*process* that leads to the deaths of animals, animals
you claim while mumbling around the vegetables in your
overfull mouth to have "rights".
You believe in shared responsibility. Your efforts to
minimize it fail. You are morally complicit in the
deaths of animals you claim have rights.
You are a liar and a hypocrite.
Jonathan Ball
That story makes plain that the jury found the
defendant Martin was not acting in self defense. I
don't have any problem with the prosecution or the
verdict.
Insisting that citizens not appoint themselves judge,
jury and executioner is not being soft on criminals.
>
> There is no death penalty in EU member states, it's not permitted by EU
> law.
Good. There are several solid arguments against the
death, and none in favor of it.
Derek
"USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote in message news:3ED49E65...@even.try...
> Derek wrote:
> >>>I wouldn't be paying anyone to kick her teeth in, only to
> >>>rob her, but if they did kick her teeth in while robbing her
> >>>they would be responsible for it, not I.
> >>
> >>You're wrong, when you commission an act you implicitly condone all possible
> >>forseeable outcomes from that act.
> >
> > No, I don't.
>
> Yes you do.
No, I don't.
Jonathan Ball
Yes, you do. The law says so, and sound moral
philosophy says so.
Derek
"Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message news:bb2d6o$6q6$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>
> Ah, but this doesn't apply - Derek lives in Great Britain, where such
> things are the reverse of what you might normally expect. e.g.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/717511.stm "A farmer who opened fire on two
> burglars who broke into his remote farmhouse has been found guilty of
> murder. "
>
and fed them to pigs.
> There is no death penalty in EU member states, it's not permitted by EU
> law.
>
You aren't going to tell me you're in favour of the death penalty, are you?
Jonathan Ball
If "you'd've" shot their heads off, so are you.
USual sUSpect
>>Yes you do. You'd be charged at the very least as an accessory in most
>>jurisdictions, and it's possible in some that the charge could be
>>upgraded to murder for hire if the victim died in the commission of a
>>crime you hired another to carry out. Since the death would occur in the
>>commission of at least another felony (robbery), it would be treated as
>>a capital offense in states with the death penalty -- everyone involved
>>shares the guilt.
>
> Ah, but this doesn't apply - Derek lives in Great Britain, where such
> things are the reverse of what you might normally expect. e.g.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/717511.stm "A farmer who opened fire on two
> burglars who broke into his remote farmhouse has been found guilty of
> murder. "
I believe I recall that case (near Norwich? didn't look at link); an act
of self-defense is different from soliciting someone to commit a crime,
though one shouldn't be found guilty for acting in self-defense.
Soliciting someone to commit a crime, or even conspiracy, is probably a
criminal activity in Britain.
> There is no death penalty in EU member states, it's not permitted by EU
> law.
Yes, and violent crime persists even with tough gun laws. Go figure, huh.
Jonathan Ball
> Michael Saunby wrote:
>
>>> Yes you do. You'd be charged at the very least as an accessory in most
>>> jurisdictions, and it's possible in some that the charge could be
>>> upgraded to murder for hire if the victim died in the commission of a
>>> crime you hired another to carry out. Since the death would occur in the
>>> commission of at least another felony (robbery), it would be treated as
>>> a capital offense in states with the death penalty -- everyone involved
>>> shares the guilt.
>>
>>
>> Ah, but this doesn't apply - Derek lives in Great Britain, where such
>> things are the reverse of what you might normally expect. e.g.
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/717511.stm "A farmer who opened fire on two
>> burglars who broke into his remote farmhouse has been found guilty of
>> murder. "
>
>
> I believe I recall that case (near Norwich? didn't look at link); an act
> of self-defense is different from soliciting someone to commit a crime,
> though one shouldn't be found guilty for acting in self-defense.
One isn't. The story is newspaper account of the man's
sentencing, so it doesn't lay out all the details of
the case. However, it strongly suggests that the jury
were persuaded he was not acting in self defense, but
rather in order to punish the burglars.
> Soliciting someone to commit a crime, or even conspiracy, is probably a
> criminal activity in Britain.
>
>> There is no death penalty in EU member states, it's not permitted by EU
>> law.
>
>
> Yes, and violent crime persists even with tough gun laws. Go figure, huh.
Violent crime is nowhere near as common in most of the
EU as it is in Texas, which has a death penalty - do
they ever! - and some of the loosest gun laws in the U.S.
The death penalty is not a deterrent. It should be
abolished.
Malcolm
<jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>USual sUSpect wrote:
>> Michael Saunby wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes you do. You'd be charged at the very least as an accessory in most
>>>> jurisdictions, and it's possible in some that the charge could be
>>>> upgraded to murder for hire if the victim died in the commission of a
>>>> crime you hired another to carry out. Since the death would occur in the
>>>> commission of at least another felony (robbery), it would be treated as
>>>> a capital offense in states with the death penalty -- everyone involved
>>>> shares the guilt.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, but this doesn't apply - Derek lives in Great Britain, where such
>>> things are the reverse of what you might normally expect. e.g.
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/717511.stm "A farmer who opened fire on two
>>> burglars who broke into his remote farmhouse has been found guilty of
>>> murder. "
>>
>>
>> I believe I recall that case (near Norwich? didn't look at link); an act
>> of self-defense is different from soliciting someone to commit a crime,
>> though one shouldn't be found guilty for acting in self-defense.
>
>One isn't. The story is newspaper account of the man's
>sentencing, so it doesn't lay out all the details of
>the case. However, it strongly suggests that the jury
>were persuaded he was not acting in self defense, but
>rather in order to punish the burglars.
The guy was a fruitloop of the highest order, he carefully planned
exactly what he was going to do, they should have locked him up for
life. Loonies like that shouldnt be allowed on the streets, care in
the community doesnt work, look at our resident stalker and new friend
to dooda, M Saunby, nutty as they come.
>> Soliciting someone to commit a crime, or even conspiracy, is probably a
>> criminal activity in Britain.
>>
>>> There is no death penalty in EU member states, it's not permitted by EU
>>> law.
>>
>>
>> Yes, and violent crime persists even with tough gun laws. Go figure, huh.
>
>Violent crime is nowhere near as common in most of the
>EU as it is in Texas, which has a death penalty - do
>they ever! - and some of the loosest gun laws in the U.S.
>
>The death penalty is not a deterrent. It should be
>abolished.
Bloody right, death is not a punsihment, but the road to hell sure
will be.
A life, meaning life sentence is far more fitting.
--
So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?
I understand.
/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..
Jonathan Ball
They did, Bunghole:
Tony Martin, 55, was sentenced to life at Norwich
Crown Court for murdering 16-year-old Fred Barras by
a majority verdict of 10 to two.
You're stupid, Bunghole.
> Loonies like that shouldnt be allowed on the streets,
He isn't. He received a life sentence, Bunghole, you
inattentive shitbag.
Malcolm
<jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>You're stupid, Bunghole.
Wrong poop scoop, he is released next month. Another one of your so
called "sources" muff dives!
>> Loonies like that shouldnt be allowed on the streets,
>
>He isn't. He received a life sentence, Bunghole, you
>inattentive shitbag.
Pay attention poop scoop, go back to the news search engines and try
to find something less than three years old.
If you had brains you'd be almost as dangerous as saunby, and he wears
womens clothes.
USual sUSpect
<snip>
> The death penalty is not a deterrent. It should be abolished.
It definitely deters the executed offender. As for acting as a deterrent
to others, I long ago abandoned that notion. I do think there are
instances in which it is entirely appropriate -- particularly in cases
like Tim McVeigh, Ted Bundy, and others whose crimes terrorize the
population. If it's abolished, we'll be feeding and caring for the
Osamas of the world. I'd rather take them out however we can.
Derek
"USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote in message news:3ED4F701...@even.try...
that a jury would baulk at the thought of condemning a man to
death..... surely.
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> The death penalty is not a deterrent. It should be abolished.
>
>
> It definitely deters the executed offender.
Its proponents claim far greater deterrent value than that.
> As for acting as a deterrent
> to others, I long ago abandoned that notion. I do think there are
> instances in which it is entirely appropriate -- particularly in cases
> like Tim McVeigh, Ted Bundy, and others whose crimes terrorize the
> population. If it's abolished, we'll be feeding and caring for the
> Osamas of the world. I'd rather take them out however we can.
I doubt in the time available I can do justice to my
views, but I'll try. I shed no tear for an obviously
guilty criminal who is executed. My opposition to the
DP has next to nothing to do with any consideration of
the humanity of the executed person. It has almost
everything to do with what it says about us. The DP is
PURELY an act of vengeance, and I don't believe the
state should be in the vengeance business, in any
circumstance.
There are utilitarian grounds, too. The DP is
enormously expensive to carry out, due to the lengthy
appeal process. Rightwingers go on and on about how
there shouldn't BE that lengthy appeal process, but it
is that very appeal process that distinguishes us from
Fidel, who just summarily executed some people for
having hijacked a boat. The expense isn't just the
money spent by the government, but the diversion of
prosecutorial effort.
I can fully understand the *wish* for vengeance.
Civilized people don't yield to that urge.
Michael Saunby
>
> "Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:bb2d6o$6q6$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > Ah, but this doesn't apply - Derek lives in Great Britain, where such
> > things are the reverse of what you might normally expect. e.g.
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/717511.stm "A farmer who opened fire on
two
> > burglars who broke into his remote farmhouse has been found guilty of
> > murder. "
> >
> FWIW I'm behind Martin on this. I'd've shot both their heads off
> and fed them to pigs.
>
It wasn't all that long ago that you had to be a householder to be able to
serve on a jury. I expect such a decision would have been very unlikely
then.
> > There is no death penalty in EU member states, it's not permitted by EU
> > law.
> >
> You aren't going to tell me you're in favour of the death penalty, are
you?
>
No, though it would perhaps help juries make better decisions in cases like
this one. I can't for a moment believe the jury would have found Martin
guilty of murder (which they did, though it has since been reduced to
manslaughter) if the penalty was death. Since it is now manslaughter
rather than murder it seems that the jury's belief that it was premeditated
killing has been over-ruled. Of course it seems it was premeditated in the
sense that Martin was clearly determined to at least seriously wound the
next burglar to enter his property.
As for whether the EU should have the right to insist that member states
cannot use the death penalty I don't believe they should - even the US
doesn't demand such of their states.
All in all I still find it fascinating the ease with which ARAs can elevate
the status of animals to that of humans and just as easily regard humans
that don't conform to their standards to be worse than animals - e.g.
racist Ray, Pete and his libellous nonsense, and now your view that it's ok
to shoot burglars. I'm sure this fluidity of thinking must have wonderful
application in story writing, but does it have any useful purpose in the
real world? I imagine that the abiguity of people having low status,
animals having high status, and the likely flipping back and forth as
decisions must be made is very stressful and at times quite distressing.
It just happens that a local fox has been stealing eggs and hens from one
of our neighbours. Will the fox get a telling off, or both barrels of a
shotgun? My money's on the latter - if the dogs don't get it first. Of
course it's nothing like the way we apply laws to humans, as it isn't about
punishing the fox, it's all to do with ensuring it doesn't keep doing the
same thing until there are no hens left.
Michael Saunby