Re: Child slave labour is fully justified, according to 'usual suspect'.

"usual suspect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Derek wrote:
> >>>I'm not talking of my personal choices,
> >>
> >>You shuold be.
> >
> > Well, I'm not. I'm talking about the deaths caused
> > by farmers.
>
> For your cheap(er) food.

His reasons for killing them are irrelevant. The blame
remains with him no matter what.

> >>>but rather the farmer's actions,
> >>
> >>Buck passer.
> >
> > They kill them, so holding them responsible is
> > anything but buck passing. You, on the other
> > hand, want to pass the buck onto his consumers.
>
> That's not quite how it happens in the real world, Derek.

It's exactly how it happens in the real World,
pusspecker. They kill them, so holding them
responsible is anything but buck passing. You,
on the other hand, want to pass the buck onto
his consumers, which makes you the buck
passer rather than I.

> > My claim is that there is no
> > causal link between my trade with farmers and
> > the methods they use to produce veg.
>
> Yes, there is.

No, there isn't.

> In most cases, it costs less to use machinery to harvest
> than it does to hire pickers.

His economic worries do not entitle anyone to shift
his blame onto others. If he kills them, then he alone
is responsible for them, not his consumers.

> > It doesn't instruct them to farm one way or the other.
>
> Why do farmers switch to organic, Derek?

Look it up on the web.

> Does consumer demand have anything to do with that?

Look it up and form your own conclusions.

> Or are such decisions haphazardly chosen?
>
Find out for yourself.

> > Those options are theirs, and they, being completely
> > autonomous are responsible for their actions. I
> > blame them on the basis that they are morally
> > responsible agents carrying obligations to endure
> > the consequences of their actions.
>
> Buck passing

How can keeping the blame with the culprit, as I do,
be seen as passing the buck? On the other hand, how
can passing the blame away from the culprit, as you
do, not be seen as passing the buck?

> >>>I was talking of the farmer's actions, not my
> >>>choices, so your comment on my choices was
> >>>indeed a non sequitur.
> >>
> >>A farmer's actions are only one of your choices.
> >
> > I'm not talking of my choices, but rather the farmer's
> > culpability for his own actions, so talking of my choices
> > when I'm discussing the farmer's actions is indeed a non
> > sequitur.
>
> No, it's buck passing on your part (as usual).
>
How can keeping the blame with the culprit, as I do,
be seen as passing the buck? On the other hand, how
can passing the blame away from the culprit, as you
do, not be seen as passing the buck?

> > You are wrong, because the hard truth is that animals
> > are intentionally killed for financial gain, not to feed the
> > farmer's consumers.
>
> CDs are unintentional.

Then why does Rick keep providing all those links
to pesticides? Are those pesticides unintentionally
laid down by farmers around granaries, and if an
animal dies because of this unintentional poisoning,
would you say that that collateral death was an
unintentional one? You're a riot, pusspecker.

> >>>My belief in not being responsible for the deaths
> >>>caused by others is very relevant to my other
> >>>beliefs in rights generally, for if I truly believed I
> >>>was responsible for the deaths caused by farmers,
> >>>I wouldn't buy from them.
>
> As you shouldn't, but you do.
>
Wrong. I don't buy from them while holding a
belief that I'm responsible for any deaths they
cause. If I did hold such a belief, then I wouldn't
buy from them.

> >>>Likewise, if I were
> >>>knowingly buying goods with a history of human
> >>>collateral deaths, AND held a belief that I was
> >>>responsible for them, I wouldn't buy from that
> >>>source either.
>
> As you shouldn't.
>
I wouldn't.

> >>>How does one hold a moral belief
> >>>in being responsible and causal to the deaths of
> >>>animals and humans while continuing to claim that
> >>>THEIR victims have a right not to be THEIR
> >>>victims?
>
> If one understands his choices have deleterious consequences he doesn't
> want, he should make other choices. Is that really so bloody difficult,
> Derek?
>
You haven't answered the question. How does one
hold a moral belief in being responsible and causal to
the deaths of animals and humans while continuing to
claim that THEIR victims have a right not to be THEIR
victims?

> > If you believe that, "Responsibility/culpability
> > isn't a function of personal belief.", why do you *believe* I
> > am culpable for the deaths of animals which were certainly
> > killed by another's hand? Physical evidence tells you who is
> > culpable for them, so for you to then claim that the responsibility
> > for them segues from him to me through thin air is merely a
> > belief on your part.
>
> No, because you demand food.

Then it should be clear to you that your claim is
merely a belief on your part, and not fact, for the
facts are that farmers kill them, and this is at odds
to your earlier statement where you claimed,
"Responsibility/culpability isn't a function of personal
 belief." So, for the second time, why do you *believe*
I am culpable for the deaths of animals which were
certainly killed by another's hand, when physical
evidence tells you who is culpable for them?
> >
> > I demand food, period.
>
> So you get what you pay for.

Exactly, and nothing else besides.

> >>>>I'll say that consistency counts, even though such
> >>>>hypothetical questions are irrelevant.
> >>>
> >>>These hypothetical questions are not irrelevant if
> >>>one's consistency is to be measured. If you found
> >>>that all your clothes were in fact made from the
> >>>sweat and tears of forced child labour, would you
> >>>blame yourself or the slaver who profited from
> >>>his inhumane methods of production?
> >>
> >>Supply, demand.
> >
> > If you would rather blame "supply, demand" instead of
> > the slavers who cause the harms, why don't you blame
> > "supply, demand" instead of vegans who buy veg?
>
> Again, your ignorance of economics is on display. I'm not
> blaming supply and demand

Then why did you earlier answer my question with,
"supply, demand"?
>
> >>I don't buy cheap clothes, and I refuse to support
> >>sweatshops.
> >
> > Some garments made in sweatshops enter the market
> > with dodgy labels attached, and they are so much like
> > the original that most everyone is fooled by them, so
> > how do you know your best lime-green slacks weren't
> > produced from a sweatshop?
>
> First, I have no lime-green slacks; I'm not English. Second,
> I know who tailors my slacks, shirts, and coats.
>
You don't know that all your clothes were produced
humanely. You're denying the antecedent.

> > Isn't it a fact that you are
> > now denying the antecedent, pusspecker?
>
> Nope, asshole.
>
Yep, arse. You're denying the antecedent.

> >>I would blame myself for not being a good consumer.
> >
> > That's easy, but would you blame yourself for the
> > hardship meted out to those kids by their slavers?
>
> That's what you can infer from my blaming myself.
>
Apart from the obvious sanctimonious lip service
you're offering in exchange for taking any real blame,
how do you atone for the cruelty you believe you are
causing to those slaves, seeing as you are getting
away with it with impunity? It's oh so very easy to
claim responsibility for something if no action is
taken against you for causing the harms you say you
cause, but being properly responsible requires a lot
more than that.

re·spon·si·ble adj.
1.. Liable to be required to give account, as of one's
     actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust.
2.. Involving personal accountability or ability to act
      without guidance or superior authority
3.. Being a source or cause.
4.. Able to make moral or rational decisions on one's
     own and therefore answerable for one's behavior.
5.. Able to be trusted or depended upon; reliable.
6.. Based on or characterized by good judgment or
     sound thinking.
7.. Having the means to pay debts or fulfill obligations.
8.. Required to render account; answerable.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=responsible

Your responsibility is none of those because;
1) You aren't liable to give any account for the harms
     you claim to be responsible for. You merely proclaim
     you are while sitting back and doing nothing.
2) You claim to be personally accountable for the
    harms you claim to cause, but in what form is this
    personal accountability, apart from mere lip service?
3) Although you pretend to be the source or cause of
    child slave labour, you haven't once demonstrated
    that you are.
4) If you're answerable for the hardship meted out to
    those kids by their slavers, as you've agreed to being,
    let's here it. Why do you continue causing these harms
    to fellow rights bearers?
5) If you are responsible for causing harms to children
    held in slavery, as you have agreed being, how can
    you be trusted or depended upon; reliable?
6) If you are responsible for causing harms to children
    held in slavery, and responsible for the slavers actions,
    as you have agreed to being, how can you also claim
    to be of good character, based on good judgment?
7) If you are responsible for causing harms to children
    held in slavery, and responsible for the slavers actions,
    as you have agreed to being, what means have to
    repay your debts or fulfil your obligations towards
    them for what you've done?
8) You are required to render account; answerable for
    what you are doing, so let's have it.

> > Are you willing to say that their actions are your fault,
> > and that you make them enslave young children for
> > personal gain?
>
> That's what I said.
>
Perfect! This is the most excellent example of sheer
stupidity I've ever read from you, and an equally
excellent reason for why I don't follow your illogical
concepts on moral responsibility. If the slaver's
actions are your fault, then they are completely
exonerated and justified in what they do, for you
have made them do what they do and effectively
diminished any responsibility on their part to zero,
leaving no one liable for any consequences. Brilliant.
Not only does your sanctimonious lip service relieve
those who are truly guilty of any wrongdoing, it also
ensures the continuance of child slave labour entirely
unchallenged by anyone. I'm sure those kids will be
begging to thank you.

You illogical concepts on moral responsibility is
aiding and abetting child slave labour, but I'm
glad Anti-slavery International don't see things
your way. They correctly understand that slavers
are punishable for what they do and do their best
to bring as many as they can before the courts to
stop them and end it.