SeeJames has been playing this bitchy game for a while.
This excerpt goes back to January 2003.


C. James Strutz wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in
message
...

"C. James Strutz" wrote:

Jonnnnnnny,

You claim that, in the absence of consuming meat
products, vegetarians and
vegans are responsible for more animal deaths

More than whom, Jimmy? You are lying. I didn't
compare "vegans" to
omnivores.


No, but I am.

You implicitly claimed I was. You lied.

And I don't care that you are. The comparison is
irrelevant to the issue at hand: "vegans" are not
"minimizing" animal deaths. Stick to the issue, Jimmy.

http://tinyurl.com/33g9d

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
ink.net...
SeeJames has been playing this bitchy game for a while.
This excerpt goes back to January 2003.


C. James Strutz wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in
message
...

"C. James Strutz" wrote:

Jonnnnnnny,

You claim that, in the absence of consuming meat
products, vegetarians and
vegans are responsible for more animal deaths

More than whom, Jimmy? You are lying. I didn't
compare "vegans" to
omnivores.


No, but I am.

You implicitly claimed I was. You lied.

And I don't care that you are. The comparison is
irrelevant to the issue at hand: "vegans" are not
"minimizing" animal deaths. Stick to the issue, Jimmy.

http://tinyurl.com/33g9d

Jon, et. al.,

Okay, so you are not comparing the number of collateral deaths resulting
from herbivores versus omnivores (hence not participating in the "numbers
game"). You condemn vegans for ignoring the fact that there are collateral
animal deaths resulting from the production of the vegetable food they eat.
You point out that it is an ethical dilemma; ignoring it necessarily makes
them immoral and dishonest. You are particularly disturbed with overly
zealous vegans.

I think I understand your position well. By your rigid definition that makes
me immoral and dishonest since there is a component of me as a vegetarian
that is sympathetic to animals. I'll remind you that is not the only, nor
the most significant, component. You also know that I am not vegan and I am
not zealous.

You well know that we don't share the same viewpoints on several issues. I
contend that it's not possible to live in today's world without animal lives
being sacrificed for our conveniences, including food. I understand your
argument that it is possible to eat without sacrificing animal lives, but I
have a job and bills to pay and other aspects of my life that preclude me
from doing so. I buy most of my food in grocery stores like most people
(including you, I presume). I understand all the consequences.

In today's world, the so called "numbers game" is legitimate in a larger
context that transcends just food. There are many things people can do to
minimize animal deaths and suffering. I do believe that abstaining from
consumming animal products serves that purpose to some extent. It's
impossible to substantiate that belief with any kind of hard data. It's my
belief and I'll stand by it - I don't have to prove it to anyone. So don't
ask.

I really don't give a flying f*** whether you condemn me as unethical or
immoral. You don't have to live with it - I do. Although I have my issues to
work on, I am at peace with my ethics and morality - at least most of the
time. :^) I am a respectable person and wish to be treated as such.

FWIW...
Jim

C. James Strutz wrote:

[...]

Much, much better. You obviously had it in you all
along; pity you had to play a weird game for so long.


Jon, et. al.,

Okay, so you are not comparing the number of collateral deaths resulting
from herbivores versus omnivores (hence not participating in the "numbers
game"). You condemn vegans for ignoring the fact that there are collateral
animal deaths resulting from the production of the vegetable food they eat.
You point out that it is an ethical dilemma; ignoring it necessarily makes
them immoral and dishonest. You are particularly disturbed with overly
zealous vegans.

Exactly right. No omnivore in his right mind is going
to get into a death-counting ****ing contest with
"vegans". It seems eminently reasonable to me to
acknowledge that "vegans" almost certainly cause the
deaths of far fewer animals than omnivores. The
problem is, that observation is irrelevant to the moral
claims being made by "vegans", claims that stem from
their decision not to consume animal parts, and the
reasoning behind that decision. However, once one
begins to examine the "vegan" moral stance, one quickly
finds that killing fewer animals than omnivores is ALL
that is left of their position, which originally
included much, much more.

There are quite a few problems with "veganism", but the
worst ones stem from the simplistic and bad thinking
inherent in "animal rights", of which "veganism" is the
dietary expression. A "vegan" - a so-called "ethical
vegetarian" - need not be an ardent believer in "animal
rights", and even less need be well-versed in the
written dogma handed down by "ar"/"al" gurus like Tom
Regan and Peter Singer; in fact, most "vegans" probably
are not well-read on "ar" issues at all. It suffices
for them to believe that it is morally wrong for humans
to kill animals, based on some possibly inchoate notion
that the animals have some kind of "right" not to be
killed. To the extent that the "vegan" is NOT
well-versed in the "ar" literature, his belief about
the wrongness of killing animals can't very well be
said to be well-founded; to the extent he might be
well-versed, he still is faced with fact that "ar" is
far from a persuasive political/legal/ethical
philosophy, and in fact is not accepted as the
prevailing belief anywhere in the world.

Regardless of the degree to which the "vegan" is aware
of and active in the "ar" movement, the *practice* of
"veganism" is seen, upon examination, to be utterly
inadequate as a route to reach the "vegan's" presumed
goal, which is to "respect" the "right" of animals not
to be harmed by humans. "veganism" is strictly a
consumption rule: "don't consume animal parts, or
things made from or by animals". This rule is, no
matter how much some polemical "vegans" wish to deny
it, based upon a logical fallacy:

If I consume animal parts, I cause harm to animals.

I do not consume animal parts;

therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

This argument embodies the fallacy of Denying the
Antecedent; see
http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/denying.html
for one discussion of the problem with Denying the
Antecedent.

Once the fallacy is pointed out, then backs off his
original claim (of not causing *any* harm to animals,
by virtue of his animal-parts-free lifestyle), and
advances a much weaker, philosophically, claim of
"minimizing" the harm to animals. But this claim is
fraught with insuperable difficulties as well. To
start, "minimize" is an implicitly numerical claim, and
if you're going to make a numerical claim, you'd better
have either some airtight mathematical theorems, or
some solid empirical data; "vegans" have neither.
Theoretically, it is easy to imagine a meat-including
diet that "beats" many conceivable "vegan" diets. In
fact, there ARE still aboriginal hunter-gatherers in
the world whose diet almost certainly "beats" the
typical western "vegan's" diet, in terms of killing or
harming fewer animals. The problem is in the nature of
the "vegan's" claim: without actually measuring the
level of animal death and suffering in his own
lifestyle, let alone in all other lifestyles, he has
made a *categorical* claim: a "vegan" lifestyle
"minimizes" animal death and suffering.

This particular empirical problem with the "vegan"
claim is, I think, best illustrated without introducing
a comparison between "vegan" and non-"vegan" lifestyles
at all, focusing on diet. Even WITHIN the set of all
"vegan" diets, there are some that on average cause
more animal death and suffering than others. The
production of rice is notoriously lethal to animals,
killing rodents and birds when rice fields are flooded,
then killing amphibians and reptiles when the fields
are drained, and killing all kinds of animals when the
crop is harvested. A "vegan" diet that contains rice
clearly is not minimizing the animal death/suffering
toll, compared to a diet that is identical in all other
elements but substitutes a less-lethal grain for the
rice. But the "vegan" claim is that *any* "vegan" diet
minimizes the death/suffering toll. Thus, the claim is
falsified.

"veganism", of course, extends far beyond diet; it is
supposed to be a full "lifestyle" choice. When we
examine the other dimensions of the life and lifestyle
of any "vegan", we quickly find other areas in which
animals are killed and made to suffer. Any "vegan" who
consumes any drug approved by (in the U.S.) the FDA has
indirectly contributed to animal suffering and death,
as ALL FDA-approved drugs go through a testing phase
that involves testing on animals. Any "vegan" who has
ever had an intravenous drip in a hospital has
indirectly contributed to animal suffering and death,
as animal-using lot testing on the IV materials is done
in order to ensure that there are no infectious agents
in the materials.

Very quickly, we see that not consuming animal parts or
animal derived products has no relation whatever to
eliminating or "minimizing" animal death and suffering.
This get us, then, to the question of why "vegans"
cling to the claim at all. They aren't eliminating
animal suffering/death; they aren't minimizing it; they
aren't even necessarily reducing it, relative to what
they might do on a different "vegan" consumption
lifestyle. So...what are they accomplishing? It's
impossible to say, with respect to all "vegans".
However, the sentiments revealed by those who
participate in the debate in forums like usenet
newsgroups all seem to have a common element of
self-image. "vegans" seem to remain "vegan", despite
the obvious flaws, because of how it makes them feel
about themselves. This focus on self-image is what
leads to the accusation of sanctimony. Historically,
one is expected to do the right thing because doing the
right thing is good per se, NOT because of how it makes
you feel about yourself.


I think I understand your position well. By your rigid definition that makes
me immoral and dishonest since there is a component of me as a vegetarian
that is sympathetic to animals. I'll remind you that is not the only, nor
the most significant, component. You also know that I am not vegan and I am
not zealous.

I do know that you're not "vegan". This is just
another piece of the puzzle: if you feel as you've
indicated you do about animal death and suffering, it
seems to me that you need a coherent *ethical*
explanation of why you aren't "vegan", and I've never
seen one from you. Your past explanation that you
repeat below, about needing to earn a living, is a
practical explanation, not an ethical one. Rather
obviously, if the issue were how many humans you
casually kill and injure without consequence in the
course of leading your life, an explanation that
focused on practical demands on your time would not be
acceptable. For example, say you're a medical
specialist who might be called on in emergencies to get
to a hospital as fast as you can. If you were to drive
through a crowded schoolyard as a shortcut in order to
reach the hospital faster, you could not justify the
mayhem you'd cause by pointing to the requirement that
you get to the hospital quickly. Your convenience must
yield to ethics.

The problem that the issue of collateral animal deaths
poses to "vegans" is that the deaths, for which they
clearly bear some moral responsibility, do not carry
consequences for them; but the belief that the animals
have some kind of "right" not to be casually killed for
human convenience, whether or not the animals are
consumed, is predicated on a belief that there MUST be
consequences for violating those rights. This problem
is somewhat magnified for you and anyone else who
adheres to a belief that one morally *ought* not kill
animals casually and consequence-free, but who doesn't
at least follow through on an obvious, even if
inadequate, consumption rule of excluding all animal
parts from your lifestyle. You can't coherently
explain, or at least haven't coherently explained, why
you draw the line where you draw it.


You well know that we don't share the same viewpoints on several issues. I
contend that it's not possible to live in today's world without animal lives
being sacrificed for our conveniences, including food.

Then something has to yield, doesn't it? You're saying
it's not possible to be fully ethical, according to a
definition of ethical behavior that you have defined.

I understand your
argument that it is possible to eat without sacrificing animal lives, but I
have a job and bills to pay and other aspects of my life that preclude me
from doing so. I buy most of my food in grocery stores like most people
(including you, I presume). I understand all the consequences.

I'm sorry, I really don't think you do understand the
consequences for your ethical view.


In today's world, the so called "numbers game" is legitimate in a larger
context that transcends just food. There are many things people can do to
minimize animal deaths and suffering. I do believe that abstaining from
consumming animal products serves that purpose to some extent.

I don't see how you can rationally maintain that
belief, given what I've elaborated above, particularly
concerning choices WITHIN the full set of possible
"vegan" lifestyles.

It's impossible to substantiate that belief with any kind of hard data.
It's my belief and I'll stand by it - I don't have to prove it to anyone.
So don't ask.

It not only is impossible to substantiate the belief
with hard data, it's also impossible to support
theoretically. Your belief, Jim, is clearly seen to be
irrational. Rather than ask you to substantiate one
unsupportable part of the belief, I'll ask why you
would willingly cling to a belief that is unsupportable
in its entirety?


I really don't give a flying f*** whether you condemn me as unethical or
immoral. You don't have to live with it - I do. Although I have my issues to
work on, I am at peace with my ethics and morality - at least most of the
time. :^) I am a respectable person and wish to be treated as such.

I would think SELF-respect and a wish to be
intellectually honest at least with yourself would lead
you to re-examine a belief that can't be rationally
supported, but which is supposed to yield practical,
real-world results. Your consumption habits are what
they are, and even if you completely abandoned a belief
in "veganism" as an ethically based lifestyle, that
wouldn't mean you'd necessarily begin chowing down on meat.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message .net...
C. James Strutz wrote:

[...]

Much, much better. You obviously had it in you all
along; pity you had to play a weird game for so long.


Jon, et. al.,

Okay, so you are not comparing the number of collateral deaths resulting
from herbivores versus omnivores (hence not participating in the "numbers
game"). You condemn vegans for ignoring the fact that there are collateral
animal deaths resulting from the production of the vegetable food they eat.
You point out that it is an ethical dilemma; ignoring it necessarily makes
them immoral and dishonest. You are particularly disturbed with overly
zealous vegans.

Exactly right. No omnivore in his right mind is going
to get into a death-counting ****ing contest with
"vegans". It seems eminently reasonable to me to
acknowledge that "vegans" almost certainly cause the
deaths of far fewer animals than omnivores.

Exactly. So if one's goal is to follow the least-harm
diet, then he is morally obligated to follow a vegan
diet.

[..]

There are quite a few problems with "veganism", but the
worst ones stem from the simplistic and bad thinking
inherent in "animal rights", of which "veganism" is the
dietary expression. A "vegan" - a so-called "ethical
vegetarian" - need not be an ardent believer in "animal
rights", and even less need be well-versed in the
written dogma handed down by "ar"/"al" gurus like Tom
Regan and Peter Singer; in fact, most "vegans" probably
are not well-read on "ar" issues at all. It suffices
for them to believe that it is morally wrong for humans
to kill animals, based on some possibly inchoate notion
that the animals have some kind of "right" not to be
killed. To the extent that the "vegan" is NOT
well-versed in the "ar" literature, his belief about
the wrongness of killing animals can't very well be
said to be well-founded; to the extent he might be
well-versed, he still is faced with fact that "ar" is
far from a persuasive political/legal/ethical
philosophy

Ipse dixit and false.

and in fact is not accepted as the
prevailing belief anywhere in the world.

Argumentun ad populum.

Regardless of the degree to which the "vegan" is aware
of and active in the "ar" movement, the *practice* of
"veganism" is seen, upon examination, to be utterly
inadequate as a route to reach the "vegan's" presumed
goal, which is to "respect" the "right" of animals not
to be harmed by humans. "veganism" is strictly a
consumption rule: "don't consume animal parts, or
things made from or by animals". This rule is, no
matter how much some polemical "vegans" wish to deny
it, based upon a logical fallacy:

If I consume animal parts, I cause harm to animals.

This first premise is false since the consequent
isn't a necessary condition for the antecedent to
exist. Thus your conclusion will be false, too.

I do not consume animal parts;

therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

You false premise ruins your argument, making
your conclusion false.

snip straw man

Dreck Nash, assassin of animals, wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message .net...

C. James Strutz wrote:

[...]

Much, much better. You obviously had it in you all
along; pity you had to play a weird game for so long.


Jon, et. al.,

Okay, so you are not comparing the number of collateral deaths resulting
from herbivores versus omnivores (hence not participating in the "numbers
game"). You condemn vegans for ignoring the fact that there are collateral
animal deaths resulting from the production of the vegetable food they eat.
You point out that it is an ethical dilemma; ignoring it necessarily makes
them immoral and dishonest. You are particularly disturbed with overly
zealous vegans.

Exactly right. No omnivore in his right mind is going
to get into a death-counting ****ing contest with
"vegans". It seems eminently reasonable to me to
acknowledge that "vegans" almost certainly cause the
deaths of far fewer animals than omnivores.


Exactly. So if one's goal is to follow the least-harm
diet, then he is morally obligated to follow a vegan
diet.

Causing fewer isn't the claimed achievement of
"vegans"; causing either none at all (strong but
*false* "vegan" claim) or "miminizing" them (weaker and
*still false* "vegan" claim) is the alleged achievement
of "veganism. You lose right out of the gate, Dreck.


[..]


There are quite a few problems with "veganism", but the
worst ones stem from the simplistic and bad thinking
inherent in "animal rights", of which "veganism" is the
dietary expression. A "vegan" - a so-called "ethical
vegetarian" - need not be an ardent believer in "animal
rights", and even less need be well-versed in the
written dogma handed down by "ar"/"al" gurus like Tom
Regan and Peter Singer; in fact, most "vegans" probably
are not well-read on "ar" issues at all. It suffices
for them to believe that it is morally wrong for humans
to kill animals, based on some possibly inchoate notion
that the animals have some kind of "right" not to be
killed. To the extent that the "vegan" is NOT
well-versed in the "ar" literature, his belief about
the wrongness of killing animals can't very well be
said to be well-founded; to the extent he might be
well-versed, he still is faced with fact that "ar" is
far from a persuasive political/legal/ethical
philosophy


Ipse dixit

misused

and false.

No, true. You always continue to make an ass out of
yourself, the farther you get into every post.



and in fact is not accepted as the
prevailing belief anywhere in the world.


Argumentun ad populum.

misused and false.



Regardless of the degree to which the "vegan" is aware
of and active in the "ar" movement, the *practice* of
"veganism" is seen, upon examination, to be utterly
inadequate as a route to reach the "vegan's" presumed
goal, which is to "respect" the "right" of animals not
to be harmed by humans. "veganism" is strictly a
consumption rule: "don't consume animal parts, or
things made from or by animals". This rule is, no
matter how much some polemical "vegans" wish to deny
it, based upon a logical fallacy:

If I consume animal parts, I cause harm to animals.


This first premise is false since the consequent
isn't a necessary condition for the antecedent to
exist. Thus your conclusion will be false, too.

Bullshit. Forget this "necessary condition" and
"consequent" and "antecdent" blah-blah, Dreck. You
very obviously don't know what you're talking about.
You are over your head, and we all know it. YOU know
it, too. You do not lecture anyone on logic, and
certainly not me. If anything, I lecture you: I know
and WORK WITH logic, while you do not know it and
CANNOT work with it. Live with it. In matters of
analysis of propositional logic here, I am the relative
expert, you are the fool.

This BULLSHIT about "the consequent isn't a necessary
condition for the antecedent to exist" is just
nonsense; there is no such requirement, anywhere at any
time. You don't even KNOW what the consequent is until
it is stated. If I begin by saying, "If I consume
animal parts..." and don't complete the sentence for a
full five minutes while I think of the right phrasing,
it does NOT mean that the antecedent doesn't exist.
You are completely full of shit.

This first premise is BELIEVED by "vegans"; that's all
that matters; it IS a part of the argument to which all
"vegans" subscribe, explicitly or implicitly. The
actual truth of the premise is irrelevant in showing
that the "vegan" argument, which is a Denying the
Antecedent argument, is invalid, hence unsound. All
"vegans" BELIEVE that first premise to be true.

You look and sound the ass when you cut-and-paste this
material about logic that you clearly have not
understood. Recall, Dreck: I know and WORK WITH
logic, while you do not know it and CANNOT work with
it. Live with that reality, Dreck. In matters of
analysis of propositional logic here, I am the relative
expert, you are the fool.



I do not consume animal parts;

therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.


You false premise ruins your argument,

It isn't my premise or my argument, Dreck; it is the
premise and argument of "vegans".

making your conclusion false.

Making the conclusion of "vegans" false, you should
have said. Never mind; I'll say it for you. Their
argument is fallacious because it is invalid, not
because of your bullshit blah-blah about "necessary"
and "consequent" and "antecedent".

"vegans" are the ones making this argument. If you
don't like the argument, address your complaints to
"vegans" for making it in the first place.

The discussion is over. I set the terms of it, not
you. I don't waste time pointing out your errors and
ignorance more than once.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message k.net...
"ipse dixit" wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message .net...

Okay, so you are not comparing the number of collateral deaths resulting
from herbivores versus omnivores (hence not participating in the "numbers
game"). You condemn vegans for ignoring the fact that there are collateral
animal deaths resulting from the production of the vegetable food they eat.
You point out that it is an ethical dilemma; ignoring it necessarily makes
them immoral and dishonest. You are particularly disturbed with overly
zealous vegans.

Exactly right. No omnivore in his right mind is going
to get into a death-counting ****ing contest with
"vegans". It seems eminently reasonable to me to
acknowledge that "vegans" almost certainly cause the
deaths of far fewer animals than omnivores.

Exactly. So if one's goal is to follow the least-harm
diet, then he is morally obligated to follow a vegan
diet.

Causing fewer isn't the claimed achievement of
"vegans"

It most certainly is, for no one claims no animals
die during crop production or industry generally,
which is why your argument against the vegan is
a straw man from the start. You're not fooling
anyone, Jon, especially those who know the rules.

There are quite a few problems with "veganism", but the
worst ones stem from the simplistic and bad thinking
inherent in "animal rights", of which "veganism" is the
dietary expression. A "vegan" - a so-called "ethical
vegetarian" - need not be an ardent believer in "animal
rights", and even less need be well-versed in the
written dogma handed down by "ar"/"al" gurus like Tom
Regan and Peter Singer; in fact, most "vegans" probably
are not well-read on "ar" issues at all. It suffices
for them to believe that it is morally wrong for humans
to kill animals, based on some possibly inchoate notion
that the animals have some kind of "right" not to be
killed. To the extent that the "vegan" is NOT
well-versed in the "ar" literature, his belief about
the wrongness of killing animals can't very well be
said to be well-founded; to the extent he might be
well-versed, he still is faced with fact that "ar" is
far from a persuasive political/legal/ethical
philosophy

Ipse dixit

misused

Your claim, "that "ar" is far from a persuasive
political/legal/ethical philosophy" is an unsupported
assertion. Thus, ipse dixit.

and false.

No, true.

False. The political/legal/ethical philosophy
of AR is very persuasive, according to me
and many others, so your categorical claim
that it isn't is assuredly false.

and in fact is not accepted as the
prevailing belief anywhere in the world.

Argumentum ad populum.

misused

Argumentum ad populum is very closely related
to argumentum ad numerum, which might've
been more fitting seeing as you're asserting that
the more people supporting an opposition to
veganism - the more likely their opposition is
correct, but I used argumentum ad populum
instead because you're certainly attempting to
win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to
a large group of people.

Regardless of the degree to which the "vegan" is aware
of and active in the "ar" movement, the *practice* of
"veganism" is seen, upon examination, to be utterly
inadequate as a route to reach the "vegan's" presumed
goal, which is to "respect" the "right" of animals not
to be harmed by humans. "veganism" is strictly a
consumption rule: "don't consume animal parts, or
things made from or by animals". This rule is, no
matter how much some polemical "vegans" wish to deny
it, based upon a logical fallacy:

If I consume animal parts, I cause harm to animals.

This first premise is false since the consequent
isn't a necessary condition for the antecedent to
exist. Thus your conclusion will be false, too.

Bullshit. Forget this "necessary condition" and
"consequent" and "antecdent" blah-blah,

No chance, sunshine, because it's a valid tool
for evaluating conditional propositions.

You
very obviously don't know what you're talking about.

I certainly do.

You are over your head

Not where you're concerned. You don't impress
me.

This BULLSHIT about "the consequent isn't a necessary
condition for the antecedent to exist" is just
nonsense; there is no such requirement, anywhere at any
time.

You need to study, Jon.

1.. If John is a citizen of Iowa, then John is a citizen of the USA.
2.. John is a citizen of Iowa.
3.. John is a citizen of the USA.

This sound syllogism illustrates two basic points:
(1) the antecedent must be a sufficient condition for the
consequent to be true (i.e., the antecedent cannot be true
without the consequent being true) and
(2) the consequent must be a necessary condition for the
antecedent to be true (i.e., the consequent must be true
in order for the antecedent to be true).
http://www.letusreason.com/archives/...ogic011598.htm

heh heh heh

You don't even KNOW what the consequent is until
it is stated. If I begin by saying, "If I consume
animal parts..." and don't complete the sentence for a
full five minutes while I think of the right phrasing,
it does NOT mean that the antecedent doesn't exist.

Haw haw haw. It simply means you've uttered
an unfinished meaningless proposition, so how
will you argue from such an absurd position?

You are completely full of shit.

I'm kicking your arse, boy; your premise has been
proven false.

This first premise is BELIEVED by "vegans"

Ipse dixit and false. You cannot form a conclusion
based on what you reckon people believe. You're
whole argument is absurd.

I told you: the discussion is over. Feel free to
waste your time, Dreck, but you're not wasting any more
of mine than I choose to give.

You do not understand logic, and your prattle about
"necessary" and "consequent" and "antecedent" shows it.
You simply do not know the subject, and I will not
discuss something like that with someone who doesn't
know it and pretends he does, when I *do* know it.
Your repeated misuse of the names of fallacies is
further proof of your ignorance and stubbornness.

My points to Jim Strutz stand. You are just a minor
annoyance, and you aren't fooling anyone.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message k.net...

I told you: the discussion is over.

I could've told you that before you even started it.
I can refute any damn ****ing argument you care
to offer in these animal related groups, sonny.
You're ****ed.

Feel free to
waste your time, Dreck, but you're not wasting any more
of mine than I choose to give.

Run for that door, nebbish.

You do not understand logic

Yes, I do.

and your prattle about
"necessary" and "consequent" and "antecedent" shows it.

I've shown that it is a valid tool for evaluating
conditional propositions. You need to learn it.

The only topic left to discus, Dreck, is your false
belief that you have mastered logic, and that you
understand the other original topics under discussion.
You do not understand logic, and you are lying about
the argument "vegans" make.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message k.net...
The only topic left to discus, Dreck, is your false
belief that you have mastered logic, and that you
understand the other original topics under discussion.
You do not understand logic, and you are lying about
the argument "vegans" make.

Ipse dixit and false.

ipse dixit wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message k.net...

The only topic left to discus, Dreck, is your false
belief that you have mastered logic, and that you
understand the other original topics under discussion.
You do not understand logic, and you are lying about
the argument "vegans" make.


Ipse dixit

Misused, again, proving my point.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message k.net...
ipse dixit wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message k.net...

The only topic left to discus, Dreck, is your false
belief that you have mastered logic

I've always understood it. I've been writing freeware
for Psion computers for years. Would you like some
examples? Thousands of users are using my very own
codes all the time, and I'm qualified in digital electronics
too, so I had a pretty solid backround in logic before
even starting on deductive logic and reasoning here.

, and that you
understand the other original topics under discussion.
You do not understand logic, and you are lying about
the argument "vegans" make.

Ipse dixit

Misused

Every assertion you made in that above rant is
unsupported, thus ipse dixit.

again, proving my point.

You're beaten, Jon. There's not a single on-topic
argument that I can't beat and turn against you
with twice as much behind it.

You've never understood it, Dreck, and you prove it
with every post. You do not understand it, and you
never will. It's what comes of the combination of
ignorance, arrogance and pig-headedness. It goes a
long way to explain why you're a cripple.

"ipse dixit" wrote

"Jonathan Ball" wrote

The only topic left to discus, Dreck, is your false
belief that you have mastered logic

I've always understood it.

If you understand logic then explain the following BASIC BLUNDER.

You presented the following as valid logic.

1) If I abstain from farmed animal products I cause less farmed animals to
suffer and die.
2) I abstain from farmed animal products
therefore
3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die

X = I abstain from farmed animal products
Y = I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die

Your "logic" can be represented as

1) If X, therefore Y
2) X
therefore
3) Y

???

A circular regurgitation of the original premiss, no logic involved. You
have zero understanding of the basics of the topic you pose as an expert on.
You are a poseur and a fool. You're also unpleasant, arrogant, a liar, and
you probably smell like shit all the time.

Dutch wrote:
"ipse dixit" wrote

"Jonathan Ball" wrote


The only topic left to discus, Dreck, is your false
belief that you have mastered logic

I've always understood it.


If you understand logic then explain the following BASIC BLUNDER.

He doesn't understand it, and all you'll get is some
additional meaningless repetition of some cut-and-paste
web page material that he didn't understand the first
time, and doesn't understand now. It's why he kept
defending the invalid Denying the Antecedent argument
of "veganism" as a valid argument for such a long time.
It's why he totally ****ed up validity and soundness
for such a long time.


You presented the following as valid logic.

1) If I abstain from farmed animal products I cause less farmed animals to
suffer and die.
2) I abstain from farmed animal products
therefore
3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die

X = I abstain from farmed animal products
Y = I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die

Your "logic" can be represented as

1) If X, therefore Y
2) X
therefore
3) Y

???

A circular regurgitation of the original premiss, no logic involved. You
have zero understanding of the basics of the topic you pose as an expert on.
You are a poseur and a fool. You're also unpleasant, arrogant, a liar, and
you probably smell like shit all the time.

You forgot chronically drunk, and an animal beater: he
practically broke the back of his dog from beating on
it with a broom handle.