All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.


This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.

However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
if so, exclude it from their diet.

Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
- and none of the other participants seemed especially
eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.

Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
animal collateral death toll caused by the production
and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
the geographic locale of production has anything to do
with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
kill animals. It simply is not credible.

How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
*still* accept it.

I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:

All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

This premiss is false on the basis that an improper
relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat)
and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists.
Such a conditional statement insists that I cause
harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat
can be sourced from animals which have died from
natural causes and without causing any harms.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
Antecedent.

It certainly does, and this is why you built it and then
attribute it to vegans. You're building a straw man.

[The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent
someone else's position so that it can be attacked
more easily, knock down that misrepresented position,
then conclude that the original position has been
demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with
the actual arguments that have been made.]
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#strawman

A more accurate and valid argument would be thus;

1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent),
I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent).
2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent)
therefore
3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent)

[snip straw man]

Derek wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:


All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals


This premiss

Is believed by all "vegans".


I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
Antecedent.


It certainly does

And is why "veganism" is a false belief.

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:
Derek wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:

All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

This premiss

Is believed by all "vegans".

unsnip
This premiss is false on the basis that an improper
relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat)
and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists.
Such a conditional statement insists that I cause
harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat
can be sourced from animals which have died from
natural causes and without causing any harms.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
Antecedent.

It certainly does, and this is why you built it and then
attribute it to vegans. You're building a straw man.

[The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent
someone else's position so that it can be attacked
more easily, knock down that misrepresented position,
then conclude that the original position has been
demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with
the actual arguments that have been made.]
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#strawman

A more accurate and valid argument would be thus;

1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent),
I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent).
2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent)
therefore
3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent)

endsnip

Derek wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:

Derek wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:


All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

This premiss

Is believed by all "vegans".


unsnip
This premiss is

believed by all "vegans".



I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
Antecedent.


It certainly does

Yes, it certainly does. It is why "veganism" is
irrational.

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:36:57 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:
Derek wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:
Derek wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:

All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

This premiss

Is believed by all "vegans".

unsnip
This premiss is false on the basis that an improper
relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat)
and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists.
Such a conditional statement insists that I cause
harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat
can be sourced from animals which have died from
natural causes and without causing any harms.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
Antecedent.

It certainly does, and this is why you built it and then
attribute it to vegans. You're building a straw man.

[The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent
someone else's position so that it can be attacked
more easily, knock down that misrepresented position,
then conclude that the original position has been
demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with
the actual arguments that have been made.]
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#strawman

A more accurate and valid argument would be thus;

1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent),
I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent).
2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent)
therefore
3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent)

endsnip

Derek wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:36:57 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:

Derek wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:

Derek wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:


All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

This premiss

Is believed by all "vegans".

This premiss

Is believed by all "vegans".


I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
Antecedent.


It certainly does

Yes, it certainly does. That's why "veganism" is a
fallacy-based belief.

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:02:47 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:
Derek wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:36:57 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:
Derek wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:
Derek wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:

All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

This premiss

Is believed by all "vegans".

This premiss

Is believed by all "vegans".

Straw man.

unsnip
This premiss is false on the basis that an improper
relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat)
and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists.
Such a conditional statement insists that I cause
harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat
can be sourced from animals which have died from
natural causes and without causing any harms.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
Antecedent.

It certainly does, and this is why you built it and then
attribute it to vegans. You're building a straw man.

[The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent
someone else's position so that it can be attacked
more easily, knock down that misrepresented position,
then conclude that the original position has been
demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with
the actual arguments that have been made.]
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#strawman

A more accurate and valid argument would be thus;

1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent),
I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent).
2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent)
therefore
3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent)

endsnip

http://www.betterbones.com/alkaline/.../frassetto.pdf

Derek wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:02:47 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:

Derek wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:36:57 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:

Derek wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:

Derek wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:


All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

This premiss

Is believed by all "vegans".

This premiss

Is believed by all "vegans".

This premiss

Is believed by all "vegans".


I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
Antecedent.


It certainly does

Yes, it certainly does. That's why "veganism" is a
fallacy-based belief.

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:12:51 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:
Derek wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:02:47 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:
Derek wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:36:57 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:
Derek wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:
Derek wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:

All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

This premiss

Is believed by all "vegans".

Straw man.

unsnip
This premiss is false on the basis that an improper
relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat)
and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists.
Such a conditional statement insists that I cause
harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat
can be sourced from animals which have died from
natural causes and without causing any harms.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
Antecedent.

It certainly does, and this is why you built it and then
attribute it to vegans. You're building a straw man.

[The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent
someone else's position so that it can be attacked
more easily, knock down that misrepresented position,
then conclude that the original position has been
demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with
the actual arguments that have been made.]
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#strawman

A more accurate and valid argument would be thus;

1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent),
I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent).
2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent)
therefore
3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent)

endsnip

Derek wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:12:51 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:

Derek wrote:


All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

This premiss

Is believed by all "vegans".

This premiss is

Believed by all "vegans". It's the beginning of their
belief in a fallacy.


I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
Antecedent.


It certainly does

Yes, it certainly does. That's why "veganism" is a
fallacy-based belief.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message nk.net...
Derek wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:12:51 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:
Derek wrote:

All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

This premiss

Is believed by all "vegans".

This premiss is

Believed by all "vegans".

Straw man.

unsnip
This premiss is false on the basis that an improper
relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat)
and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists.
Such a conditional statement insists that I cause
harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat
can be sourced from animals which have died from
natural causes and without causing any harms.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
Antecedent.

It certainly does, and this is why you built it and then
attribute it to vegans. You're building a straw man.

[The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent
someone else's position so that it can be attacked
more easily, knock down that misrepresented position,
then conclude that the original position has been
demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with
the actual arguments that have been made.]
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#strawman

A more accurate and valid argument would be thus;

1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent),
I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent).
2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent)
therefore
3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent)

endsnip

Derek wrote:

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

Derek wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:12:51 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:

Derek wrote:

All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

This premiss

Is believed by all "vegans".

This premiss is

Believed by all "vegans".


Straw man.

unsnip
This premiss is

Believed by all "vegans".


I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
Antecedent.


It certainly does

Yes, it certainly does. That's why "veganism" is a
fallacy-based belief.

"Derek" wrote

"Jonathan Ball" wrote
Derek wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:12:51 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:
Derek wrote:

All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

This premiss

Is believed by all "vegans".

This premiss is

Believed by all "vegans".

Straw man.

unsnip
This premiss is false on the basis that an improper
relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat)
and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists.
Such a conditional statement insists that I cause
harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat
can be sourced from animals which have died from
natural causes and without causing any harms.

There is no debate over the ethics of consuming the meat of animals who have
died from natural causes. There is no source for humans of meat from animals
who have died of natural causes in the developed world. For the purpose of
this discussion, and for all practical purposes, eating meat implies the
killing of an animal "in it's prime". The existence of a relatively unused
alternative to doing so does not invalidate the premiss. "Meat" in this
context is referring to "produced" meat.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
Antecedent.

It certainly does, and this is why you built it and then
attribute it to vegans. You're building a straw man.

[The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent
someone else's position so that it can be attacked
more easily, knock down that misrepresented position,
then conclude that the original position has been
demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with
the actual arguments that have been made.]
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#strawman

You have failed to demonstrate a strawman.

A more accurate and valid argument would be thus;

1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent),
I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent).
2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent)
therefore
3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent)

That's not even a statement of logic. It merely says,

1) If A therefore B
2) A
therefore
3) B

Duh! The intent of logic is to draw conclusions, not just reiterate the
premiss.

The actual non-logically formulated thinking of the typical vegan goes
something like, "If I abstain from animal products I cause (nearly) zero
animals to suffer and die."

You're not dispelling this statement with your current arguments, you're
reinforcing that vegan arguments are generally illogical.