"Scented Nectar" believed the classic "vegan" Denying
the Antecedent fallacy, and she has admitted it:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.

She implicitly admits she believed this, because she
EXPLICITLY admits to following the rule - "do not
consume animal parts" - and several days ago she
admitted to not having known about CDs:

At first I didn't know about cds or what the
initials meant (collateral deaths).

"Scented Nectar" - 13 Dec 2004

Then, she retreated to the much weaker position that
she is "doing the best [she] can". This is also
exposed as a false statement, and she now admits that
she is NOT doing the best she can:

Jay:
Meaningless [that the naive twit has switched from
"lacto-ovo" to strictly vegetarian]. Even WITHIN a
strictly vegetarian diet - "lacto-ovo" is not
vegetarian, no matter what bullshit web page told
you it is - you can choose higher or lower
CD-causing foods. You do NOT attempt to learn which
ones are high CD foods and which ones cause fewer.
You ONLY follow the stupid rule: don't consume
animal parts. That does nothing to help you choose
among competing vegetable foods.

the naive twit:
Now you're trying a divide and conquer technique.
You'd love to see vegans arguing over who's lunch
today has more cds. The fact still stands that vegans
as a whole cause less cds than meateaters as a
whole.

Implicitly, the naive pothead twit has abandoned her
always-fatuous claim that she was doing the best that
she could, and she NOW is trying to wrap herself in
some kind of flag of "average vegan-ness".

It is NOT playing any kind of "word game" to identify
implicit statements someone makes, and the admissions
have in no way been "engineered". The naive pothead
twit has not been forced to admit to anything she
doesn't really believe.

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:24:18 GMT, Jay Santos wrote:

"Scented Nectar" believed the classic "vegan" Denying
the Antecedent fallacy

Rather, if anything, she was guided onto a device you
planted and mistakenly took you as being an honest
guide.

Retard wrote:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:24:18 GMT, Jay Santos wrote:


"Scented Nectar" believed the classic "vegan" Denying
the Antecedent fallacy


Rather

Yes, rather.

Retard wrote:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:24:18 GMT, Jay Santos wrote:


"Scented Nectar" believed the classic "vegan" Denying
the Antecedent fallacy


Rather

Yes, rather.

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:29:57 GMT, Jay Santos wrote:
Reynard wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:24:18 GMT, Jay Santos wrote:

"Scented Nectar" believed the classic "vegan" Denying
the Antecedent fallacy

Rather

Yes, rather.

But only as you worded it, rather than how SHE worded it.

"It doesn't matter how you worded it: you believed in
the fallacy EXACTLY as I worded it."

From that, you've implicated yourself by stating a premise,
that she in fact worded it [you worded it], and then denied
its conclusion by admitting you worded it [I worded it].

Retard wrote:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:29:57 GMT, Jay Santos wrote:

Retard wrote:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:24:18 GMT, Jay Santos wrote:


"Scented Nectar" believed the classic "vegan" Denying
the Antecedent fallacy

Rather

Yes, rather.


But only as you worded it

Her wording is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is
the belief, and my wording ACCURATELY describes what
her belief was.

Retard wrote:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:29:57 GMT, Jay Santos wrote:

Retard wrote:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:24:18 GMT, Jay Santos wrote:


"Scented Nectar" believed the classic "vegan" Denying
the Antecedent fallacy

Rather

Yes, rather.


But only as you worded it

Her wording is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is
the belief, and my wording ACCURATELY describes what
her belief was.

you have an 'exit strategy' right?

Why would I need one? My opponent is unconscious and
will remain so.

Your opponent is quite awake. I have finished my
coffee for the day.
( http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/recipes/coffee/ )
If I were unconscious, then have you been talking
to yourself mostly?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

you have an 'exit strategy' right?

Why would I need one? My opponent is unconscious and
will remain so.

Your opponent is quite awake. I have finished my
coffee for the day.
( http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/recipes/coffee/ )
If I were unconscious, then have you been talking
to yourself mostly?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Her wording is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is
the belief, and my wording ACCURATELY describes what
her belief was.

No you only get points for being close.
Once I saw the improved wording that
Reynard did, I saw and stated that it
more accurately described what I
believe. You're moment of semantic
glory is gone.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:

you have an 'exit strategy' right?

Why would I need one? My opponent is unconscious and
will remain so.


Your opponent is quite awake.

You are brain-dead.

Scented Nectar wrote:

Her wording is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is
the belief, and my wording ACCURATELY describes what
her belief was.


No you only get points for being close.

I was spot-on. You did believe that because you
refrain from consuming animal parts, you caused zero
death and suffering of animals. You admitted it. The
classic "vegan" Denying the Antecedent fallacy, as I
worded it, accurately captures your former thinking.

Scented Nectar wrote:

Her wording is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is
the belief, and my wording ACCURATELY describes what
her belief was.


No you only get points for being close.
Once I saw the improved wording that
Retard did

That bullshit wording of his is not any improvement at
all, and it does NOT represent your original thinking.
You may wish to pretend it represents your current
thinking, but it does not represent your original
thinking at all. Your original thinking did not limit
your sense of your virtue to not causing harm to
"farmed" animals. You DID believe that you were not
causing harm to ANY animals.

To the extent that Retard's dishonest and too-narrow
formulation reflects your thinking now, it represents
your fallback position.

"Scented Nectar" wrote
you have an 'exit strategy' right?

Why would I need one? My opponent is unconscious and
will remain so.

Your opponent is quite awake. I have finished my
coffee for the day.
( http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/recipes/coffee/ )
If I were unconscious, then have you been talking
to yourself mostly?

I suspect that at the beginning he was addressing his comments to you, but
not any more. You now are the proverbial "foil", and a good one at that,
legendary.

"Scented Nectar" wrote in message
...
Her wording is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is
the belief, and my wording ACCURATELY describes what
her belief was.

No you only get points for being close.
Once I saw the improved wording that
Reynard did, I saw and stated that it
more accurately described what I
believe. You're moment of semantic
glory is gone.

You're lying and you know it. There is NO WAY that you could view Reynard's
mishmosh as "improved wording", you don't understand it, and if you did you
would see that it makes no sense. Ask yourself why you are resorting to
lying.