On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:44:25 +0100, "Jane" > wrote:
>
>"swamp" > wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:16:25 -0400, LordSnooty
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:21:59 GMT, swamp >
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:20:23 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Jon wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>(snip)
>> >>>
>> >>>> "vegans", or so-called
>> >>>> "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
>> >>>> fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 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.
>> >>>
>> >>>Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?
>> >>>
>> >>>The above should go like this:
>> >>>
>> >>> If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
>> >>>
>> >>> I do not eat meat;
>> >>>
>> >>> Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
>> >>
>> >>As long as we're shooting for accuracy, it should be:
>> >>
>> >>If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
>> >>
>> >>I do not eat meat, therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer
>> >>and die,
>> >
>> >Very good.
>> >
>> >>and make this point because it helps me ignore the death and
>> >>suffering my own diet causes.
>> >
>> >What death and suffering?
>>
>> That caused by your very existence.
>>
>> >you have scientific, peer reviewed data that
>> >a particular company, farm, product is a direct cause of wildlife
>> >deaths?
>>
>> The peer-reviewed study you suggest is about as necessary as one
>> showing starvation will cause starvation.
>>
>That's a false analogy, since one event (starving) will always cause
>the same condition (starvation), but the same can't be said for the
>other half of your analogy where one event (eating vegetables)
>will always cause the same condition (collateral deaths). Before
>showing you the fallacy in your argument over collateral deaths,
>look again at the first premise in Jonathan Ball's syllogism at the
>start of this thread.
>
>"If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die."
>
>This proposition is false, since the event (If I eat meat) always
>assumes a necessary condition (I cause animals to suffer and die).
>
>A necessary condition for an event is something which is
>absolutely required to exist or happen if the event is to occur.
>Ergo; causing suffering and death to animals is absolutely
>required to exist or must happen if I am to eat meat.
>
>A sufficient condition for an event, on the other hand, does
>not have to exist for the event to occur, but if it exists, then
>the event will occur. Ergo; causing animals to suffer and die
>isn't absolutely required to exist or happen, since meat can
>be sourced from animals which no one has caused to suffer
>or die, but if it does suffer and die from natural causes or
>accident, then I am still able to eat meat.
>
>A more formal way for saying that one thing, p, is a sufficient
>condition for some other thing, q, would be to say "if p then q,"
>which is a standard hypothetical proposition. Confusing
>necessary and sufficient conditions is one way to understand
>how some of the rules of inference with hypothetical propositions
>can be violated. The fallacy of affirming the consequent, for
>example, makes the assumption that a sufficient condition is also
>a necessary condition.
>http://atheism.about.com/library/glo..._necessary.htm
>
>Another example of affirming the consequent is shown in your
>proposition, "If I eat vegetables, collateral deaths will occur."
>
>This proposition is false; since the event (If I eat vegetables)
>always assumes a necessary condition (collateral deaths will
>occur).
>Ergo; collateral deaths are absolutely required to exist or
>must happen if I am to eat vegetables.
>
>For the sufficient condition; collateral deaths aren't absolutely
>required to exist or happen, but if they do exist, then I am still
>able to eat vegetables. The fallacy of affirming the consequent,
>for this example makes the same assumption as the last in that
>a sufficient condition is also a necessary condition.
><snip>
Lol, well that's certainly putting it straight, be gentle on them,
they have barely left building block, word associations yet.
'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.
Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me
If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.
And I'm keeping the bloody lot.
So sue me.
http://www.globalrichlist.com/