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).

The analogy, simplified, is that life causes death. The two are
inseparable.

>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).

Of course it's false. Jon's parroting ar/evs. You're not off to a good
start.

>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.

Correct about the death, not about the suffering, and one's diet is
irrelevant.

>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.

How can an event occur if pre-conditions don't exist?

>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.

Do you believe in miracles?

>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

Stop w/ the pseudo logical nonsense. You don't understand it anyway.
Here are the facts. Your live at the expense of other lives.
"Suffering" isn't a necessary part of the equation. Death is.

>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

CDs are an absolute outcome of farming whether you deny them or not,
ergo your "affirming the consequent" argument is duly dismissed.

The only way not to kill animals is to not exist. I suggest you'd have
better luck taking a sideways look at David Harrison's argument. Think
of all the veggies that wouldn't get planted if it weren't for ar/evs.

--swamp