Dutch wrote:
>
> "frlpwr" > wrote
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Because that's not the thinking, and it would be absurd
> > > to think it could be.
> >
> > I would be absurd to think otherwise. As I said in the snipped portion
> > of my previous post, no vegan thinks her diet effects the suffering and
> > dying of shelter animals, circus animals, animals displaced by human
> > development, laboratory animals, animals killed in vehicular
> > accidents,etc..
>
> You're REALLY obfuscating here, stick to the topic of diets.
I am, silly. It is because veganism is all about consumables that
"farmed animals" or "food and fiber animals" is clearly implied in a
vegan's, "...I do not contribute to the suffering and death of
animals..." claim.
>A more precise
> wording of the fallacy would be as follows:
>
> Eating meat contributes to the deaths of animals.
>
Talk about obfuscation! Eating meat does not "contribute" to the death
of animals, it requires it.
A more precise wording of the above statement would be as follows:
Eating meat requires the death of food animals.
> I don't eat meat therefore *MY diet* doesn't contribute to the deaths of
> animals.
This is true if you insert "food" before "animals".
>
> The virulent rhetoric of anti-meat campaigners makes it crystal clear that
> collateral deaths associated with their non-meat diets are *right* off their
> radar screen. Virtually every new vegan who comes here is caught off-guard
> by the cd argument.
It's true that many vegans are oblivious to the field deaths associated
with various crops. Once informed, I don't recall any dismissing them
as unimportant. Unquantified or unquantifiable, yes.
We are missing an all important point here. Conceding that an unknown
number of field animals die from cultivation, the voles, the mice, the
woodchucks, the gophers, the moles, the rabbits, the shrews, do not
experience suffering over time, as do most industrially produced
livestock. Field animals live their lives contentedly, then BLAMMM, the
blade.