View Single Post
  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian


"frlpwr" > wrote in message ...
> 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.

=======================
Then you haven't been paying attention, have you?
Even you dismiss them as umimportant since you refuse to consider that other
options are better.


>
> 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.

=================
More typical BS. The cows I eat don't 'suffer' any more than your mice or
voles during their lives. The real difference is that the cows I eat die a
very humane death compared to the animals you condemn to die horribly for
your selfish conveninece.


Field animals live their lives contentedly, then BLAMMM, the
> blade.

=======================
Really? Even those that die slowly from poisons while their guts turn to
mush? Even those that die from starvation and predation after you take all
the easy foods and cover that allowed their population to explode in the
first place? You mean like *those* quick, humane deaths?


>
>