Gender-confused Dreck wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net...
>
>>Gender-confused Dreck wrote:
>>
>>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message news
>>>
>>>>>>>>Animals continue to die because most vegans -- even self-heralded
>>>>>>>>"ethical" vegans -- refuse to grow their own food on a small enough
>>>>>>>>scale to prevent animal deaths.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's not an honest explanation. They die because
>>>>>>>farmers cut corners and prefer to use pesticides
>>>>>>>instead of trying to improve their farming methods
>>>>>>>and storage facilities. It's cheaper for them and less
>>>>>>>labour intensive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Next time you send your poor wife to the store, make sure she buys only
>>>>>>the most expensive of each available item to ensure farmers are making
>>>>>>the most money possible so maybe they can afford to stop cutting
>>>>>>corners, as you say.
>>>>>
>>>>>My trade with farmers doesn't include a demand they
>>>>>cause collateral deaths during the production of veg.
>>>>
>>>>Your trade accepts the consequences of farmers' actions
>>>
>>>Mine doesn't.
>>
>>It does, by definition. You know of the consequences,
>
>
> You are affirming the consequent.
>
> "If I eat vegetables, collateral deaths will occur."
No, ****ing moron. You really can't do this logic stuff.
The fallacy of affirming the consequence would be:
If Dreck eats vegetables, collateral deaths will occur
Collateral deaths occur
Therefore, Dreck eats vegetables
I haven't said anything remotely like that, you ****ing
moron. What I have done is *affirm the antecedent*,
which is a VALID logical construction:
If Dreck eats vegetables, collateral deaths will occur
Dreck eats vegetables
Therefore, collateral deaths occur
You *want* to argue with the truth of the first
proposition, but you can't: if *you* eat vegetables,
then collateral deaths *do* occur, because you continue
to buy vegetables from farmers who farm using methods
that you KNOW cause collateral deaths.
**** you and your shitty understanding of logic. You
do not understand it. I do.