Dreck Nash, assassin of animals, wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message .net...
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>Much, much better. You obviously had it in you all
>>along; pity you had to play a weird game for so long.
>>
>>
>>>Jon, et. al.,
>>>
>>>Okay, so you are not comparing the number of collateral deaths resulting
>>>from herbivores versus omnivores (hence not participating in the "numbers
>>>game"). You condemn vegans for ignoring the fact that there are collateral
>>>animal deaths resulting from the production of the vegetable food they eat.
>>>You point out that it is an ethical dilemma; ignoring it necessarily makes
>>>them immoral and dishonest. You are particularly disturbed with overly
>>>zealous vegans.
>>
>>Exactly right. No omnivore in his right mind is going
>>to get into a death-counting ****ing contest with
>>"vegans". It seems eminently reasonable to me to
>>acknowledge that "vegans" almost certainly cause the
>>deaths of far fewer animals than omnivores.
>
>
> Exactly. So if one's goal is to follow the least-harm
> diet, then he is morally obligated to follow a vegan
> diet.

Causing fewer isn't the claimed achievement of
"vegans"; causing either none at all (strong but
*false* "vegan" claim) or "miminizing" them (weaker and
*still false* "vegan" claim) is the alleged achievement
of "veganism. You lose right out of the gate, Dreck.

>
> [..]
>
>
>>There are quite a few problems with "veganism", but the
>>worst ones stem from the simplistic and bad thinking
>>inherent in "animal rights", of which "veganism" is the
>>dietary expression. A "vegan" - a so-called "ethical
>>vegetarian" - need not be an ardent believer in "animal
>>rights", and even less need be well-versed in the
>>written dogma handed down by "ar"/"al" gurus like Tom
>>Regan and Peter Singer; in fact, most "vegans" probably
>>are not well-read on "ar" issues at all. It suffices
>>for them to believe that it is morally wrong for humans
>>to kill animals, based on some possibly inchoate notion
>>that the animals have some kind of "right" not to be
>>killed. To the extent that the "vegan" is NOT
>>well-versed in the "ar" literature, his belief about
>>the wrongness of killing animals can't very well be
>>said to be well-founded; to the extent he might be
>>well-versed, he still is faced with fact that "ar" is
>>far from a persuasive political/legal/ethical
>>philosophy
>
>
> Ipse dixit

misused

> and false.

No, true. You always continue to make an ass out of
yourself, the farther you get into every post.

>
>
>>and in fact is not accepted as the
>>prevailing belief anywhere in the world.
>>
>
> Argumentun ad populum.

misused and false.

>
>
>>Regardless of the degree to which the "vegan" is aware
>>of and active in the "ar" movement, the *practice* of
>>"veganism" is seen, upon examination, to be utterly
>>inadequate as a route to reach the "vegan's" presumed
>>goal, which is to "respect" the "right" of animals not
>>to be harmed by humans. "veganism" is strictly a
>>consumption rule: "don't consume animal parts, or
>>things made from or by animals". This rule is, no
>>matter how much some polemical "vegans" wish to deny
>>it, based upon a logical fallacy:
>>
>> If I consume animal parts, I cause harm to animals.
>>
>
> This first premise is false since the consequent
> isn't a necessary condition for the antecedent to
> exist. Thus your conclusion will be false, too.

Bullshit. Forget this "necessary condition" and
"consequent" and "antecdent" blah-blah, Dreck. You
very obviously don't know what you're talking about.
You are over your head, and we all know it. YOU know
it, too. You do not lecture anyone on logic, and
certainly not me. If anything, I lecture you: I know
and WORK WITH logic, while you do not know it and
CANNOT work with it. Live with it. In matters of
analysis of propositional logic here, I am the relative
expert, you are the fool.

This BULLSHIT about "the consequent isn't a necessary
condition for the antecedent to exist" is just
nonsense; there is no such requirement, anywhere at any
time. You don't even KNOW what the consequent is until
it is stated. If I begin by saying, "If I consume
animal parts..." and don't complete the sentence for a
full five minutes while I think of the right phrasing,
it does NOT mean that the antecedent doesn't exist.
You are completely full of shit.

This first premise is BELIEVED by "vegans"; that's all
that matters; it IS a part of the argument to which all
"vegans" subscribe, explicitly or implicitly. The
actual truth of the premise is irrelevant in showing
that the "vegan" argument, which is a Denying the
Antecedent argument, is invalid, hence unsound. All
"vegans" BELIEVE that first premise to be true.

You look and sound the ass when you cut-and-paste this
material about logic that you clearly have not
understood. Recall, Dreck: I know and WORK WITH
logic, while you do not know it and CANNOT work with
it. Live with that reality, Dreck. In matters of
analysis of propositional logic here, I am the relative
expert, you are the fool.

>
>
>> I do not consume animal parts;
>>
>> therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>>
>
> You false premise ruins your argument,

It isn't my premise or my argument, Dreck; it is the
premise and argument of "vegans".

> making your conclusion false.

Making the conclusion of "vegans" false, you should
have said. Never mind; I'll say it for you. Their
argument is fallacious because it is invalid, not
because of your bullshit blah-blah about "necessary"
and "consequent" and "antecedent".

"vegans" are the ones making this argument. If you
don't like the argument, address your complaints to
"vegans" for making it in the first place.

The discussion is over. I set the terms of it, not
you. I don't waste time pointing out your errors and
ignorance more than once.