"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net...
> "ipse dixit" wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message .net...
> >
> >>>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"

It most certainly is, for no one claims no animals
die during crop production or industry generally,
which is why your argument against the vegan is
a straw man from the start. You're not fooling
anyone, Jon, especially those who know the rules.

> >>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
>
Your claim, "that "ar" is far from a persuasive
political/legal/ethical philosophy" is an unsupported
assertion. Thus, ipse dixit.

> > and false.
>
> No, true.

False. The political/legal/ethical philosophy
of AR is very persuasive, according to me
and many others, so your categorical claim
that it isn't is assuredly false.

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

Argumentum ad populum is very closely related
to argumentum ad numerum, which might've
been more fitting seeing as you're asserting that
the more people supporting an opposition to
veganism - the more likely their opposition is
correct, but I used argumentum ad populum
instead because you're certainly attempting to
win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to
a large group of people.

> >>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,

No chance, sunshine, because it's a valid tool
for evaluating conditional propositions.

> You
> very obviously don't know what you're talking about.

I certainly do.

> You are over your head

Not where you're concerned. You don't impress
me.

> 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 need to study, Jon.

1.. If John is a citizen of Iowa, then John is a citizen of the USA.
2.. John is a citizen of Iowa.
3.. John is a citizen of the USA.

This sound syllogism illustrates two basic points:
(1) the antecedent must be a sufficient condition for the
consequent to be true (i.e., the antecedent cannot be true
without the consequent being true) and
(2) the consequent must be a necessary condition for the
antecedent to be true (i.e., the consequent must be true
in order for the antecedent to be true).
http://www.letusreason.com/archives/...ogic011598.htm

heh heh heh

> 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.

Haw haw haw. It simply means you've uttered
an unfinished meaningless proposition, so how
will you argue from such an absurd position?

> You are completely full of shit.

I'm kicking your arse, boy; your premise has been
proven false.

> This first premise is BELIEVED by "vegans"

Ipse dixit and false. You cannot form a conclusion
based on what you reckon people believe. You're
whole argument is absurd.