View Single Post
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>
>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
>>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>>>
>>> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

>>
>> This premiss

>
>Is believed by all "vegans".
>

<unsnip>
This premiss is false on the basis that an improper
relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat)
and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists.
Such a conditional statement insists that I cause
harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat
can be sourced from animals which have died from
natural causes and without causing any harms.

> I do not eat meat;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
>This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
>Antecedent.


It certainly does, and this is why you built it and then
attribute it to vegans. You're building a straw man.

[The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent
someone else's position so that it can be attacked
more easily, knock down that misrepresented position,
then conclude that the original position has been
demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with
the actual arguments that have been made.]
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#strawman

A more accurate and valid argument would be thus;

1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent),
I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent).
2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent)
therefore
3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent)

<endsnip>