"Derek" > wrote
>
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote
> > Derek wrote:
> > > On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:12:51 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote:
> > >>Derek 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".
> > >
> > > This premiss is
> >
> > Believed by all "vegans".
>
> Straw man.
>
> <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.

There is no debate over the ethics of consuming the meat of animals who have
died from natural causes. There is no source for humans of meat from animals
who have died of natural causes in the developed world. For the purpose of
this discussion, and for all practical purposes, eating meat implies the
killing of an animal "in it's prime". The existence of a relatively unused
alternative to doing so does not invalidate the premiss. "Meat" in this
context is referring to "produced" meat.

> > 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

You have failed to demonstrate a 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)

That's not even a statement of logic. It merely says,

1) If A therefore B
2) A
therefore
3) B

Duh! The intent of logic is to draw conclusions, not just reiterate the
premiss.

The actual non-logically formulated thinking of the typical vegan goes
something like, "If I abstain from animal products I cause (nearly) zero
animals to suffer and die."

You're not dispelling this statement with your current arguments, you're
reinforcing that vegan arguments are generally illogical.