"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "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".

Try to understand for just one minute that *for the
purpose of this discussion* Jon has offered a syllogism
as a tool to *prove* vegans follow a logical fallacy in
their reasoning when avoiding meat. There's only two
ways to prove such a proposition: weight of evidence
or deductive logic. Jon clearly has no weight of evidence
to prove his proposition since he would have to first
prove he can read every vegan's mind, so he is trying to
rely on using deductive reasoning instead with a syllogism.

My task now is to deal with that tool he's using *for the
purpose of this discussion* by showing his syllogism to
be invalid, and I have done so by showing an improper
relationship exists between the antecedent and the
consequent in his first premiss.

Secondly, my task is then to show that HIS argument
is not the argument put forward by vegans. In short, he
is building a straw man with a false first premiss.

[..]
> > > 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.

The argument Jon insists vegans use is not their's, so
he is building a straw man instead of dealing with
their real argument, or at least the valid and sound
syllogism I offered below.

> > 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 is, you fool. Learn something about syllogisms.

> It merely says,
>
> 1) If A therefore B
> 2) A
> therefore
> 3) B

Nearly, but no. Stripped down MY syllogism goes
1) If A, *then* B
2) A (ponens)
therefore
3) B

You'll find that that IS a valid piece of deductive
logic. The second premiss affirms the antecedent
given in the first premiss (ponens). Therefore, the
only *logical* conclusion must be to accept the
consequent in the first premiss as well.

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

The conclusion in a syllogism accepts or rejects the
truth of the antecedent or consequent given in the
first premiss, so while it might seem to be just merely
reiterating the premiss you're failing to note which part
the conclusion is reiterating and why.

Another valid form is to deny (tollens) the consequent;
1) If A, then B
2) -B (tollens)
therefore
3) -A

The conclusion in that syllogism wouldn't be reiterating
the antecedent in (1), it would be denying it.

> 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."

No, it isn't.

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

If you can find a flaw in my above syllogism, then go
ahead and do so. Simply flapping your arms around
and whining, "It's illogical. It's illogical" isn't good
enough and won't do.