"Derek" > wrote
>
> "Dutch" > wrote
> > "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

I understand perfectly, in his statement Jonathan uses the word "meat" in
the universally understood way, "the flesh-food of animals derived by
killing the animal", and you naively think you can defeat him with a
diversionary tactic. This whole subject revolves around the keeping and/or
killing of animals for their meat, scavenging animals that have died of
natural causes is a non-sequitor, a red herring. It's a typical lame Derek
equivocation tactic. Every time you open your mouth you prove that vegan
arguments are corrupt.

> 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.

He does not "offer a syllogism", he makes an observation and then describes
the fallacy named in the observation.

> 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.

Pure rubbish, he made an astute observation about the nature of the
fundamental vegan rule of behaviour. You will not refute it by introducing
red herrings and tossing around terms like "logical syllogism". You could
try to argue it with plain reason, but you can't, because it happens to be
true.

> 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.

**** off, you're in way over your head.

> Secondly, my task is then to show that HIS argument
> is not the argument put forward by vegans.

Which you can't do, because it is.

> In short, he
> is building a straw man with a false first premiss.

No, in short, you are waving your hands wildly trying to distract, and
you're failing.

> [..]
> > > > 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,

Yes it is.

> so
> he is building a straw man instead of dealing with
> their real argument,

He is dealing with their real position. You're trying to tap dance around
and disguise their real argument.

> or at least the valid and sound
> syllogism I offered below.

It's a stupid, circular, meaningless series of statements.
>
> > > 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.

**** off, it's exactly what it says.

Stripped down MY syllogism goes
> 1) If A, *then* B
> 2) A (ponens)
> therefore
> 3) B

That's just what I said.

> 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.

It is simply reiterating the premiss, therefore it cannot be wrong. Jonathan
and I both dispute your premiss, and vegan positions affirm that what you
are presenting does NOT represent the vegan premiss.

>
> 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.

This isn't an excercise in formal logic, it's an exercise in basic thinking,
which you keep failing.

> > 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.

Yes it ABSOLUTELY is. The "Irrational Search for Micrograms" is just one
powerful bit of evidence.

> > 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.

Your "syllogism" is irrelevant. It's nothing more than a flimsy attempt at
diversion.