On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:23:52 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>The brilliant analysis below was written by Jonathan Ball. I'm reposting
>it for the benefit of vegan newbies and wannabes as well as for those
>searching for truth and wisdom:
>
>---------------------------------
>From: Jonathan Ball
>Newsgroups:
>talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetari an,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
>Subject: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT
>---------------------------------
>
>
>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> I do not eat meat;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

But when Jonathan put this to you before you became his
water boy, you said that it was "not well-thought out or true;

[start - Jonathan Ball to you]
> Here's how "vegan" engage in Denying the Antecedent:
> If I eat meat, animals died for my diet.
> I don't eat meat.
> Therefore, no animals died for my diet.

That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing the algebra).

* It has one glaring problem: it's just not true.*

You can repeat that line of argument over and over, but
repetition is not truth. (And I'm more than willing to discuss
the nature of truth and whether it can be syllogistically
determined. Fool.)

The fewer animals that are killed for food and other
products, the fewer that are forced into a chain of forced
birth, forced feeding, and forced death for food and
products. That aspect of it is zero-sum. If we don't eat
them, the market will respond accordingly.
[end] *my emphasis*
http://tinyurl.com/3dmy4

You were either lying then or you're lying now, so which
is closer to the truth?