On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:16:30 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>>>
>>>I reconsidered my initial evaluations upon a course of education.
>>
>> Then explain
>
>My error stemmed principally from semantics and definitions. I did not
>then realize veganism was about food rather than politics.

That doesn't explain why you initially thought Jon's argument
in promoting his strawman vegan fallacy was false and why
you now claim it to be true, so I'll ask again, "Was your logic
back then so poor that you didn't understand what you were
writing about, and can we dismiss everything you wrote back
then on the same basis, that you didn't know what you were
writing about?" Look again at Jon's statement and your weak
response to it.

<unsnip>
[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?
<endsnip>

You always snip out the material which proves you've
lied.