"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:40:40 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Reynard" > wrote
>>> 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
>>
>>True vegan fallacy.
>
> For a start, the first premise is false since meat can
> be sourced without killing animals.

Meat is not obtained from roadkill, so the objection is extremist, and
irrelevant in context. When vegans say "Animals must be killed to obtain
meat", legitimate parties from both sides stipulate that is a correct
statement. That leaves you out.

> Secondly, the so-
> called "vegan fallacy"as a whole is a straw man, since
> vegans do acknowledge the collateral deaths associated
> with their food.

They do not. The vast majority give it no consideration at all, and of those
few that do contemplate it do not give it real consideration, they attempt
to rationalize the facts away.