On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:08:00 GMT, "Ted Bell" > wrote:
>"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.
>
>Not the meat idiot "vegans" would eat if they weren't idiot "vegans".

Then you must include that in your premise. As it stands, your
premise is false, and you've acknowledged it to be false by
writing.

"It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise
of "vegans".
Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003

>They're thinking of the meat commonly available in supermarkets.

You can't rest your argument on what you think others
are thinking, stupid.

>> 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 ALLLLLLLLL start out by believing the fallacy.

The onus is now upon you to provide evidence which proves
ALLLLLLLLLLLL vegans start out by believing your straw
man fallacy, Jon, so get busy.