On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:30:08 -0800, "Dutch" > 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.
>
>Meat is not obtained from roadkill

It can be and is scavenged, so the first premise is clearly a
false one. Meat can also be obtained from animals that have
died from old age rather than animals that have been killed, so
there's another exception which proves his first premise to be
false.

>> 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.

Yes they do.