"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".
They're thinking of the meat commonly available in supermarkets. They know,
correctly, that if they were to eat that meat - the ONLY meat they would
consider eating at all - it would cause the death of animals.

> 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. Even after the fallacy
is pointed out to them, they still behave AS IF they believe it. It's the
only way to explain the Irrational Search for Micrograms.

The fallacy is an inherent part of bad "vegan" thinking.