"Retard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:30:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Retard" > wrote in message
...
> >> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:40:40 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>"Retard" > 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,

No one in the U.S. or the UK who is a "vegan" would eat roadkill if she
weren't a "vegan". ALL "vegans" are talking about supermarket meat when
they decide not to eat meat. They never considered eating roadkill.

>
> >> 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.

No, they do not, not in any meaningful way. They pretend they don't know
about it.