"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

You're way out of your depth. Exceptions do not make the rule.

>>> 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.

Not in any meaningful way.