View Single Post
  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Reynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:49:26 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:

>Even if I were Plato, I couldn't have designed a more
>excellent foil than "Scented Nectar" to illustrate the
>ethical bankruptcy of "veganism", and the moral
>confusion from which it originates.
>
>Undeniably, she began by believing that merely by not
>consuming animal parts, she was causing zero harm to


.... farmed

> animals. This belief IS the classic "vegan" Denying
>the Antecedent fallacy:


No, it isn't. Rather, it's your straw man instead.

> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.


This conditional proposition is false on the basis that an
improper relationship exists between the antecedent and
its consequent.

For your conditional (if, then) proposition to be true, a proper
relationship between the antecedent (if I eat meat) and its
consequent (then I cause animals to suffer and die) must
exist. The rules are that, only a sufficient condition needs to
exist for the consequent to exist, but that a necessary condition
must exist for the antecedent to exist.

Your antecedent (If I eat meat) is a sufficient condition for
the consequent (then I cause animals to suffer and die) to exist,
since I can cause animals to suffer and die in other ways apart
from just eating them, and thus far your conditional proposition
is fine. The consequent (then I cause animals to suffer and die),
however, must be a necessary condition for the antecedent (If
I eat meat) to exist if your premise is to be found true, but this
is where your error lies because I can eat meat without causing
harm to animals by simply scavenging it from road kill or eating
a pet that died from old age. The proper relationship which is
vital to your conditional proposition doesn't exist, and that's why
it must be rejected.

Look at this true conditional (if, then) proposition below.

1) If the Queen resides at Buckingham Palace (antecedent),
then she lives in London (consequent)

As you can see, residing at Buckingham Palace need only
be a sufficient condition to be living in London, since she
might be residing anywhere in London and still be in London.
The sufficient condition is met. Also, the Queen does live in
London while resident at Buckingham Palace, which means
that the necessary condition is met. These rules are what
make and break any conditional proposition, so learn them.

Also, to prove that you know the premise is false, and that
you've built a straw man with this ready-made flaw into it,
here's your statement below where YOU finally admit it,
and thereafter try to assert that it's the vegan's premise
rather than your own.

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

You lose. Throw again.

[..]