"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
8<
> > Correct SN, Rick is engaged in the attempt to _use an exception to
> > disprove
> > a general rule_. Another favoured logical fallacy of his ilk.
>
> False. "veganism" is NOT merely proposing a "general rule", if that were
the
> case I would not be here arguing. Veganism is an absolute, categorical
> belief in a single immutable rule, "do not consume animal products".

This isn't true, the definition simply states that a purely plant based diet
is _an_ example of a vegan diet, not that it is the only vegan diet. If for
some reason you are compelled to eat animal products you are no less vegan
if you sought not to. A few years after I became vegan, my mother accidently
confused our sandwiches and I ate animal products. This was unintentional,
and so I am no less vegan for it. Or do you believe I was unvegan while I
ate the sandwhiches, and then vegan again afterwards? Of course that is
absurdly false.

> corollories to that rule are "if you do consume any animal products, to
> whatever degree you do so you will be failing as a vegan", and "you are
> permitted to fail as a vegan if it is ever too hard or inconvenient". Some
> philosophy.

wrong, see above - veganism is about _your intentions_ and consistent
behaviour in regard to the exploitation of animals

>
> You are so locked in dogma you can't see the end of your pointy nose.

You do not understand what veganism is. I have demonstrated this here. You
define your own veganism and then set about rubbishing that.

Veganism is defined clearly in very general terms because it uses the words
"seek" and where "practical" and "possible".

You are now oblidged by your own rule to no longer post here. I will now put
you on the blocked list if you cannot rebutt the above definition by proving
it not a generalisation.


John