usual suspect wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> >>You have ZERO basis for your belief that you
> >>"contribute to as little animal suffering as possible",
> >>other than the fact that you don't eat meat. You are
> >>committing a logical fallacy: the fallacy of Denying
> >>the Antecedent.
> >>
> >> If I eat meat, I cause the death and suffering of
> >>animals.
> >>
> >> I don't eat meat;
> >>
> >> therefore, I don't cause the death and suffering of
> >>animals.
> >>
> >>This is plainly false: you can cause the death and
> >>suffering of animals in LOTS of ways other than by
> >>killing them to eat them.
> >
> > My claim is not that I don't contribute the death and suffering of
> > animals. It is that I contribute as little as possible.
>
> Without any objective evidence by which you or anyone else can measure.
> IOW, you merely BELIEVE you're doing the something beneficial.
>

I have some evidence for it, which I've provided.

> >>GIVEN that *all* you have
> >>done is refrain from (or stop) eating meat, you have NO
> >>IDEA how many animals you cause to suffer and die in
> >>other ways than eating them: you haven't bothered to
> >>check.
> >
> > I have some idea.
>
> No, you have some FAITH.
>

I have some evidence.

> > I'm always happy to find out more,
>
> Did you investigate any of the claims of the activists before you
> swallowed their hook?

I didn't get my information from activists.