"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
> deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
> foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
> when he's run out of valid arguments.
====================
LOL It's the vegan that has no valid argument fool. You've yet
to EVER prove your claims that your deit is better.
I have easily shown that there are diets that are better than
many vegan diets, and yours in particular, killer.


He argues;
>
> (Critic)
> Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
> still die for their food during crop production.
=========================
By the millions upon millions, and in mnany cases far more than
for some meat-inckuded diets. Therefore, your argument is bogus,
again.

>
> This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
> assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
> for their food in the practical World,
===========================
Nice stretch, fool. The poroblem is that you have yet to prove
that a vegan diet does ANYTHING to alleviate animal death and
suffering. Especially yours, hypocrite. Your argument loses,
again...


and so their solution to
> abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
> food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
> and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
> some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
> implemented.
=============================
Another nice move, fool. The fact remains that you have yet to
prove that a vegan diet automatically does anything for animal
deaths, except to kill millions and millions of them. Therefore,
your argument is bogus, again.


>
> (Rejoinder)
> Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
> aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans,
===========================
Yes, they are. Your pal, Aristotle even told you that you are
complicit, in english, killer.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


> and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill animals
> intentionally for food.
==========================
false. You know the animals are there, the farmer knows the
animals are there, and you REWARD him for their deaths by oaying
him your un-earned doll money... Therefore, your argument is
bogus, again.


Furthermore, the crops grown to feed
> farmed animals far outweigh those grown ourselves,
==========================
Strawman, killer. The fact remains that there is NO need to feed
crops to animals for you to eat meat.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


and they
> also cause collateral deaths proportionally, as does fishing
> our
> oceans for other sources of meat, known as by-catch. So while
> the vegan abstains from farmed meat and fish he in fact reduces
> those collateral deaths from what they would be if he were to
> eat those meats.
>
> A harsh critic of veganism even declared;
>
> "This counting game will ALWAYS work against
> meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
> mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
> because so much of agriculture is simply to feed
> the livestock. There would be far less agriculture
> in general if everyone were vegetarian."
> Jonathan Ball 4th May 03
>
> And
>
> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
> lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
> have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
> grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
> eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
> deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
> CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
> feed for the animals you eat."
> Jonathan Ball 22nd May 03
>
> So, even while animals die during the course of crop
> production, to assume the vegan's solution to this problem
> should be rejected because some part of the problem would
> still exist after it was implemented is specious.
>
> A description of this fallacy and some further examples are
> provided below.
>
> The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
> when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
> and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
> of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
> Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
> would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
> Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of
> a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
> imagine.
====================
The problem remains that you do nothing to try to live up to the
delusions of veganism. Your failure to prove that it
automatically means less death and suffering to animals is bogus,
again. Your whole exercise is a futile attempt to delude
yourself that you are somehow doing something, whne all you
accomplish is far more death and suffering than necessary.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
> Examples:
> (critic)
> This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will
> still be
> able to get through!
> (Rejoinder)
> Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, but
> would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would stop?
> (critic)
> These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work.
> People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.
> (Rejoinder)
> It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the amount
> by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving
> enough to make the policy worthwhile?
> (Critic)
> Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car
> wrecks.
> (Rejoinder)
> It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but
> isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to make
> seat belts worthwhile?
>
> It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit
> any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not
> work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may
> be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when
> a specific example of a solution's failing is described in eye-
> catching detail and base rates are ignored (see availability
> heuristic).
> The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy