On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:35:25 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"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.

No, you can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and fruits.
Grass fed beef and hunted meat will always include the
death of an animal or animals. The vegan will always beat
the flesh eater where deaths are concerned, so you can
take your CD laden grass fed beef and shove it, Rick.

>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.

Rather, you've just committed the same fallacy: the perfect
solution fallacy. Thanks for that demonstration.

>> 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

You can't even bring yourself to concede that a vegan can
eat a single meal without killing animals, so when arguing
that the vegan's solution to the problem of animal deaths
surrounding diet should be rejected because animal deaths
still exist after veganism is implemented, you commit the
perfect solution fallacy.

>> 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

Agreed, because it's about time you realised your argument
against the vegan is a fallacy.

>> (Rejoinder)
>> Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
>> aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans,
>===========================
>Yes, they are.

No. I don't request that collateral deaths occur, I don't condone
them, and nor do I intentionally cause them. You don't get to
say what others condone.

>> and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill animals
>> intentionally for food.
>==========================
>false. You know the animals are there

No, I don't.

> the farmer knows the animals are there

That's correct. He causes them.

> and you REWARD him for their deaths

No, I don't reward him for anything but the crops he produces.
I certainly don't reward him for the deaths he causes. Do you
reward taxi drivers for the deaths they cause while going about
their work, or our servicemen for the collateral deaths they
cause while making a grab for Saddam's oil? You're laughable.

>> Furthermore, the crops grown to feed
>> farmed animals far outweigh those grown ourselves,
>==========================
>Strawman, killer.

Not at all. In fact, of the total domestic consumption of cereal
grains 72% are used to feed livestock, 11% are for direct human
consumption, and the remaining 17% are used by the food industry
to produce different food products and alcoholic beverages.
Therefore, almost 90% of the cereal grains are consumed indirectly
by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans and oil seeds.
A large fraction of soybeans is used for feeding livestock, either
directly or in the form of by-products (bean meal) of soy oil
production, and in the food industry to produce soy oil for human
consumption.
http://dieoff.org/page55.htm

>The fact remains that there is NO need to feed
>crops to animals for you to eat meat.

The fact remains that they ARE fed crops, and that the crops
required take up 72% of the total domestic consumption of
cereal grains. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans and soy
oil.

>> 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

I see you have no comment in response to Jonathan's
statements. Like he says, "If you insist on playing the
counting game, you'll lose." He's right, you've lost.

>> 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.

Non sequitur and a dodge. Read the definition of that fallacy 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

Your entire argument against the vegan is fallacious, as shown
by the definition given above.