"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
=====================
You don't do that do you, fool! You cannot claim that grass-fed
beef isn't an option because it isn't the norm, and then try to
claim that gathering wild veggies is, hypocrite.


> 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.
======================
ROTFLMAO Again, you have failed to prove that your diet is
better, killer. Thanks for the real admission that it isn't,
fool.


>
>>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.
========================
No, I did not, fool. YOU are the one claiming some perfection,
killer. I claim that you haven't proven yoyr delusions, and you
haven't, hypocrite.


>
>>> 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,
================================
No fool, I never claimed that at all. I do claim, and you have
proven that YOU do not do anything to make a difference, killer.



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.
========================
No fool, you need to go back to reading comprehension 101. You
are the one making claims that you cannot back up, killer.


>
>>> 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.
========================
You've already been proven wrong, killer.

>
>>> (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.
======================
Your pal Aristotle has already told you, in english, that you are
complicit, hypocrite.


>
>>> 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.
=====================
Then you are willfully and terminally ignorant. Why do you claim
CDs exist, and then claim you don't know about them? You really
are just too stupid for this game, hypocrite.


>
>> the farmer knows the animals are there
>
> That's correct. He causes them.
=====================
And you reward him, killer.


>
>> 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
=======================
ROTFLMAO Propaganda sites!! What a hoot!!! your argument is
bogus, again.


>
>>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.
=======================
Ther fact remains that YOU do not gather wild veggies, killer.
You cause far more animal deaths than necessary, and more than
many meat eaters. 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
>
> 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.
====================
your argument is bogus, again.



>
>>> 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.
======================
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
>
> Your entire argument against the vegan is fallacious, as shown
> by the definition given above.
=========
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.