On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:55:07 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:46:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:26:05 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> (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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy
>>>
>>>The Fallacy is that veganism is a Perfect Solution, a "death-free
>>>lifestyle".
>>
>> Vegans don't claim that their lifestyle is the perfect solution
>> to the killing of animals in food production.
>
>Yes, for the most part that is exactly what they believe.

No. Yet again, instead of dealing with real vegans in the real
World who acknowledge collateral deaths in crop production,
you choose to focus on the imaginary straw man vegan that
doesn't acknowledge them instead because that straw man is
easy to knock down, leaving the way open for you to declare
you've demolished the true vegan's position in the real World.
That's just not good enough, and your criticism, while directed
only at your straw man, is rejected as nonsense.

>> Only your straw
>> vegan claims that so he's easier to demolish. If you're only
>> capable of dealing with the imaginary vegans inside your
>> head, you're in the wrong place when trying to deal with the
>> real vegans in the real World here.
>
>Real World vegans display the attitudes and ideas I am attributing to them.

No, they don't. I've provided examples from various vegan web
sites and authors discussing the subject at length, and which you
subsequently snipped away. Repeating your claim that *all*
vegans refuse to acknowledge them in light of this evidence is
absurd and an obviously lie on your part.

>> I've shown you comments
>> from vegan web sites that deal with the problem of CDs, and
>> once again you've snipped those comments away, only to
>> proceed with trying to demolish your imaginary vegan again.
>> That's not good enough, so until you address the real vegan
>> your criticism of him has to be ignored.
>
>The issue of collateral deaths is ignored or trivialized by vegans.

No, once again, it is not. Try dealing with the arguments put
forward by the real vegans in the real World instead of those
imaginary vegans inside your head. It's patently obvious that
you have no valid complaint against the real vegan until you do.

When or if you finally decide to challenge the real vegan's
solution to the animal deaths surrounding man's diet, don't
make the mistake in rejecting veganism on the basis that
some deaths will still occur after its proposed implementation
because you'll be invoking the perfect solution fallacy. Like
I said, you've been wasting your time on this collateral deaths
issue for years, and it's about time you thought of something
else to challenge the vegan with apart from fallacies and lies.