"Derek" > wrote
> 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.

At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution, and we know
that categorical statements are dangerous.

> 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.

You could have just said "strawman" you wordy ****.

>>> 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.

A couple of sites give cds a passing mention, always in some obscure part of
the site, always to dismiss their importance. Contrast that to the thousands
on veganism extoling it's superiority.

>>> 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.

It's obvious that you're talking through your hat. Did you really think this
tact had merit?

> 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.

Thanks for mentioning the Perfect Solution fallacy, it's very descriptive of
veganism. Vegans think that there is a Perfect Solution to animal death and
suffering in one's diet and they think that veganism is it. What a bunch of
******s.