On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:37:21 +0000, Derek >
wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:37:36 -0500, Doug Jones > wrote:
>>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:31:44 +0000, Derek >wrote:
>>>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy
>>>>>
>>>>> Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
>>>>> collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.
>>>>
>>>>Har har
>>>
>>>There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
>>>against veganism is a fallacy.
>>
>>Actually, it isn't.
>
>It poses a false dilemma, as described in the definition I've
>provided. Your denial or feigned ignorance of it doesn't
>escape the fact that while collateral deaths exist ubiquitously
>in food production, rejecting veganism as a solution to the deaths
>associated with man's diet generally, is specious.
>
>>However, every argument, except for one, *for* veganism is fallacious.
>
>Show how "veganism is fallacious." Don't just declare it like
>a petulant child; show how.
>
>>It is not healthier than other diets
>
>Ipse dixit and false.
>
>> it is not more environmentally friendly
>
>Ipse dixit and false.
>
>> it does not cause fewer deaths
>
>Ipse dixit and false.
>
>>and it not more efficient.
>
>Ipse dixit and false.
>.
>>Each of those arguments falls apart in the face of real data
>
>Then show it instead of making these unsupported claims.
>
>> of which the collateral deaths argument is one.
>
>The collateral deaths argument is specious and debunked.
>
>>The *only* argument for it is "I prefer it." That's the only valid
>>one. Everything else is garbage.
>
>That's your opinion, and I don't agree with it.

Ok, here's a real example for you. Simple one, easy to prove. No
"indirect", no "accidental" or anything else. I pick up a pound of
organically grown brocolli. At the same time, I pick up a one-pound
lobster. I eat the lobster, you eat the brocolli. Which one of us
has just killed more animals *directly*? Hint - you have.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----