On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:02:14 -0500, Doug Jones > wrote:
>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.

I'll take your lack of a comment to that as tacit acceptance.

>>>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.

No? Didn't feel like it?

>>>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.

Hello? When are you going to support those wild claims with
some hard evidence?

>>> 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.

How can that BE when YOU kill and eat the lobster? All I've
done is eat the broccoli.