View Single Post
  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:25:02 -0500, Doug Jones > wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:34:12 +0000, Derek >wrote:
>>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:16:51 -0500, Doug Jones > wrote:
>>>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:30:48 +0000, Derek >wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>You've also killed and eaten several dozen thrips.

>>
>>Then you've obviously moved the goalposts from broccoli to
>>broccoli with bugs in, haven't you? Nice try, but I saw you
>>coming.

>
>Nope, no goalpost shifting at all. All broccoli has bugs in it.


Then let's say that I didn't know that, for argument's sake.
How are you NOT shifting the goalposts from broccoli to
broccoli with bugs in it when not mentioning those bugs at
the start? Just who do you think you're trying to play here?

> Live
>with it. You never saw it coming, otherwise you wouldn't have bitten
>the bait.


Your bait wasn't hooked with the fact that broccoli had bugs
in it, so it was safe for me to just snatch that bait without the
worry of being snagged by anything. Good effort, but your
delivery gave it all away.

>>> They're small
>>>insects which are always found in broccoli, and even more so in my
>>>nice organically grown example.

>>
>>I don't regard insects as animals, even though they are defined
>>as such. To me an animal is a class of creature that can
>>demonstrate sentience.

>
>Hmm.. according to several of your colleagues, lobsters are sentient -
>despite the fact that they have the same nervous system as a thrip.


If it's shown that they are sentient, then it would be wrong
to eat them, in my opinion.

>So, under your defniition, it's perfectly fine to shift your
>goalposts.


No, no goalpost-moving under my definition.

> Now it's fine to eat animals if you can define them as
>"non-sentient".


If they aren't sentient, then it's fine to eat them, in my opinion.
Other vegans might object to eating bugs, but I don't.

>>>I chose this specifically because I
>>>have only killed *one* animal, an arthropod, you've killed an order of
>>>magnitude more, also arthropods, in one meal. Tsk.

>>
>>The killing of bugs means nothing to me because I don't believe
>>they have sentience or can be wronged in any way. Nice effort,
>>but I've seen this tactic tried before.
>>
>>>Most of your other "arguments" fall apart as well under scrutiny. For
>>>example there *have* been studies done (check Medline with the author
>>>"Key"), and suprisingly to the principal author (he's a vegan) there
>>>is - no- difference - between matched populations.

>>
>>What the Hell are you talking about?
>>

>I gave you a pointer. Try Medline, use an author search - the
>author's last name is "Key". Do a Google search on this newsgroup
>looking for this same discussion - John Mercer posted quite a few
>discussions on this.


No. If you want to support your claims, YOU do your own
research and then bring me the results. The onus is on you
to support your claims, not me, so get busy.

>>>Put in terms
>>>you'll understand - the vegan diet does not make one healthier.

>>
>>Non sequitur, ipse dixit and false.
>>
>>>All assertions to the contrary.

>>
>>Write complete sentences so I can understand what you're
>>trying to say, or are you trying to be vague intentionally?
>>
>>>Almost all "studies" quoted by various
>>>vegan web sites are either anecdotal or misquote the studies
>>>themselves.

>>
>>What studies are you talking about?
>>
>>>Saying a vegan diet is your personal preference is the *only* valid
>>>argument for it.

>>
>>I disagree.
>>
>>>Every other argument falls apart, since other diets
>>>have similar heatlh benefits,

>>
>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>
>>>can be shown to be more environmentally

>>
>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>
>>>friendly

>>
>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>
>>>kill fewer animals

>>
>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>
>>When are you going to try supporting these claim you
>>keep pulling out of your arse?

>
>I just gave you the pointers.


No, you haven't, and even if you did, pointers aren't good
enough to support your unsupported claims. Follow your
own pointers and bring me the facts.