On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:40:09 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:03:12 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:29:29 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>==========================
>>>>>ROTFLMAO What a hoot!
>>>>
>>>> Get used to it, Etter, however hard it must be for someone
>>>> like you to accept. You have no choice but to accept the
>>>> fact that the collateral deaths argument is specious in that
>>>> it poses a false dilemma.
>>>===========================
>>>LOL The problem for you is that you cannot accept the fact
>>>that you kill animals for nothing more than your convenience and
>>>entertainment. There is no meaning to your veganism, killer.
>>
>> Once again you have fallen for the perfect solution fallacy
>> by rejecting *my* veganism on the basis that, despite *my*
>> implementation of veganism as a solution to animal deaths,
>> animal deaths still occur in a World where animal deaths
>> cannot be avoided in food production generally. In short,
>> you're posing a false dilemma as described above. Thanks
>> for lending yourself so willingly in such a clear
>> demonstration.
>===========
>No

Yes, you stupid imbecile, you've tried posing exactly the
same false dilemma that you always do, and I reject it on
the basis that it invokes a fallacy. You lose, you dirty little
liar.