On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:21:31 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:11:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:31:18 GMT, "Dutch" > 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,
>>>>
>>>> No,
>>>
>>>What *do* they think is the best solution?
>>
>> I'll leave you to ask them that;
>
>Aren't you one?

Yes, I am.

>Or at least I thought you were representing their position

No, I let them represent their own position.

>YOU answer.

Veganism. Now, that behind us, when are you going to
summon the courage to address this post you keep
snipping away and explain why you insist on arguing
with your straw man vegan instead of the real vegans
if not to knock your straw vegan down easily to then
declare a defeat of the real vegan's position?

<restore entire post>
No, you don't get to make claims on behalf of all vegans.
That's your straw man again. Abstaining from meat is a
solution to avoid the killing of animals for food, and while
that solution still involves the killing of some animals in
crop production, it's a fallacy to reject that solution on
that basis.

>> 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 ****.

At least you admit that the vegan you argue with is your
straw man, so that's something.

>>>> 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.

Whatever they say about their importance is of little concern
here. What IS of concern is your reluctance to concede that,
contrary to what you try to claim, vegan literature does
acknowledge them, and individual vegans like myself discuss
them at length. Those fact in place, it's a lie to claim vegans
ignore them. In short, you're a liar.

>>>> 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.

That's a non-response. You cannot expect your criticism of
vegans to be taken seriously while your definition and criticism
focuses on your imaginary vegan. What would be the point in
arguing against a critic who's only criticism focuses on HIS
imaginary vegan? You're a joke.

>> 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.

Rather, it pertains to the fallacy non-vegans use to reject
veganism. Rejecting veganism as a solution to the animal
deaths associated in man's diet on the basis that animal
deaths will still exist after veganism is implemented in a
World where collateral deaths are ubiquitous is specious.

>Vegans think that there is a Perfect Solution to animal death and
>suffering in one's diet and they think that veganism is it.

It's certainly the best solution where the deaths of farmed
animals and fish is concerned, and their huge associated
collateral deaths.

>What a bunch of ******s.

Hitting a nerve? That's good. The collateral deaths argument
is debunked, so it's back to the drawing board for you until
you can come up with something that doesn't invoke logical
fallacies, doesn't include a straw man vegan who refuses to
acknowledge collateral deaths, and isn't based on lies.

You're screwed. All the antis are screwed, and it's your
own fault because you've hinged everything on the
collateral deaths argument and now been shown that it's
nothing more than a common little false dilemma.

Do you believe that the solution (drug squad) to drug
addiction must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy
simply because drug addicts still exist after the solution's
implementation?

Do you believe that the solution (oral hygiene) to dental
decay must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy
simply because tooth decay still occurs after the solution's
implementation?

If the answer is 'no' to both of those examples, and it is, it
then follows that the same answer must be given when
considering;

Do you believe that the solution to halt animal deaths in
man's diet (veganism) must be rejected as a nonsense
and hypocrisy simply because animal deaths (CD) still
occur after the solution's implementation?

As we can see, the collateral deaths argument against the
proposition of veganism poses a false dilemma, and so it
is rejected on that basis, as well as quite a few others I
can think of as well.
<end restore>

>[..]
>