Marc Frisch wrote:
> > Most "vegans" start out NOT knowing it, because most
> > "vegans" choose that belief due to an embrace of a
> > logical fallacy:
> >
> > If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
> >
> > I don't eat meat;
> >
> > therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
> >
> >
> > This is an example of denying the antecedent, one of
> > the classic fallacies. ALL "vegans" start out by
> > believing it: that's why they choose "veganism", in
> > order not to cause animals to suffer and die. But the
> > things they *do* consume do, in fact, cause uncounted
> > animal deaths and much suffering. "vegans" seem
> > oblivious to this - merely not putting animal parts in
> > their mouths, and not directly using animal parts for
> > other purposes, seems to make "vegans" feel good about
> > themselves. It's a phony, sanctimonious, hypocritical
> > stance.
>
> It doesn't matter if it's phony or not - it's the result that counts.

Of course it matters. The phoniness means it doesn't yield the claimed
result.


> By the way, many meat eaters make a similar logical mistake:
>
> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
> If I don't eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
> So it doesn't make any difference if I eat animals or not.

No meat eater makes that "mistake".


> > > The livestock on earth consumes far more soy products than
> > > would be necessary to feed all mankind. Your right that agriculture
> > > causes death, directly as well as indirectly through pollution. The
> > > best way to limit it is to avoid animal products (whose productions
> > > wastes far more resources than the production of plant-based food).
> >
> > The resources are not "wasted". It's how people choose
> > to use them. Your moral judgment that the resources
> > "ought" to go to some other use is unfounded.
>
> Where did I write that the resources "ought" to go to some other use?

It's implied in your comment about "waste".


> I just said that eating plant-based food is a good way to reduce the
> use of resources (if you dislike the word 'waste', but the only
> difference is that one of them sounds better).

There's no reason to reduce the use of resources as you suggest.
People like the results they get from the use of resources in that way,
and they're willing to pay for them.


> There are many other ways to
> reduce the use of resources: not driving a car, recycling, etc.
> I'm not judging anyone: I'd just like people to know that people in the
> western world consume far more resources than is sustainable in the long run.

Not proved. The main thing is, you and other socialists DON'T LIKE the
way the resources are used. You disapprove morally.