On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:04:34 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:53:18 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob > wrote:
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>>>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>>>
>>>I want to become a vegan,
>>
>>You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one. Being
>>a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
>>comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
>>but one. It's not a choice.
>
> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals

And so we should eat meat and contribute to even more?
There's no perfect solution to the problem of collateral
deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;

"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 by
assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
implemented.

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.

Examples:
(critic)
This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will still be
able to get through!
(Rejoinder)
Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, but
would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would stop?
(critic)
These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work.
People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.
(Rejoinder)
It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the amount
by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving
enough to make the policy worthwhile?
(Critic)
Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car
wrecks.
(Rejoinder)
It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but
isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to make
seat belts worthwhile?

It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit
any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not
work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may
be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when
a specific example of a solution's failing is described in eye-
catching detail and base rates are ignored (see availability
heuristic).
The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy