"swamp" > wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:04:47 GMT, Ipse dixit > wrote:
> >On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:52:41 GMT, swamp > wrote:
> >>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 07:22:11 GMT, Ipse dixit > wrote:
> >>>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:18:50 GMT, swamp > wrote:
> >>>>On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:35:56 GMT, Ipse dixit > wrote:
> >>>>>On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 07:23:53 GMT, swamp > wrote:
> >>>>>>On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:42:27 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
>
> > Why didn't you stick with the original algebraic
> > terms "C" and "E"? But anyway, if you were to
> > read the full explanation of why your argument
> > invokes the non causa pro causa fallacy, instead
> > of jumping in after the first sentence invoking the
> > same fallacy again, then you might actually learn
> > something.
>
> I'm not interested in learning sloppy logic.

The fallacy you invoke is clearly demonstrated
at http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ , and at
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#noncausa
so I suggest you visit these sites and start learning
something about YOUR sloppy logic, Swamp.
Until you do, you have no argument or room to
criticise others while they use deductive reasoning
and logic to defeat your position.
> >
> > The fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa occurs when
> > something is identified as the cause of an event, but
> > it has not actually been shown to be the cause.
> > http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#noncausa
> >
> > You have not shown that (buying veggies at the
> > supermarket) is identified as the cause for farmers
> > causing their collateral deaths.
>
> I really shouldn't have to, as it's a very simple formula, but I'll
> indulge you. The "organic" farmer can't compete w/ the farmer who uses
> pesticides, fertilizer, heavy machinery, and all those other things
> that lead to CDs. His yield is lower, and his produce is less
> attractive to the average buyer. Unless you ar/evs step up and support
> him he goes out of business. Thus, he is forced to adopt the practices
> you decry *because* you demand cheap veggies.
>
This effort still does not show that (buying veggies at the
supermarket) is identified as the cause for farmer's toll
in collateral deaths. It merely describes how they are
caused and the reasons why the farmer causes them. If
you're trying to suggest the farmer causes them because
he is compelled by his consumers to do so, then you're
out of luck there too because an autonomous moral agent
cannot defend his wrong actions in that way.

[According to Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has
two distinctive features. First, there is a control condition:
the action or trait must have its origin in the agent. That is,
it must be up to the agent whether to perform that action
or possess the trait -- it cannot be compelled externally]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mo...ponsibility/#2

Learn some proper logic and do some proper reading.

> I don't know about jolly old England, but there are produce marts here
> which cater to those who are willing to pay a premium for "organic"
> foods.

Are you suggesting that organic foodstuffs are CD free?

> Costs almost twice as much, tho, and the lettuce leaves have
> holes in them, and it's common to find insects chomping away.
> Are you willing to make that sacrifice?
>
You haven't shown that organic foodstuffs are CD
free yet, so your question has a false or disputed
presupposition: that organic foods are CD free. To
ask such a question is invokes a fallacy;

Plurium Interrogationum
A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous
thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or
questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with
that presumption. The question "Have you stopped
beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten
your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have
a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten
your wife, then the question is loaded. Since this
example is a yes/no question, there are only the
following two direct answers:

1.. "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which
entails "I was beating my wife."

2.. "No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which
entails "I am still beating my wife."

Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten
your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of
the question. So, a loaded question is one which you
cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood
or a statement that you deny. For this reason, the
proper response to such a question is not to answer it
directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject
the question.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

I reject the question.

> > > Otherwise, he's off the shelves and out of business
> > > because events like you (type C) don't really care
> > > enough to keep event A from happening.
> >>
> > And now you're invoking yet another fallacy but
> > asserting that should one event occur (an adoption
> > of different method to reduce collateral deaths), then
> > so will other harmful events (he'll go out of business).
> >
> > Slippery Slope Argument;
> > This argument states that should one event occur,
> > so will other harmful events. There is no proof made
> > that the harmful events are caused by the first event.
> > http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#slope
> >
> >Wake up and read what you're writing
>
> There's no slippery slope here

You're asserting that should one event occur (an
adoption of different method to reduce collateral
deaths), then so will other harmful events (he'll go
out of business), and this is a classic example of
a well-known slippery slope fallacy. Learn some
logic from the links I'm providing and try arguing
from a non-fallacious position for once in your life.
[..]
> >>>Two types of event may occur simultaneously,
> >>>or one type always following the other type,
> >>>without there being a causal relation between
> >>>them. One common source of non-causal
> >>>correlations between two event-types is when
> >>>both are effects of a third type of event.
> >>>http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/index.html
> >>
> >>Your "mistake" isn't among one of the above, however.
> >
> >The refutation I use to stop you insisting I have a
> >causal relationship to the farmer's collateral deaths
> >is exactly as that given above. If you want to insist
> >it isn't despite my telling you it is, then we are at an
> >impasse where the only way forward is for you to
> >prove you can read my mind as well as Jonathan
> >claims to.
>
> You have *stated* that you play no role in CDs; no mind-reading is
> necessary. I am attempting, tho I know the effort will be futile, to
> demonstrate how your actions affect the practices of the farmer which
> lead to CDs.
>
And you have failed to do so, because you haven't
shown any reasoning, rule, or mechanism of any kind
other than a string of fallacious arguments and mere
assertion. That's not good enough. To prove your
claims you need solid evidence to prove that the
smoking gun found in the farmer's hand was triggered
by me, and the only way you're going to be able to
do that is to effectively prove he isn't an autonomous
moral agent who is responsible for his own actions.
Let me know when you're ready.

> >>You, like the smokers, knowingly endorse the causal
> >>relationship the shift the blame.
> >>
> >I, like most other smokers, take the blame for my own
> >actions rather than blame fag companies for the
> >damage I do to my health.
>
> Good for you. People this side are getting rich blaming the fag
> companies. Now apply that same thinking to the farmers and your
> position becomes consistent.
>
I've just told you that I don't apply that thinking,
so you're building a straw man, Swampy.

> >>>>to justify your supermarket purcahses of goods you know derive from
> >>>>practices you oppose.
> >>>
> >>>Who ever said "I know" that the goods I buy derive from practices
> >>>I oppose? I've always maintained that I buy my goods in good faith
> >>
> >>Maintain all you want.
> >
> >I will.
>
> ...and will continue to be foolishly consistent.
>
No; just consistent.

> >>You buy anyway.
> >>
> >And, as I've pointed out many times before, I don't
> >see any causal link between my trade with him and
> >the method he uses to satisfy my demand.
>
> Not seeing it doesn't mean it isn't there.
>
Argumentum ad ignorantiam:
Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from
ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that
something must be true, simply because it hasn't been
proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something must be false because it hasn't been proved
true.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism...ml#ignorantiam

tch tch tch

> >It doesn't instruct him to farm one way or the other.
>
> But it absolutely does.

Non Causa Pro Causa:
The fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa occurs when
something is identified as the cause of an event, but
it has not actually been shown to be the cause.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#noncausa

> The purchase implies satisfaction w/ the
> product. This isn't rocket science, Derek.
>
The purchase implies nothing other than a desire
for ethically produced goods.

> >Those options...
>
> They aren't options.

There are billions of options open to free men.

> How many times must this be repeated to you?

Until you can persuade me that the farmer isn't a free man.

> The cheap, attractive, leafy veggies you demand require
> the farmer to use the methods you condemn.
>
My demand for his wares carry no demand that
animals be killed during their production, so any
deaths he accrues during their production are his
responsibility. It's as simple as that.

> >...are his, and he, being completely autonomous is fully
> >responsible for his actions. I blame him on the basis
> >that he is a morally responsible agent carrying
> >obligations to endure the consequences of his actions.
> >Physical evidence tells you who is culpable for them,
> >so for you to then claim that the responsibility for them
> >segues from him to me through thin air is merely a
> >belief on your part and doesn't
>
> Your argument fails at "options."

Then start expalining why a free man has no options.

> Furthermore, he's hired by you every
> time you buy from him. $$ and ££s aren't "thin air."
>
The UK public hire police to control crime on their
streets while knowing them to be inherently racist
and likely to commit acts of police brutality, yet no
one will convince the public they're causal to or
responsible for those actions, so how do you ever
hope to pursuade them or me we're responsible for
how farmers behave?

> >>>> Then, explain why knowingly buying stolen
> >>>> goods from a fence isn't analogous.
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >So, first of all you screech and wail about some alleged
> >failure on my part to ever address the issues raised here,
> >and when I show you the evidence proving I have
> >addressed them, you snip it all away. Hah! So in answer
> >to your above question, again;
> >
> >It is a weak analogy in the form
> >A is like B.
> >B has property P.
> >Therefore, A has property P.
> >(Where the analogy between A and B is weak.)
> >
> >(A) buying from a farmer causing collateral deaths
> >is like
> >(B) buying from a crook stealing cars.
> >(B) has the property (P), a responsibility for car theft.
> >Therefore, (A) buying from a farmer causing collateral
> >deaths has the property (P), a responsibility for
> >collateral deaths.
> >
> >But the analogy between (A) and (B) is weak because
> >customers buying from farmers have no choice but to
> >buy from them, while there are two markets open for
> >cars; the black market or retail shops.
>
> More psuedo-formulaic denial.

Are you going to show where there's any mistake in
that which proves buying from farmers isn't the same
as buying from a crook stealing cars, Swamp, or are
you going to rely on merely repeating your claims ad
nauseam without any reasoning etc. as always?

> There's no A, B, C, E or P.

It was only (A), (B) and (P), actually. I don't know
where you got (C) and (E) from. Try to concentrate.

> There's you purchasing the cheapest, most CD
> laden veggies on the market.

Ipse dixit.

> No need for algebra.

There's no need for your myths and fallacies, either,
but there you go; it's par for the course concerning
your position and arguments here.

> Cheap, convenient veggies = CDs. Period.
>
Ipse dixit and false.
Rather than simply denying my responsibility or my
part in a causal chain which you think exists between
me and the collateral deaths caused by farmers, I've
provided good reasoning from Aristotle that shows
how the farmer's actions are his own and cannot be
compelled by me, logical analogies showing how I
cannot be compared to a witting buyer of unethical
goods, and physical evidence showing farmers DO
cause them first hand.

On the other hand, what have you offered to defend
your argument in that I cause these deaths, or that I
am responsible for them other than a repeated string
of fallacies and mere assertion? Hah!

> >>>The potential car buyer has the choice NOT to buy
> >>>from the crook....
> >>
> >>...as you have the choice to not buy from the farmers
> >>you hold responsible.
> >
> >No.
>
> Yes.

Again, whoever produces the food we buy will be a farmer,
and according to your argument they all cause collateral
deaths, but in the case of a potential car buyer, he has
the choice to buy one from a retailer as well as the black
market, so the analogy between the potential car buyer
and a consumer buying goods from farmers is invalid
because they don't both carry the same property (P).
>
> >Whoever produces the food we buy will be a farmer,
> >and according to your argument they all cause collateral
> >deaths, but in the case of a potential car buyer, he has
> >the choice to buy one from a retailer as well as the black
> >market, so the analogy between the potential car buyer
> >and a consumer buying goods from farmers is invalid
> >because they don't both carry the same property (P).
>
> You and the car buyer both have options.

I've just shown you that they don't, twice.
Whoever produces the food we buy will be a farmer,
and according to your argument they all cause collateral
deaths, but in the case of a potential car buyer, he has
the choice to buy one from a retailer as well as the black
market, so the analogy between the potential car buyer
and a consumer buying goods from farmers is invalid
because they don't both carry the same property (P).

> >>>thereby avoiding responsibility for
> >>>car theft personally and generally, but the customer
> >>>buying food doesn't have this privilege because all
> >>>food is provided by a single market; the farmer.
> >>
> >>Uh-huh. Except that you can buy a car that isn't stolen
> >>just as you can buy organic veggies or grow them yourself.
> >
> >Which would mean dismissing the farmer altogether,
> >proving even more that the analogy between him and
> >the car market is invalid. Thanks.
>
> Actually, it dismisses the car dealer.

If I take your advice and grow my own veg, then it
dismisses the farmer, you fool.

> >> It'll cost you more, of course. It all comes down
> >> to money w/ ar/ev types, doesn't it?
> >>
> >No.
>
> Partly true.

All false.

> It comes down to money w/ all of us, only you deny it.
>
Are you claiming to read minds as well now?

> >>>One side of the analogy is very dissimilar from the
> >>>other and I see that as a weak analogy.
> >>
> >>You have to. Your argument dissolves elsewise.
> >>
> >So, getting back to your initial claim, how can you
> >honestly say that in your 3-year participation here
> >you've never seen me seriously addressed a single
> >challenge?
>
> In those 3 years you haven't managed nor seriously
> addressed the CD obstacle.

You might not like the way I've addressed them, but
it's a lie to claim I've never seriously addressed them.
So, again, rather than simply denying my responsibility
or my part in a causal chain which you think exists
between me and the collateral deaths caused by
farmers, I've provided good reasoning from Aristotle
that shows how the farmer's actions are his own and
cannot be compelled by me, logical analogies showing
how I cannot be compared to a witting buyer of
unethical goods, and physical evidence showing
farmers DO in fact cause them first hand.

On the other hand, what have you offered to defend
your argument in that I cause these deaths, or that I
am responsible for them other than a repeated string
of fallacies and mere assertion? Hah!

> Blaming the farmers you patronize rings hollow.
>
I blame them on the basis that they are morally
responsible agents carrying obligations to endure
the consequences of their actions.

> And on that note, I rest my case,
>
A run for the door, more like.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:20:55 GMT, "Ipse dixit" >
wrote:

>> And on that note, I rest my case,
>>
>A run for the door, more like.

Not at all. I'm merely seconding Dutch's suggestion that you come back
when you've revamped your arguments. You can twist Aristotle until
he's rolling over in his grave and your "finger the free agent farmer"
approach *still* won't work.

Gotta think of something new,

-- swamp

"swamp" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:20:55 GMT, "Ipse dixit" >
> wrote:
>
> >> And on that note, I rest my case,
> >>
> >A run for the door, more like.
>
> Not at all.

Which is why you snipped away a 19k post in which
YOU accused ME of failing to address issues, yeah right.
Close the door on the way out, Swamp, and don't slam it.

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 09:56:40 GMT, "Ipse dixit" >
wrote:

>
>"swamp" > wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:20:55 GMT, "Ipse dixit" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> And on that note, I rest my case,
>> >>
>> >A run for the door, more like.
>>
>> Not at all.
>
>Which is why you snipped away a 19k post in which
>YOU accused ME of failing to address issues, yeah right.
>Close the door on the way out, Swamp, and don't slam it.

You seem to think the size of one's post = cogency. In reality, it
rarely takes more than 50 words to shoot one of your "arguments" or
c&ps down.

You've yet to seriously address the CDs you cause. Sort that out and
get back to us. Your blaming the farmer is as weak as Harrison's
praise of them.

-- swamp

"swamp" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 09:56:40 GMT, "Ipse dixit" > wrote:
> >"swamp" > wrote in message ...
> >> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:20:55 GMT, "Ipse dixit" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> And on that note, I rest my case,
> >> >>
> >> >A run for the door, more like.
> >>
> >> Not at all.
> >
> >Which is why you snipped away a 19k post in which
> >YOU accused ME of failing to address issues, yeah right.
> >Close the door on the way out, Swamp, and don't slam it.
>
> You seem to think the size of one's post = cogency.

Wrong. It proves your original complaint about me
in that I have never addressed any of the issues put
to me is wrong. Whether or not you agree with the
way I've addressed them, or whether you agree with
the conclusions I have made is irrelevant. The point
is that I have addressed them.
>
> You've yet to seriously address the CDs you cause.

I have addressed this point by concluding I don't
cause them.

> Sort that out and get back to us.

Prove your claim that I do cause them, and then get
back to me. Until then your claim invokes the
fallacy Non Causa Pro Causa.

The fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa occurs when
something is identified as the cause of an event, but
it has not actually been shown to be the cause.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#noncausa

> Your blaming the farmer is as weak as Harrison's
> praise of them.
>
The farmer does cause them. No one doubts it.
So why don't you try proving your claim in that
I'm the one who causes them, because if you're
trying to suggest the farmer causes them because
he is compelled by me to do so, then you're out
of luck there, because an autonomous moral agent
cannot defend his wrong actions in that way.

[According to Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has
two distinctive features. First, there is a control condition:
the action or trait must have its origin in the agent. That is,
it must be up to the agent whether to perform that action
or possess the trait -- it cannot be compelled externally]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mo...ponsibility/#2

To prove your claims you need solid evidence to prove
that the smoking gun found in the farmer's hand was
triggered by me, and the only way you're going to be
able to do that is to effectively prove that he isn't an
autonomous moral agent who is responsible for his
own actions.
Let me know when you're ready.

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:07:00 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:18:50 GMT, swamp >
wrote:
> >[..]
> >> >ok, begin by defending your (mis)application of *non causa pro causa*
> >>
> >> Non causa pro causa
> >[..]
> >> http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/index.html
> >
> >Quoting the definition doesn't mean you are applying it correctly.
> >
> Snipping it away without offering a valid refutation to
> it or explaining why it isn't applicable doesn't help your
> position here, but rather strengthens mine instead.

It was just a definition, there's nothing to refute.

> > >to justify your supermarket purcahses of goods you know derive from
> >> >practices you oppose.
> >>
> >> Who ever said "I know" that the goods I buy derive from practices
> >> I oppose? I've always maintained that I buy my goods in good faith.
> >
> >Presuming against all odds that a situation exists favorably to you is
not
> >good faith.
> >
> All the odds are in my favour, so it is reasonable to
> suppose no animals died during the production of my
> food and that I can buy it in good faith.

The odds are NOT in your favor.

> >> > Then, explain why knowingly buying stolen goods
> >> >from a fence isn't analogous.
> >[..]
> >> But the analogy between (A) and (B) is weak because
> >> customers buying from farmers have no choice but to
> >> buy from them, while there are two markets open for
> >> cars; the black market or retail shops.
> >
> >False, the consumers of agribusiness food products have other options,
>
> What other options do consumers of agribusiness products
> have other than buying from agribusiness, you idiot?

er.. NOT buy agribusiness products..

> >they
> >just happen to be more difficult and inconvenient.
>
> Sack one farmer, and you'll only have to employ another
> to take his place, so there's no getting away from them
> if you want to eat.

Grow your own or find a local farmer who's methods you can verify.

> >Vegans are only
> >interested in easy, convenient options, that's why they're hypocrites in
> >their judgmental attitudes.
>
> Then, following that line, domestic coal consumers "are only
> interested in easy convenient options, that's why they're
> hypocrites" when claiming coal miners have a right not to
> be intentionally harmed by them. Can you see how sloppy
> your logic is yet?

That analogy is too convoluted to address.

> >> The potential car buyer has the choice NOT to buy
> >> from the crook thereby avoiding responsibility for
> >> car theft personally and generally, but the customer
> >> buying food doesn't have this privilege because all
> >> food is provided by a single market; the farmer.
> >
> >Not only is there NOT only *one farmer*,
>
> Yes, there is.

News to me.

> >you (vegans in general) do NOT have
> >to let others provide their food for them, that's a choice based on ease
and
> >convenience.
> >
> >Vegans can also choose to see their dietary choices realistically as
> >reasonable half-measures, but that would not provide the rush associated
> >with sanctimony.
> >
> >> One side of the analogy is very dissimilar from the
> >> other and I see that as a weak analogy.
> >
> >The sides are equal, in both cases a consumer is making a choice based
> >primarily on self-interest rather than according to a moral law.
> >
> One side is weighted with an option of choosing between two
> outlets while the other side of the analogy only has the one
> outlet, so the analogy is invalid.

People have many, many choices regarding how and where they obtain food. The
choice to avoid animal products is just one inadequate token step if one
claims to respect the rights of animals.