On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:25:48 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Derek" > wrote
>>
>> I didn't write that sentence you responded to. You
>> unethically re-worded my sentence to mean something
>> completely different to what I wrote.
>
>Somebody misrepresented your statements?

Yes, he rewrote my sentence, just as he always does
when faced with an opponent or argument he cannot
tackle in the usual ethical way. It's no skin off my nose
because the reader can read the thread for himself to
see Jon fold in this way.

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:23:13 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Derek" > wrote
>> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:05:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> > The universal vegan core belief is that it's wrong to eat meat or
>> > consume other animal products, and the fatuous reasoning given
>> > is that it's wrong because those things involve the killing of animals.
>> > It is this universal core belief that embodies the fallacy of denying
>> > the antecedent.
>
>> You don't get to redefine veganism.
>
>That's no "redefinition", it's a perfectly accurate reflection on the
>beliefs of vegans.

Wrong. Your definition is not the generally accepted
definition. I've given you the definition, but as usual
you just snipped it all away and blurted out your own,
like a child, so here it is again for the reader's benefit;

[The term "vegan" (pronounced VEE-gn) was coined
by Donald Watson in 1944, and was at once adopted
by the group who founded The Vegan Society in
England later that year. The Vegan Society was the
first organized secular group to promote a compassionate
lifestyle. Their definition of "veganism," which is accepted
as the decisive standard worldwide, is as follows:

Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms
of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom,
and includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice
of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the
exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and
its derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for
all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals.

In its Articles of Association, the legal documents of the
Society, a slightly different version is presented:

Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of living which
seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and practical - all
forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food,
clothing, or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes
the development and use of animal-free alternatives for
the benefit of humans, animals, and the environment.

Both interpretations begin by stating that veganism is a
"way of life," and "a philosophy." Neither emphasizes diet
over other aspects of compassionate living, because in
vegan practice no one area is more significant than another;
all are expected to be implemented simultaneously. In the
second version, a disclaimer about practicality has been
inserted, revealing that the founders acknowledged the
impossibility of totally divesting oneself of all animal products
and derivatives in the modern world. This phrase is also
critical because it helps practitioners understand that
veganism is not about personal perfection or "purity," but
rather the avoidance and elimination of exploitation of and
cruelty to animals.]
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm

Read it, learn it and get used to it.

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:55:26 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:35:54 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:46:43 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>At the very start of this thread Jon offered a syllogism
>>>>>>>>in the form
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>1) If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>>>>>>>>2) I do not eat meat;
>>>>>>>>Therefore,
>>>>>>>>3)I do not cause harm to animals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It has two premisses and a conclusion. It's also commits
>>>>>>>>a fallacy, since the second premiss denies the antecedent
>>>>>>>>in the first premiss.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It certainly does! ALL "vegans" commit this fallacy,
>>>>>>>including you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, well established, documented and true.
>>>>
>>>>The two examples you brought here are PERFECTLY
>>>>representative of ALL vegans
>>>
>>>I know.
>>
>> I didn't write that sentence you responded to. You
>> unethically re-worded my sentence
>
>No, there was nothing unethical about it. I did it not
>because I am unethical, but because you are a worthless
>piece of shit

Your opinion of me means nothing and doesn't excuse
your unethical behaviour. Being the childish troll you
certainly are, you probably don't understand that the
unethical behaviour you've admitted to rules you out
as a legitimate participant and leaves you with no
ground for ever giving moral instruction to anyone.
You lie, edit your opponent's sentences before then
responding to them, forge posts using your opponents'
identities, use multiple identities when aggravating
genuine participants and beat up on your own sock
puppets to then claim victories over. How sad, but
it's been fun watching you drag "usual suspect" and
"Dutch" along with you, because while doing their best
to emulate you they have now earned a reputation
equal to your own. Priceless!

Derek wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:55:26 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:35:54 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:46:43 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>At the very start of this thread Jon offered a syllogism
>>>>>>>>>in the form
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>1) If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>>>>>>>>>2) I do not eat meat;
>>>>>>>>>Therefore,
>>>>>>>>>3)I do not cause harm to animals.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It has two premisses and a conclusion. It's also commits
>>>>>>>>>a fallacy, since the second premiss denies the antecedent
>>>>>>>>>in the first premiss.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It certainly does! ALL "vegans" commit this fallacy,
>>>>>>>>including you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, well established, documented and true.
>>>>>
>>>>>The two examples you brought here are PERFECTLY
>>>>>representative of ALL vegans
>>>>
>>>>I know.
>>>
>>>I didn't write that sentence you responded to. You
>>>unethically re-worded my sentence
>>
>>No, there was nothing unethical about it. I did it not
>>because I am unethical, but because you are a worthless
>>piece of shit
>
>
> Your opinion of me means nothing

You're not fooling anyone with that, Dreck.

Bluefooted cuckold Derk wrote:
>>>>>At the very start of this thread Jon offered a syllogism
>>>>>in the form
>>>>>
>>>>>1) If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>>>>>2) I do not eat meat;
>>>>>Therefore,
>>>>>3)I do not cause harm to animals.
>>>>>
>>>>>It has two premisses and a conclusion. It's also commits
>>>>>a fallacy, since the second premiss denies the antecedent
>>>>>in the first premiss.
>>>>
>>>>It certainly does! ALL "vegans" commit this fallacy,
>>>>including you.
>>>
>>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>
>>No, well established, documented and true.
>
> The two examples you brought here aren't in any way
> representative of ALL vegans,

Yes, the are. Absolutely. They're sine qua non of veganism.

> and nor do they imply
> a belief that no animals die during crop production,

The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your
useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your
finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer
isn't fooling anyone.
http://tinyurl.com/7gw1

Hehe. That's not implicit, it's *EX*plicit. You semi-literate, smelly fat ****,
your claim is that "the vegan lives a death free lifestyle."

> so your claim has been undeniably proved false.

Wrong, chubby. Jon has shown by your own words that your claims are patently false.

>>>>>>>Secondly, my task is then to show that HIS argument
>>>>>>>is not the argument put forward by vegans.
>>>>
>>>>And you FAIL
>>>
>>>It might be put forward by a few
>>
>>No, ALL:
>
> My example alone proves your claim to be false.

This example?
The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your
useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your
finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer
isn't fooling anyone.
http://tinyurl.com/7gw1

>>>> Go Vegan and live cruelty free. Peace is only found
>>>> with how we live our lives...not through some
>>>> external belief in spirituality. Treat all animals
>>>> the way you would want to be treated. Vegans may be
>>>> smaller, but we are far more healthy on average.
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/7gvl
>>>
>>>
>>>What part of that statement implies animals aren't
>>>killed during crop production
>>
>>"cruelty free".
>
> Then your comprehension skills are certainly in doubt
> because those two words don't imply animals aren't
> killed during crop production. The author is merely
> claiming HE lives a cruelty free lifestyle, not that
> cruelty doesn't exists around him caused by others.

The "cruelty" is part and parcel of his lifestyle and his personal choices. You
cannot have it both ways, you ignorant, self-crippled pain in the arse. You
yourself wrote:
The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your
useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your
finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer
isn't fooling anyone.
http://tinyurl.com/7gw1

Aside from your profane attempts at passing the buck, how is it that your chosen
"lifestyle" is free of cruelty or death? The problem isn't the farmer or those
who eat meat, it's you, lard ass.

>>>> The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your
>>>> useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your
>>>> finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer
>>>> isn't fooling anyone.
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/7gw1
>>>
>>>
>>>Again, what part in that statement implies deaths
>>>aren't caused by the hands of others
>>
>>"death free"
>
> Again, your comprehension skills are certainly in
> doubt because those two words don't imply animals
> aren't killed during crop production. The author, me,
> is merely claiming HE lives a death-free lifestyle,
> not that deaths aren't caused by others around him.

The "deaths" are part and parcel of your lifestyle and your personal choices.
You cannot have it both ways, you ignorant, self-crippled pain in the arse. You
wrote:
The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your
useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your
finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer
isn't fooling anyone.
http://tinyurl.com/7gw1

Aside from your profane attempts at passing the buck, how is it that your chosen
"lifestyle" is free of cruelty or death? The problem isn't the farmer or those
who eat meat, it's you, lard ass.

<snip typically feeble sophistry>

usual suspect wrote:
> Bluefooted cuckold Derk wrote:
>
>>>>>> At the very start of this thread Jon offered a syllogism
>>>>>> in the form
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>>>>>> 2) I do not eat meat;
>>>>>> Therefore, 3)I do not cause harm to animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has two premisses and a conclusion. It's also commits
>>>>>> a fallacy, since the second premiss denies the antecedent
>>>>>> in the first premiss.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It certainly does! ALL "vegans" commit this fallacy, including you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ipse dixit and false.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, well established, documented and true.
>>
>>
>> The two examples you brought here aren't in any way representative of
>> ALL vegans,
>
>
> Yes, the are. Absolutely. They're sine qua non of veganism.
>
>> and nor do they imply
>> a belief that no animals die during crop production,
>
>
> The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your
> useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your
> finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer
> isn't fooling anyone.
> http://tinyurl.com/7gw1
>
> Hehe. That's not implicit, it's *EX*plicit. You semi-literate, smelly
> fat ****, your claim is that "the vegan lives a death free lifestyle."

The smelly, blue-footed fat **** USED to try to explain
it away by saying that he didn't cause collateral
deaths at all; the farmer did. Now, of course, he has
been bludgeoned into acknowledging that the fulfillment
of his lifestyle causes animal death.

The blue-footed fat ****/cuckold is responsible for
those deaths, in exactly the same way a getaway driver
is responsible for the deaths that occur in a bank
robbery-turned-murder, and in exactly the same way that
the fence is criminally responsible for providing an
incentive to thieves.

This is not in serious dispute.

>
>> so your claim has been undeniably proved false.
>
>
> Wrong, chubby. Jon has shown by your own words that your claims are
> patently false.
>
>>>>>>>> Secondly, my task is then to show that HIS argument
>>>>>>>> is not the argument put forward by vegans.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And you FAIL
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It might be put forward by a few
>>>
>>>
>>> No, ALL:
>>
>>
>> My example alone proves your claim to be false.
>
>
> This example?
> The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your
> useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your
> finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer
> isn't fooling anyone.
> http://tinyurl.com/7gw1
>
>>>>> Go Vegan and live cruelty free. Peace is only found
>>>>> with how we live our lives...not through some
>>>>> external belief in spirituality. Treat all animals
>>>>> the way you would want to be treated. Vegans may be
>>>>> smaller, but we are far more healthy on average.
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/7gvl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What part of that statement implies animals aren't killed during
>>>> crop production
>>>
>>>
>>> "cruelty free".
>>
>>
>> Then your comprehension skills are certainly in doubt
>> because those two words don't imply animals aren't
>> killed during crop production. The author is merely claiming HE lives
>> a cruelty free lifestyle, not that
>> cruelty doesn't exists around him caused by others.
>
>
> The "cruelty" is part and parcel of his lifestyle and his personal
> choices. You cannot have it both ways, you ignorant, self-crippled pain
> in the arse. You yourself wrote:
> The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your
> useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your
> finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer
> isn't fooling anyone.
> http://tinyurl.com/7gw1
>
> Aside from your profane attempts at passing the buck, how is it that
> your chosen "lifestyle" is free of cruelty or death? The problem isn't
> the farmer or those who eat meat, it's you, lard ass.

Dreck causes animal suffering and death. He shares
moral responsibility for it. This is not in serious
dispute. Dreck pretends to dispute it, but no one
believes him. The CD argument has won the day,
sweeping all before it.

>
>>>>> The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your
>>>>> useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your
>>>>> finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer
>>>>> isn't fooling anyone.
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/7gw1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, what part in that statement implies deaths
>>>> aren't caused by the hands of others
>>>
>>>
>>> "death free"
>>
>>
>> Again, your comprehension skills are certainly in doubt because those
>> two words don't imply animals aren't killed during crop production.
>> The author, me, is merely claiming HE lives a death-free lifestyle,
>> not that deaths aren't caused by others around him.
>
>
> The "deaths" are part and parcel of your lifestyle and your personal
> choices. You cannot have it both ways, you ignorant, self-crippled pain
> in the arse. You wrote:
> The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your
> useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your
> finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer
> isn't fooling anyone.
> http://tinyurl.com/7gw1
>
> Aside from your profane attempts at passing the buck, how is it that
> your chosen "lifestyle" is free of cruelty or death? The problem isn't
> the farmer or those who eat meat, it's you, lard ass.
>
> <snip typically feeble sophistry>

Yeah, Dreck is still trying to peddle the INVALID
comparison between animal CDs, which have no
consequences, and human suffering and death in
industry, which DO have consequences. He fails; no one
is buying it.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...

<snip typically feeble sophistry>

Aside from your profane attempts at passing the buck, how is
it that your chosen "lifestyle" is free of cruelty or death, useless?

Stupid self-crippled cuckold Derk wrote:

>>>>>>>1) If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>>>>>>>2) I do not eat meat;
>>>>>>>Therefore,
>>>>>>>3)I do not cause harm to animals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It has two premisses and a conclusion. It's also commits
>>>>>>>a fallacy, since the second premiss denies the antecedent
>>>>>>>in the first premiss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It certainly does! ALL "vegans" commit this fallacy,
>>>>>>including you.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>>>
>>>>No, well established, documented and true.
>>>
>>>The two examples you brought here aren't in any way
>>>representative of ALL vegans
>>
>>The universal vegan core belief is that it's wrong to eat meat or consume
>>other animal products
>
> You don't get to redefine veganism.

Neither do you, fatso. Watson's definition is erroneous, particularly as it
relates to urban-dwelling consumers who purchase commercially-grown foods, which
are grown in a fashion inconsistent with Watson's definition. You exposed
yourself as a complete hypocrite when you called yourself a vegan and blamed
others like farmers for the suffering and death related to your choices.

<...>

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Derek wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:35:54 GMT, Jonathan Ball
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:46:43 GMT, Jonathan Ball
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At the very start of this thread Jon offered a syllogism
>>>>>>>> in the form
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>>>>>>>> 2) I do not eat meat;
>>>>>>>> Therefore, 3)I do not cause harm to animals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It has two premisses and a conclusion. It's also commits
>>>>>>>> a fallacy, since the second premiss denies the antecedent
>>>>>>>> in the first premiss.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It certainly does! ALL "vegans" commit this fallacy, including you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ipse dixit and false.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, well established, documented and true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The two examples you brought here are PERFECTLY representative of
>>>> ALL vegans
>>>
>>>
>>> I know.
>>
>>
>>
>> I didn't write that sentence you responded to. You unethically
>> re-worded my sentence
>
>
> No, there was nothing unethical about it. I did it not because I am
> unethical, but because you are a worthless piece of shit, and I don't
> have the minimal respect for you necessary to engage you in genuine
> discussion. I did it to shit on your head, Dreck. You put yourself in
> this position. You never participated honestly here, and I finally
> became sick of you and your clownish antics.
>
> You simply do not deserve even basic decency from others. You have
> worked hard to become an object of scorn and contempt, and you have
> succeeded.

And, sadly, it's the *only* hard work he's done in his miserable existence.

Lesley the whore wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
>
> <snip typically strong material that whoreLesley doesn't get>
>
> Aside from your profane attempts at passing the buck, how is
> it that your chosen "lifestyle" is free of cruelty or death, Mr. Suspect?

He doesn't claim it to be. That ****ing cocksucker
Dreck Nash DOES, falsely, claim his "lifestyle" (huh)
to be free of cruelty or death.

You stupid footrubbing whore.

stupid bluefooted cuckold Derk whined:

> Your opinion of me means nothing

Because you're a worthless pile of shite.

<snip rest of your crybaby antics>

Lesley shat:


>
> I fake quotes, forge posts, tell lies, spew filth, commit harassment.

Yes - why?

>
> Profile of Lesley, the footrubbing whore
> http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/socio.htm

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> the whore

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

Profile of a Sociopath
http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/socio.htm

.... same goes for his little friend- 'usual suspect'.

FYI. .. These two are very disturbed individuals indeed.
They lie about everyone and everything. Read the above.
Killfile them both _now_, if you haven't done so already.
They will probably change nyms mid-stream- you'll know.

puta loca wrote:
<...>
> ... same goes for his little friend- 'usual suspect'.

I'm not little, skag.

> FYI. .. These two are very disturbed individuals indeed.

You believe in:
"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"
that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucer
Zapper
Foot massage (as cure-all)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
bestiality
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains
Sun gazing
Drinking urine as a cure-all
Chemtrails
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
participation in skinhead subculture
the validity of online IQ tests
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
Jeff Rense for "news"
Inability to distinguish between hearsay and evidence

And you call other people disturbed? Haw!!!

> They lie about everyone and everything. Read the above.

Who has to lie about single brain-celled Irish foot masseuses who believe in:
"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"
that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucer
Zapper
Foot massage (as cure-all)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
bestiality
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains
Sun gazing
Drinking urine as a cure-all
Chemtrails
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
participation in skinhead subculture
the validity of online IQ tests
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
Jeff Rense for "news"
Inability to distinguish between hearsay and evidence

> Killfile them both _now_, if you haven't done so already.

Why haven't you done so, skank?

> They will probably change nyms mid-stream- you'll know.

Thus saith (a) lilweed, (b) Lotus, (c) pearl. How many other nyms have you used,
you foot-rubbing charlatan?

I don't shift nyms like you do.

puta loca wrote:

> Aside from your profane attempts at passing the buck,

I don't pass the buck.

> how is
> it that your chosen "lifestyle" is free of cruelty or death, useless?

Mine isn't. I don't make that claim. Derk and you do. Why don't you tell us how
you do it without blaming farmers or health departments.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:23:13 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >"Derek" > wrote
> >> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:05:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> > The universal vegan core belief is that it's wrong to eat meat or
> >> > consume other animal products, and the fatuous reasoning given
> >> > is that it's wrong because those things involve the killing of
animals.
> >> > It is this universal core belief that embodies the fallacy of denying
> >> > the antecedent.
> >
> >> You don't get to redefine veganism.
> >
> >That's no "redefinition", it's a perfectly accurate reflection on the
> >beliefs of vegans.
>
> Wrong.

No, right.

> Your definition is not the generally accepted
> definition.

Generally accepted by whom? Themselves?

It's no great surprise that vegans put a glamorized spin on their own
stupidity. I don't accept terrorists calling themselves freedom fighters.

> I've given you the definition.

Once you peel away the veneers of self-aggrandizing and deluded rhetoric,
what remains of the vegsource definition doesn't differ significantly from
the description I offered.

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 21:45:53 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:55:26 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:35:54 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:46:43 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>At the very start of this thread Jon offered a syllogism
>>>>>>>>>>in the form
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>1) If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>>>>>>>>>>2) I do not eat meat;
>>>>>>>>>>Therefore,
>>>>>>>>>>3)I do not cause harm to animals.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It has two premisses and a conclusion. It's also commits
>>>>>>>>>>a fallacy, since the second premiss denies the antecedent
>>>>>>>>>>in the first premiss.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It certainly does! ALL "vegans" commit this fallacy,
>>>>>>>>>including you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, well established, documented and true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The two examples you brought here are PERFECTLY
>>>>>>representative of ALL vegans
>>>>>
>>>>>I know.
>>>>
>>>>I didn't write that sentence you responded to. You
>>>>unethically re-worded my sentence
>>>
>>>No, there was nothing unethical about it. I did it not
>>>because I am unethical, but because you are a worthless
>>>piece of shit
>>
>> Your opinion of me means nothing
>
>You're not fooling anyone with that, Dreck.

Then tell me why I should consider the opinion of a liar
and forger important. Your opinion means nothing, and
your word on anything means the same: nothing.

The universal vegan core belief is that it's wrong to eat meat or consume
other animal products, and the fatuous reasoning given is that it's wrong
because those things involve the killing of animals. It is this universal
core belief that embodies the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

Derek wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 21:45:53 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:55:26 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:35:54 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:46:43 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>At the very start of this thread Jon offered a syllogism
>>>>>>>>>>>in the form
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>1) If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>>>>>>>>>>>2) I do not eat meat;
>>>>>>>>>>>Therefore,
>>>>>>>>>>>3)I do not cause harm to animals.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>It has two premisses and a conclusion. It's also commits
>>>>>>>>>>>a fallacy, since the second premiss denies the antecedent
>>>>>>>>>>>in the first premiss.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It certainly does! ALL "vegans" commit this fallacy,
>>>>>>>>>>including you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, well established, documented and true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The two examples you brought here are PERFECTLY
>>>>>>>representative of ALL vegans
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I know.
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't write that sentence you responded to. You
>>>>>unethically re-worded my sentence
>>>>
>>>>No, there was nothing unethical about it. I did it not
>>>>because I am unethical, but because you are a worthless
>>>>piece of shit
>>>
>>>Your opinion of me means nothing
>>
>>You're not fooling anyone with that, Dreck.
>
>
> Then tell me why I should consider the opinion of a liar
> and forger important.

Because you know I am neither. You DO consider my
opinion important. Don't waste time denying it.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
>
> "William Hershman" > wrote in message
news:2HOwc.11127$HG.9007@attbi_s53...
> > "Derek" > wrote in message
...
> > >
> > > There can be no doubt that if one abstains from
> > > farmed animal products, then one would cause
> > > less farmed animals to suffer and die. Something
> > > analogous would be;
> > > 1) If abstain from lighting bonfires, then I cause
> > > less pollution.
> > >
> > > Both premisses stand or fall together.
> >
> > There's all kinda doubt.
>
> Then show where, else my premiss remains true.
> As you've said so yourself, "I don't challenge either
> one. I can't.", therefore my conclusion stands;
> 3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die.


One must first show that lighting bonfires causes pollution.
>

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> All [sic] "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
> I do not eat meat;
> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

Once again, noBalls makes an unsubstantiated, and totally
unsupportable, claim of mental telepathy by falsely claiming to be able
to read the minds of ALL [sic] "vegans" to determine their individual
motivation(s) for not eating animal products.
NoBalls makes believe that NO ONE ever adopted a veg*n diet for
health reasons, or was motivated to do so by the compelling body of
research that associates all the currently-popular "degenerative
diseases" to consumption of animal products. NoBalls makes believe that
the substantial body of research that indicates that people with various
"degenerative diseases" who tried a plant-based diet experienced a
substantial reduction in their symptoms does not exist.

> This argument contains a classic fallacy: ...
More fallacious than your false claims of reading ALL veg*ns'
minds??

> Uncounted
> millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> control.
"Uncounted", indeed, so no credible assessment of the loss/death of
animal biomass in different methods of agriculture really exists?
Strange, those making the CD argument can *never* support it with
factual or honest statistics. They further expose their biases by
claiming that one ant is equal to one cow.

> How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> Micrograms?
How, then, to explain the false claim by the meatrain propagandists
that ALL veg*ns are in the Search for Micrograms, when they are not?

> Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> what they call "ethics", ...
"Ethics" is a false concept, since ethics are purely idiosyncratic;
people just make them up for their own purposes. There is no objective
set of ethics to compare anyone's personal set against, so the whole
"ethics"/"animal rights" argument is bogus.
Someone with no personal ethics, like yourself, should be able to
understand that.
There are "rational veg*ns" who are motivated by facts, logic, and
epidemiology -- stop making believe they do not exist.

Laurie