On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:18:36 GMT, "William Hershman" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 14:51:26 GMT, "William Hershman" > wrote:
>> >
>> >It is important to note that this logic only applies if we
>> >first accept without question that a=>b. As in any
>> >axiomatic system, we begin with definitions which we
>> >accept, and rules which we accept without proof.
>> >Only then can we use logic to reach conclusions. If
>> >we disagree on the definitions, we can't go any further.
>>
>> Then do you challenge the truth of either premiss or
>> the form in which the syllogism is laid out?
>>
>> 1) If A, then B
>> 2) A (ponens)
>> therefore
>> 3) B
>>
>> 1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent), then
>> I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent).
>> 2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent)
>> therefore
>> 3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent)
>
>I don't challenge either one. I can't. I'm saying that in this example,
>we'd all have to agree that the B is a consequence of A. I'm not sure if
>what you have labeled as 1) is true or not. Therefore, we cannot apply
>the rules of logic. It is possible that A does not cause B.

The consequence of my action (abstaining from
meat) would either
1) cause no impact whatsoever in the suffering and death
of farmed animals. (in which case I would then ask
you to multiply my example by 50 million to prove I
do have an impact, however small).
2) cause an impact, however small.

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.