All "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.


This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. 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. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.

However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
if so, exclude it from their diet.

Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
- and none of the other participants seemed especially
eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.

Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
animal collateral death toll caused by the production
and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
the geographic locale of production has anything to do
with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
kill animals. It simply is not credible.

How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
*still* accept it.

I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:

>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

This premiss is false on the basis that an improper
relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat)
and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists.
Such a conditional statement insists that I cause
harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat
can be sourced from animals which have died from
natural causes and without causing any harms.

> I do not eat meat;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
>This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
>Antecedent.

It certainly does, and this is why you built it and then
attribute it to vegans. You're building a straw man.

[The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent
someone else's position so that it can be attacked
more easily, knock down that misrepresented position,
then conclude that the original position has been
demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with
the actual arguments that have been made.]
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#strawman

A more accurate and valid argument would be thus;

1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent),
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)

[snip straw man]

Derek wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>
>
>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>>
>> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
>
> This premiss

Is believed by all "vegans".

>
>> I do not eat meat;
>>
>> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>>
>>This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
>>Antecedent.
>
>
> It certainly does

And is why "veganism" is a false belief.

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>
>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
>>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>>>
>>> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>>
>> This premiss
>
>Is believed by all "vegans".
>
<unsnip>
This premiss is false on the basis that an improper
relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat)
and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists.
Such a conditional statement insists that I cause
harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat
can be sourced from animals which have died from
natural causes and without causing any harms.

> I do not eat meat;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
>This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
>Antecedent.

It certainly does, and this is why you built it and then
attribute it to vegans. You're building a straw man.

[The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent
someone else's position so that it can be attacked
more easily, knock down that misrepresented position,
then conclude that the original position has been
demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with
the actual arguments that have been made.]
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#strawman

A more accurate and valid argument would be thus;

1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent),
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)

<endsnip>

Derek wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
>>>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>>>>
>>>> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>>>
>>>This premiss
>>
>>Is believed by all "vegans".
>>
>
> <unsnip>
> This premiss is

believed by all "vegans".


>
>> I do not eat meat;
>>
>> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>>
>>This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
>>Antecedent.
>
>
> It certainly does

Yes, it certainly does. It is why "veganism" is
irrational.

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:36:57 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
>>>>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>>>>>
>>>>> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>>>>
>>>>This premiss
>>>
>>>Is believed by all "vegans".

<unsnip>
This premiss is false on the basis that an improper
relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat)
and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists.
Such a conditional statement insists that I cause
harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat
can be sourced from animals which have died from
natural causes and without causing any harms.

> I do not eat meat;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
>This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
>Antecedent.

It certainly does, and this is why you built it and then
attribute it to vegans. You're building a straw man.

[The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent
someone else's position so that it can be attacked
more easily, knock down that misrepresented position,
then conclude that the original position has been
demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with
the actual arguments that have been made.]
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#strawman

A more accurate and valid argument would be thus;

1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent),
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)

<endsnip>

http://www.betterbones.com/alkaline/.../frassetto.pdf

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:46:11 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, The stupid Gonad wrote:
>
>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>>
>> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
>This premiss is false on the basis that an improper
>relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat)
>and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists.
>Such a conditional statement insists that I cause
>harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat
>can be sourced from animals which have died from
>natural causes and without causing any harms.
>
>> I do not eat meat;
>>
>> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>>
>>This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
>>Antecedent.
>
>It certainly does, and this is why you built it and then
>attribute it to vegans. You're building a straw man.

Of course. The Gonad has no opposition to veg*nism,
because he's an "ARA". His supposed opposition will always
be stupid if it exists at all, but more likely it will be nothing
more than insults directed at veg*ns.

>[The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent
>someone else's position so that it can be attacked
>more easily, knock down that misrepresented position,
>then conclude that the original position has been
>demolished.

I've been telling the Gonad that for years. Not only has
the moron never refuted my position, but he has never even
acknowledged what it is. In four years of posting the Gonad
hasn't even managed to get to the starting line yet.

>It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with
>the actual arguments that have been made.]

It is not only a lie, but also a kind of theft. A person
presents an idea, then a lying scumbag "AR" rep like
the Gonad insists that it is something else. If he
successfully persuades people that his lie is the other
person's position, then he has in a way stolen the original
idea. Interesting that I can ***easily*** recognise it when he
does it to you, but you can't recognise it when he does it to
me. Well, maybe it's not all that interesting, being that you
"ARAs" are working together.

>http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#strawman
>
>A more accurate and valid argument would be thus;
>
>1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent),
> 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)

Veg*nism does nothing at all to help farm animals. If people
want to promote better lives for farm animals with their diet
they need to be more conscientious consumers of animal products,
*not!* veg*ns.

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, The stupid Gonad wrote:

>All "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.
>
>
>This argument

Is a lie that the Gonad invented. The lie begins
with the first word of this retarded "FAQ".

>contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
>Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
>cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
>in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
>is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. 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. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
>CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>
>However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
>time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
>trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
>Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
>in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
>are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
>if so, exclude it from their diet.

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of
buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone else does.
What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:
__________________________________________________ _______
Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze

http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance
greases, brake fluid

http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
contact-lens care products, glues for paper and cardboard
cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats,
sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC

http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants,
Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes,
Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes,
Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High
Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings

http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do
in any other habitat. They also depend on it for their
lives like the animals in any other habitat. If people
consume animal products from animals they think are
raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for
more such animals in the future.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat. From a grass
raised dairy cow people get thousands of servings of dairy
products. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides,
and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields,
one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve
more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass
raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products contribute to less
wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and decent lives for
cattle. ·

[...]
>How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
>Micrograms?

Who cares Gonad? As alway you have **nothing!!!** to offer!
You simply insult other people's positions, without offering any
kind of superior position for them to consider. Why don't you suggest
any alternative? Either that or explain why your completely inconsiderate
postion is the "ethical" course which should be taken? Why do you
NEVER have anything of value to offer? Gonad. You stupid moron.

(answer: The Gonad is an "ARA", pretending--extremely badly!--to be
an "AR" opponent. This being the case, we will never see him suggest
anything which could be considered ethically equivalent or superior to
the elimination of farm animals.)

"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