"John Coleman" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote
> 8<
>> Meat is not obtained from roadkill, so the objection is extremist, and
>> irrelevant in context. When vegans say "Animals must be killed to obtain
>> meat", legitimate parties from both sides stipulate that is a correct
>> statement. That leaves you out.
>
> You are right here Dutch, it seems the old "exception disproves the
> general
> rule fallacy" was in use. But, people could get meat from animals that
> died
> of natural causes, or even roadkill as you suggest. People could wait for
> livestock to drop dead of old age and then eat them. Still exploitative
> perhaps, but not cruel.

Perhaps, but it might be considered cruel to allow an animal to suffer until
it dies of old age, something that seldom happens in nature.

>> They do not. The vast majority give it no consideration at all, and of
> those
>> few that do contemplate it do not give it real consideration, they
>> attempt
>> to rationalize the facts away.
>
> I don't agree with your comment about the "vast majority", most the vegans
> I
> have met are very well aware of the existence of cds, and are concerned
> (they prefer organic produce)

The world of organics contains some of the most lethal poisons in existence.

- but I mix in a limited circle. However, many
> may well not be, and I would agree with you there, that this is bad form.
> In
> the UK, I would has at a guess that most vegans know about cds, and
> enviromental aspects of animal suffering as well as veganic farming as
> these
> issues are raised in popualr vegan literature. I think cds just isn't at
> the
> fore of most vegans thoughts, there is more concern with the more obvious
> brutality.

That's what I have been saying all along. Vegans like to pretend that their
diets are cruelty free, and seeing no meat on the plate makes this much
easier.

> Now, I wonder what response you would get if you asked the average meat
> eater what they thought of the fact that some of the animals in the
> slaughterhouses were cut up alive?

I think the thought of animal suffering distresses almost everyone.

Would they attempt to "rationalize the
> facts away"

Most likely, yes.

> and give no consideration at all? What if we suggested they ate
> meat from animals that died of natural causes? Of course they will insist
> that the animals must suffer so they can have "nice" meat.

Dying younger does not necessarily equate to more suffering. I would ask you
if vegans would pay exorbitant prices for hand-picked food when far cheaper,
nutritious tasty food was readily available? I contend that most would not.

I'm not saying that meat-eaters are paragons of virtue or honesty, I am
saying that the idea of veganism is fundamentally flawed, because it
arbitrarily sets up (non)-consumption of animal products as the absolute
criterion for an ethical lifestyle, when that is not even the important
question.

"John Coleman" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote
> 8<
>> Meat is not obtained from roadkill, so the objection is extremist, and
>> irrelevant in context. When vegans say "Animals must be killed to obtain
>> meat", legitimate parties from both sides stipulate that is a correct
>> statement. That leaves you out.
>
> You are right here Dutch, it seems the old "exception disproves the
> general
> rule fallacy" was in use. But, people could get meat from animals that
> died
> of natural causes, or even roadkill as you suggest. People could wait for
> livestock to drop dead of old age and then eat them. Still exploitative
> perhaps, but not cruel.

Perhaps, but it might be considered cruel to allow an animal to suffer until
it dies of old age, something that seldom happens in nature.

>> They do not. The vast majority give it no consideration at all, and of
> those
>> few that do contemplate it do not give it real consideration, they
>> attempt
>> to rationalize the facts away.
>
> I don't agree with your comment about the "vast majority", most the vegans
> I
> have met are very well aware of the existence of cds, and are concerned
> (they prefer organic produce)

The world of organics contains some of the most lethal poisons in existence.

- but I mix in a limited circle. However, many
> may well not be, and I would agree with you there, that this is bad form.
> In
> the UK, I would has at a guess that most vegans know about cds, and
> enviromental aspects of animal suffering as well as veganic farming as
> these
> issues are raised in popualr vegan literature. I think cds just isn't at
> the
> fore of most vegans thoughts, there is more concern with the more obvious
> brutality.

That's what I have been saying all along. Vegans like to pretend that their
diets are cruelty free, and seeing no meat on the plate makes this much
easier.

> Now, I wonder what response you would get if you asked the average meat
> eater what they thought of the fact that some of the animals in the
> slaughterhouses were cut up alive?

I think the thought of animal suffering distresses almost everyone.

Would they attempt to "rationalize the
> facts away"

Most likely, yes.

> and give no consideration at all? What if we suggested they ate
> meat from animals that died of natural causes? Of course they will insist
> that the animals must suffer so they can have "nice" meat.

Dying younger does not necessarily equate to more suffering. I would ask you
if vegans would pay exorbitant prices for hand-picked food when far cheaper,
nutritious tasty food was readily available? I contend that most would not.

I'm not saying that meat-eaters are paragons of virtue or honesty, I am
saying that the idea of veganism is fundamentally flawed, because it
arbitrarily sets up (non)-consumption of animal products as the absolute
criterion for an ethical lifestyle, when that is not even the important
question.

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ted Bell" > wrote in message news:6ILsd.6701>
> No
> one in the U.S. or the UK who is a "vegan" would eat roadkill if she
> 8<
>> weren't a "vegan". ALL "vegans" are talking about supermarket meat when
>> they decide not to eat meat. They never considered eating roadkill.
>
> I believe most vegans find meat unappealing after a few months or years
> off
> it. I was always repulsed by it even as a child. Most meat eaters would
> brobably not like to take home prepare and eat roadkill, quite unlike a
> natural meat eater of course.
>
>> No, they do not, not in any meaningful way. They pretend they don't know
>> about it.
>
> So what is veganic agriculture then?

It's agriculture without bonemeal, eggshells, livestock manure or other
animal based inputs. That does not mean vegans are considering collateral
damage to animals by agriculture. It's a completely different issue.

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ted Bell" > wrote in message news:6ILsd.6701>
> No
> one in the U.S. or the UK who is a "vegan" would eat roadkill if she
> 8<
>> weren't a "vegan". ALL "vegans" are talking about supermarket meat when
>> they decide not to eat meat. They never considered eating roadkill.
>
> I believe most vegans find meat unappealing after a few months or years
> off
> it. I was always repulsed by it even as a child. Most meat eaters would
> brobably not like to take home prepare and eat roadkill, quite unlike a
> natural meat eater of course.
>
>> No, they do not, not in any meaningful way. They pretend they don't know
>> about it.
>
> So what is veganic agriculture then?

It's agriculture without bonemeal, eggshells, livestock manure or other
animal based inputs. That does not mean vegans are considering collateral
damage to animals by agriculture. It's a completely different issue.

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
> 8<
>> Meat is not obtained from roadkill, so the objection is extremist, and
>> irrelevant in context. When vegans say "Animals must be killed to obtain
>> meat", legitimate parties from both sides stipulate that is a correct
>> statement. That leaves you out.
>
> You are right here Dutch, it seems the old "exception disproves the
> general
> rule fallacy" was in use. But, people could get meat from animals that
> died
> of natural causes, or even roadkill as you suggest. People could wait for
> livestock to drop dead of old age and then eat them. Still exploitative
> perhaps, but not cruel.
>
>> They do not. The vast majority give it no consideration at all, and of
> those
>> few that do contemplate it do not give it real consideration, they
>> attempt
>> to rationalize the facts away.
>
> I don't agree with your comment about the "vast majority", most the vegans
> I
> have met are very well aware of the existence of cds, and are concerned
> (they prefer organic produce)
========================
What a hoot!!! It's still not cruelty free you fool. Organic uses more
pesticides than many regular farms. Organic was 3% of farms in '97, yet
used more than 25% of the total pounds of pesticides applied. You're idiocy
is astounding, killer.


- but I mix in a limited circle. However, many
> may well not be, and I would agree with you there, that this is bad form.
> In
> the UK, I would has at a guess that most vegans know about cds, and
> enviromental aspects of animal suffering as well as veganic farming as
> these
> issues are raised in popualr vegan literature. I think cds just isn't at
> the
> fore of most vegans thoughts, there is more concern with the more obvious
> brutality.
======================
Of course you don't think about it. To think about it knocks down your
house of cards, killer. The most obvious to me is the willfully neglected
animals that are sliced, diced, shredded, and dis-membered and poisoned for
your cheap, convenient veggies.


>
> Now, I wonder what response you would get if you asked the average meat
> eater what they thought of the fact that some of the animals in the
> slaughterhouses were cut up alive? Would they attempt to "rationalize the
> facts away" and give no consideration at all? What if we suggested they
> ate
> meat from animals that died of natural causes? Of course they will insist
> that the animals must suffer so they can have "nice" meat.
==========================
What a load. I don't know anyone that thinks animals *must* suffer, fool.


>
> John
>
>

> > So what is veganic agriculture then?
>
> It's agriculture without bonemeal, eggshells, livestock manure or
other
> animal based inputs. That does not mean vegans are considering
collateral
> damage to animals by agriculture. It's a completely different issue.

I believe that it also includes compassionate growing and
harvesting techniques, bringing cds down to 0.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

> > So what is veganic agriculture then?
>
> It's agriculture without bonemeal, eggshells, livestock manure or
other
> animal based inputs. That does not mean vegans are considering
collateral
> damage to animals by agriculture. It's a completely different issue.

I believe that it also includes compassionate growing and
harvesting techniques, bringing cds down to 0.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

John Coleman wrote:

> "Ted Bell" > wrote in message news:6ILsd.6701> No
> one in the U.S. or the UK who is a "vegan" would eat roadkill if she
> 8<
>
>>weren't a "vegan". ALL "vegans" are talking about supermarket meat when
>>they decide not to eat meat. They never considered eating roadkill.
>
>
> I believe most vegans find meat unappealing after a few months or years off
> it. I was always repulsed by it even as a child.

I don't believe you.

You're straying from the point. "vegans", when they
shrilly and stupidly proclaim themselves "cruelty free"
over their refusal to eat meat, aren't talking about
roadkill. The moron Dreck Nash (Retard) was attempting
to show that the first premise of the fallacy followed
by all "vegans" is false:

If I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of
animals

He stupidly offered roadkill as a feeble, lame attempt
to show the premise to be false. The fact is, no
"vegan" EVER considered eating roadkill. When they
become "vegans", they are talking about supermarket meat.


>
>>No, they do not, not in any meaningful way. They pretend they don't know
>>about it.
>
>
> So what is veganic agriculture then?

A fiction.

John Coleman wrote:

> "Ted Bell" > wrote in message news:6ILsd.6701> No
> one in the U.S. or the UK who is a "vegan" would eat roadkill if she
> 8<
>
>>weren't a "vegan". ALL "vegans" are talking about supermarket meat when
>>they decide not to eat meat. They never considered eating roadkill.
>
>
> I believe most vegans find meat unappealing after a few months or years off
> it. I was always repulsed by it even as a child.

I don't believe you.

You're straying from the point. "vegans", when they
shrilly and stupidly proclaim themselves "cruelty free"
over their refusal to eat meat, aren't talking about
roadkill. The moron Dreck Nash (Retard) was attempting
to show that the first premise of the fallacy followed
by all "vegans" is false:

If I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of
animals

He stupidly offered roadkill as a feeble, lame attempt
to show the premise to be false. The fact is, no
"vegan" EVER considered eating roadkill. When they
become "vegans", they are talking about supermarket meat.


>
>>No, they do not, not in any meaningful way. They pretend they don't know
>>about it.
>
>
> So what is veganic agriculture then?

A fiction.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > So what is veganic agriculture then?
>>
>> It's agriculture without bonemeal, eggshells, livestock manure or
> other
>> animal based inputs. That does not mean vegans are considering
> collateral
>> damage to animals by agriculture. It's a completely different issue.
>
> I believe that it also includes compassionate growing and
> harvesting techniques, bringing cds down to 0.
> ======================
Really? Prove you bit of ignorance for once, fool.


>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
>
>
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > So what is veganic agriculture then?
>>
>> It's agriculture without bonemeal, eggshells, livestock manure or
> other
>> animal based inputs. That does not mean vegans are considering
> collateral
>> damage to animals by agriculture. It's a completely different issue.
>
> I believe that it also includes compassionate growing and
> harvesting techniques, bringing cds down to 0.
> ======================
Really? Prove you bit of ignorance for once, fool.


>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
>
>
>

John Coleman wrote:

> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
> 8<
>
>>Meat is not obtained from roadkill, so the objection is extremist, and
>>irrelevant in context. When vegans say "Animals must be killed to obtain
>>meat", legitimate parties from both sides stipulate that is a correct
>>statement. That leaves you out.
>
>
> You are right here Dutch, it seems the old "exception disproves the general
> rule fallacy" was in use. But, people could get meat from animals that died
> of natural causes, or even roadkill as you suggest.

It is irrelevant what people *could* do. We're talking
about what "vegans" have in mind when they refrain from
eating meat. They aren't refraining from eating
roadkill; they're refraining, noisily and showily, from
eating packaged meat coming from animals that were
bred, raised and slaughtered expressly for that purpose.

Face it, Coleman: "vegans" believe in the entire
fallacy, starting with the first premise:

If I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of
animals

It is their belief in this premise that leads them to
be "vegans".

> People could wait for
> livestock to drop dead of old age and then eat them. Still exploitative
> perhaps, but not cruel.
>
>
>>They do not. The vast majority give it no consideration at all, and of those
>
>>few that do contemplate it do not give it real consideration, they attempt
>>to rationalize the facts away.
>
>
> I don't agree with your comment about the "vast majority", most the vegans I
> have met are very well aware of the existence of cds,

Virtually EVERY new "vegan" who first shows up here is
unaware of CDs. When first confronted with the fact of
CDs, they begin by denying them, then follow with
trying to rationalize them...just as you do.

> and are concerned
> (they prefer organic produce) - but I mix in a limited circle.

No doubt.

> However, many
> may well not be, and I would agree with you there, that this is bad form.

A very telling comment. Your pose as a "vegan" is ALL
ABOUT form (style), with no substance.

> In the UK, I would has at a guess that most vegans know about cds, and
> enviromental aspects of animal suffering as well as veganic farming as these
> issues are raised in popualr vegan literature. I think cds just isn't at the
> fore of most vegans thoughts, there is more concern with the more obvious
> brutality.

It's worse for them, from a moral responsibility
perspective, if they do know about CDs. They're not
doing anything about them.

>
> Now, I wonder what response you would get if you asked the average meat
> eater what they thought of the fact that some of the animals in the
> slaughterhouses were cut up alive?

When they do become aware of it, they're horrified.
Efforts, both market-based and governmental, to ensure
more humane slaughter, originate from omnivores.

John Coleman wrote:

> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
> 8<
>
>>Meat is not obtained from roadkill, so the objection is extremist, and
>>irrelevant in context. When vegans say "Animals must be killed to obtain
>>meat", legitimate parties from both sides stipulate that is a correct
>>statement. That leaves you out.
>
>
> You are right here Dutch, it seems the old "exception disproves the general
> rule fallacy" was in use. But, people could get meat from animals that died
> of natural causes, or even roadkill as you suggest.

It is irrelevant what people *could* do. We're talking
about what "vegans" have in mind when they refrain from
eating meat. They aren't refraining from eating
roadkill; they're refraining, noisily and showily, from
eating packaged meat coming from animals that were
bred, raised and slaughtered expressly for that purpose.

Face it, Coleman: "vegans" believe in the entire
fallacy, starting with the first premise:

If I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of
animals

It is their belief in this premise that leads them to
be "vegans".

> People could wait for
> livestock to drop dead of old age and then eat them. Still exploitative
> perhaps, but not cruel.
>
>
>>They do not. The vast majority give it no consideration at all, and of those
>
>>few that do contemplate it do not give it real consideration, they attempt
>>to rationalize the facts away.
>
>
> I don't agree with your comment about the "vast majority", most the vegans I
> have met are very well aware of the existence of cds,

Virtually EVERY new "vegan" who first shows up here is
unaware of CDs. When first confronted with the fact of
CDs, they begin by denying them, then follow with
trying to rationalize them...just as you do.

> and are concerned
> (they prefer organic produce) - but I mix in a limited circle.

No doubt.

> However, many
> may well not be, and I would agree with you there, that this is bad form.

A very telling comment. Your pose as a "vegan" is ALL
ABOUT form (style), with no substance.

> In the UK, I would has at a guess that most vegans know about cds, and
> enviromental aspects of animal suffering as well as veganic farming as these
> issues are raised in popualr vegan literature. I think cds just isn't at the
> fore of most vegans thoughts, there is more concern with the more obvious
> brutality.

It's worse for them, from a moral responsibility
perspective, if they do know about CDs. They're not
doing anything about them.

>
> Now, I wonder what response you would get if you asked the average meat
> eater what they thought of the fact that some of the animals in the
> slaughterhouses were cut up alive?

When they do become aware of it, they're horrified.
Efforts, both market-based and governmental, to ensure
more humane slaughter, originate from omnivores.

Why are you using two identities in the same thread Jonathan?

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:25:34 GMT, Jonathan Ball posting as Jay Santos > wrote:
>John Coleman wrote:
>> "Jonathan Ball posting as Ted Bell" > wrote in message news:6ILsd.6701> No
>>
>> one in the U.S. or the UK who is a "vegan" would eat roadkill if she
>> 8<
>>
>>>weren't a "vegan". ALL "vegans" are talking about supermarket meat when
>>>they decide not to eat meat. They never considered eating roadkill.
>>
>>
>> I believe most vegans find meat unappealing after a few months or years off
>> it. I was always repulsed by it even as a child.
>
>I don't believe you.
>
>You're straying from the point. "vegans", when they
>shrilly and stupidly proclaim themselves "cruelty free"
>over their refusal to eat meat, aren't talking about
>roadkill. The moron Dreck Nash (Retard) was attempting
>to show that the first premise of the fallacy followed
>by all "vegans" is false:

It is false, and you've conceded it is after I showed you
that an improper relationship exists between the antecedent
(If I eat meat) and the consequent (I cause harm to animals).
Such a conditional statement insists that I cause harm to
animals EVERY time I eat meat, but meat can be sourced
from animals that die from natural causes and road kill, and
those exceptions prove your premise to be a false one.
Here, below is where YOU finally admit that your premise
is false, and thereafter try to assert that it's the vegan's
premise rather than your own.

It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise;
it's the premise of "vegans".
Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003

Why are you using two identities in the same thread Jonathan?

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:25:34 GMT, Jonathan Ball posting as Jay Santos > wrote:
>John Coleman wrote:
>> "Jonathan Ball posting as Ted Bell" > wrote in message news:6ILsd.6701> No
>>
>> one in the U.S. or the UK who is a "vegan" would eat roadkill if she
>> 8<
>>
>>>weren't a "vegan". ALL "vegans" are talking about supermarket meat when
>>>they decide not to eat meat. They never considered eating roadkill.
>>
>>
>> I believe most vegans find meat unappealing after a few months or years off
>> it. I was always repulsed by it even as a child.
>
>I don't believe you.
>
>You're straying from the point. "vegans", when they
>shrilly and stupidly proclaim themselves "cruelty free"
>over their refusal to eat meat, aren't talking about
>roadkill. The moron Dreck Nash (Retard) was attempting
>to show that the first premise of the fallacy followed
>by all "vegans" is false:

It is false, and you've conceded it is after I showed you
that an improper relationship exists between the antecedent
(If I eat meat) and the consequent (I cause harm to animals).
Such a conditional statement insists that I cause harm to
animals EVERY time I eat meat, but meat can be sourced
from animals that die from natural causes and road kill, and
those exceptions prove your premise to be a false one.
Here, below is where YOU finally admit that your premise
is false, and thereafter try to assert that it's the vegan's
premise rather than your own.

It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise;
it's the premise of "vegans".
Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003

Why are you using more than one identity in these
threads, Jonathan?

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:55:32 GMT, Jonathan Ball posting as Jay Santos > wrote:

>
>Face it, Coleman: "vegans" believe in the entire
>fallacy, starting with the first premise:

No, they do not, so take your straw man and burn it.

> If I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of animals

This premise of yours is false, and you've conceded it is after
I showed you that an improper relationship exists between the
antecedent (If I eat meat) and the consequent (I cause the
suffering and death of animals).

Such a conditional statement insists that I cause "the suffering
and death of animals" EVERY time I eat meat, but meat can
be sourced from animals that die from natural causes and road
kill, and those exceptions prove your premise to be a false one.

Here, below is where YOU finally admit that your premise is
false, and thereafter try to assert that it's the vegan's premise
rather than your own.

It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise;
it's the premise of "vegans".
Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003

You lose.

Why are you using more than one identity in these
threads, Jonathan?

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:55:32 GMT, Jonathan Ball posting as Jay Santos > wrote:

>
>Face it, Coleman: "vegans" believe in the entire
>fallacy, starting with the first premise:

No, they do not, so take your straw man and burn it.

> If I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of animals

This premise of yours is false, and you've conceded it is after
I showed you that an improper relationship exists between the
antecedent (If I eat meat) and the consequent (I cause the
suffering and death of animals).

Such a conditional statement insists that I cause "the suffering
and death of animals" EVERY time I eat meat, but meat can
be sourced from animals that die from natural causes and road
kill, and those exceptions prove your premise to be a false one.

Here, below is where YOU finally admit that your premise is
false, and thereafter try to assert that it's the vegan's premise
rather than your own.

It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise;
it's the premise of "vegans".
Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003

You lose.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> > So what is veganic agriculture then?
>>
>> It's agriculture without bonemeal, eggshells, livestock manure or
> other
>> animal based inputs. That does not mean vegans are considering
> collateral
>> damage to animals by agriculture. It's a completely different issue.
>
> I believe that it also includes compassionate growing and
> harvesting techniques, bringing cds down to 0.

In your imagination, not in reality..
http://www.organicpathways.co.nz/story.cfm?StoryID=190

Nothing about cds there.. but, predictably, like all "vegans" they make
unsustainable and outlandish comments about their diet.

"For one day or even one meal, experiment with a vegan diet, one free of
cruelty. You will feel better and your small gesture will have saved a life.
The world can change and you can change it. Just look at the end of your
fork; it is there you will see the future, violent or gentle."

It's just so convenient and easy to anoint onesself as a latter-day saint,
who could pass that up?

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> > So what is veganic agriculture then?
>>
>> It's agriculture without bonemeal, eggshells, livestock manure or
> other
>> animal based inputs. That does not mean vegans are considering
> collateral
>> damage to animals by agriculture. It's a completely different issue.
>
> I believe that it also includes compassionate growing and
> harvesting techniques, bringing cds down to 0.

In your imagination, not in reality..
http://www.organicpathways.co.nz/story.cfm?StoryID=190

Nothing about cds there.. but, predictably, like all "vegans" they make
unsustainable and outlandish comments about their diet.

"For one day or even one meal, experiment with a vegan diet, one free of
cruelty. You will feel better and your small gesture will have saved a life.
The world can change and you can change it. Just look at the end of your
fork; it is there you will see the future, violent or gentle."

It's just so convenient and easy to anoint onesself as a latter-day saint,
who could pass that up?

Retard wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:55:32 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>Face it, Coleman: "vegans" believe in the entire
>>fallacy, starting with the first premise:
>
>
> No, they do not

Yes, they do. They ALL believe it, and even after they
learn it's a fallacy, they STILL believe it, which is
the only way to explain the Irrational Search for
Micrograms (of Animal Parts).

>
>> If I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of animals
>
>
> This premise of yours is false

That premise of "vegans" is essentially true.

Retard wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:55:32 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>Face it, Coleman: "vegans" believe in the entire
>>fallacy, starting with the first premise:
>
>
> No, they do not

Yes, they do. They ALL believe it, and even after they
learn it's a fallacy, they STILL believe it, which is
the only way to explain the Irrational Search for
Micrograms (of Animal Parts).

>
>> If I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of animals
>
>
> This premise of yours is false

That premise of "vegans" is essentially true.

Retard wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:25:34 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>John Coleman wrote:
>>
>>>Ted Bell > wrote in message news:6ILsd.6701> No
>>>
>>>one in the U.S. or the UK who is a "vegan" would eat roadkill if she
>>>8<
>>>
>>>>weren't a "vegan". ALL "vegans" are talking about supermarket meat when
>>>>they decide not to eat meat. They never considered eating roadkill.
>>>
>>>
>>>I believe most vegans find meat unappealing after a few months or years off
>>>it. I was always repulsed by it even as a child.
>>
>>I don't believe you.
>>
>>You're straying from the point. "vegans", when they
>>shrilly and stupidly proclaim themselves "cruelty free"
>>over their refusal to eat meat, aren't talking about
>>roadkill. The moron Dreck Nash (Retard) was attempting
>>to show that the first premise of the fallacy followed
>>by all "vegans" is false:
>
>
> It is false,

It is a TRUE premise: the ONLY meat "vegans" are
talking about when they begin their fatuous fallacy is
grocery-store meat.

Although the premise is established as true, it doesn't
really matter: "vegans" BELIEVE it to be true, and
they adopt their goofy "lifestyle" as a response to
believing it to be true.

Retard wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:25:34 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>John Coleman wrote:
>>
>>>Ted Bell > wrote in message news:6ILsd.6701> No
>>>
>>>one in the U.S. or the UK who is a "vegan" would eat roadkill if she
>>>8<
>>>
>>>>weren't a "vegan". ALL "vegans" are talking about supermarket meat when
>>>>they decide not to eat meat. They never considered eating roadkill.
>>>
>>>
>>>I believe most vegans find meat unappealing after a few months or years off
>>>it. I was always repulsed by it even as a child.
>>
>>I don't believe you.
>>
>>You're straying from the point. "vegans", when they
>>shrilly and stupidly proclaim themselves "cruelty free"
>>over their refusal to eat meat, aren't talking about
>>roadkill. The moron Dreck Nash (Retard) was attempting
>>to show that the first premise of the fallacy followed
>>by all "vegans" is false:
>
>
> It is false,

It is a TRUE premise: the ONLY meat "vegans" are
talking about when they begin their fatuous fallacy is
grocery-store meat.

Although the premise is established as true, it doesn't
really matter: "vegans" BELIEVE it to be true, and
they adopt their goofy "lifestyle" as a response to
believing it to be true.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:04:15 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:25:34 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
[..]
>>>You're straying from the point. "vegans", when they
>>>shrilly and stupidly proclaim themselves "cruelty free"
>>>over their refusal to eat meat, aren't talking about
>>>roadkill. The moron Dreck Nash (Retard) was attempting
>>>to show that the first premise of the fallacy followed
>>>by all "vegans" is false:
>>
>> It is false,
>
>It is a TRUE premise:

You have already admitted that the premise is false, Jon,
so why try lying about it now?

It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise;
it's the premise of "vegans".
Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003

You were forced into accepting it was a false premise
after I showed you that an improper relationship exists
between the antecedent (If I eat meat) and the consequent
(I cause harm to animals).

Such a conditional proposition insists that I cause harm to
animals EVERY time I eat meat, but meat can be sourced
from animals that die from natural causes and road kill, and
those exceptions prove your premise to be a false one.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:04:07 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:55:32 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Face it, Coleman: "vegans" believe in the entire
>>>fallacy, starting with the first premise:
>>
>>
>> No, they do not
>
>Yes, they do. They ALL believe it

Ipse dixit and false. If all you've got is a straw man
argument, then I don't know why you even bother.
You don't get to say what ALL vegan think or believe.

Retard wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:04:15 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:25:34 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>>>>You're straying from the point. "vegans", when they
>>>>shrilly and stupidly proclaim themselves "cruelty free"
>>>>over their refusal to eat meat, aren't talking about
>>>>roadkill. The moron Dreck Nash (Retard) was attempting
>>>>to show that the first premise of the fallacy followed
>>>>by all "vegans" is false:
>>>
>>>It is false,
>>
>>It is a TRUE premise:
>
>
> You have already admitted that the premise is

true. It is a true premise. When the stupid "vegan"
begins his brainless recitation of the fallacy, "If I
eat meat...", he is ONLY talking about packaged
supermarket meat. That meat DOES necessitate the
suffering and death of animals, shitbag.

Retard wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:04:07 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:55:32 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Face it, Coleman: "vegans" believe in the entire
>>>>fallacy, starting with the first premise:
>>>
>>>
>>>No, they do not
>>
>>Yes, they do. They ALL believe it , and even after they
>>learn it's a fallacy, they STILL believe it, which is
>>the only way to explain the Irrational Search for
>>Micrograms (of Animal Parts).
>
>
> [...]

Respond to what's written, shitbag - ALL of it.

You cannot explain the Irrational Search for Micrograms
(of Animal Parts) EXCEPT by concluding that stupid
"vegans" *still* believe in the fallacy.

Retard wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:04:07 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:55:32 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Face it, Coleman: "vegans" believe in the entire
>>>>fallacy, starting with the first premise:
>>>
>>>
>>>No, they do not
>>
>>Yes, they do. They ALL believe it , and even after they
>>learn it's a fallacy, they STILL believe it, which is
>>the only way to explain the Irrational Search for
>>Micrograms (of Animal Parts).
>
>
> [...]

Respond to what's written, shitbag - ALL of it.

You cannot explain the Irrational Search for Micrograms
(of Animal Parts) EXCEPT by concluding that stupid
"vegans" *still* believe in the fallacy.

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 02:37:48 GMT, "Ted Bell" > wrote:
[..]
>No "vegan" who posts here, and who believes the fallacy

False. Vegans don't believe their food is produced
without some collateral deaths occurring during
the production, storage and distribution of it, and
if mind reading is all you've got to persuade the
reader that the opposite is true, then I don't know
why you even bother. You're making a fool of
yourself.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:15:29 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:04:07 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:55:32 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Face it, Coleman: "vegans" believe in the entire
>>>>>fallacy, starting with the first premise:
>>>>
>>>>No, they do not
>>>
>>>Yes, they do.

No, they do not. You don't get to say what others
believe or think, and it doesn't serve as a valid
argument either.

Reynard wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 02:37:48 GMT, "Ted Bell" > wrote:
> [..]
>
>>No "vegan" who posts here, and who believes the fallacy - and
>>they all do - is ever considering eating roadkill.
>
>
> False.

No, true: no "vegan" considers eating roadkill when he
starts to recite the fallacy, "If I eat meat..."

Reynard wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 02:37:48 GMT, "Ted Bell" > wrote:
> [..]
>
>>No "vegan" who posts here, and who believes the fallacy - and
>>they all do - is ever considering eating roadkill.
>
>
> False.

No, true: no "vegan" considers eating roadkill when he
starts to recite the fallacy, "If I eat meat..."

Retard wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:15:29 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:04:07 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:55:32 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Face it, Coleman: "vegans" believe in the entire
>>>>>>fallacy, starting with the first premise:
>>>>>
>>>>>No, they do not
>>>>
>>>>Yes, they do. They ALL believe it , and even after they
>>>>learn it's a fallacy, they STILL believe it, which is
>>>>the only way to explain the Irrational Search for
>>>>Micrograms (of Animal Parts).
>
>
> No, they do not.

Yes, they certainly do.

Retard wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:15:29 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:04:07 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:55:32 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Face it, Coleman: "vegans" believe in the entire
>>>>>>fallacy, starting with the first premise:
>>>>>
>>>>>No, they do not
>>>>
>>>>Yes, they do. They ALL believe it , and even after they
>>>>learn it's a fallacy, they STILL believe it, which is
>>>>the only way to explain the Irrational Search for
>>>>Micrograms (of Animal Parts).
>
>
> No, they do not.

Yes, they certainly do.

"Reynard" > wrote
> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 02:37:48 GMT, "Ted Bell" >
wrote:
> [..]
> >No "vegan" who posts here, and who believes the fallacy
>
> False. Vegans don't believe their food is produced
> without some collateral deaths occurring during
> the production, storage and distribution of it

It doesn't matter to the drug addict that he is destroying his brain and his
body, the buzz is all that counts.

It doesn't occur to the religious fanatic that he believes in an invisible
man in the sky, the belief is reassuring.

It's immaterial to the vegan that his beliefs are irrational, the buzz he
gets from smug self-righteousness is too good to give up.

"Reynard" > wrote
> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 02:37:48 GMT, "Ted Bell" >
wrote:
> [..]
> >No "vegan" who posts here, and who believes the fallacy
>
> False. Vegans don't believe their food is produced
> without some collateral deaths occurring during
> the production, storage and distribution of it

It doesn't matter to the drug addict that he is destroying his brain and his
body, the buzz is all that counts.

It doesn't occur to the religious fanatic that he believes in an invisible
man in the sky, the belief is reassuring.

It's immaterial to the vegan that his beliefs are irrational, the buzz he
gets from smug self-righteousness is too good to give up.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:21:00 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:15:29 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:04:07 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:55:32 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Face it, Coleman: "vegans" believe in the entire
>>>>>>>fallacy, starting with the first premise:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, they do not
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, they do. They ALL believe it , and even after they
>>>>>learn it's a fallacy, they STILL believe it, which is
>>>>>the only way to explain the Irrational Search for
>>>>>Micrograms (of Animal Parts).
>>
>> No, they do not.
>
>Yes, they certainly do.

Ipse dixit and false. You don't get to say what people
think or believe to support your argument. You're
making a fool of yourself.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:21:00 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:15:29 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:04:07 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:55:32 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Face it, Coleman: "vegans" believe in the entire
>>>>>>>fallacy, starting with the first premise:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, they do not
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, they do. They ALL believe it , and even after they
>>>>>learn it's a fallacy, they STILL believe it, which is
>>>>>the only way to explain the Irrational Search for
>>>>>Micrograms (of Animal Parts).
>>
>> No, they do not.
>
>Yes, they certainly do.

Ipse dixit and false. You don't get to say what people
think or believe to support your argument. You're
making a fool of yourself.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:12:55 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:04:15 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:25:34 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>> [..]
>>
>>>>>You're straying from the point. "vegans", when they
>>>>>shrilly and stupidly proclaim themselves "cruelty free"
>>>>>over their refusal to eat meat, aren't talking about
>>>>>roadkill. The moron Dreck Nash (Retard) was attempting
>>>>>to show that the first premise of the fallacy followed
>>>>>by all "vegans" is false:
>>>>
>>>>It is false,
>>>
>>>It is a TRUE premise:
>>
>> You have already admitted that the premise is
>
>true. It is a true premise.

You've already conceded that it's a false premise by
writing;

It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise;
it's the premise of "vegans".
Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003

Your logic is very poor. I've shown that an improper
relationship exists between the antecedent (If I eat meat)
and the consequent (I cause harm to animals).

Such a conditional statement insists that I cause harm to
animals EVERY time I eat meat, but meat can be sourced
from animals that die from natural causes and road kill, and
those exceptions prove your premise to be a false one.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:12:55 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:04:15 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:25:34 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>> [..]
>>
>>>>>You're straying from the point. "vegans", when they
>>>>>shrilly and stupidly proclaim themselves "cruelty free"
>>>>>over their refusal to eat meat, aren't talking about
>>>>>roadkill. The moron Dreck Nash (Retard) was attempting
>>>>>to show that the first premise of the fallacy followed
>>>>>by all "vegans" is false:
>>>>
>>>>It is false,
>>>
>>>It is a TRUE premise:
>>
>> You have already admitted that the premise is
>
>true. It is a true premise.

You've already conceded that it's a false premise by
writing;

It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise;
it's the premise of "vegans".
Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003

Your logic is very poor. I've shown that an improper
relationship exists between the antecedent (If I eat meat)
and the consequent (I cause harm to animals).

Such a conditional statement insists that I cause harm to
animals EVERY time I eat meat, but meat can be sourced
from animals that die from natural causes and road kill, and
those exceptions prove your premise to be a false one.