On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:18:41 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>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

Your unsupported assertion is false. You cannot rest
your argument on what you assert others believe.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:39:04 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"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.

You're straying off the point, and even that effort won't
convince me that ALL vegans believe no collateral deaths
accrue during food production.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:39:04 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"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.

You're straying off the point, and even that effort won't
convince me that ALL vegans believe no collateral deaths
accrue during food production.

"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:39:04 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"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.
>
> You're straying off the point,

I made the point that veganism, like many human problems, involves an
addiction to a feeling.

> and even that effort won't
> convince me that ALL vegans believe no collateral deaths
> accrue during food production.

There's no accounting for irrational beliefs.

"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:39:04 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"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.
>
> You're straying off the point,

I made the point that veganism, like many human problems, involves an
addiction to a feeling.

> and even that effort won't
> convince me that ALL vegans believe no collateral deaths
> accrue during food production.

There's no accounting for irrational beliefs.

Retard wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:21:00 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>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 17:12:55 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> You've already conceded that it's

a true premise.

Retard wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:18:41 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Retard 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
>
>
> Your assertion is

true

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:48:06 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> 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:
>>>>
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 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.
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. Throw again.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:48:06 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> 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:
>>>>
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 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.
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. Throw again.

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 16:45:50 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:24:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:30:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:40:40 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>"Reynard" > wrote
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:16:30 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I reconsidered my initial evaluations upon a course of education.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then explain
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>My error stemmed principally from semantics and definitions. I did
>>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>then realize veganism was about food rather than politics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That doesn't explain why you initially thought Jon's argument
>>>>>>>> in promoting his strawman vegan fallacy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>True vegan fallacy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For a start, the first premise is false since meat can
>>>>>> be sourced without killing animals.
>>>>>
>>>>>Meat is not obtained from roadkill
>>>>
>>>> It can be and is scavenged, so the first premise is clearly a
>>>> false one. Meat can also be obtained from animals that have
>>>> died from old age rather than animals that have been killed, so
>>>> there's another exception which proves his first premise to be
>>>> false.
>>>
>>>You're way out of your depth. Exceptions do not make the rule.
>>
>> I never said they would,
>
>You implied that rare exceptions invalidate the premise, they don't.

Exceptions of any kind invalidate a premise.

>> but while exceptions exist the premise
>> remains false, as Jon who coined it in the first place for you all
>> to follow concedes;
>
>The premise is sound

It's false, as the author of it concedes by writing;

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

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 05:48:49 GMT, "Ted Bell" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:24:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>> >> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:30:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>> >>>> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:40:40 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>>>>"Reynard" > wrote
[..]
>> >>>>>True vegan fallacy.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> For a start, the first premise is false since meat can
>> >>>> be sourced without killing animals.
>> >>>
>> >>>Meat is not obtained from roadkill
>> >>
>> >> It can be and is scavenged, so the first premise is clearly a
>> >> false one. Meat can also be obtained from animals that have
>> >> died from old age rather than animals that have been killed, so
>> >> there's another exception which proves his first premise to be
>> >> false.
>> >
>> >You're way out of your depth. Exceptions do not make the rule.
>>
>> I never said they would, but while exceptions exist the premise
>> remains false, as Jon who coined it in the first place for you all
>> to follow concedes;
>>
>> "It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise
>> of "vegans"."
>> Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003
>
>1) If it's false,

It is false, and you know it, else you wouldn't have written
that above statement in June 03.

>then why do ALL "vegans" behave as if it's true? (They
>do)

The truth of it has nothing to do with how you perceive
people's behaviour. It's a false premise on the basis that an
improper relationship exists between the antecedent and its
consequent. The truth of it relies on logic.

For your conditional (if, then) proposition to be true, a proper
relationship between the antecedent (if I eat meat) and its
consequent (then I cause harm to animals) must exist. The
rules are that, only a sufficient condition needs to exist for
the consequent to exist, but that a necessary condition must
exist for the antecedent to exist.

Your antecedent (If I eat meat) is a sufficient condition for
the consequent (then I cause harm to animals) to exist, since
I can cause harm to animals in other ways apart from just
eating them, and thus far your conditional proposition is fine.
The consequent (then I cause harm to animals), however,
must be a necessary condition for the antecedent (If I eat
meat) to exist if your premise is to be found true, but this is
where your error lies because I can eat meat without causing
harm to animals by simply scavenging it from road kill or
eating a pet that died from old age. The proper relationship
which is vital to your conditional proposition doesn't exist, and
that's why it must be rejected.

Look at this true conditional (if, then) proposition below.

1) If the Queen resides at Buckingham Palace (antecedent),
then she lives in London (consequent)

As you can see, residing at Buckingham Palace need only
be a sufficient condition to be living in London, since she
might be residing anywhere in London and still be in London.
The sufficient condition is met. Also, the Queen does live in
London while resident at Buckingham Palace, which means
that the necessary condition is met. These rules are what
make and break any conditional proposition. Learn them!

Retard wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:48:06 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:12:55 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>>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:
>>>>>
> It is false

It is a true premise, insofar as all "vegans" conceive
of meat.

Retard wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 05:48:49 GMT, "Ted Bell" > wrote:
>
>>"Retard" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:24:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Retard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:30:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Retard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:40:40 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Retard" > wrote
>
> [..]
>
>>>>>>>>True vegan fallacy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>For a start, the first premise is false since meat can
>>>>>>>be sourced without killing animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Meat is not obtained from roadkill
>>>>>
>>>>>It can be and is scavenged, so the first premise is clearly a
>>>>>false one. Meat can also be obtained from animals that have
>>>>>died from old age rather than animals that have been killed, so
>>>>>there's another exception which proves his first premise to be
>>>>>false.
>>>>
>>>>You're way out of your depth. Exceptions do not make the rule.
>>>
>>>I never said they would, but while exceptions exist the premise
>>>remains false, as Jon who coined it in the first place for you all
>>>to follow concedes;
>>>
>>>"It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise
>>>of "vegans"."
>>>Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003
>>
>>1) If it's false, then why do ALL "vegans" behave as if it's true? (They
>>do)
>
>
> The truth of it has nothing to do

It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"
by morally confused and ethically shallow people.

>
> Look at this true conditional

No. It's irrelevant.

Retard wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 05:48:49 GMT, "Ted Bell" > wrote:
>
>>"Retard" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:24:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Retard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:30:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Retard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:40:40 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Retard" > wrote
>
> [..]
>
>>>>>>>>True vegan fallacy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>For a start, the first premise is false since meat can
>>>>>>>be sourced without killing animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Meat is not obtained from roadkill
>>>>>
>>>>>It can be and is scavenged, so the first premise is clearly a
>>>>>false one. Meat can also be obtained from animals that have
>>>>>died from old age rather than animals that have been killed, so
>>>>>there's another exception which proves his first premise to be
>>>>>false.
>>>>
>>>>You're way out of your depth. Exceptions do not make the rule.
>>>
>>>I never said they would, but while exceptions exist the premise
>>>remains false, as Jon who coined it in the first place for you all
>>>to follow concedes;
>>>
>>>"It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise
>>>of "vegans"."
>>>Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003
>>
>>1) If it's false, then why do ALL "vegans" behave as if it's true? (They
>>do)
>
>
> The truth of it has nothing to do

It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"
by morally confused and ethically shallow people.

>
> Look at this true conditional

No. It's irrelevant.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:03:02 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:48:06 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>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:
>>>>>>
>> It is false
>
>It is a true premise

It's a false premise on the basis that an improper relationship
exists between the antecedent and its consequent. The truth
of it relies on logic.

For your conditional (if, then) proposition to be true, a proper
relationship between the antecedent (if I eat meat) and its
consequent (then I cause harm to animals) must exist. The
rules are that, only a sufficient condition needs to exist for
the consequent to exist, but that a necessary condition must
exist for the antecedent to exist.

Your antecedent (If I eat meat) is a sufficient condition for
the consequent (then I cause harm to animals) to exist, since
I can cause harm to animals in other ways apart from just
eating them, and thus far your conditional proposition is fine.
The consequent (then I cause harm to animals), however,
must be a necessary condition for the antecedent (If I eat
meat) to exist if your premise is to be found true, but this is
where your error lies because I can eat meat without causing
harm to animals by simply scavenging it from road kill or
eating a pet that died from old age. The proper relationship
which is vital to your conditional proposition doesn't exist, and
that's why it must be rejected.

Look at this true conditional (if, then) proposition below.

1) If the Queen resides at Buckingham Palace (antecedent),
then she lives in London (consequent)

As you can see, residing at Buckingham Palace need only
be a sufficient condition to be living in London, since she
might be residing anywhere in London and still be in London.
The sufficient condition is met. Also, the Queen does live in
London while resident at Buckingham Palace, which means
that the necessary condition is met. These rules are what
make and break any conditional proposition. Learn them!

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. Throw again.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:09:36 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 05:48:49 GMT, "Ted Bell" > wrote:
>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:24:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:30:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:40:40 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>"Reynard" > wrote
>>
>>>>>>>>>True vegan fallacy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>For a start, the first premise is false since meat can
>>>>>>>>be sourced without killing animals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Meat is not obtained from roadkill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It can be and is scavenged, so the first premise is clearly a
>>>>>>false one. Meat can also be obtained from animals that have
>>>>>>died from old age rather than animals that have been killed, so
>>>>>>there's another exception which proves his first premise to be
>>>>>>false.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're way out of your depth. Exceptions do not make the rule.
>>>>
>>>>I never said they would, but while exceptions exist the premise
>>>>remains false, as Jon who coined it in the first place for you all
>>>>to follow concedes;
>>>>
>>>>"It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise
>>>>of "vegans"."
>>>>Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003
>>>
>>>1) If it's false, then why do ALL "vegans" behave as if it's true? (They
>>>do)
>>
>> The truth of it has nothing to do
>
>It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"

The truth of it has nothing to do with how you perceive
people's behaviour. It's a false premise on the basis that an
improper relationship exists between the antecedent and its
consequent. The truth of it relies on logic.

For your conditional (if, then) proposition to be true, a proper
relationship between the antecedent (if I eat meat) and its
consequent (then I cause harm to animals) must exist. The
rules are that, only a sufficient condition needs to exist for
the consequent to exist, but that a necessary condition must
exist for the antecedent to exist.

Your antecedent (If I eat meat) is a sufficient condition for
the consequent (then I cause harm to animals) to exist, since
I can cause harm to animals in other ways apart from just
eating them, and thus far your conditional proposition is fine.
The consequent (then I cause harm to animals), however,
must be a necessary condition for the antecedent (If I eat
meat) to exist if your premise is to be found true, but this is
where your error lies because I can eat meat without causing
harm to animals by simply scavenging it from road kill or
eating a pet that died from old age. The proper relationship
which is vital to your conditional proposition doesn't exist, and
that's why it must be rejected.

Look at this true conditional (if, then) proposition below.

1) If the Queen resides at Buckingham Palace (antecedent),
then she lives in London (consequent)

As you can see, residing at Buckingham Palace need only
be a sufficient condition to be living in London, since she
might be residing anywhere in London and still be in London.
The sufficient condition is met. Also, the Queen does live in
London while resident at Buckingham Palace, which means
that the necessary condition is met. These rules are what
make and break any conditional proposition. Learn them!

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. Throw again.

"Reynard" > wrote

> >You implied that rare exceptions invalidate the premise, they don't.
>
> Exceptions of any kind invalidate a premise.
>
> >> but while exceptions exist the premise
> >> remains false, as Jon who coined it in the first place for you all
> >> to follow concedes;
> >
> >The premise is sound
>
> It's false, as the author of it concedes by writing;
>
> "It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise
> of "vegans"."
> Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003

"When I eat meat I cause animals to be killed" is a true premise.

"Reynard" > wrote

> >You implied that rare exceptions invalidate the premise, they don't.
>
> Exceptions of any kind invalidate a premise.
>
> >> but while exceptions exist the premise
> >> remains false, as Jon who coined it in the first place for you all
> >> to follow concedes;
> >
> >The premise is sound
>
> It's false, as the author of it concedes by writing;
>
> "It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise
> of "vegans"."
> Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003

"When I eat meat I cause animals to be killed" is a true premise.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:55:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote
>> >
>> >You implied that rare exceptions invalidate the premise, they don't.
>>
>> Exceptions of any kind invalidate a premise.
>>
>> >> but while exceptions exist the premise
>> >> remains false, as Jon who coined it in the first place for you all
>> >> to follow concedes;
>> >
>> >The premise is sound
>>
>> It's false, as the author of it concedes by writing;
>>
>> "It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise
>> of "vegans"."
>> Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003
>
>"When I eat meat I cause animals to be killed" is a true premise.

Some premises seem true on first inspection but soon
fall to the ground when exceptions are found. Take this
example;

Multiples of 6 are multiples of 3.

12, 24, and 36 suggests the premise is true, but 39 proves
it to be false.

"Reynard" > wrote in message
news
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:55:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Reynard" > wrote
>>> >
>>> >You implied that rare exceptions invalidate the premise, they don't.
>>>
>>> Exceptions of any kind invalidate a premise.
>>>
>>> >> but while exceptions exist the premise
>>> >> remains false, as Jon who coined it in the first place for you all
>>> >> to follow concedes;
>>> >
>>> >The premise is sound
>>>
>>> It's false, as the author of it concedes by writing;
>>>
>>> "It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise
>>> of "vegans"."
>>> Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003
>>
>>"When I eat meat I cause animals to be killed" is a true premise.
>
> Some premises seem true on first inspection but soon
> fall to the ground when exceptions are found. Take this
> example;

That does not apply to the above premise. Exceptions such as road-kill,
death of natural causes, or "meat-in-a-petri-dish" fall outside the scope
and intent of the statement, regardless of who is making it.

> Multiples of 6 are multiples of 3.
>
> 12, 24, and 36 suggests the premise is true, but 39 proves
> it to be false.

LOL! Man, you are messed up dude. Better recheck your "maths".

You ****ing idiot! ALL multiples of 6 are multiples of 3, WITHOUT
EXCEPTION.

Retard wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:03:02 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:48:06 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:12:55 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>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:
>>>>>>>
>>>It is false
>>
>>It is a true premise
>
>
> It's a false premise

It is a true premise: the only meat "vegans" are
considering when they THINK the premise is supermarket
meat.

Retard wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:03:02 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:48:06 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:12:55 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>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:
>>>>>>>
>>>It is false
>>
>>It is a true premise
>
>
> It's a false premise

It is a true premise: the only meat "vegans" are
considering when they THINK the premise is supermarket
meat.

Retard wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:09:36 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 05:48:49 GMT, "Ted Bell" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Retard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:24:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Retard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:30:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Retard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:40:40 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Retard" > wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>True vegan fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>For a start, the first premise is false since meat can
>>>>>>>>>be sourced without killing animals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Meat is not obtained from roadkill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It can be and is scavenged, so the first premise is clearly a
>>>>>>>false one. Meat can also be obtained from animals that have
>>>>>>>died from old age rather than animals that have been killed, so
>>>>>>>there's another exception which proves his first premise to be
>>>>>>>false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're way out of your depth. Exceptions do not make the rule.
>>>>>
>>>>>I never said they would, but while exceptions exist the premise
>>>>>remains false, as Jon who coined it in the first place for you all
>>>>>to follow concedes;
>>>>>
>>>>>"It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise
>>>>>of "vegans"."
>>>>>Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003
>>>>
>>>>1) If it's false, then why do ALL "vegans" behave as if it's true? (They
>>>>do)
>>>
>>>The truth of it has nothing to do
>>
>>It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"
>
>
> The truth of it has nothing to do

It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"

Retard wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:09:36 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 05:48:49 GMT, "Ted Bell" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Retard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:24:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Retard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:30:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Retard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:40:40 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Retard" > wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>True vegan fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>For a start, the first premise is false since meat can
>>>>>>>>>be sourced without killing animals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Meat is not obtained from roadkill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It can be and is scavenged, so the first premise is clearly a
>>>>>>>false one. Meat can also be obtained from animals that have
>>>>>>>died from old age rather than animals that have been killed, so
>>>>>>>there's another exception which proves his first premise to be
>>>>>>>false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're way out of your depth. Exceptions do not make the rule.
>>>>>
>>>>>I never said they would, but while exceptions exist the premise
>>>>>remains false, as Jon who coined it in the first place for you all
>>>>>to follow concedes;
>>>>>
>>>>>"It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise
>>>>>of "vegans"."
>>>>>Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003
>>>>
>>>>1) If it's false, then why do ALL "vegans" behave as if it's true? (They
>>>>do)
>>>
>>>The truth of it has nothing to do
>>
>>It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"
>
>
> The truth of it has nothing to do

It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"

Reynard wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:55:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"Reynard" > wrote
>>
>>>>You implied that rare exceptions invalidate the premise, they don't.
>>>
>>>Exceptions of any kind invalidate a premise.

**** off. You are incompetent.

>>>
>>>
>>>>>but while exceptions exist the premise
>>>>>remains false, as Jon who coined it in the first place for you all
>>>>>to follow concedes;
>>>>
>>>>The premise is sound
>>>
>>>
>>
>>"When I eat meat I cause animals to be killed" is a true premise.
>
>
> Some premises seem true on first inspection but soon
> fall to the ground when exceptions are found. Take this
> example;
>
> Multiples of 6 are multiples of 3.
>
> 12, 24, and 36 suggests the premise is true, but 39 proves
> it to be false.

You ****ing, incompetent moron! ALL multiples of 6 are
*necessarily* multiples of 3. In your usual
incompetence, you got the wording backwards. If you
had written "multiples of 3 are multiples of 6", then
given the same examples, you would have had something
correct (even though trivial and uninteresting, as
always.) But you ****ED UP! As always...

ALL multiples of 6 are multiples of 3, you goddamned
self-crippled FAT blowpig.

Reynard wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:55:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"Reynard" > wrote
>>
>>>>You implied that rare exceptions invalidate the premise, they don't.
>>>
>>>Exceptions of any kind invalidate a premise.

**** off. You are incompetent.

>>>
>>>
>>>>>but while exceptions exist the premise
>>>>>remains false, as Jon who coined it in the first place for you all
>>>>>to follow concedes;
>>>>
>>>>The premise is sound
>>>
>>>
>>
>>"When I eat meat I cause animals to be killed" is a true premise.
>
>
> Some premises seem true on first inspection but soon
> fall to the ground when exceptions are found. Take this
> example;
>
> Multiples of 6 are multiples of 3.
>
> 12, 24, and 36 suggests the premise is true, but 39 proves
> it to be false.

You ****ing, incompetent moron! ALL multiples of 6 are
*necessarily* multiples of 3. In your usual
incompetence, you got the wording backwards. If you
had written "multiples of 3 are multiples of 6", then
given the same examples, you would have had something
correct (even though trivial and uninteresting, as
always.) But you ****ED UP! As always...

ALL multiples of 6 are multiples of 3, you goddamned
self-crippled FAT blowpig.

Retard wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:55:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"Retard" > wrote
>>
>>>>You implied that rare exceptions invalidate the premise, they don't.
>>>
>>>Exceptions of any kind invalidate a premise.

**** off. You are incompetent.

>>>
>>>
>>>>>but while exceptions exist the premise
>>>>>remains false, as Jon who coined it in the first place for you all
>>>>>to follow concedes;
>>>>
>>>>The premise is sound
>>>
>>>It's false, as the author of it concedes by writing;
>>>
>>>"It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise
>>>of "vegans"."
>>>Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003
>>
>>"When I eat meat I cause animals to be killed" is a true premise.
>
>
> Some premises seem true on first inspection but soon
> fall to the ground when exceptions are found. Take this
> example;
>
> Multiples of 6 are multiples of 3.
>
> 12, 24, and 36 suggests the premise is true, but 39 proves
> it to be false.

You ****ing, incompetent moron! ALL multiples of 6 are
*necessarily* multiples of 3. In your usual
incompetence, you got the wording backwards. If you
had written "multiples of 3 are multiples of 6", then
given the same examples, you would have had something
correct (even though trivial and uninteresting, as
always.) But you ****ED UP! As always...

ALL multiples of 6 are multiples of 3, you goddamned
self-crippled FAT blowpig.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 06:34:00 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:55:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Reynard" > wrote
>>>
>>>>>You implied that rare exceptions invalidate the premise, they don't.
>>>>
>>>>Exceptions of any kind invalidate a premise.
>
>**** off. You are incompetent.

Then prove me wrong.

>>>>>>but while exceptions exist the premise
>>>>>>remains false, as Jon who coined it in the first place for you all
>>>>>>to follow concedes;
>>>>>
>>>>>The premise is sound
>>>>
>>>>It's false, as the author of it concedes by writing;
>>>>
>>>>"It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise
>>>>of "vegans"."
>>>>Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003
>>>
>>>"When I eat meat I cause animals to be killed" is a true premise.
>>
>> Some premises seem true on first inspection but soon
>> fall to the ground when exceptions are found. Take this
>> example;
>>
>> Multiples of 6 are multiples of 3.
>>
>> 12, 24, and 36 suggests the premise is true, but 39 proves
>> it to be false.
>
>ALL multiples of 6 are *necessarily* multiples of 3.

Yes. My mistake.

>you got the wording backwards.

I know, and I make no excuses for not realising that when
I wrote that premise.

>If you had written "multiples of 3 are multiples of 6", then
>given the same examples, you would have had something
>correct

Yes. I was going from memory, using the same example
I gave to Swamp back in June 03 (below);

"In my example to Dutch I gave a false premise in the
form:

"If certain numbers are divisible by 3, then they are
divisible by 6."

In most cases, multiples of 3 are also multiples of 6, but
number 39 and others prove that the premise is false.

Once the premise has been proved false it can never be
true at the same time, so Jon is lying."
Derek 22 Jun 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6gahd

Still, that error out of the way, my comment stands as
true; Some premises seem true on first inspection but
soon fall to the ground when exceptions are found.
Your premise does exactly that: falls to the ground
once exceptions such as road kill and domestic pets
are used as a source for meat.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:57:30 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:09:36 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 05:48:49 GMT, "Ted Bell" > wrote:
>>>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:24:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:30:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:40:40 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>"Reynard" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>True vegan fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>For a start, the first premise is false since meat can
>>>>>>>>>>be sourced without killing animals.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Meat is not obtained from roadkill
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It can be and is scavenged, so the first premise is clearly a
>>>>>>>>false one. Meat can also be obtained from animals that have
>>>>>>>>died from old age rather than animals that have been killed, so
>>>>>>>>there's another exception which proves his first premise to be
>>>>>>>>false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You're way out of your depth. Exceptions do not make the rule.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I never said they would, but while exceptions exist the premise
>>>>>>remains false, as Jon who coined it in the first place for you all
>>>>>>to follow concedes;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise
>>>>>>of "vegans"."
>>>>>>Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003
>>>>>
>>>>>1) If it's false, then why do ALL "vegans" behave as if it's true? (They
>>>>>do)
>>>>
>>>>The truth of it has nothing to do
>>>
>>>It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"
>>
>> The truth of it has nothing to do
>
>It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"

The truth of your premise has nothing to do with [the adoption
of "veganism"] or how you perceive people's behaviour. The
truth of it relies on logic. It's a false premise on the basis that
an improper relationship exists between the antecedent and its
consequent.

For your conditional (if, then) proposition to be true, a proper
relationship between the antecedent (if I eat meat) and its
consequent (then I cause harm to animals) must exist. The
rules are that, only a sufficient condition needs to exist for
the consequent to exist, but that a necessary condition must
exist for the antecedent to exist.

Your antecedent (If I eat meat) is a sufficient condition for
the consequent (then I cause harm to animals) to exist, since
I can cause harm to animals in other ways apart from just
eating them, and thus far your conditional proposition is fine.
The consequent (then I cause harm to animals), however,
must be a necessary condition for the antecedent (If I eat
meat) to exist if your premise is to be found true, but this is
where your error lies because I can eat meat without causing
harm to animals by simply scavenging it from road kill or
eating a pet that died from old age. The proper relationship
which is vital to your conditional proposition doesn't exist, and
that's why it must be rejected.

Look at this true conditional (if, then) proposition below.

1) If the Queen resides at Buckingham Palace (antecedent),
then she lives in London (consequent)

As you can see, residing at Buckingham Palace need only
be a sufficient condition to be living in London, since she
might be residing anywhere in London and still be in London.
The sufficient condition is met. Also, the Queen does live in
London while resident at Buckingham Palace, which means
that the necessary condition is met. These rules are what
make and break any conditional proposition. Learn them!

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. Throw again.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:57:30 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:09:36 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 05:48:49 GMT, "Ted Bell" > wrote:
>>>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:24:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:30:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:40:40 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>"Reynard" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>True vegan fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>For a start, the first premise is false since meat can
>>>>>>>>>>be sourced without killing animals.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Meat is not obtained from roadkill
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It can be and is scavenged, so the first premise is clearly a
>>>>>>>>false one. Meat can also be obtained from animals that have
>>>>>>>>died from old age rather than animals that have been killed, so
>>>>>>>>there's another exception which proves his first premise to be
>>>>>>>>false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You're way out of your depth. Exceptions do not make the rule.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I never said they would, but while exceptions exist the premise
>>>>>>remains false, as Jon who coined it in the first place for you all
>>>>>>to follow concedes;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise
>>>>>>of "vegans"."
>>>>>>Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003
>>>>>
>>>>>1) If it's false, then why do ALL "vegans" behave as if it's true? (They
>>>>>do)
>>>>
>>>>The truth of it has nothing to do
>>>
>>>It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"
>>
>> The truth of it has nothing to do
>
>It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"

The truth of your premise has nothing to do with [the adoption
of "veganism"] or how you perceive people's behaviour. The
truth of it relies on logic. It's a false premise on the basis that
an improper relationship exists between the antecedent and its
consequent.

For your conditional (if, then) proposition to be true, a proper
relationship between the antecedent (if I eat meat) and its
consequent (then I cause harm to animals) must exist. The
rules are that, only a sufficient condition needs to exist for
the consequent to exist, but that a necessary condition must
exist for the antecedent to exist.

Your antecedent (If I eat meat) is a sufficient condition for
the consequent (then I cause harm to animals) to exist, since
I can cause harm to animals in other ways apart from just
eating them, and thus far your conditional proposition is fine.
The consequent (then I cause harm to animals), however,
must be a necessary condition for the antecedent (If I eat
meat) to exist if your premise is to be found true, but this is
where your error lies because I can eat meat without causing
harm to animals by simply scavenging it from road kill or
eating a pet that died from old age. The proper relationship
which is vital to your conditional proposition doesn't exist, and
that's why it must be rejected.

Look at this true conditional (if, then) proposition below.

1) If the Queen resides at Buckingham Palace (antecedent),
then she lives in London (consequent)

As you can see, residing at Buckingham Palace need only
be a sufficient condition to be living in London, since she
might be residing anywhere in London and still be in London.
The sufficient condition is met. Also, the Queen does live in
London while resident at Buckingham Palace, which means
that the necessary condition is met. These rules are what
make and break any conditional proposition. Learn them!

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. Throw again.

Retard wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 06:34:00 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:55:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Retard" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>You implied that rare exceptions invalidate the premise, they don't.
>>>>>
>>>>>Exceptions of any kind invalidate a premise.
>>
>>**** off. You are incompetent.
>
>
> Then prove me wrong.

Done already.


>>>>"When I eat meat I cause animals to be killed" is a true premise.
>>>
>>>Some premises seem true on first inspection but soon
>>>fall to the ground when exceptions are found. Take this
>>>example;
>>>
>>>Multiples of 6 are multiples of 3.
>>>
>>>12, 24, and 36 suggests the premise is true, but 39 proves
>>>it to be false.
>>
>>ALL multiples of 6 are *necessarily* multiples of 3.
>
>
> Yes. My mistake.

It is exactly like all your other mistakes: the result
of INCOMPETENCE.

>
>
>>you got the wording backwards.
>
>
> I know

Thanks to me, you do.

You can't do simple arithmetic, and you can't do logic
- ever.

Retard wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 06:34:00 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:55:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Retard" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>You implied that rare exceptions invalidate the premise, they don't.
>>>>>
>>>>>Exceptions of any kind invalidate a premise.
>>
>>**** off. You are incompetent.
>
>
> Then prove me wrong.

Done already.


>>>>"When I eat meat I cause animals to be killed" is a true premise.
>>>
>>>Some premises seem true on first inspection but soon
>>>fall to the ground when exceptions are found. Take this
>>>example;
>>>
>>>Multiples of 6 are multiples of 3.
>>>
>>>12, 24, and 36 suggests the premise is true, but 39 proves
>>>it to be false.
>>
>>ALL multiples of 6 are *necessarily* multiples of 3.
>
>
> Yes. My mistake.

It is exactly like all your other mistakes: the result
of INCOMPETENCE.

>
>
>>you got the wording backwards.
>
>
> I know

Thanks to me, you do.

You can't do simple arithmetic, and you can't do logic
- ever.

Retard wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:57:30 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:09:36 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 05:48:49 GMT, "Ted Bell" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Retard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:24:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Retard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:30:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Retard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:40:40 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"Retard" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>True vegan fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>For a start, the first premise is false since meat can
>>>>>>>>>>>be sourced without killing animals.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Meat is not obtained from roadkill
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It can be and is scavenged, so the first premise is clearly a
>>>>>>>>>false one. Meat can also be obtained from animals that have
>>>>>>>>>died from old age rather than animals that have been killed, so
>>>>>>>>>there's another exception which proves his first premise to be
>>>>>>>>>false.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You're way out of your depth. Exceptions do not make the rule.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I never said they would, but while exceptions exist the premise
>>>>>>>remains false, as Jon who coined it in the first place for you all
>>>>>>>to follow concedes;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise
>>>>>>>of "vegans"."
>>>>>>>Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1) If it's false, then why do ALL "vegans" behave as if it's true? (They
>>>>>>do)
>>>>>
>>>>>The truth of it has nothing to do
>>>>
>>>>It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"
>>>>by morally confused and ethically shallow people.
>>>
>>>The truth of it has nothing to do
>>
>>It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism" by
>>morally confused and ethically shallow people.
>
>
> The truth of your premise has nothing to do with

It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"
by morally confused and ethically shallow people.

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.

It - "veganic" agriculture - doesn't exist. There are
CDs lurking behind everything you eat.

Why didn't you address Mr. Dutch's and Rick Etter's
reply to your silly comment?

I will elaborate further, in a new thread on The
Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'.
Please be sure to respond.

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.

It - "veganic" agriculture - doesn't exist. There are
CDs lurking behind everything you eat.

Why didn't you address Mr. Dutch's and Rick Etter's
reply to your silly comment?

I will elaborate further, in a new thread on The
Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'.
Please be sure to respond.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:56:43 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
[..]
>>
>> It's a false premise
>
>It is a true premise

You've already conceded 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

I realise you regret writing that quote, especially
since I dragged it from you by showing you your
error, but the fact remains that you DID write it,
and now you've got to live with it.

[Why does the fact that I made the statement
implicate that I believe it? All conversational
implicature is based on certain rules (or "maxims",
as the philosopher Paul Grice called them) which
govern cooperative communication. One of these
rules is that you should state only what you believe
(which Grice called a maxim of "Quality"). Thus,
from the fact that I state something, you can conclude
that I believe it. Of course, I might be lying, but
conversational implicature is based upon the
presumption that people are trying to cooperate,
and thus are obeying the rules.]
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:56:43 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
[..]
>>
>> It's a false premise
>
>It is a true premise

You've already conceded 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

I realise you regret writing that quote, especially
since I dragged it from you by showing you your
error, but the fact remains that you DID write it,
and now you've got to live with it.

[Why does the fact that I made the statement
implicate that I believe it? All conversational
implicature is based on certain rules (or "maxims",
as the philosopher Paul Grice called them) which
govern cooperative communication. One of these
rules is that you should state only what you believe
(which Grice called a maxim of "Quality"). Thus,
from the fact that I state something, you can conclude
that I believe it. Of course, I might be lying, but
conversational implicature is based upon the
presumption that people are trying to cooperate,
and thus are obeying the rules.]
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:07:48 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:57:30 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:09:36 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 05:48:49 GMT, "Ted Bell" > wrote:
>>>>>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:24:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:30:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:40:40 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Reynard" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>True vegan fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>For a start, the first premise is false since meat can
>>>>>>>>>>>>be sourced without killing animals.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Meat is not obtained from roadkill
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It can be and is scavenged, so the first premise is clearly a
>>>>>>>>>>false one. Meat can also be obtained from animals that have
>>>>>>>>>>died from old age rather than animals that have been killed, so
>>>>>>>>>>there's another exception which proves his first premise to be
>>>>>>>>>>false.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You're way out of your depth. Exceptions do not make the rule.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I never said they would, but while exceptions exist the premise
>>>>>>>>remains false, as Jon who coined it in the first place for you all
>>>>>>>>to follow concedes;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise
>>>>>>>>of "vegans"."
>>>>>>>>Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1) If it's false, then why do ALL "vegans" behave as if it's true?
>>>>>>> (They do)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The truth of it has nothing to do
>>>>>
>>>>>It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"
>>>>>by morally confused and ethically shallow people.
>>>>
>>>>The truth of it has nothing to do
>>>
>>>It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"

The truth of your premise has nothing to do with [the adoption
of "veganism"] or how you perceive people's behaviour. The
truth of it relies on logic. It's a false premise on the basis that
an improper relationship exists between the antecedent and its
consequent.

For your conditional (if, then) proposition to be true, a proper
relationship between the antecedent (if I eat meat) and its
consequent (then I cause harm to animals) must exist. The
rules are that, only a sufficient condition needs to exist for
the consequent to exist, but that a necessary condition must
exist for the antecedent to exist.

Your antecedent (If I eat meat) is a sufficient condition for
the consequent (then I cause harm to animals) to exist, since
I can cause harm to animals in other ways apart from just
eating them, and thus far your conditional proposition is fine.
The consequent (then I cause harm to animals), however,
must be a necessary condition for the antecedent (If I eat
meat) to exist if your premise is to be found true, but this is
where your error lies because I can eat meat without causing
harm to animals by simply scavenging it from road kill or
eating a pet that died from old age. The proper relationship
which is vital to your conditional proposition doesn't exist, and
that's why it must be rejected.

Look at this true conditional (if, then) proposition below.

1) If the Queen resides at Buckingham Palace (antecedent),
then she lives in London (consequent)

As you can see, residing at Buckingham Palace need only
be a sufficient condition to be living in London, since she
might be residing anywhere in London and still be in London.
The sufficient condition is met. Also, the Queen does live in
London while resident at Buckingham Palace, which means
that the necessary condition is met. These rules are what
make and break any conditional proposition. Learn them!

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. Throw again.