|
repost: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
The brilliant analysis below was written by Jonathan Ball. I'm reposting
it for the benefit of vegan newbies and wannabes as well as for those searching for truth and wisdom: --------------------------------- From: Jonathan Ball Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals Subject: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)' Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT --------------------------------- All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals I do not eat meat; Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear. However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and if so, exclude it from their diet. Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend - and none of the other participants seemed especially eager to eliminate canned black olives from their diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms. Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the animal collateral death toll caused by the production and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if the geographic locale of production has anything to do with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't kill animals. It simply is not credible. How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans" *still* accept it. I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on what they call "ethics", their devotion to the religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them away. In that light, the obsessive Search for Micrograms takes on the character of a religious ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times. |
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:23:52 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>The brilliant analysis below was written by Jonathan Ball. I'm reposting >it for the benefit of vegan newbies and wannabes as well as for those >searching for truth and wisdom: > >--------------------------------- >From: Jonathan Ball >Newsgroups: >talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetari an,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals >Subject: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)' >Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT >--------------------------------- > > >All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by >subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals > > I do not eat meat; > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. But when Jonathan put this to you before you became his water boy, you said that it was "not well-thought out or true; [start - Jonathan Ball to you] > Here's how "vegan" engage in Denying the Antecedent: > If I eat meat, animals died for my diet. > I don't eat meat. > Therefore, no animals died for my diet. That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing the algebra). * It has one glaring problem: it's just not true.* You can repeat that line of argument over and over, but repetition is not truth. (And I'm more than willing to discuss the nature of truth and whether it can be syllogistically determined. Fool.) The fewer animals that are killed for food and other products, the fewer that are forced into a chain of forced birth, forced feeding, and forced death for food and products. That aspect of it is zero-sum. If we don't eat them, the market will respond accordingly. [end] *my emphasis* http://tinyurl.com/3dmy4 You were either lying then or you're lying now, so which is closer to the truth? |
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:23:52 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>The brilliant analysis below was written by Jonathan Ball. I'm reposting >it for the benefit of vegan newbies and wannabes as well as for those >searching for truth and wisdom: > >--------------------------------- >From: Jonathan Ball >Newsgroups: >talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetari an,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals >Subject: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)' >Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT >--------------------------------- > > >All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by >subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals > > I do not eat meat; > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. But when Jonathan put this to you before you became his water boy, you said that it was "not well-thought out or true; [start - Jonathan Ball to you] > Here's how "vegan" engage in Denying the Antecedent: > If I eat meat, animals died for my diet. > I don't eat meat. > Therefore, no animals died for my diet. That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing the algebra). * It has one glaring problem: it's just not true.* You can repeat that line of argument over and over, but repetition is not truth. (And I'm more than willing to discuss the nature of truth and whether it can be syllogistically determined. Fool.) The fewer animals that are killed for food and other products, the fewer that are forced into a chain of forced birth, forced feeding, and forced death for food and products. That aspect of it is zero-sum. If we don't eat them, the market will respond accordingly. [end] *my emphasis* http://tinyurl.com/3dmy4 You were either lying then or you're lying now, so which is closer to the truth? |
Retard wrote:
>>The brilliant analysis below was written by Jonathan Ball. I'm reposting >>it for the benefit of vegan newbies and wannabes as well as for those >>searching for truth and wisdom: >> >>--------------------------------- >>From: Jonathan Ball >>Newsgroups: >>talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetar ian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals >>Subject: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)' >>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT >>--------------------------------- >> >> >>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by >>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: >> >> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals >> >> I do not eat meat; >> >> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. > > > But when Jonathan put this to you before ....I did my homework... > you said that it was "not well-thought out or true; I reconsidered my initial evaluations upon a course of education. Unlike you, I learned and applied new, better information. It turned out that Jon Ball is correct in his assessments of veganism. I learn from my mistakes; you just keep making the some ones over and over again. That's the main difference between you and me, Dreck -- that and the fact that I'm not a big fat, lazy, self-crippled, cuckolded, nymshifting, dog-beating ex-greasemonkey. > [start - Jonathan Ball to you] Digging really deep in the archives in your desparation to stir the shit, you blue-footed cuckold. <...> |
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:31:22 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote: >>> >>>The brilliant analysis below was written by Jonathan Ball. I'm reposting >>>it for the benefit of vegan newbies and wannabes as well as for those >>>searching for truth and wisdom: >>> >>>--------------------------------- >>>From: Jonathan Ball >>>Newsgroups: >>>talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegeta rian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals >>>Subject: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)' >>>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT >>>--------------------------------- >>> >>> >>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by >>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: >>> >>> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals >>> >>> I do not eat meat; >>> >>> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. >> >> But when Jonathan put this to you before >...I did my homework... >> you said that it was "not well-thought out or true; > >I reconsidered my initial evaluations upon a course of education. Then explain why you thought it was false and why you now claim it to be true. Was your logic back then so poor that you didn't understand what you were writing about, and can we dismiss everything you wrote back then on the same basis, that you didn't know what you were writing about? >> [start - Jonathan Ball to you] > ><...> <unsnip> [start - Jonathan Ball to you] > Here's how "vegan" engage in Denying the Antecedent: > If I eat meat, animals died for my diet. > I don't eat meat. > Therefore, no animals died for my diet. That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing the algebra). * It has one glaring problem: it's just not true.* You can repeat that line of argument over and over, but repetition is not truth. (And I'm more than willing to discuss the nature of truth and whether it can be syllogistically determined. Fool.) The fewer animals that are killed for food and other products, the fewer that are forced into a chain of forced birth, forced feeding, and forced death for food and products. That aspect of it is zero-sum. If we don't eat them, the market will respond accordingly. [end] *my emphasis* http://tinyurl.com/3dmy4 You were either lying then or you're lying now, so which is closer to the truth? <endsnip> You always snip out the material which proves you've lied. |
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:31:22 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote: >>> >>>The brilliant analysis below was written by Jonathan Ball. I'm reposting >>>it for the benefit of vegan newbies and wannabes as well as for those >>>searching for truth and wisdom: >>> >>>--------------------------------- >>>From: Jonathan Ball >>>Newsgroups: >>>talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegeta rian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals >>>Subject: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)' >>>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT >>>--------------------------------- >>> >>> >>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by >>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: >>> >>> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals >>> >>> I do not eat meat; >>> >>> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. >> >> But when Jonathan put this to you before >...I did my homework... >> you said that it was "not well-thought out or true; > >I reconsidered my initial evaluations upon a course of education. Then explain why you thought it was false and why you now claim it to be true. Was your logic back then so poor that you didn't understand what you were writing about, and can we dismiss everything you wrote back then on the same basis, that you didn't know what you were writing about? >> [start - Jonathan Ball to you] > ><...> <unsnip> [start - Jonathan Ball to you] > Here's how "vegan" engage in Denying the Antecedent: > If I eat meat, animals died for my diet. > I don't eat meat. > Therefore, no animals died for my diet. That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing the algebra). * It has one glaring problem: it's just not true.* You can repeat that line of argument over and over, but repetition is not truth. (And I'm more than willing to discuss the nature of truth and whether it can be syllogistically determined. Fool.) The fewer animals that are killed for food and other products, the fewer that are forced into a chain of forced birth, forced feeding, and forced death for food and products. That aspect of it is zero-sum. If we don't eat them, the market will respond accordingly. [end] *my emphasis* http://tinyurl.com/3dmy4 You were either lying then or you're lying now, so which is closer to the truth? <endsnip> You always snip out the material which proves you've lied. |
Retard 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. I've repeatedly explained these things to you, but you're either too daft to comprehend or too ready to try to stir shit. Neither is very becoming, so don't take it as a compliment like you did that comparison to ****wit Harrison. |
Retard 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. I've repeatedly explained these things to you, but you're either too daft to comprehend or too ready to try to stir shit. Neither is very becoming, so don't take it as a compliment like you did that comparison to ****wit Harrison. |
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 was false and why you now claim it to be true, so I'll ask again, "Was your logic back then so poor that you didn't understand what you were writing about, and can we dismiss everything you wrote back then on the same basis, that you didn't know what you were writing about?" Look again at Jon's statement and your weak response to it. <unsnip> [start - Jonathan Ball to you] > Here's how "vegan" engage in Denying the Antecedent: > If I eat meat, animals died for my diet. > I don't eat meat. > Therefore, no animals died for my diet. That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing the algebra). * It has one glaring problem: it's just not true.* You can repeat that line of argument over and over, but repetition is not truth. (And I'm more than willing to discuss the nature of truth and whether it can be syllogistically determined. Fool.) The fewer animals that are killed for food and other products, the fewer that are forced into a chain of forced birth, forced feeding, and forced death for food and products. That aspect of it is zero-sum. If we don't eat them, the market will respond accordingly. [end] *my emphasis* http://tinyurl.com/3dmy4 You were either lying then or you're lying now, so which is closer to the truth? <endsnip> You always snip out the material which proves you've lied. |
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 was false and why you now claim it to be true, so I'll ask again, "Was your logic back then so poor that you didn't understand what you were writing about, and can we dismiss everything you wrote back then on the same basis, that you didn't know what you were writing about?" Look again at Jon's statement and your weak response to it. <unsnip> [start - Jonathan Ball to you] > Here's how "vegan" engage in Denying the Antecedent: > If I eat meat, animals died for my diet. > I don't eat meat. > Therefore, no animals died for my diet. That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing the algebra). * It has one glaring problem: it's just not true.* You can repeat that line of argument over and over, but repetition is not truth. (And I'm more than willing to discuss the nature of truth and whether it can be syllogistically determined. Fool.) The fewer animals that are killed for food and other products, the fewer that are forced into a chain of forced birth, forced feeding, and forced death for food and products. That aspect of it is zero-sum. If we don't eat them, the market will respond accordingly. [end] *my emphasis* http://tinyurl.com/3dmy4 You were either lying then or you're lying now, so which is closer to the truth? <endsnip> You always snip out the material which proves you've lied. |
Retard 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 Yes, it does. |
Retard 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 Yes, it does. |
"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. was false and why > you now claim it to be true That's because you can't deal with anything but dogma, dogma that agrees with your own. If you can't grow, nobody else can. |
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:37:59 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 > >Yes, it does. That's a dodge, dummy. Explain why you initially thought Jon's argument in promoting his strawman vegan fallacy was false and why you now claim it to be true. Was your logic back then so poor that you didn't understand what you were writing about, and can we dismiss everything you wrote back then on the same basis, that you didn't know what you were writing about?" Look again at Jon's statement and your weak response to it. <unsnip> [start - Jonathan Ball to you] > Here's how "vegan" engage in Denying the Antecedent: > If I eat meat, animals died for my diet. > I don't eat meat. > Therefore, no animals died for my diet. That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing the algebra). * It has one glaring problem: it's just not true.* You can repeat that line of argument over and over, but repetition is not truth. (And I'm more than willing to discuss the nature of truth and whether it can be syllogistically determined. Fool.) The fewer animals that are killed for food and other products, the fewer that are forced into a chain of forced birth, forced feeding, and forced death for food and products. That aspect of it is zero-sum. If we don't eat them, the market will respond accordingly. [end] *my emphasis* http://tinyurl.com/3dmy4 You were either lying then or you're lying now, so which is closer to the truth? <endsnip> You always snip out the material which proves you've lied. |
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:37:59 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 > >Yes, it does. That's a dodge, dummy. Explain why you initially thought Jon's argument in promoting his strawman vegan fallacy was false and why you now claim it to be true. Was your logic back then so poor that you didn't understand what you were writing about, and can we dismiss everything you wrote back then on the same basis, that you didn't know what you were writing about?" Look again at Jon's statement and your weak response to it. <unsnip> [start - Jonathan Ball to you] > Here's how "vegan" engage in Denying the Antecedent: > If I eat meat, animals died for my diet. > I don't eat meat. > Therefore, no animals died for my diet. That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing the algebra). * It has one glaring problem: it's just not true.* You can repeat that line of argument over and over, but repetition is not truth. (And I'm more than willing to discuss the nature of truth and whether it can be syllogistically determined. Fool.) The fewer animals that are killed for food and other products, the fewer that are forced into a chain of forced birth, forced feeding, and forced death for food and products. That aspect of it is zero-sum. If we don't eat them, the market will respond accordingly. [end] *my emphasis* http://tinyurl.com/3dmy4 You were either lying then or you're lying now, so which is closer to the truth? <endsnip> You always snip out the material which proves you've lied. |
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. Secondly, the so- called "vegan fallacy"as a whole is a straw man, since vegans do acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with their food. |
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. Secondly, the so- called "vegan fallacy"as a whole is a straw man, since vegans do acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with their food. |
"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, 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. > Secondly, the so- > called "vegan fallacy"as a whole is a straw man, since > vegans do acknowledge the collateral deaths associated > with their food. 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. |
"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, 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. > Secondly, the so- > called "vegan fallacy"as a whole is a straw man, since > vegans do acknowledge the collateral deaths associated > with their food. 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. |
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. >> Secondly, the so- called "vegan fallacy"as a whole is a >> straw man, since vegans do acknowledge the collateral >> deaths associated with their food. > >They do not. Yes they do. |
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. >> Secondly, the so- called "vegan fallacy"as a whole is a >> straw man, since vegans do acknowledge the collateral >> deaths associated with their food. > >They do not. Yes they do. |
"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. Not the meat idiot "vegans" would eat if they weren't idiot "vegans". They're thinking of the meat commonly available in supermarkets. They know, correctly, that if they were to eat that meat - the ONLY meat they would consider eating at all - it would cause the death of animals. > Secondly, the so- > called "vegan fallacy"as a whole is a straw man, since > vegans do acknowledge the collateral deaths associated > with their food. They ALLLLLLLLL start out by believing the fallacy. Even after the fallacy is pointed out to them, they still behave AS IF they believe it. It's the only way to explain the Irrational Search for Micrograms. The fallacy is an inherent part of bad "vegan" thinking. |
"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. Not the meat idiot "vegans" would eat if they weren't idiot "vegans". They're thinking of the meat commonly available in supermarkets. They know, correctly, that if they were to eat that meat - the ONLY meat they would consider eating at all - it would cause the death of animals. > Secondly, the so- > called "vegan fallacy"as a whole is a straw man, since > vegans do acknowledge the collateral deaths associated > with their food. They ALLLLLLLLL start out by believing the fallacy. Even after the fallacy is pointed out to them, they still behave AS IF they believe it. It's the only way to explain the Irrational Search for Micrograms. The fallacy is an inherent part of bad "vegan" thinking. |
"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 > >>>> 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, No one in the U.S. or the UK who is a "vegan" would eat roadkill if she weren't a "vegan". ALL "vegans" are talking about supermarket meat when they decide not to eat meat. They never considered eating roadkill. > > >> Secondly, the so- called "vegan fallacy"as a whole is a > >> straw man, since vegans do acknowledge the collateral > >> deaths associated with their food. > > > >They do not. > > Yes they do. No, they do not, not in any meaningful way. They pretend they don't know about it. |
"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. >>> Secondly, the so- called "vegan fallacy"as a whole is a >>> straw man, since vegans do acknowledge the collateral >>> deaths associated with their food. >> >>They do not. > > Yes they do. Not in any meaningful way. |
"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. >>> Secondly, the so- called "vegan fallacy"as a whole is a >>> straw man, since vegans do acknowledge the collateral >>> deaths associated with their food. >> >>They do not. > > Yes they do. Not in any meaningful way. |
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:11:14 GMT, "Ted Bell" > 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, > >No one in the U.S. or the UK who is a "vegan" would eat roadkill if she >weren't a "vegan". They can do, and that's what makes your first premise false. Your first premise goes; 1) If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals But it's a false premise on the basis 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 which have died from natural causes and without causing any harms. You yourself have agreed that the premise is false; "It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise of "vegans"." Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003 Throw again. >> >> Secondly, the so- called "vegan fallacy"as a whole is a >> >> straw man, since vegans do acknowledge the collateral >> >> deaths associated with their food. >> > >> >They do not. >> >> Yes they do. > >No, they do not Yes, the most certainly do. |
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:11:14 GMT, "Ted Bell" > 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, > >No one in the U.S. or the UK who is a "vegan" would eat roadkill if she >weren't a "vegan". They can do, and that's what makes your first premise false. Your first premise goes; 1) If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals But it's a false premise on the basis 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 which have died from natural causes and without causing any harms. You yourself have agreed that the premise is false; "It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise of "vegans"." Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003 Throw again. >> >> Secondly, the so- called "vegan fallacy"as a whole is a >> >> straw man, since vegans do acknowledge the collateral >> >> deaths associated with their food. >> > >> >They do not. >> >> Yes they do. > >No, they do not Yes, the most certainly do. |
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:11:14 GMT, "Ted Bell" > 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, > >No one in the U.S. or the UK who is a "vegan" would eat roadkill if she >weren't a "vegan". They can do, and that's what makes your first premise false. Your first premise goes; 1) If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals But it's a false premise on the basis 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 which have died from natural causes and without causing any harms. You yourself have agreed that the premise is false; "It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise of "vegans"." Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003 Throw again. >> >> Secondly, the so- called "vegan fallacy"as a whole is a >> >> straw man, since vegans do acknowledge the collateral >> >> deaths associated with their food. >> > >> >They do not. >> >> Yes they do. > >No, they do not Yes, the most certainly do. |
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, 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 >>>> Secondly, the so- called "vegan fallacy"as a whole is a >>>> straw man, since vegans do acknowledge the collateral >>>> deaths associated with their food. >>> >>>They do not. >> >> Yes they do. > >Not in any meaningful way. They do acknowledge them, so when claiming they deny them you lie. |
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, 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 >>>> Secondly, the so- called "vegan fallacy"as a whole is a >>>> straw man, since vegans do acknowledge the collateral >>>> deaths associated with their food. >>> >>>They do not. >> >> Yes they do. > >Not in any meaningful way. They do acknowledge them, so when claiming they deny them you lie. |
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:08:00 GMT, "Ted Bell" > 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. > >Not the meat idiot "vegans" would eat if they weren't idiot "vegans". Then you must include that in your premise. As it stands, your premise is false, and you've acknowledged it to be false by writing. "It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise of "vegans". Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003 >They're thinking of the meat commonly available in supermarkets. You can't rest your argument on what you think others are thinking, stupid. >> Secondly, the so- >> called "vegan fallacy"as a whole is a straw man, since >> vegans do acknowledge the collateral deaths associated >> with their food. > >They ALLLLLLLLL start out by believing the fallacy. The onus is now upon you to provide evidence which proves ALLLLLLLLLLLL vegans start out by believing your straw man fallacy, Jon, so get busy. |
"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 m... >>>>> 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. The premise implies the general (99.999999%) case. 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 because it refers to the general case, not the rare exception. It could be carefully worded to exclude exceptional circumstances, but that should not be necessary if there are ethical participants who agree on the subject matter. That excludes you. > > "It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise > of "vegans"." > Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003 > >>>>> Secondly, the so- called "vegan fallacy"as a whole is a >>>>> straw man, since vegans do acknowledge the collateral >>>>> deaths associated with their food. >>>> >>>>They do not. >>> >>> Yes they do. >> >>Not in any meaningful way. > > They do acknowledge them, so when claiming they deny them > you lie. Acknowledgement implies more than lip service. Again, your whole argument is based on quibbling over semantics, doesn't that tell you something? |
"Reynard" > wrote in message
... > On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:08:00 GMT, "Ted Bell" > wrote: > >"Retard" > wrote in message ... > >> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:40:40 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >"Retard" > 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. > > > >Not the meat idiot "vegans" would eat if they weren't idiot "vegans". > > Then you must include that in your premise. It's implied. No "vegan" who posts here, and who believes the fallacy - and they all do - is ever considering eating roadkill. > >> Secondly, the so- > >> called "vegan fallacy"as a whole is a straw man, since > >> vegans do acknowledge the collateral deaths associated > >> with their food. > > > >They ALLLLLLLLL start out by believing the fallacy. |
"Retard" > wrote in message
... > On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:11:14 GMT, "Ted Bell" > 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 > >> >>>> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:16:30 GMT, usual suspect > > >> >>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>Retard 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, > > > >No one in the U.S. or the UK who is a "vegan" would eat roadkill if she > >weren't a "vegan". > > They can do No. No one who becomes a "vegan" ever considered eating roadkill. |
"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, 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) 2) It is EFFECTIVELY true. No "vegan", or 99.999% of actual meat eaters, would consider eating roadkill. In a practical sense, the premise is true: if you eat meat - i.e., if you go into a supermarket and buy some chops and eat them - you are contributing to a process that causes some amount of suffering, and death, to animals. That's why "vegans" don't eat meat. They wouldn't eat roadkill even if they *did* decide to start eating meat. > > >>>> Secondly, the so- called "vegan fallacy"as a whole is a > >>>> straw man, since vegans do acknowledge the collateral > >>>> deaths associated with their food. > >>> > >>>They do not. > >> > >> Yes they do. > > > >Not in any meaningful way. > > They do acknowledge them, Effectively, they don't: they continue to eat produce that caused CDs, even though they don't need to do so. They do not *meaningfully* acknowledge the CDs. Period. This is beyond dispute. |
"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) - 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. 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. John |
"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) - 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. 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. John |
"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? John |
"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? John |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter