FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   Vegan (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/)
-   -   repost: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)' (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/46665-repost-faq-irrational-search.html)

usual suspect 05-12-2004 06:23 PM

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.

Reynard 05-12-2004 06:41 PM

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?

Reynard 05-12-2004 06:41 PM

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?

usual suspect 05-12-2004 07:31 PM

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.

<...>

Reynard 05-12-2004 07:48 PM

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.

Reynard 05-12-2004 07:48 PM

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.

usual suspect 05-12-2004 09:16 PM

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.

usual suspect 05-12-2004 09:16 PM

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.

Reynard 05-12-2004 09:35 PM

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.

Reynard 05-12-2004 09:35 PM

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.

usual suspect 05-12-2004 09:37 PM

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.

usual suspect 05-12-2004 09:37 PM

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.

Dutch 05-12-2004 09:40 PM


"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.



Reynard 05-12-2004 10:04 PM

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.

Reynard 05-12-2004 10:04 PM

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.

Reynard 05-12-2004 10:08 PM

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 05-12-2004 10:08 PM

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.

Dutch 05-12-2004 10:30 PM


"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.



Dutch 05-12-2004 10:30 PM


"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 05-12-2004 10:57 PM

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 05-12-2004 10:57 PM

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.

Ted Bell 05-12-2004 11:08 PM

"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.



Ted Bell 05-12-2004 11:08 PM

"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.



Ted Bell 05-12-2004 11:11 PM

"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.



Dutch 05-12-2004 11:24 PM


"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.



Dutch 05-12-2004 11:24 PM


"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 05-12-2004 11:45 PM

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.

Reynard 05-12-2004 11:45 PM

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.

Reynard 05-12-2004 11:45 PM

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.

Reynard 05-12-2004 11:48 PM

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.


Reynard 05-12-2004 11:48 PM

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.


Reynard 05-12-2004 11:54 PM

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.

Dutch 06-12-2004 01:45 AM


"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?



Ted Bell 06-12-2004 03:37 AM

"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.




Ted Bell 06-12-2004 03:39 AM

"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.



Ted Bell 08-12-2004 06:48 AM

"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.



John Coleman 12-12-2004 01:00 AM


"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



John Coleman 12-12-2004 01:00 AM


"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



John Coleman 12-12-2004 01:04 AM


"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



John Coleman 12-12-2004 01:04 AM


"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 06:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter