Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-12-2004, 05:23 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-12-2004, 05:41 PM
Reynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-12-2004, 05:41 PM
Reynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-12-2004, 06:31 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

...
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-12-2004, 06:48 PM
Reynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-12-2004, 06:48 PM
Reynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-12-2004, 08:16 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-12-2004, 08:16 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-12-2004, 08:35 PM
Reynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-12-2004, 08:35 PM
Reynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-12-2004, 08:37 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-12-2004, 08:37 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-12-2004, 08:40 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-12-2004, 09:04 PM
Reynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-12-2004, 09:04 PM
Reynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Irrational Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts) proves that"veganism" isn't about so-called "factory farms" at all Rudy Canoza[_8_] Vegan 0 19-08-2016 06:04 PM
Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism George Plimpton Vegan 42 02-10-2013 09:23 PM
Drive against animal slaughter by animal welfare groups [email protected] Vegan 0 18-11-2011 12:27 AM
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)' Rudy Canoza[_3_] Vegan 46 07-03-2008 04:48 PM
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)' Jonathan Ball Vegan 60 27-06-2004 08:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017