"Scented Nectar" believed the classic "vegan" Denying
the Antecedent fallacy, and she has admitted it:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.

She implicitly admits she believed this, because she
EXPLICITLY admits to following the rule - "do not
consume animal parts" - and several days ago she
admitted to not having known about CDs:

At first I didn't know about cds or what the
initials meant (collateral deaths).

"Scented Nectar" - 13 Dec 2004

Then, she retreated to the much weaker position that
she is "doing the best [she] can". This is also
exposed as a false statement, and she now admits that
she is NOT doing the best she can:

Jay:
Meaningless [that the naive twit has switched from
"lacto-ovo" to strictly vegetarian]. Even WITHIN a
strictly vegetarian diet - "lacto-ovo" is not
vegetarian, no matter what bullshit web page told
you it is - you can choose higher or lower
CD-causing foods. You do NOT attempt to learn which
ones are high CD foods and which ones cause fewer.
You ONLY follow the stupid rule: don't consume
animal parts. That does nothing to help you choose
among competing vegetable foods.

the naive twit:
Now you're trying a divide and conquer technique.
You'd love to see vegans arguing over who's lunch
today has more cds. The fact still stands that vegans
as a whole cause less cds than meateaters as a
whole.

Implicitly, the naive pothead twit has abandoned her
always-fatuous claim that she was doing the best that
she could, and she NOW is trying to wrap herself in
some kind of flag of "average vegan-ness".

It is NOT playing any kind of "word game" to identify
implicit statements someone makes, and the admissions
have in no way been "engineered". The naive pothead
twit has not been forced to admit to anything she
doesn't really believe.