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
  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-01-2005, 01:52 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

little HIV+ felcher Ron wrote:
In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:

C. James Strutz wrote:

"Scented Nectar" wrote in message
...


I presented 2, homesteading and death.
I forgot about getting a farmer to grow
veganic for one or more. Both homesteading
and hiring a farmer are not in most
people's budget, that leaves only death
or buying commercial. Have I left
anything out? (keep in mind that eating
meat is not an option, nor is it 0 death)


Let me ask you a question: what would you do if the only two

options were
eating meat and death? Just curious...


She'd eat the meat. I think she's already said that.

Homo felcher Ron would just shriek, "False dilemma!
False dilemma!" and flounce away.


In the real world, such a dilemma does not exist. Therefore it is a
false dilemma.


"False dilemma" does not refer to the fact that the dilemma doesn't
exist in the real world. You are again committing a defintional
fallacy.


  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-01-2005, 02:01 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com,
"Rudy Canoza" wrote:

Ron wrote:
In article ,
Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron wrote:

In article ,
Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:

Then forced complicity

There is no such thing.

Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.

We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.

Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
person can be forced to comply with brute force
and coercion if applied firmly enough.


Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.


No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all.

A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that you feel
is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A dilemma is a
choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be exhaustive of
the truth.


The truth is that there are more options than chili or spaghetti --
skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and eating
earlier.

You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of "false
dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because you have
not identified logical dilemmas at all.

  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-01-2005, 02:05 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

little HIV+ felcher Ron wrote:
In article .com,
"Rudy Canoza" wrote:

little HIV+ felcher Ron wrote:
In article ,
Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron wrote:

In article ,
Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza


wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:

Then forced complicity

There is no such thing.

Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.

We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.

Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
person can be forced to comply with brute force
and coercion if applied firmly enough.

Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.


No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all.

A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that you

feel
is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A dilemma

is a
choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be exhaustive

of
the truth.


The truth is that there are more options than chili or spaghetti


Irrelevant. This is not about what you might *do*.

You STILL are misusing the word dilemma. The food choice isn't a
dilemma at all, it's just a food choice.

  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-01-2005, 02:11 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" wrote

What you have is a morality of convenience.

Do you feel life is a convenience?


Life in the city near a supermarket, in your comfy flat, near the job

you
know, with cable TV and internet, is a life based on convenience.


And that's a moral thing to you?


It's moral to me because I do not view killing of animals for my personal
convenience as immoral.

People who claim otherwise yet live a life of convenience anyway are
hypocrites.


  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-01-2005, 02:17 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Derek" wrote

Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
production,


If consuming meat links the consumer to the deaths in meat production,
and I
agree it does, then consuming rice links the consumer to the deaths in
rice
production.


Links, or creating causal relationships is also known as the logical
fallacy of insignificant cause.


This is not an example of insignificant cause.

The following example is quite parallel to the case of the rice consumer.

"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped defeat the Tory government
because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight as any other
vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause."
See the following link.. http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php




  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-01-2005, 02:20 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron wrote:

In article ,
Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:

Then forced complicity

There is no such thing.

Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.

We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.


Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
person can be forced to comply with brute force
and coercion if applied firmly enough.


Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.

I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding the
situation.


You are missing the point.. complicity implies willingness. Cooperating
under extreme duress does not form complicity.

[..]


  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-01-2005, 02:30 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"Rudy Canoza" wrote:

Ron wrote:
In article ,
Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron wrote:

In article ,
Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:

Then forced complicity

There is no such thing.

Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.

We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.

Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
person can be forced to comply with brute force
and coercion if applied firmly enough.

Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.


No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all.

A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that you feel
is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A dilemma is a
choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be exhaustive of
the truth.


The truth is that there are more options than chili or spaghetti --
skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and eating
earlier.


And many others, but there is no dilemma, just an either/or choice.

You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of "false
dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because you have
not identified logical dilemmas at all.



  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-01-2005, 02:54 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Derek" wrote

Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
production,

If consuming meat links the consumer to the deaths in meat production,
and I
agree it does, then consuming rice links the consumer to the deaths in
rice
production.


Links, or creating causal relationships is also known as the logical
fallacy of insignificant cause.


This is not an example of insignificant cause.

The following example is quite parallel to the case of the rice consumer.

"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped defeat the Tory government
because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight as any other
vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause."
See the following link.. http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php


What a powerful feeling that must be. An eating disordered person is
likely to overestimate their impact in the world and to create
situations where this would be viewed this way.

The example is a case of insignificant cause. Is the cause of the defeat
of the tory because the person voted reform, or because many voted
reform, liberal and chose not to vote at all. Placing one's self at the
centre of the universe is a frequent occurence for those who need to
feel special, important, powerful, in control, etc.
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-01-2005, 02:55 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron wrote:

In article ,
Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:

Then forced complicity

There is no such thing.

Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.

We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.

Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
person can be forced to comply with brute force
and coercion if applied firmly enough.


Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.

I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding the
situation.


You are missing the point.. complicity implies willingness. Cooperating
under extreme duress does not form complicity.


Doing X because my arm may be broken is still complicity.
  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-01-2005, 03:27 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"Rudy Canoza" wrote:

Ron wrote:
In article ,
Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron wrote:

In article ,
Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:

Then forced complicity

There is no such thing.

Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.

We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.

Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
person can be forced to comply with brute force
and coercion if applied firmly enough.

Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.

No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all.

A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that you feel
is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A dilemma is a
choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be exhaustive of
the truth.


The truth is that there are more options than chili or spaghetti --
skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and eating
earlier.


And many others, but there is no dilemma, just an either/or choice.

You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of "false
dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because you have
not identified logical dilemmas at all.


Dutch, you only look more foolish by persisting.

Please illustrate in any meaningful way how the three examples are
different

I can choose chocolate cake or rice pudding (You limit my choices)
I can choose to be with you or against you (bush limits my choices)
I can choose chili or spaghetti (rudy limits my choices)

Contrary to the example of the chocolate cake where -- not choosing
chocolate cake would make one an idiot, bush's comments don't presume
anything other than what is stated.

Bush didn't state if you don't choose against terrorism then you are....


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-01-2005, 03:40 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:
In article , "Dutch"


wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article

.com,
"Rudy Canoza" wrote:

Ron wrote:
In article ,
Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron

wrote:

In article ,
Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza


wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:

Then forced complicity

There is no such thing.

Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.

We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.

Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
person can be forced to comply with brute force
and coercion if applied firmly enough.

Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.

No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all.

A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that

you feel
is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A

dilemma is a
choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be

exhaustive of
the truth.

The truth is that there are more options than chili or spaghetti

--
skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and

eating
earlier.


And many others, but there is no dilemma, just an either/or choice.

You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of

"false
dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because you

have
not identified logical dilemmas at all.


Dutch, you only look more foolish by persisting.


No, Ron - that would be you who demonstrates your foolishness by
persisting. A choice is not inherently a dilemma. You are wrong to
keep insisting that it is.


Please illustrate in any meaningful way how the three examples are
different

I can choose chocolate cake or rice pudding (You limit my choices)
I can choose to be with you or against you (bush limits my choices)
I can choose chili or spaghetti (rudy limits my choices)

They are all the same: NOT dilemmas.

  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-01-2005, 03:51 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com,
"Rudy Canoza" wrote:

Ron wrote:
In article , "Dutch"


wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article

.com,
"Rudy Canoza" wrote:

Ron wrote:
In article ,
Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron

wrote:

In article ,
Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza


wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:

Then forced complicity

There is no such thing.

Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.

We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.

Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
person can be forced to comply with brute force
and coercion if applied firmly enough.

Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.

No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all.

A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that

you feel
is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A

dilemma is a
choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be

exhaustive of
the truth.

The truth is that there are more options than chili or spaghetti

--
skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and

eating
earlier.

And many others, but there is no dilemma, just an either/or choice.

You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of

"false
dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because you

have
not identified logical dilemmas at all.


Dutch, you only look more foolish by persisting.


No, Ron - that would be you who demonstrates your foolishness by
persisting. A choice is not inherently a dilemma. You are wrong to
keep insisting that it is.


Limiting choices always creates a dilemma.

Please illustrate in any meaningful way how the three examples are
different

I can choose chocolate cake or rice pudding (You limit my choices)
I can choose to be with you or against you (bush limits my choices)
I can choose chili or spaghetti (rudy limits my choices)

They are all the same: NOT dilemmas.

  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-01-2005, 04:13 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron AGAIN chose against adult engagement and wrote:
In article .com,
"Rudy Canoza" wrote:

Ron wrote:
In article , "Dutch"


wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article

.com,
"Rudy Canoza" wrote:

Ron wrote:
In article ,
Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron

wrote:

In article

,
Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza


wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:

Then forced complicity

There is no such thing.

Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.

We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a

choice.

Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
person can be forced to comply with brute force
and coercion if applied firmly enough.

Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.

No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all.

A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice

that
you feel
is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A

dilemma is a
choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be

exhaustive of
the truth.

The truth is that there are more options than chili or

spaghetti
--
skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and

eating
earlier.

And many others, but there is no dilemma, just an either/or

choice.

You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of

"false
dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because

you
have
not identified logical dilemmas at all.

Dutch, you only look more foolish by persisting.


No, Ron - that would be you who demonstrates your foolishness by
persisting. A choice is not inherently a dilemma. You are wrong

to
keep insisting that it is.


Limiting choices always creates a dilemma.

No, Ron. That is a misuse of the word dilemma.

  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-01-2005, 04:27 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
In article , "Dutch"


wrote:

The example is a case of insignificant cause.


No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The
one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.

You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
running your mouth about it.

  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-01-2005, 04:54 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com,
"Rudy Canoza" wrote:

Ron AGAIN chose against adult engagement and wrote:
In article .com,
"Rudy Canoza" wrote:

Ron wrote:
In article , "Dutch"

wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article
.com,
"Rudy Canoza" wrote:

Ron wrote:
In article ,
Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron
wrote:

In article

,
Derek wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza

wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:

Then forced complicity

There is no such thing.

Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.

We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a

choice.

Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
person can be forced to comply with brute force
and coercion if applied firmly enough.

Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.

No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all.

A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice

that
you feel
is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A
dilemma is a
choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be
exhaustive of
the truth.

The truth is that there are more options than chili or

spaghetti
--
skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and
eating
earlier.

And many others, but there is no dilemma, just an either/or

choice.

You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of
"false
dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because

you
have
not identified logical dilemmas at all.

Dutch, you only look more foolish by persisting.

No, Ron - that would be you who demonstrates your foolishness by
persisting. A choice is not inherently a dilemma. You are wrong

to
keep insisting that it is.


Limiting choices always creates a dilemma.

No, Ron. That is a misuse of the word dilemma.


Please explain a dilemma.


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
dreck nash's distortion and eating disorder usual suspect Vegan 0 14-08-2005 02:37 PM
Gaverick Matheny gets "vegans" into DEEPER hot water Jay Santos Vegan 0 31-12-2004 05:36 AM
dreck nash is a crybaby liar usual suspect Vegan 6 23-05-2004 07:16 PM
Dreck was in custody in a Scottish gaol in April 2002 Jonathan Ball Vegan 1 11-05-2004 08:30 AM
Unethical Dreck Nash and his omission of context Jonathan Ball Vegan 31 03-11-2003 07:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017