Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:01:06 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:24:31 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:11:55 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:35:25 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There's no perfect solution to this problem of the >>>>>>>> collateral >>>>>>>> deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is >>>>>>>> often >>>>>>>> foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his >>>>>>>> advantage >>>>>>>> when he's run out of valid arguments. >>>>>>>==================== >>>>>>>LOL It's the vegan that has no valid argument fool. >>>>>>>You've >>>>>>>yet to EVER prove your claims that your deit is better. >>>>>>>I have easily shown that there are diets that are better >>>>>>>than >>>>>>>many vegan diets, and yours in particular, killer. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, you can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and fruits. >>>>>===================== >>>>>You don't do that do you, fool! >>>> >>>> Nevertheless, your grass fed beef or hunted meat cannot best >>>> forging for wild vegetables and fruits. Whether I forage or >>>> not >>>> is irrelevant. >>>=========================== >>>LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong >> >> No, I've shown that I'm right by offering a better solution >> than the grass fed beef or hunted meat you offer: foraging >> for wild vegetables and fruits. You'll do best to include >> that solution when offering the least harm diet, but being >> the meat pusher that you are you'll probably ignore it and >> continue offering your CD-laden grass fed beef instead. >=================================== >No Yes, I have. You can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and fruits. >>>>>You cannot claim that grass-fed beef isn't an option >>>> >>>> Grass fed beef isn't a viable option because those animals >>>> accrue collateral deaths like any other steer in the feedlot >>>> from the crops they are fed. >>>============================= >>>No fool, they do not. >> >> Evidence from U.S.D.A. shows that grass fed beef can be >> and is fed grains at the feedlot like any other steer, and >> still qualify as grass fed beef. >========================== >No fool, they do not. I've shown you the evidence at least three times now, so if you have a dispute with U.S.D.A. take it up with them. >>>> While the meat pushers on these vegetarian and animal- >>>> related forums try to convince vegans that grass fed >>>> beef is that: grass fed, and therefore has a much lesser >>>> association with the collateral deaths caused by farmers >>>> growing animal feeds, they neglect to mention that >>>> grass fed beef is also fed grains at the feedlot just like >>>> any other steer, >>>============================= >>>Still willfully ignorant, eh killer? >> >> The evidence is indisputable and from U.S.D.A. You >> have no reason to dispute it, and it stands until you do. >========================== >LOL The evidence from U.S.D.A. ruins your claim that grass fed beef is all grass fed. It's finished at the feedlot and still qualifies as grass fed with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of approval. >> I've shown that they are, despite your denials. Read on and >> see that they are, just below this line. >====================== >I've read your lys It's evidence from U.S.D.A., you idiot. You can't dispute it as a lie, you imbecile. >>>> and therefore has a larger association >>>> with collateral deaths than they would like to admit. >>>> >>>> Meat-labeling guidelines are all over the place, allowing >>>> producers to make whatever claims they want to with >>>> impunity, so U.S.D.A. has "proposed minimum >>>> requirements for livestock and meat industry production/ >>>> marketing claims, when adopted, will become the United >>>> States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing >>>> Claims." They are as follows; >>>===================== >>>You've been show the idiocy of your claims >> >> No, I haven't. My claims are backed by evidence from >> U.S.D.A. and accompanying notes from disgruntled >> farmers. There's no getting away from the fact that >> the grass fed beef you offer as an option to regular >> beef is bogus, because both animals are finished on >> grains at the feedlot. It's not an alternative to regular >> steers at all if both are fed grains at the feedlot, as >> shown by U.S.D.A. >========================== >no fool, they are not backed up by the USDA. I've provided the link which directs you straight to U.S.D.A.'s page, just below in the summary, so stop lying Rick. >>>> [SUMMARY: These proposed minimum requirements >>>> for livestock and meat industry production/marketing >>>> claims, when adopted, will become the United States >>>> Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims. >>>> ..... >>>> Grass Fed Claims--Background: This claim refers >>>> to the feeding regimen for livestock raised on grass, >>>> green or range pasture, or forage throughout their >>>> life cycle, with only limited supplemental grain >>>> feeding allowed. Since it is necessary to assure the >>>> animal's well being at all times, limited supplementation >>>> is allowed during adverse environmental conditions. >>>> Grass feeding usually results in products containing >>>> lower levels of external and internal fat (including >>>> marbling) than grain-fed livestock products. >>>> >>>> Claim and Standard: >>>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or >>>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy >>>> source throughout the animal's life cycle. >>>> >>>> Dated: December 20, 2002. >>>> A.J. Yates, >>>> Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. >>>> [FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am] >>>> >>>> BILLING CODE 3410-02-P] >>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt There's that link. >>>> These "proposed minimum requirements mean that >>>> grass fed beef can in fact be fed up to 80% grains for >>>> 60 days in a feedlot, just like any other steer, and still >>>> qualify as grass fed beef. >>>> >>>> Comments from disgruntled grass fed beef producers >>>> bear this out and reveal the lie behind grass fed beef; >>>> >>>> [Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the >>>> most commented upon topic in this docket. We >>>> will not belabor all the points of concern which >>>> are addressed but will focus on the areas of >>>> concern to our cooperative of growers. While >>>> Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method >>>> IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS >>>> NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that >>>> you need to define both as what they ARE since >>>> that is what is motivating the consumer. >>>> >>>> While the intent of this language would suggest >>>> that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished, >>>> especially in Feedlots, the language as written is >>>> not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing >>>> 80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at >>>> the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef >>>> animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for >>>> 70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be >>>> fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under >>>> these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with >>>> consumer expectations as is borne out in the >>>> website comments.] >>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> Dear Mr. Carpenter, >>>> The proposed definition of the claim ?grass fed,? as it >>>> may appear on future USDA approved beef labels, is >>>> meaningless in the context of the current United States >>>> cattle market and would violate consumer trust if put >>>> into effect. >>>> >>>> The huge majority of all beef cattle in the United States >>>> are ?finished? on a grain-based ration in a commercial >>>> feed lot. Even so, virtually all American cattle spend >>>> 80% or more of their lives on pasture eating grasses, >>>> legumes and naturally occurring seeds (grain). Calling >>>> these animals ?grass fed,? as proposed in the new label >>>> claim definition, ignores the fact that in most cases their >>>> whole diet for the last few months of their lives contains >>>> no grass at all. Calling these animals ?grass fed? >>>> therefore >>>> becomes meaningless since virtually all cattle are grass fed >>>> as in the proposed definition. >>>> >>>> However, for the last decade, a small, but growing number >>>> of producers, including ourselves, have been marketing >>>> cattle finished exclusively on pasture and hay without the >>>> use of unnatural levels of grain-based seeds. This grass- >>>> finished beef has been marketed as ?grassfed? or ?grass- >>>> fed?, and these terms have come to be recognized by >>>> millions of consumers. The enormous publicity over the >>>> last year for grassfed meats (following on best-selling >>>> books such as The Omega Diet and Fast Food Nation) >>>> has reinforced the perception that ?grass fed? is >>>> synonymous with grass-finished and, by extension, that no >>>> supplemental grain has been provided to the animals. >>>> >>>> So, I feel that to call an animal that has received as much >>>> as 20% of its total nutrition in a grain feeding finishing >>>> program ?grass fed? could be misleading and confusing >>>> to the consumer. Grain finishing of ruminants is an >>>> artificial >>>> feeding practice born of our unique circumstances here in >>>> the United States. Grass feeding is the basis for ruminant >>>> health consistent with the genetic structure and nutritional >>>> requirements of the animals. The claim ?grass fed? as used >>>> on a USDA-approved label should mean that a grassfed >>>> animal has received no grain other than that which is >>>> naturally >>>> occurring on pasture or in hay feeds. >>>> >>>> I am glad that the USDA is attempting to bring some order >>>> to the grassfed meat discussion, but I join those voices that >>>> have been raised calling for a larger forum in which to >>>> discuss >>>> the definition of the grassfed claim as well as other new >>>> claims. >>>> I ask that the March 31, 2003, deadline for public comment >>>> be extended indefinitely to give all citizens, most >>>> particularly >>>> those who have been building the grassfed meats market, our >>>> customers, and those who support our efforts, the opportunity >>>> to have our perspective thoroughly considered. >>>> >>>> Thank you for your serious consideration of my comments. >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> >>>> Ernest Phinney >>>> General Manager >>>> Western Grasslands Beef] >>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc102.txt >>>> >>>> Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what it's name >>>> implies, and has just as much an association with >>>> the collateral deaths found in crop production as >>>> any other steer in the feedlot. >>>======================== >>>Nope. >> >> Your denial at this point in spite of all that evidence I've >> provided is absurd, though fully expected. >==================== >You've provided nothing, killer. Keep up that denial. It fits you well. Like I said, your denial at this point in light of all the evidence supporting my claim is absurd. You're absurd. >>>>>> Grass fed beef and hunted meat will always include the >>>>>> death of an animal or animals. The vegan will always beat >>>>>> the flesh eater where deaths are concerned, so you can >>>>>> take your CD laden grass fed beef and shove it, Rick. >>>>>====================== >>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>> >>>> What a silly response. >>>======================= >>>Because of a silly claim that you have continued to fail at >>>proving >> >> I've supported it by offering a better option to your best: >> foraging >> for wild vegetables and fruits. Better, best, bested - how's >> that for >> a declension? You lose, Etter. >=============================== >LOL No you haven't Foraging for wild vegetables and fruit beats your CD-laden grass fed beef, and it also beats hunting animals for food as well. You lose. >>>>>> You can't even bring yourself to concede that a vegan can >>>>>> eat a single meal without killing animals, >>>>>================================ >>>>>No fool, I never claimed that at all. >>>> >>>> Then, do you accept the fact that a vegan can eat a meal >>>> without any association of collateral deaths involved? >>>======================= >>>Not as practiced by you and every other vegan here on usenet >> >> Then you are indeed posing a false dilemma known as the >> perfect solution fallacy. >> >> The Perfect Solution Fallacy. >> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs >> when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists >> and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part >> of the problem would still exist after it was implemented. >> Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution >> would last very long politically once it had been implemented. >> Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of >> a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to >> imagine. >============================ >LOL Reposting your stupidity only confirms your stupidity That definition is valid, and I'll repost it as many times as needed. >> Examples: >> (critic) >> This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will >> still be >> able to get through! >> (Rejoinder) >> Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, but >> would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would stop? >> (critic) >> These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work. >> People are still going to drink and drive no matter what. >> (Rejoinder) >> It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the amount >> by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving >> enough to make the policy worthwhile? >> (Critic) >> Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car >> wrecks. >> (Rejoinder) >> It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but >> isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to make >> seat belts worthwhile? >> >> It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit >> any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not >> work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may >> be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when >> a specific example of a solution's failing is described in eye- >> catching detail and base rates are ignored (see availability >> heuristic). >> The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy There it is again. Read it and weep. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:01:55 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> >>>BTW, Jane Goodall has recently published a new book on the issue of >>>animal- and environmentally-friendly diet, for those who are interested. >> >> I ought to set some time aside > >Set some time aside for more productive pursuits. You don't get to tell me what to do, you talentless toady. >According to your twin, you're a shiftless giro parasite. Be my guest and believe whatever you want to believe from him. The pleasure's all mine. >Is your nation paying you to read and stir shit on usenet? I'll leave you to guess that one. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:30:48 +0000, Derek >
wrote: > >>> >>>That's your opinion, and I don't agree with it. >> >>Ok, here's a real example for you. Simple one, easy to prove. No >>"indirect", no "accidental" or anything else. I pick up a pound of >>organically grown brocolli. At the same time, I pick up a one-pound >>lobster. I eat the lobster, you eat the brocolli. Which one of us >>has just killed more animals *directly*? Hint - you have. > >How can that BE when YOU kill and eat the lobster? All I've >done is eat the broccoli. You've also killed and eaten several dozen thrips. They're small insects which are always found in broccoli, and even more so in my nice organically grown example. I chose this specifically because I have only killed *one* animal, an arthropod, you've killed an order of magnitude more, also arthropods, in one meal. Tsk. Most of your other "arguments" fall apart as well under scrutiny. For example there *have* been studies done (check Medline with the author "Key"), and suprisingly to the principal author (he's a vegan) there is - no- difference - between matched populations. Put in terms you'll understand - the vegan diet does not make one healthier. All assertions to the contrary. Almost all "studies" quoted by various vegan web sites are either anecdotal or misquote the studies themselves. Saying a vegan diet is your personal preference is the *only* valid argument for it. Every other argument falls apart, since other diets have similar heatlh benefits, can be shown to be more environmentally friendly, kill fewer animals, etc., etc., etc. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:16:51 -0500, Doug Jones > wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:30:48 +0000, Derek >wrote: >>>> >>>>That's your opinion, and I don't agree with it. >>> >>>Ok, here's a real example for you. Simple one, easy to prove. No >>>"indirect", no "accidental" or anything else. I pick up a pound of >>>organically grown brocolli. At the same time, I pick up a one-pound >>>lobster. I eat the lobster, you eat the brocolli. Which one of us >>>has just killed more animals *directly*? Hint - you have. >> >>How can that BE when YOU kill and eat the lobster? All I've >>done is eat the broccoli. > >You've also killed and eaten several dozen thrips. Then you've obviously moved the goalposts from broccoli to broccoli with bugs in, haven't you? Nice try, but I saw you coming. > They're small >insects which are always found in broccoli, and even more so in my >nice organically grown example. I don't regard insects as animals, even though they are defined as such. To me an animal is a class of creature that can demonstrate sentience. >I chose this specifically because I >have only killed *one* animal, an arthropod, you've killed an order of >magnitude more, also arthropods, in one meal. Tsk. The killing of bugs means nothing to me because I don't believe they have sentience or can be wronged in any way. Nice effort, but I've seen this tactic tried before. >Most of your other "arguments" fall apart as well under scrutiny. For >example there *have* been studies done (check Medline with the author >"Key"), and suprisingly to the principal author (he's a vegan) there >is - no- difference - between matched populations. What the Hell are you talking about? >Put in terms >you'll understand - the vegan diet does not make one healthier. Non sequitur, ipse dixit and false. >All assertions to the contrary. Write complete sentences so I can understand what you're trying to say, or are you trying to be vague intentionally? >Almost all "studies" quoted by various >vegan web sites are either anecdotal or misquote the studies >themselves. What studies are you talking about? >Saying a vegan diet is your personal preference is the *only* valid >argument for it. I disagree. >Every other argument falls apart, since other diets >have similar heatlh benefits, Ipse dixit and false. >can be shown to be more environmentally Ipse dixit and false. >friendly Ipse dixit and false. >kill fewer animals Ipse dixit and false. When are you going to try supporting these claim you keep pulling out of your arse? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:34:12 +0000, Derek >
wrote: >On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:16:51 -0500, Doug Jones > wrote: >>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:30:48 +0000, Derek >wrote: >>>>> >>>>>That's your opinion, and I don't agree with it. >>>> >>>>Ok, here's a real example for you. Simple one, easy to prove. No >>>>"indirect", no "accidental" or anything else. I pick up a pound of >>>>organically grown brocolli. At the same time, I pick up a one-pound >>>>lobster. I eat the lobster, you eat the brocolli. Which one of us >>>>has just killed more animals *directly*? Hint - you have. >>> >>>How can that BE when YOU kill and eat the lobster? All I've >>>done is eat the broccoli. >> >>You've also killed and eaten several dozen thrips. > >Then you've obviously moved the goalposts from broccoli to >broccoli with bugs in, haven't you? Nice try, but I saw you >coming. > Nope, no goalpost shifting at all. All broccoli has bugs in it. Live with it. You never saw it coming, otherwise you wouldn't have bitten the bait. >> They're small >>insects which are always found in broccoli, and even more so in my >>nice organically grown example. > >I don't regard insects as animals, even though they are defined >as such. To me an animal is a class of creature that can >demonstrate sentience. > Hmm.. according to several of your colleagues, lobsters are sentient - despite the fact that they have the same nervous system as a thrip. So, under your defniition, it's perfectly fine to shift your goalposts. Now it's fine to eat animals if you can define them as "non-sentient". >>I chose this specifically because I >>have only killed *one* animal, an arthropod, you've killed an order of >>magnitude more, also arthropods, in one meal. Tsk. > >The killing of bugs means nothing to me because I don't believe >they have sentience or can be wronged in any way. Nice effort, >but I've seen this tactic tried before. > >>Most of your other "arguments" fall apart as well under scrutiny. For >>example there *have* been studies done (check Medline with the author >>"Key"), and suprisingly to the principal author (he's a vegan) there >>is - no- difference - between matched populations. > >What the Hell are you talking about? > I gave you a pointer. Try Medline, use an author search - the author's last name is "Key". Do a Google search on this newsgroup looking for this same discussion - John Mercer posted quite a few discussions on this. >>Put in terms >>you'll understand - the vegan diet does not make one healthier. > >Non sequitur, ipse dixit and false. > >>All assertions to the contrary. > >Write complete sentences so I can understand what you're >trying to say, or are you trying to be vague intentionally? > >>Almost all "studies" quoted by various >>vegan web sites are either anecdotal or misquote the studies >>themselves. > >What studies are you talking about? > >>Saying a vegan diet is your personal preference is the *only* valid >>argument for it. > >I disagree. > >>Every other argument falls apart, since other diets >>have similar heatlh benefits, > >Ipse dixit and false. > >>can be shown to be more environmentally > >Ipse dixit and false. > >>friendly > >Ipse dixit and false. > >>kill fewer animals > >Ipse dixit and false. > >When are you going to try supporting these claim you >keep pulling out of your arse? I just gave you the pointers. However, neither have you proven your claims with anything other than pointers to Wikipedia (which is not a primary source), and your own assertions. You've been moving goalposts all over the place. You haven't proven one thing, except to regurgitate the same propaganda that's been circulating this newsgroup (tpa, in this case) for the past 10 years that I've been around it. You're not even in Cerkowski's league - at least *he* tried to come up with some primary sources! ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:01:06 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:24:31 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:11:55 GMT, "rick" > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>news:epg8q11pghk6fr2tvngavsen9e1oknbbmt@4ax. com... >>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:35:25 GMT, "rick" > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:8j95q1p10h6mvbok0t0bsefcmptdevaifj@4a x.com... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There's no perfect solution to this problem of the >>>>>>>>> collateral >>>>>>>>> deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is >>>>>>>>> often >>>>>>>>> foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his >>>>>>>>> advantage >>>>>>>>> when he's run out of valid arguments. >>>>>>>>==================== >>>>>>>>LOL It's the vegan that has no valid argument fool. >>>>>>>>You've >>>>>>>>yet to EVER prove your claims that your deit is better. >>>>>>>>I have easily shown that there are diets that are better >>>>>>>>than >>>>>>>>many vegan diets, and yours in particular, killer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, you can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and >>>>>>> fruits. >>>>>>===================== >>>>>>You don't do that do you, fool! >>>>> >>>>> Nevertheless, your grass fed beef or hunted meat cannot >>>>> best >>>>> forging for wild vegetables and fruits. Whether I forage or >>>>> not >>>>> is irrelevant. >>>>=========================== >>>>LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong >>> >>> No, I've shown that I'm right by offering a better solution >>> than the grass fed beef or hunted meat you offer: foraging >>> for wild vegetables and fruits. You'll do best to include >>> that solution when offering the least harm diet, but being >>> the meat pusher that you are you'll probably ignore it and >>> continue offering your CD-laden grass fed beef instead. >>=================================== >>No > > Yes, I have. You can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and > fruits. > ============================== Resorting to your dishonest snipping again, eh fool. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again. >>>>>>You cannot claim that grass-fed beef isn't an option >>>>> >>>>> Grass fed beef isn't a viable option because those animals >>>>> accrue collateral deaths like any other steer in the >>>>> feedlot >>>>> from the crops they are fed. >>>>============================= >>>>No fool, they do not. >>> >>> Evidence from U.S.D.A. shows that grass fed beef can be >>> and is fed grains at the feedlot like any other steer, and >>> still qualify as grass fed beef. >>========================== >>No fool, they do not. > > I've shown you the evidence at least three times now, so if > you have a dispute with U.S.D.A. take it up with them. ======================= I did fool, by showing you what the USDA says, not the idiocy you can't comprehend correctly. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again. > >>>>> While the meat pushers on these vegetarian and animal- >>>>> related forums try to convince vegans that grass fed >>>>> beef is that: grass fed, and therefore has a much lesser >>>>> association with the collateral deaths caused by farmers >>>>> growing animal feeds, they neglect to mention that >>>>> grass fed beef is also fed grains at the feedlot just like >>>>> any other steer, >>>>============================= >>>>Still willfully ignorant, eh killer? >>> >>> The evidence is indisputable and from U.S.D.A. You >>> have no reason to dispute it, and it stands until you do. >>========================== >>LOL > > The evidence from U.S.D.A. ruins your claim that grass fed > beef is all grass fed. It's finished at the feedlot and still > qualifies > as grass fed with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of approval. =========================== No fool, the USDA backs up what I said, and I showed you the proof. that you cannot read what you post for comprehension is a well known flaw of yours, killer. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again. > >>> I've shown that they are, despite your denials. Read on and >>> see that they are, just below this line. >>====================== >>I've read your lys > > It's evidence from U.S.D.A., you idiot. You can't dispute it > as a lie, you imbecile. ============================= Yes, I can, and did, fool. You have failed to comprehend what you post, as usual. > >>>>> and therefore has a larger association >>>>> with collateral deaths than they would like to admit. >>>>> >>>>> Meat-labeling guidelines are all over the place, allowing >>>>> producers to make whatever claims they want to with >>>>> impunity, so U.S.D.A. has "proposed minimum >>>>> requirements for livestock and meat industry production/ >>>>> marketing claims, when adopted, will become the United >>>>> States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing >>>>> Claims." They are as follows; >>>>===================== >>>>You've been show the idiocy of your claims >>> >>> No, I haven't. My claims are backed by evidence from >>> U.S.D.A. and accompanying notes from disgruntled >>> farmers. There's no getting away from the fact that >>> the grass fed beef you offer as an option to regular >>> beef is bogus, because both animals are finished on >>> grains at the feedlot. It's not an alternative to regular >>> steers at all if both are fed grains at the feedlot, as >>> shown by U.S.D.A. >>========================== >>no fool, they are not backed up by the USDA. > > I've provided the link which directs you straight to U.S.D.A.'s > page, just below in the summary, so stop lying Rick. ============================== No fool, they don't say what you claim. I posted USDA sites that are direct and to the point. Ones that you missed, as usual. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again. > >>>>> [SUMMARY: These proposed minimum requirements >>>>> for livestock and meat industry production/marketing >>>>> claims, when adopted, will become the United States >>>>> Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims. >>>>> ..... >>>>> Grass Fed Claims--Background: This claim refers >>>>> to the feeding regimen for livestock raised on grass, >>>>> green or range pasture, or forage throughout their >>>>> life cycle, with only limited supplemental grain >>>>> feeding allowed. Since it is necessary to assure the >>>>> animal's well being at all times, limited supplementation >>>>> is allowed during adverse environmental conditions. >>>>> Grass feeding usually results in products containing >>>>> lower levels of external and internal fat (including >>>>> marbling) than grain-fed livestock products. >>>>> >>>>> Claim and Standard: >>>>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or >>>>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy >>>>> source throughout the animal's life cycle. >>>>> >>>>> Dated: December 20, 2002. >>>>> A.J. Yates, >>>>> Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. >>>>> [FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am] >>>>> >>>>> BILLING CODE 3410-02-P] >>>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt > > There's that link. ================== yes, and it doesn't say what you claim it does, killer. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again. > >>>>> These "proposed minimum requirements mean that >>>>> grass fed beef can in fact be fed up to 80% grains for >>>>> 60 days in a feedlot, just like any other steer, and still >>>>> qualify as grass fed beef. >>>>> >>>>> Comments from disgruntled grass fed beef producers >>>>> bear this out and reveal the lie behind grass fed beef; >>>>> >>>>> [Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the >>>>> most commented upon topic in this docket. We >>>>> will not belabor all the points of concern which >>>>> are addressed but will focus on the areas of >>>>> concern to our cooperative of growers. While >>>>> Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method >>>>> IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS >>>>> NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that >>>>> you need to define both as what they ARE since >>>>> that is what is motivating the consumer. >>>>> >>>>> While the intent of this language would suggest >>>>> that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished, >>>>> especially in Feedlots, the language as written is >>>>> not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing >>>>> 80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at >>>>> the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef >>>>> animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for >>>>> 70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be >>>>> fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under >>>>> these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with >>>>> consumer expectations as is borne out in the >>>>> website comments.] >>>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf >>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>> Dear Mr. Carpenter, >>>>> The proposed definition of the claim ?grass fed,? as it >>>>> may appear on future USDA approved beef labels, is >>>>> meaningless in the context of the current United States >>>>> cattle market and would violate consumer trust if put >>>>> into effect. >>>>> >>>>> The huge majority of all beef cattle in the United States >>>>> are ?finished? on a grain-based ration in a commercial >>>>> feed lot. Even so, virtually all American cattle spend >>>>> 80% or more of their lives on pasture eating grasses, >>>>> legumes and naturally occurring seeds (grain). Calling >>>>> these animals ?grass fed,? as proposed in the new label >>>>> claim definition, ignores the fact that in most cases their >>>>> whole diet for the last few months of their lives contains >>>>> no grass at all. Calling these animals ?grass fed? >>>>> therefore >>>>> becomes meaningless since virtually all cattle are grass >>>>> fed >>>>> as in the proposed definition. >>>>> >>>>> However, for the last decade, a small, but growing number >>>>> of producers, including ourselves, have been marketing >>>>> cattle finished exclusively on pasture and hay without the >>>>> use of unnatural levels of grain-based seeds. This grass- >>>>> finished beef has been marketed as ?grassfed? or ?grass- >>>>> fed?, and these terms have come to be recognized by >>>>> millions of consumers. The enormous publicity over the >>>>> last year for grassfed meats (following on best-selling >>>>> books such as The Omega Diet and Fast Food Nation) >>>>> has reinforced the perception that ?grass fed? is >>>>> synonymous with grass-finished and, by extension, that no >>>>> supplemental grain has been provided to the animals. >>>>> >>>>> So, I feel that to call an animal that has received as much >>>>> as 20% of its total nutrition in a grain feeding finishing >>>>> program ?grass fed? could be misleading and confusing >>>>> to the consumer. Grain finishing of ruminants is an >>>>> artificial >>>>> feeding practice born of our unique circumstances here in >>>>> the United States. Grass feeding is the basis for ruminant >>>>> health consistent with the genetic structure and >>>>> nutritional >>>>> requirements of the animals. The claim ?grass fed? as used >>>>> on a USDA-approved label should mean that a grassfed >>>>> animal has received no grain other than that which is >>>>> naturally >>>>> occurring on pasture or in hay feeds. >>>>> >>>>> I am glad that the USDA is attempting to bring some order >>>>> to the grassfed meat discussion, but I join those voices >>>>> that >>>>> have been raised calling for a larger forum in which to >>>>> discuss >>>>> the definition of the grassfed claim as well as other new >>>>> claims. >>>>> I ask that the March 31, 2003, deadline for public comment >>>>> be extended indefinitely to give all citizens, most >>>>> particularly >>>>> those who have been building the grassfed meats market, our >>>>> customers, and those who support our efforts, the >>>>> opportunity >>>>> to have our perspective thoroughly considered. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your serious consideration of my comments. >>>>> >>>>> Sincerely, >>>>> >>>>> Ernest Phinney >>>>> General Manager >>>>> Western Grasslands Beef] >>>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc102.txt >>>>> >>>>> Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what it's name >>>>> implies, and has just as much an association with >>>>> the collateral deaths found in crop production as >>>>> any other steer in the feedlot. >>>>======================== >>>>Nope. >>> >>> Your denial at this point in spite of all that evidence I've >>> provided is absurd, though fully expected. >>==================== >>You've provided nothing, killer. > > Keep up that denial. It fits you well. Like I said, your denial > at this point in light of all the evidence supporting my claim > is absurd. You're absurd. =========================== Again, the absurdaty is your lying about what the sutes you post say. Too bad you can't read for comprehension, eh fool? Therefore, your argument is bogus, again. > >>>>>>> Grass fed beef and hunted meat will always include the >>>>>>> death of an animal or animals. The vegan will always beat >>>>>>> the flesh eater where deaths are concerned, so you can >>>>>>> take your CD laden grass fed beef and shove it, Rick. >>>>>>====================== >>>>>>ROTFLMAO >>>>> >>>>> What a silly response. >>>>======================= >>>>Because of a silly claim that you have continued to fail at >>>>proving >>> >>> I've supported it by offering a better option to your best: >>> foraging >>> for wild vegetables and fruits. Better, best, bested - how's >>> that for >>> a declension? You lose, Etter. >>=============================== >>LOL No you haven't > > Foraging for wild vegetables and fruit beats your CD-laden > grass fed beef, and it also beats hunting animals for food > as well. You lose. ======================== No fool, you lose. You can't support it without your fairy-tales. It's really too bad for the animals you kill for your stupidity, hypocrite. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again. > >>>>>>> You can't even bring yourself to concede that a vegan can >>>>>>> eat a single meal without killing animals, >>>>>>================================ >>>>>>No fool, I never claimed that at all. >>>>> >>>>> Then, do you accept the fact that a vegan can eat a meal >>>>> without any association of collateral deaths involved? >>>>======================= >>>>Not as practiced by you and every other vegan here on usenet >>> >>> Then you are indeed posing a false dilemma known as the >>> perfect solution fallacy. >>> >>> The Perfect Solution Fallacy. >>> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs >>> when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists >>> and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part >>> of the problem would still exist after it was implemented. >>> Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution >>> would last very long politically once it had been >>> implemented. >>> Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea >>> of >>> a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to >>> imagine. >>============================ >>LOL Reposting your stupidity only confirms your stupidity > > That definition is valid, and I'll repost it as many times as > needed. > =========================== LOL Or until you really believe it? Too bad logic doesn't back you up, killer. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again. >>> Examples: >>> (critic) >>> This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will >>> still be >>> able to get through! >>> (Rejoinder) >>> Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, but >>> would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would >>> stop? >>> (critic) >>> These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work. >>> People are still going to drink and drive no matter what. >>> (Rejoinder) >>> It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the amount >>> by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving >>> enough to make the policy worthwhile? >>> (Critic) >>> Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in >>> car >>> wrecks. >>> (Rejoinder) >>> It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but >>> isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to make >>> seat belts worthwhile? >>> >>> It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit >>> any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not >>> work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it >>> may >>> be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when >>> a specific example of a solution's failing is described in >>> eye- >>> catching detail and base rates are ignored (see availability >>> heuristic). >>> The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma. >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy > > There it is again. Read it and weep. ============================== I have. You apparently haven't. At least not without your blinders on, hypocrite. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:25:02 -0500, Doug Jones > wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:34:12 +0000, Derek >wrote: >>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:16:51 -0500, Doug Jones > wrote: >>>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:30:48 +0000, Derek >wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>That's your opinion, and I don't agree with it. >>>>> >>>>>Ok, here's a real example for you. Simple one, easy to prove. No >>>>>"indirect", no "accidental" or anything else. I pick up a pound of >>>>>organically grown brocolli. At the same time, I pick up a one-pound >>>>>lobster. I eat the lobster, you eat the brocolli. Which one of us >>>>>has just killed more animals *directly*? Hint - you have. >>>> >>>>How can that BE when YOU kill and eat the lobster? All I've >>>>done is eat the broccoli. >>> >>>You've also killed and eaten several dozen thrips. >> >>Then you've obviously moved the goalposts from broccoli to >>broccoli with bugs in, haven't you? Nice try, but I saw you >>coming. > >Nope, no goalpost shifting at all. All broccoli has bugs in it. Then let's say that I didn't know that, for argument's sake. How are you NOT shifting the goalposts from broccoli to broccoli with bugs in it when not mentioning those bugs at the start? Just who do you think you're trying to play here? > Live >with it. You never saw it coming, otherwise you wouldn't have bitten >the bait. Your bait wasn't hooked with the fact that broccoli had bugs in it, so it was safe for me to just snatch that bait without the worry of being snagged by anything. Good effort, but your delivery gave it all away. >>> They're small >>>insects which are always found in broccoli, and even more so in my >>>nice organically grown example. >> >>I don't regard insects as animals, even though they are defined >>as such. To me an animal is a class of creature that can >>demonstrate sentience. > >Hmm.. according to several of your colleagues, lobsters are sentient - >despite the fact that they have the same nervous system as a thrip. If it's shown that they are sentient, then it would be wrong to eat them, in my opinion. >So, under your defniition, it's perfectly fine to shift your >goalposts. No, no goalpost-moving under my definition. > Now it's fine to eat animals if you can define them as >"non-sentient". If they aren't sentient, then it's fine to eat them, in my opinion. Other vegans might object to eating bugs, but I don't. >>>I chose this specifically because I >>>have only killed *one* animal, an arthropod, you've killed an order of >>>magnitude more, also arthropods, in one meal. Tsk. >> >>The killing of bugs means nothing to me because I don't believe >>they have sentience or can be wronged in any way. Nice effort, >>but I've seen this tactic tried before. >> >>>Most of your other "arguments" fall apart as well under scrutiny. For >>>example there *have* been studies done (check Medline with the author >>>"Key"), and suprisingly to the principal author (he's a vegan) there >>>is - no- difference - between matched populations. >> >>What the Hell are you talking about? >> >I gave you a pointer. Try Medline, use an author search - the >author's last name is "Key". Do a Google search on this newsgroup >looking for this same discussion - John Mercer posted quite a few >discussions on this. No. If you want to support your claims, YOU do your own research and then bring me the results. The onus is on you to support your claims, not me, so get busy. >>>Put in terms >>>you'll understand - the vegan diet does not make one healthier. >> >>Non sequitur, ipse dixit and false. >> >>>All assertions to the contrary. >> >>Write complete sentences so I can understand what you're >>trying to say, or are you trying to be vague intentionally? >> >>>Almost all "studies" quoted by various >>>vegan web sites are either anecdotal or misquote the studies >>>themselves. >> >>What studies are you talking about? >> >>>Saying a vegan diet is your personal preference is the *only* valid >>>argument for it. >> >>I disagree. >> >>>Every other argument falls apart, since other diets >>>have similar heatlh benefits, >> >>Ipse dixit and false. >> >>>can be shown to be more environmentally >> >>Ipse dixit and false. >> >>>friendly >> >>Ipse dixit and false. >> >>>kill fewer animals >> >>Ipse dixit and false. >> >>When are you going to try supporting these claim you >>keep pulling out of your arse? > >I just gave you the pointers. No, you haven't, and even if you did, pointers aren't good enough to support your unsupported claims. Follow your own pointers and bring me the facts. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
"Claire" > wrote in message oups.com... > Hang on - are you saying that non-vegans don't eat fruit, > vegetables > and grain products? ================= You might want to leave in some parts of the post you're replying to. > |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
"Derek" > wrote in message ... snippage... > > No. If you want to support your claims, YOU do your own > research and then bring me the results. The onus is on you > to support your claims, not me, so get busy. ========================= ROTFLMAO Right after you, killer!! You really are just too, too stupid, hypocrite! snippage... |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:45:05 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:33:54 -0500, dh@. wrote: >>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:52:45 +0000, Derek > wrote: >> >>>There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral >>>deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often >>>foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage >>[...] >>>(Rejoinder) >>>Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths >>>aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans, >>>and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill animals >>>intentionally for food. >> >>The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should >>Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet. >> >>S.L. Davis, > > .. and how many times those figures have been found >to be nothing other than guesswork. Davis' guesswork >is not peer-reviewed and has many flaws, as follows; > > [While eating animals who are grazed rather than > intensively confined would vastly improve the welfare > of farmed animals given their current mistreatment, > Davis does not succeed in showing this is preferable > to vegetarianism. First, Davis makes a mathematical > error in using total rather than per capita estimates > of animals killed; second, he focuses on the number > of animals killed in ruminant and crop production > systems and ignores important considerations about > the welfare of animals under both systems; and third, > he does not consider the number of animals who are > prevented from existing under the two systems. [...] >Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the >collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say. No matter what we do it will involve animals existing, unless we can prevent all of them from ever being born. So the question should ALWAYS be asked: which animals do we want to promote life for. If you feel it's none, then explain why. If you feel we should promote life for some and not for others, explain that. You, Dutch and Goo all agree that we should provide lives for wildlife INSTEAD OF lives for wildlife AND livestock, but none of you can explain WHICH wildlife, and/or WHY. Even more absurdly: you/"they" insist that we should consider the lives of wildlife and also other potential future wildlife, but we should NOT do the same in regards to livestock. The ONLY way to prevent the killing of wildlife in crop fields is to prevent them from living, the same as the only way to prevent humans, livestock, and all other beings from dying is to prevent them from living. Much as all of you appear to hate it for some odd reason, death means life, and life means death. ALWAYS!!! |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:08:38 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:45:05 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:33:54 -0500, dh@. wrote: >>>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:52:45 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>> >>>>There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral >>>>deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often >>>>foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage >>>[...] >>>>(Rejoinder) >>>>Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths >>>>aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans, >>>>and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill animals >>>>intentionally for food. >>> >>>The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should >>>Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet. >>> >>>S.L. Davis, >> >> .. and how many times those figures have been found >>to be nothing other than guesswork. Davis' guesswork >>is not peer-reviewed and has many flaws, as follows; >> >> [While eating animals who are grazed rather than >> intensively confined would vastly improve the welfare >> of farmed animals given their current mistreatment, >> Davis does not succeed in showing this is preferable >> to vegetarianism. First, Davis makes a mathematical >> error in using total rather than per capita estimates >> of animals killed; second, he focuses on the number >> of animals killed in ruminant and crop production >> systems and ignores important considerations about >> the welfare of animals under both systems; and third, >> he does not consider the number of animals who are >> prevented from existing under the two systems. >[...] >>Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the >>collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say. > > No matter what we do it will involve animals existing, So, playing a game of chess will involve animals existing, will it? >unless we can prevent all of them from ever being born. >So the question should ALWAYS be asked: which >animals do we want to promote life for. No it shouldn't. It's a stupid question. >If you feel it's none, then explain why. Why should I waste my time even considering such a stupid question in the first place? >If you feel we should promote >life for some and not for others, explain that. That's exactly the question being put to you by Dutch and Jon for over two weeks now, and you've dodged answering it at every turn, so explain to me why you favour livestock animals over wild animals, Harrison? Also, if your argument is to provide lives for livestock animals, why choose large animals that require a lot space when rats would populate that same space in larger numbers? Surely, if your goal is to produce more lives by eating livestock, you should be eating rats. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
"Derek" > wrote > On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:31:18 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>>> (Critic) >>>>>>>>> Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral >>>>>>>>> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals >>>>>>>>> still die for their food during crop production. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy >>>>>> >>>>>>The Fallacy is that veganism is a Perfect Solution, a "death-free >>>>>>lifestyle". >>>>> >>>>> Vegans don't claim that their lifestyle is the perfect solution >>>>> to the killing of animals in food production. >>>> >>>>Yes, for the most part that is exactly what they believe. >>> >>> No. >> >>At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution, > > No, What *do* they think is the best solution? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
"Derek" > wrote i > On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument > against veganism is a fallacy. There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument against veganism is the answer to a fallacy. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:16:51 -0500, Doug Jones > wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:30:48 +0000, Derek > >wrote: > >> >>>> >>>>That's your opinion, and I don't agree with it. >>> >>>Ok, here's a real example for you. Simple one, easy to prove. No >>>"indirect", no "accidental" or anything else. I pick up a pound of >>>organically grown brocolli. At the same time, I pick up a one-pound >>>lobster. I eat the lobster, you eat the brocolli. Which one of us >>>has just killed more animals *directly*? Hint - you have. >> >>How can that BE when YOU kill and eat the lobster? All I've >>done is eat the broccoli. > >You've also killed and eaten several dozen thrips. They're small >insects which are always found in broccoli, and even more so in my >nice organically grown example. I chose this specifically because I >have only killed *one* animal, an arthropod, you've killed an order of >magnitude more, also arthropods, in one meal. Tsk. Every veg*n I've encountered has proven that he/she doesn't ever want it to be understood that some types of animal products involve fewer animal deaths than some types of vegetable products. It always reminds me of a quote I heard someplace and I don't recall who said it or what it was about, but it applies to these poor veg*ns and their horrible cognitive dissonance, and goes something like: 'Well I hope it isn't true, but if it is I hope it doesn't become widely known.' >Most of your other "arguments" fall apart as well under scrutiny. That sounds right. Try asking an "ARA" which rights they would provide for which animals. There could be none for domestic animals which would no longer exist of course, but what about wildlife? "ARAs" contribute to wildlife deaths by their use of roads, buildings, paper and wood products, electricity, food, products which have been mined etc just as everyone else does, so *which* animals do they expect us to be fooled into thinking they want to provide with *which* rights??? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:45:05 +0000, Derek > wrote: > >>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:33:54 -0500, dh@. wrote: >>>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:52:45 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>> >>>>There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral >>>>deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often >>>>foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage >>>[...] >>>>(Rejoinder) >>>>Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths >>>>aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans, >>>>and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill animals >>>>intentionally for food. >>> >>>The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should >>>Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet. >>> >>>S.L. Davis, >> >> .. and how many times those figures have been found >>to be nothing other than guesswork. Davis' guesswork >>is not peer-reviewed and has many flaws, as follows; >> >> [While eating animals who are grazed rather than >> intensively confined would vastly improve the welfare >> of farmed animals given their current mistreatment, >> Davis does not succeed in showing this is preferable >> to vegetarianism. First, Davis makes a mathematical >> error in using total rather than per capita estimates >> of animals killed; second, he focuses on the number >> of animals killed in ruminant and crop production >> systems and ignores important considerations about >> the welfare of animals under both systems; and third, >> he does not consider the number of animals who are >> prevented from existing under the two systems. > [...] >>Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the >>collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say. > > No matter what we do it will involve animals existing, > unless we can prevent all of them from ever being born. Shut up ****wit, nobody gives a shit about your stupic illogic. > So the question should ALWAYS be asked: No it should never be asked. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:49:50 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:01:06 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:24:31 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:11:55 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:35:25 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There's no perfect solution to this problem of the >>>>>>>>>> collateral deaths found in agriculture, and the >>>>>>>>>> vegan's critic is often foolishly persuaded to try >>>>>>>>>> using this dilemma to his advantage when he's run >>>>>>>>>> out of valid arguments. >>>>>>>>>==================== >>>>>>>>>LOL It's the vegan that has no valid argument fool. >>>>>>>>>You've yet to EVER prove your claims that your deit >>>>>>>>>is better. I have easily shown that there are diets that >>>>>>>>>are better than many vegan diets, and yours in particular, >>>>>>>>>killer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, you can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and >>>>>>>> fruits. >>>>>>>===================== >>>>>>>You don't do that do you, fool! >>>>>> >>>>>> Nevertheless, your grass fed beef or hunted meat cannot >>>>>> best forging for wild vegetables and fruits. Whether I >>>>>> forage or not is irrelevant. >>>>>=========================== >>>>>LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong >>>> >>>> No, I've shown that I'm right by offering a better solution >>>> than the grass fed beef or hunted meat you offer: foraging >>>> for wild vegetables and fruits. You'll do best to include >>>> that solution when offering the least harm diet, but being >>>> the meat pusher that you are you'll probably ignore it and >>>> continue offering your CD-laden grass fed beef instead. >>>=================================== >>>No >> >> Yes, I have. You can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and >> fruits. >> ============================== >Resorting to your dishonest snipping again I snip where I want without your permission, so deal with my comment and stop whining. You can't beat foraging for vegetables and fruits with your CD-laden grass fed beef and hunted meat, so why don't you offer that instead when asked for your opinion on what you consider to be the least-harm diet, you meat pushing liar? >>>>>>>You cannot claim that grass-fed beef isn't an option >>>>>> >>>>>> Grass fed beef isn't a viable option because those animals >>>>>> accrue collateral deaths like any other steer in the >>>>>> feedlot from the crops they are fed. >>>>>============================= >>>>>No fool, they do not. >>>> >>>> Evidence from U.S.D.A. shows that grass fed beef can be >>>> and is fed grains at the feedlot like any other steer, and >>>> still qualify as grass fed beef. >>>========================== >>>No fool, they do not. >> >> I've shown you the evidence at least three times now, so if >> you have a dispute with U.S.D.A. take it up with them. >======================= >I did If you did, you would have seen that the meat from those so-called grass fed animals can legitimately carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no limits on the other 20 percent. Read U.S.D.A.'s claims standard for grass fed beef again and see it for yourself. Claim and Standard: [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy source throughout the animal's life cycle. Dated: December 20, 2002. A.J. Yates, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P] http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt Comments from disgruntled grass fed beef producers bear this out and reveal the lie behind grass fed beef; [Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the most commented upon topic in this docket. We will not belabor all the points of concern which are addressed but will focus on the areas of concern to our cooperative of growers. While Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that you need to define both as what they ARE since that is what is motivating the consumer. While the intent of this language would suggest that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished, especially in Feedlots, the language as written is not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing 80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for 70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with consumer expectations as is borne out in the website comments.] http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf Grass fed beef can be and is finished on grains like any other steer with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of approval, despite your empty, desperate denials. >>>>>> While the meat pushers on these vegetarian and animal- >>>>>> related forums try to convince vegans that grass fed >>>>>> beef is that: grass fed, and therefore has a much lesser >>>>>> association with the collateral deaths caused by farmers >>>>>> growing animal feeds, they neglect to mention that >>>>>> grass fed beef is also fed grains at the feedlot just like >>>>>> any other steer, >>>>>============================= >>>>>Still willfully ignorant, eh killer? >>>> >>>> The evidence is indisputable and from U.S.D.A. You >>>> have no reason to dispute it, and it stands until you do. >>>========================== >>>LOL >> >> The evidence from U.S.D.A. ruins your claim that grass fed >> beef is all grass fed. It's finished at the feedlot and still >> qualifies as grass fed with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of approval. >=========================== >No Yes, you can't ignore the claims standard for grass fed beef issued by U.S.D.A. and the messages from disgruntled farmers over it. Even consumer magazines show the lie behind so-called grass fed beef, and indicate the farmers' protests over the claims standard. Read on. [The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,” which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either. A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification program for “process claims,” including feeding methods, would only add to the confusion. Products that passed an inspection could carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no limits on the other 20 percent; “grain fed” could be used with a diet of as little as 50 percent grain. The agency has delayed implementation of the rule after protests from farmer and consumer groups, including Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine.] http://tinyurl.com/b63f3 You must stop lying to people by claiming grass fed beef isn't finished on grains, because we can plainly see from the claims standard issued by U.S.D.A. that so-called grass fed beef can carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no limits on the other 20 percent. >>>> I've shown that they are, despite your denials. Read on and >>>> see that they are, just below this line. >>>====================== >>>I've read your lys >> >> It's evidence from U.S.D.A., you idiot. You can't dispute it >> as a lie, you imbecile. >============================= >Yes, I can Not legitimately, you can't. You can't ignore U.S.D.A.'s claims standard by pretending it doesn't exist. You're a stupid joke, Rick. >>>>>> and therefore has a larger association >>>>>> with collateral deaths than they would like to admit. >>>>>> >>>>>> Meat-labeling guidelines are all over the place, allowing >>>>>> producers to make whatever claims they want to with >>>>>> impunity, so U.S.D.A. has "proposed minimum >>>>>> requirements for livestock and meat industry production/ >>>>>> marketing claims, when adopted, will become the United >>>>>> States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing >>>>>> Claims." They are as follows; >>>>>===================== >>>>>You've been show the idiocy of your claims >>>> >>>> No, I haven't. My claims are backed by evidence from >>>> U.S.D.A. and accompanying notes from disgruntled >>>> farmers. There's no getting away from the fact that >>>> the grass fed beef you offer as an option to regular >>>> beef is bogus, because both animals are finished on >>>> grains at the feedlot. It's not an alternative to regular >>>> steers at all if both are fed grains at the feedlot, as >>>> shown by U.S.D.A. >>>========================== >>>no fool, they are not backed up by the USDA. >> >> I've provided the link which directs you straight to U.S.D.A.'s >> page, just below in the summary, so stop lying Rick. >============================== >No fool, they don't say what you claim. That claims standard says exactly what I'm saying, that so-called grass fed beef is fed 20% grains throughout its entire life and finished at the feedlot like any other steer. That being so, so-called grass fed beef accrues collateral deaths from the crops they eat, so you can't keep making the claim that the production of grass fed beef doesn't. In short, stop lying. >>>>>> [SUMMARY: These proposed minimum requirements >>>>>> for livestock and meat industry production/marketing >>>>>> claims, when adopted, will become the United States >>>>>> Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims. >>>>>> ..... >>>>>> Grass Fed Claims--Background: This claim refers >>>>>> to the feeding regimen for livestock raised on grass, >>>>>> green or range pasture, or forage throughout their >>>>>> life cycle, with only limited supplemental grain >>>>>> feeding allowed. Since it is necessary to assure the >>>>>> animal's well being at all times, limited supplementation >>>>>> is allowed during adverse environmental conditions. >>>>>> Grass feeding usually results in products containing >>>>>> lower levels of external and internal fat (including >>>>>> marbling) than grain-fed livestock products. >>>>>> >>>>>> Claim and Standard: >>>>>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or >>>>>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy >>>>>> source throughout the animal's life cycle. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dated: December 20, 2002. >>>>>> A.J. Yates, >>>>>> Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. >>>>>> [FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am] >>>>>> >>>>>> BILLING CODE 3410-02-P] >>>>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt >> >> There's that link. >================== >yes, and it doesn't say what you claim it does, killer. That claims standard says exactly what I'm saying, that so-called grass fed beef is fed 20% grains throughout its entire life and can be finished at the feedlot like any other steer. That being so, so-called grass fed beef accrues collateral deaths from the crops they eat, so you can't keep making the claim that the production of grass fed beef doesn't. In short, stop lying. >>>>>>>> You can't even bring yourself to concede that a vegan can >>>>>>>> eat a single meal without killing animals, >>>>>>>================================ >>>>>>>No fool, I never claimed that at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then, do you accept the fact that a vegan can eat a meal >>>>>> without any association of collateral deaths involved? >>>>>======================= >>>>>Not as practiced by you and every other vegan here on usenet >>>> >>>> Then you are indeed posing a false dilemma known as the >>>> perfect solution fallacy. >>>> >>>> The Perfect Solution Fallacy. >>>> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs >>>> when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists >>>> and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part >>>> of the problem would still exist after it was implemented. >>>> Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution >>>> would last very long politically once it had been implemented. >>>> Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of >>>> a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to >>>> imagine. >>>============================ >>>LOL Reposting your stupidity only confirms your stupidity >> >> That definition is valid, and I'll repost it as many times as >> needed. >> =========================== >LOL Or until you really believe it? There's every reason to believe that that definition of the fallacy you invoke while using the collateral deaths argument is correct and sound. The collateral deaths argument is debunked, so think of some other way to push meat onto vegans. >>>> Examples: >>>> (critic) >>>> This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will >>>> still be able to get through! >>>> (Rejoinder) >>>> Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, but >>>> would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would >>>> stop? >>>> (critic) >>>> These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work. >>>> People are still going to drink and drive no matter what. >>>> (Rejoinder) >>>> It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the amount >>>> by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving >>>> enough to make the policy worthwhile? >>>> (Critic) >>>> Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in >>>> car wrecks. >>>> (Rejoinder) >>>> It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but >>>> isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to make >>>> seat belts worthwhile? >>>> >>>> It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit >>>> any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not >>>> work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may >>>> be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when >>>> a specific example of a solution's failing is described in >>>> eye- catching detail and base rates are ignored (see availability >>>> heuristic). >>>> The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma. >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy >> >> There it is again. Read it and weep. >============================== >I have. Then you should have noted how it pertains to the collateral deaths argument, and shows it for the false dilemma that it is. Do you believe that the solution (drug squad) to drug addiction must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy simply because drug addicts still exist after the solution's implementation? Do you believe that the solution (oral hygiene) to dental decay must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy simply because tooth decay still occurs after the solution's implementation? If the answer is 'no' to both of those examples, and it is, it then follows that the same answer must be given when considering; Do you believe that the solution to halt animal deaths in man's diet (veganism) must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy simply because animal deaths (CD) still occur after the solution's implementation? As we can see, the collateral deaths argument against the proposition of veganism poses a false dilemma, and so it is rejected on that basis, as well as quite a few others I can think of as well. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:03:12 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:29:29 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > wrote >>>>>> >>>>>> The Perfect Solution Fallacy. >>>>>> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs >>>>>> when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists >>>>>> and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part >>>>>> of the problem would still exist after it was implemented. >>>>>> Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution >>>>>> would last very long politically once it had been implemented. >>>>>> Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of >>>>>> a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to >>>>>> imagine. >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy >>>>>> >>>>>> Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the >>>>>> collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say. >>>>> >>>>>Har har >>>> >>>> There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths >>>> argument against veganism is a fallacy. >>>========================== >>>ROTFLMAO What a hoot! >> >> Get used to it, Etter, however hard it must be for someone like >> you to accept. You have no choice but to accept the fact that >> the collateral deaths argument is specious in that it poses a >> false dilemma. >=========================== >LOL The problem for you is that you cannot accept the fact that >you kill animals for nothing more than your convenience and >entertainment. There is no meaning to your veganism, killer. Once again you have fallen for the perfect solution fallacy by rejecting *my* veganism on the basis that, despite *my* implementation of veganism as a solution to animal deaths, animal deaths still occur in a World where animal deaths cannot be avoided in food production generally. In short, you're posing a false dilemma as described above. Thanks for lending yourself so willingly in such a clear demonstration. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:13:13 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote i >> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument >> against veganism is a fallacy. > >There's no getting away from it Exactly. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:11:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote >> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:31:18 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> (Critic) >>>>>>>>>> Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral >>>>>>>>>> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals >>>>>>>>>> still die for their food during crop production. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The Fallacy is that veganism is a Perfect Solution, a "death-free >>>>>>>lifestyle". >>>>>> >>>>>> Vegans don't claim that their lifestyle is the perfect solution >>>>>> to the killing of animals in food production. >>>>> >>>>>Yes, for the most part that is exactly what they believe. >>>> >>>> No. >>> >>>At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution, >> >> No, > >What *do* they think is the best solution? I'll leave you to ask them that; that way you'll have no excuse when misinterpreting their position to knock it down more easily. Now for the rest of the post you've snipped away in embarrassment; do you have the courage to address it? <restore entire post> No, you don't get to make claims on behalf of all vegans. That's your straw man again. Abstaining from meat is a solution to avoid the killing of animals for food, and while that solution still involves the killing of some animals in crop production, it's a fallacy to reject that solution on that basis. >> Yet again, instead of dealing with real vegans in the real >> World who acknowledge collateral deaths in crop production, >> you choose to focus on the imaginary straw man vegan that >> doesn't acknowledge them instead because that straw man is >> easy to knock down, leaving the way open for you to declare >> you've demolished the true vegan's position in the real World. >> That's just not good enough, and your criticism, while directed >> only at your straw man, is rejected as nonsense. > >You could have just said "strawman" you wordy ****. At least you admit that the vegan you argue with is your straw man, so that's something. >>>> Only your straw >>>> vegan claims that so he's easier to demolish. If you're only >>>> capable of dealing with the imaginary vegans inside your >>>> head, you're in the wrong place when trying to deal with the >>>> real vegans in the real World here. >>> >>>Real World vegans display the attitudes and ideas I am attributing to >>>them. >> >> No, they don't. I've provided examples from various vegan web >> sites and authors discussing the subject at length, and which you >> subsequently snipped away. Repeating your claim that *all* >> vegans refuse to acknowledge them in light of this evidence is >> absurd and an obviously lie on your part. > >A couple of sites give cds a passing mention, always in some obscure part of >the site, always to dismiss their importance. Whatever they say about their importance is of little concern here. What IS of concern is your reluctance to concede that, contrary to what you try to claim, vegan literature does acknowledge them, and individual vegans like myself discuss them at length. Those fact in place, it's a lie to claim vegans ignore them. In short, you're a liar. >>>> I've shown you comments >>>> from vegan web sites that deal with the problem of CDs, and >>>> once again you've snipped those comments away, only to >>>> proceed with trying to demolish your imaginary vegan again. >>>> That's not good enough, so until you address the real vegan >>>> your criticism of him has to be ignored. >>> >>>The issue of collateral deaths is ignored or trivialized by vegans. >> >> No, once again, it is not. Try dealing with the arguments put >> forward by the real vegans in the real World instead of those >> imaginary vegans inside your head. It's patently obvious that >> you have no valid complaint against the real vegan until you do. > >It's obvious that you're talking through your hat. That's a non-response. You cannot expect your criticism of vegans to be taken seriously while your definition and criticism focuses on your imaginary vegan. What would be the point in arguing against a critic who's only criticism focuses on HIS imaginary vegan? You're a joke. >> When or if you finally decide to challenge the real vegan's >> solution to the animal deaths surrounding man's diet, don't >> make the mistake in rejecting veganism on the basis that >> some deaths will still occur after its proposed implementation >> because you'll be invoking the perfect solution fallacy. Like >> I said, you've been wasting your time on this collateral deaths >> issue for years, and it's about time you thought of something >> else to challenge the vegan with apart from fallacies and lies. > >Thanks for mentioning the Perfect Solution fallacy, it's very descriptive of >veganism. Rather, it pertains to the fallacy non-vegans use to reject veganism. Rejecting veganism as a solution to the animal deaths associated in man's diet on the basis that animal deaths will still exist after veganism is implemented in a World where collateral deaths are ubiquitous is specious. >Vegans think that there is a Perfect Solution to animal death and >suffering in one's diet and they think that veganism is it. It's certainly the best solution where the deaths of farmed animals and fish is concerned, and their huge associated collateral deaths. >What a bunch of ******s. Hitting a nerve? That's good. The collateral deaths argument is debunked, so it's back to the drawing board for you until you can come up with something that doesn't invoke logical fallacies, doesn't include a straw man vegan who refuses to acknowledge collateral deaths, and isn't based on lies. <end restore> You're screwed. All the antis are screwed, and it's your own fault because you've hinged everything on the collateral deaths argument and now been shown that it's nothing more than a common little false dilemma. Do you believe that the solution (drug squad) to drug addiction must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy simply because drug addicts still exist after the solution's implementation? Do you believe that the solution (oral hygiene) to dental decay must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy simply because tooth decay still occurs after the solution's implementation? If the answer is 'no' to both of those examples, and it is, it then follows that the same answer must be given when considering; Do you believe that the solution to halt animal deaths in man's diet (veganism) must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy simply because animal deaths (CD) still occur after the solution's implementation? As we can see, the collateral deaths argument against the proposition of veganism poses a false dilemma, and so it is rejected on that basis, as well as quite a few others I can think of as well. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:04:32 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> >> No. If you want to support your claims, YOU do your own >> research and then bring me the results. The onus is on you >> to support your claims, not me, so get busy. >========================= >ROTFLMAO Right after you, killer!! Rather, after you. While cranking on at the vegans as being hypocrites and liars for allegedly ignoring or refusing to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the production of every morsel of food they eat, the production of electricity they take advantage of when using Usenet, and for the production of just about every consumable item you can think of, why do you refuse to acknowledge that the production of the beef you claim to eat causes collateral deaths? "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." and "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 You're the only ****wit on these forums who still refuses to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the production of a food item, yet you're always the first to criticise vegans for allegedly refusing to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the food items they eat, even after they've declared that they acknowledge them. You're a rank hypocrite and a liar, Rick. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:49:50 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:01:06 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:24:31 GMT, "rick" > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>news:fs6aq15gh5pf609t993i99dhs8abt6kglg@4ax. com... >>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:11:55 GMT, "rick" > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:epg8q11pghk6fr2tvngavsen9e1oknbbmt@4a x.com... >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:35:25 GMT, "rick" >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>news:8j95q1p10h6mvbok0t0bsefcmptdevaifj@ 4ax.com... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There's no perfect solution to this problem of the >>>>>>>>>>> collateral deaths found in agriculture, and the >>>>>>>>>>> vegan's critic is often foolishly persuaded to try >>>>>>>>>>> using this dilemma to his advantage when he's run >>>>>>>>>>> out of valid arguments. >>>>>>>>>>==================== >>>>>>>>>>LOL It's the vegan that has no valid argument fool. >>>>>>>>>>You've yet to EVER prove your claims that your deit >>>>>>>>>>is better. I have easily shown that there are diets >>>>>>>>>>that >>>>>>>>>>are better than many vegan diets, and yours in >>>>>>>>>>particular, >>>>>>>>>>killer. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, you can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and >>>>>>>>> fruits. >>>>>>>>===================== >>>>>>>>You don't do that do you, fool! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nevertheless, your grass fed beef or hunted meat cannot >>>>>>> best forging for wild vegetables and fruits. Whether I >>>>>>> forage or not is irrelevant. >>>>>>=========================== >>>>>>LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong >>>>> >>>>> No, I've shown that I'm right by offering a better solution >>>>> than the grass fed beef or hunted meat you offer: foraging >>>>> for wild vegetables and fruits. You'll do best to include >>>>> that solution when offering the least harm diet, but being >>>>> the meat pusher that you are you'll probably ignore it and >>>>> continue offering your CD-laden grass fed beef instead. >>>>=================================== >>>>No >>> >>> Yes, I have. You can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and >>> fruits. >>> ============================== >>Resorting to your dishonest snipping again > > I snip where I want without your permission, so deal with > my comment and stop whining. ==================== LOL I'm just noting that it displays your dishonesty, fool. Do keep it up, it makes my work much easier, killer. You can't beat foraging > for vegetables and fruits with your CD-laden grass fed > beef and hunted meat, so why don't you offer that instead > when asked for your opinion on what you consider to be > the least-harm diet, you meat pushing liar? ================= Because fairy-tales don't count. I've never denied that that would be the case, but there are no usenet vegans practicing such a lifestyle, hypocrite. Now, why can't you address the issue that YOUR diet does not do what you claim it does? You cannot post proof. Instead, as usual, you have to focus on what others can/are doing so that you can ignore your bloody footprints. > >>>>>>>>You cannot claim that grass-fed beef isn't an option >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Grass fed beef isn't a viable option because those >>>>>>> animals >>>>>>> accrue collateral deaths like any other steer in the >>>>>>> feedlot from the crops they are fed. >>>>>>============================= >>>>>>No fool, they do not. >>>>> >>>>> Evidence from U.S.D.A. shows that grass fed beef can be >>>>> and is fed grains at the feedlot like any other steer, and >>>>> still qualify as grass fed beef. >>>>========================== >>>>No fool, they do not. >>> >>> I've shown you the evidence at least three times now, so if >>> you have a dispute with U.S.D.A. take it up with them. >>======================= >>I did > > If you did, you would have seen that the meat from those > so-called grass fed animals can legitimately carry a “USDA > Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed” if as > little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no limits on > the other 20 percent. Read U.S.D.A.'s claims standard for > grass fed beef again and see it for yourself. ============== No fool, you read the proposals, again. Then read what USDA actually says about beef. You lose, again, fool. > > Claim and Standard: > [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or > forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy > source throughout the animal's life cycle. > > Dated: December 20, 2002. > A.J. Yates, > Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. > [FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am] > > BILLING CODE 3410-02-P] > http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt > > Comments from disgruntled grass fed beef producers > bear this out and reveal the lie behind grass fed beef; > > [Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the > most commented upon topic in this docket. We > will not belabor all the points of concern which > are addressed but will focus on the areas of > concern to our cooperative of growers. While > Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method > IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS > NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that > you need to define both as what they ARE since > that is what is motivating the consumer. > > While the intent of this language would suggest > that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished, > especially in Feedlots, the language as written is > not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing > 80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at > the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef > animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for > 70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be > fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under > these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with > consumer expectations as is borne out in the > website comments.] > http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf > > Grass fed beef can be and is finished on grains like any > other steer with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of approval, despite > your empty, desperate denials. > >>>>>>> While the meat pushers on these vegetarian and animal- >>>>>>> related forums try to convince vegans that grass fed >>>>>>> beef is that: grass fed, and therefore has a much lesser >>>>>>> association with the collateral deaths caused by farmers >>>>>>> growing animal feeds, they neglect to mention that >>>>>>> grass fed beef is also fed grains at the feedlot just >>>>>>> like >>>>>>> any other steer, >>>>>>============================= >>>>>>Still willfully ignorant, eh killer? >>>>> >>>>> The evidence is indisputable and from U.S.D.A. You >>>>> have no reason to dispute it, and it stands until you do. >>>>========================== >>>>LOL >>> >>> The evidence from U.S.D.A. ruins your claim that grass fed >>> beef is all grass fed. It's finished at the feedlot and still >>> qualifies as grass fed with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of approval. >>=========================== >>No > > Yes, you can't ignore the claims standard for grass fed beef > issued by U.S.D.A. and the messages from disgruntled farmers > over it. Even consumer magazines show the lie behind so-called > grass fed beef, and indicate the farmers' protests over the > claims > standard. Read on. ==================== You do ignore the facts fool. Read what the USDA really says. > > [The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,” > which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would > be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either. > > A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification program > for “process claims,” including feeding methods, would only > add to the confusion. Products that passed an inspection could > carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label > “grass > fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with > no > limits on the other 20 percent; “grain fed” could be used with > a > diet of as little as 50 percent grain. The agency has delayed > implementation of the rule after protests from farmer and > consumer groups, including Consumers Union, publisher of > Consumer Reports magazine.] > http://tinyurl.com/b63f3 > > You must stop lying to people by claiming grass fed beef isn't > finished on grains, because we can plainly see from the claims > standard issued by U.S.D.A. that so-called grass fed beef can > carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass > fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no > limits on the other 20 percent. > >>>>> I've shown that they are, despite your denials. Read on and >>>>> see that they are, just below this line. >>>>====================== >>>>I've read your lys >>> >>> It's evidence from U.S.D.A., you idiot. You can't dispute it >>> as a lie, you imbecile. >>============================= >>Yes, I can > > Not legitimately, you can't. You can't ignore U.S.D.A.'s claims > standard by pretending it doesn't exist. You're a stupid joke, > Rick. ============ LOL A proposal does not an industry make fool. The USDA site trells you how many beef cows do not get sent to feedlots fool. Too bad you're too stupid to read for comprehension, eh killer? > >>>>>>> and therefore has a larger association >>>>>>> with collateral deaths than they would like to admit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Meat-labeling guidelines are all over the place, allowing >>>>>>> producers to make whatever claims they want to with >>>>>>> impunity, so U.S.D.A. has "proposed minimum >>>>>>> requirements for livestock and meat industry production/ >>>>>>> marketing claims, when adopted, will become the United >>>>>>> States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing >>>>>>> Claims." They are as follows; >>>>>>===================== >>>>>>You've been show the idiocy of your claims >>>>> >>>>> No, I haven't. My claims are backed by evidence from >>>>> U.S.D.A. and accompanying notes from disgruntled >>>>> farmers. There's no getting away from the fact that >>>>> the grass fed beef you offer as an option to regular >>>>> beef is bogus, because both animals are finished on >>>>> grains at the feedlot. It's not an alternative to regular >>>>> steers at all if both are fed grains at the feedlot, as >>>>> shown by U.S.D.A. >>>>========================== >>>>no fool, they are not backed up by the USDA. >>> >>> I've provided the link which directs you straight to >>> U.S.D.A.'s >>> page, just below in the summary, so stop lying Rick. >>============================== >>No fool, they don't say what you claim. > > That claims standard says exactly what I'm saying, that > so-called grass fed beef is fed 20% grains throughout its > entire life and finished at the feedlot like any other steer. ============= No, it does not say that at all fool. Read again without your blinders.... > That being so, so-called grass fed beef accrues collateral > deaths from the crops they eat, so you can't keep making > the claim that the production of grass fed beef doesn't. In > short, stop lying. =============== I'm not. That's all left up to you, hypocrite. > >>>>>>> [SUMMARY: These proposed minimum requirements >>>>>>> for livestock and meat industry production/marketing >>>>>>> claims, when adopted, will become the United States >>>>>>> Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims. >>>>>>> ..... >>>>>>> Grass Fed Claims--Background: This claim refers >>>>>>> to the feeding regimen for livestock raised on grass, >>>>>>> green or range pasture, or forage throughout their >>>>>>> life cycle, with only limited supplemental grain >>>>>>> feeding allowed. Since it is necessary to assure the >>>>>>> animal's well being at all times, limited >>>>>>> supplementation >>>>>>> is allowed during adverse environmental conditions. >>>>>>> Grass feeding usually results in products containing >>>>>>> lower levels of external and internal fat (including >>>>>>> marbling) than grain-fed livestock products. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Claim and Standard: >>>>>>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or >>>>>>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy >>>>>>> source throughout the animal's life cycle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dated: December 20, 2002. >>>>>>> A.J. Yates, >>>>>>> Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. >>>>>>> [FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BILLING CODE 3410-02-P] >>>>>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt >>> >>> There's that link. >>================== >>yes, and it doesn't say what you claim it does, killer. > > That claims standard says exactly what I'm saying, that > so-called grass fed beef is fed 20% grains throughout its > entire life and can be finished at the feedlot like any other > steer. That being so, so-called grass fed beef accrues > collateral deaths from the crops they eat, so you can't > keep making the claim that the production of grass fed > beef doesn't. In short, stop lying. ============ Can can stop you lys anythime fool. Just read for comprehension, killer. > >>>>>>>>> You can't even bring yourself to concede that a vegan >>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>> eat a single meal without killing animals, >>>>>>>>================================ >>>>>>>>No fool, I never claimed that at all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then, do you accept the fact that a vegan can eat a meal >>>>>>> without any association of collateral deaths involved? >>>>>>======================= >>>>>>Not as practiced by you and every other vegan here on >>>>>>usenet >>>>> >>>>> Then you are indeed posing a false dilemma known as the >>>>> perfect solution fallacy. >>>>> >>>>> The Perfect Solution Fallacy. >>>>> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that >>>>> occurs >>>>> when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists >>>>> and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part >>>>> of the problem would still exist after it was implemented. >>>>> Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no >>>>> solution >>>>> would last very long politically once it had been >>>>> implemented. >>>>> Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea >>>>> of >>>>> a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy >>>>> to >>>>> imagine. >>>>============================ >>>>LOL Reposting your stupidity only confirms your stupidity >>> >>> That definition is valid, and I'll repost it as many times as >>> needed. >>> =========================== >>LOL Or until you really believe it? > > There's every reason to believe that that definition of the > fallacy you invoke while using the collateral deaths argument > is correct and sound. The collateral deaths argument is > debunked, so think of some other way to push meat onto > vegans. =============== No, the CDs argument blows your entire house of cards to the ground fool. > >>>>> Examples: >>>>> (critic) >>>>> This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will >>>>> still be able to get through! >>>>> (Rejoinder) >>>>> Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, >>>>> but >>>>> would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would >>>>> stop? >>>>> (critic) >>>>> These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to >>>>> work. >>>>> People are still going to drink and drive no matter what. >>>>> (Rejoinder) >>>>> It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the >>>>> amount >>>>> by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving >>>>> enough to make the policy worthwhile? >>>>> (Critic) >>>>> Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in >>>>> car wrecks. >>>>> (Rejoinder) >>>>> It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but >>>>> isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to >>>>> make >>>>> seat belts worthwhile? >>>>> >>>>> It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit >>>>> any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not >>>>> work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it >>>>> may >>>>> be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when >>>>> a specific example of a solution's failing is described in >>>>> eye- catching detail and base rates are ignored (see >>>>> availability >>>>> heuristic). >>>>> The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma. >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy >>> >>> There it is again. Read it and weep. >>============================== >>I have. > > Then you should have noted how it pertains to the collateral > deaths argument, and shows it for the false dilemma that it is. ========= Nope. It shows how incredibly stupid you are... > > Do you believe that the solution (drug squad) to drug > addiction must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy > simply because drug addicts still exist after the solution's > implementation? > > Do you believe that the solution (oral hygiene) to dental > decay must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy > simply because tooth decay still occurs after the solution's > implementation? > > If the answer is 'no' to both of those examples, and it is, it > then follows that the same answer must be given when > considering; > > Do you believe that the solution to halt animal deaths in > man's diet (veganism) must be rejected as a nonsense > and hypocrisy simply because animal deaths (CD) still > occur after the solution's implementation? > > As we can see, the collateral deaths argument against the > proposition of veganism poses a false dilemma, and so it > is rejected on that basis, as well as quite a few others I > can think of as well. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:03:12 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:29:29 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Perfect Solution Fallacy. >>>>>>> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that >>>>>>> occurs >>>>>>> when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists >>>>>>> and/or that a solution should be rejected because some >>>>>>> part >>>>>>> of the problem would still exist after it was >>>>>>> implemented. >>>>>>> Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no >>>>>>> solution >>>>>>> would last very long politically once it had been >>>>>>> implemented. >>>>>>> Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the >>>>>>> idea of >>>>>>> a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> imagine. >>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say. >>>>>> >>>>>>Har har >>>>> >>>>> There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths >>>>> argument against veganism is a fallacy. >>>>========================== >>>>ROTFLMAO What a hoot! >>> >>> Get used to it, Etter, however hard it must be for someone >>> like >>> you to accept. You have no choice but to accept the fact that >>> the collateral deaths argument is specious in that it poses a >>> false dilemma. >>=========================== >>LOL The problem for you is that you cannot accept the fact >>that >>you kill animals for nothing more than your convenience and >>entertainment. There is no meaning to your veganism, killer. > > Once again you have fallen for the perfect solution fallacy > by rejecting *my* veganism on the basis that, despite *my* > implementation of veganism as a solution to animal deaths, > animal deaths still occur in a World where animal deaths > cannot be avoided in food production generally. In short, > you're posing a false dilemma as described above. Thanks > for lending yourself so willingly in such a clear > demonstration. =========== No fool, once again you have demonstarted you complete willingness to kill animals for your conveninece and entertainment. As a bonus you have proven your complete stupidity. Keep up the good work, killer. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:04:32 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> >>> No. If you want to support your claims, YOU do your own >>> research and then bring me the results. The onus is on you >>> to support your claims, not me, so get busy. >>========================= >>ROTFLMAO Right after you, killer!! > > Rather, after you. ============ You have NEVER provided proof of any of your claims fool. Thanks for again displaying your hypocricy and stupidity! While cranking on at the vegans as > being hypocrites and liars for allegedly ignoring or refusing > to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the > production of every morsel of food they eat, the production > of electricity they take advantage of when using Usenet, and > for the production of just about every consumable item you > can think of, why do you refuse to acknowledge that the > production of the beef you claim to eat causes collateral > deaths? > > "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." > > and > > "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." > rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 > > You're the only ****wit on these forums who still refuses > to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the > production of a food item, yet you're always the first to > criticise vegans for allegedly refusing to acknowledge > the collateral deaths associated with the food items they > eat, even after they've declared that they acknowledge > them. You're a rank hypocrite and a liar, Rick. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:38:39 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:49:50 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:01:06 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:24:31 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:11:55 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:35:25 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There's no perfect solution to this problem of the >>>>>>>>>>>> collateral deaths found in agriculture, and the >>>>>>>>>>>> vegan's critic is often foolishly persuaded to try >>>>>>>>>>>> using this dilemma to his advantage when he's run >>>>>>>>>>>> out of valid arguments. >>>>>>>>>>>==================== >>>>>>>>>>>LOL It's the vegan that has no valid argument fool. >>>>>>>>>>>You've yet to EVER prove your claims that your deit >>>>>>>>>>>is better. I have easily shown that there are diets >>>>>>>>>>>that are better than many vegan diets, and yours in >>>>>>>>>>>particular, killer. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, you can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and >>>>>>>>>> fruits. >>>>>>>>>===================== >>>>>>>>>You don't do that do you, fool! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nevertheless, your grass fed beef or hunted meat cannot >>>>>>>> best forging for wild vegetables and fruits. Whether I >>>>>>>> forage or not is irrelevant. >>>>>>>=========================== >>>>>>>LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong >>>>>> >>>>>> No, I've shown that I'm right by offering a better solution >>>>>> than the grass fed beef or hunted meat you offer: foraging >>>>>> for wild vegetables and fruits. You'll do best to include >>>>>> that solution when offering the least harm diet, but being >>>>>> the meat pusher that you are you'll probably ignore it and >>>>>> continue offering your CD-laden grass fed beef instead. >>>>>=================================== >>>>>No >>>> >>>> Yes, I have. You can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and >>>> fruits. >>>> ============================== >>>Resorting to your dishonest snipping again >> >> I snip where I want without your permission, so deal with >> my comment and stop whining.You can't beat foraging >> for vegetables and fruits with your CD-laden grass fed >> beef and hunted meat, so why don't you offer that instead >> when asked for your opinion on what you consider to be >> the least-harm diet, you meat pushing liar? >================= >Because fairy-tales don't count. Foraging for wild vegetables and fruits isn't a fairy tale, and it beats your CD-laden so-called grass fed beef and hunted meat every time, so why don't you offer that instead? Look below at the information on foraging, you stupid liar. [Many people who live in the countryside already know how to harvest nature's bounty, food that is available to anyone who takes the time and trouble to learn about 'wild foods' that abound in their localities. Much of this knowledge has been passed down through the generations, and many of the 'wild foods' that made up the staple diets of peoples over the past 15,000 years or more are still available today ... Below are a small selection of books about the 'wild foods' that can be found in the countryside, both in North America, and overlapping with plants common to parts of northwestern Europe. In subsequent pages there are books about small-scale organic food production, survival skills and wilderness living, along with articles and some step-by-step details about becoming as 'self-sufficient' as possible in an increasingly uncertain world. Useful skills for expeditions, exploring, camping trips, and for those simply wanting to re-learn the 'ancient survival skills' of our ancestors who survived the cataclysms of the distant past ... ... The most seriously committed vegans forage for their own foods, taking advantage of some of nature's lesser-known but often intensely flavorful wild bounty. As "Wildman" Steve Brill points out in The Wild Vegetarian Cookbook, it takes a lot of education and plenty of experience to identify and make use of the bounty of the earth's forests and seas. Foragers must learn to distinguish not only between the toxic and the edible but also must discern which among the edible plants are actually tasty and worth harvesting and cooking. Brill offers an encyclopedia of lore and plenty of identifying botanical data for wild foods, but more pictures would help sort out these thousands of plants from one another, especially in the perilous world of fungi identification. Recipes abound, and they follow vegan principles, using everyday oils, vinegars, and other basic ingredients.] http://www.morien-institute.org/wildfoodbooks_us.html So, why do you promote a least-harm diet that includes the deaths of animals when foraging is the better option? Why, to promote meat at any cost, that's why, you dirty meat pusher. >>>>>>>>>You cannot claim that grass-fed beef isn't an option >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Grass fed beef isn't a viable option because those >>>>>>>> animals accrue collateral deaths like any other steer >>>>>>>> in the feedlot from the crops they are fed. >>>>>>>============================= >>>>>>>No fool, they do not. >>>>>> >>>>>> Evidence from U.S.D.A. shows that grass fed beef can be >>>>>> and is fed grains at the feedlot like any other steer, and >>>>>> still qualify as grass fed beef. >>>>>========================== >>>>>No fool, they do not. >>>> >>>> I've shown you the evidence at least three times now, so if >>>> you have a dispute with U.S.D.A. take it up with them. >>>======================= >>>I did >> >> If you did, you would have seen that the meat from those >> so-called grass fed animals can legitimately carry a “USDA >> Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed” if as >> little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no limits on >> the other 20 percent. Read U.S.D.A.'s claims standard for >> grass fed beef again and see it for yourself. >============== >No Yes, liar. Grass fed beef IS finished at the feedlot like any other steer and accumulates collateral deaths by virtue of the feed given it during that time. That is the inescapable fact that ruins your argument permanently. >> Claim and Standard: >> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or >> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy >> source throughout the animal's life cycle. >> >> Dated: December 20, 2002. >> A.J. Yates, >> Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. >> [FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am] >> >> BILLING CODE 3410-02-P] >> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt >> >> Comments from disgruntled grass fed beef producers >> bear this out and reveal the lie behind grass fed beef; >> >> [Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the >> most commented upon topic in this docket. We >> will not belabor all the points of concern which >> are addressed but will focus on the areas of >> concern to our cooperative of growers. While >> Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method >> IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS >> NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that >> you need to define both as what they ARE since >> that is what is motivating the consumer. >> >> While the intent of this language would suggest >> that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished, >> especially in Feedlots, the language as written is >> not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing >> 80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at >> the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef >> animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for >> 70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be >> fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under >> these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with >> consumer expectations as is borne out in the >> website comments.] >> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf >> >> Grass fed beef can be and is finished on grains like any >> other steer with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of approval, despite >> your empty, desperate denials. You can't escape this fact, you dirty liar, and denying it doesn't help you, either. >>>>>>>> While the meat pushers on these vegetarian and animal- >>>>>>>> related forums try to convince vegans that grass fed >>>>>>>> beef is that: grass fed, and therefore has a much lesser >>>>>>>> association with the collateral deaths caused by farmers >>>>>>>> growing animal feeds, they neglect to mention that >>>>>>>> grass fed beef is also fed grains at the feedlot just >>>>>>>> like any other steer, >>>>>>>============================= >>>>>>>Still willfully ignorant, eh killer? >>>>>> >>>>>> The evidence is indisputable and from U.S.D.A. You >>>>>> have no reason to dispute it, and it stands until you do. >>>>>========================== >>>>>LOL >>>> >>>> The evidence from U.S.D.A. ruins your claim that grass fed >>>> beef is all grass fed. It's finished at the feedlot and still >>>> qualifies as grass fed with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of approval. >>>=========================== >>>No >> >> Yes, you can't ignore the claims standard for grass fed beef >> issued by U.S.D.A. and the messages from disgruntled farmers >> over it. Even consumer magazines show the lie behind so-called >> grass fed beef, and indicate the farmers' protests over the >> claims standard. Read on. >==================== >You do ignore the facts No, that's you. You can't dodge U.S.D.A.'s claims standard for grass fed beef by claiming it doesn't exist. Look again below to see what consumer magazines have to say about it. >> [The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,” >> which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would >> be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either. >> >> A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification program >> for “process claims,” including feeding methods, would only >> add to the confusion. Products that passed an inspection could >> carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label >> “grass fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, >> with no limits on the other 20 percent; “grain fed” could be >> used with a diet of as little as 50 percent grain. The agency >> has delayed implementation of the rule after protests from >> farmer and consumer groups, including Consumers Union, >> publisher of Consumer Reports magazine.] >> http://tinyurl.com/b63f3 >> >> You must stop lying to people by claiming grass fed beef isn't >> finished on grains, because we can plainly see from the claims >> standard issued by U.S.D.A. that so-called grass fed beef can >> carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass >> fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no >> limits on the other 20 percent. Did you get that, liar Rick? You must stop lying to people. >>>>>> I've shown that they are, despite your denials. Read on and >>>>>> see that they are, just below this line. >>>>>====================== >>>>>I've read your lys >>>> >>>> It's evidence from U.S.D.A., you idiot. You can't dispute it >>>> as a lie, you imbecile. >>>============================= >>>Yes, I can >> >> Not legitimately, you can't. You can't ignore U.S.D.A.'s claims >> standard by pretending it doesn't exist. You're a stupid joke, >> Rick. >============ >LOL You've nothing to laugh about, you dirty liar. Your claims about grass fed beef have now been revealed to be a dirty lie from a dirty meat pusher; you. >>>>>>>> and therefore has a larger association >>>>>>>> with collateral deaths than they would like to admit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Meat-labeling guidelines are all over the place, allowing >>>>>>>> producers to make whatever claims they want to with >>>>>>>> impunity, so U.S.D.A. has "proposed minimum >>>>>>>> requirements for livestock and meat industry production/ >>>>>>>> marketing claims, when adopted, will become the United >>>>>>>> States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing >>>>>>>> Claims." They are as follows; >>>>>>>===================== >>>>>>>You've been show the idiocy of your claims >>>>>> >>>>>> No, I haven't. My claims are backed by evidence from >>>>>> U.S.D.A. and accompanying notes from disgruntled >>>>>> farmers. There's no getting away from the fact that >>>>>> the grass fed beef you offer as an option to regular >>>>>> beef is bogus, because both animals are finished on >>>>>> grains at the feedlot. It's not an alternative to regular >>>>>> steers at all if both are fed grains at the feedlot, as >>>>>> shown by U.S.D.A. >>>>>========================== >>>>>no fool, they are not backed up by the USDA. >>>> >>>> I've provided the link which directs you straight to >>>> U.S.D.A.'s >>>> page, just below in the summary, so stop lying Rick. >>>============================== >>>No fool, they don't say what you claim. >> >> That claims standard says exactly what I'm saying, that >> so-called grass fed beef is fed 20% grains throughout its >> entire life and finished at the feedlot like any other steer. >============= >No, it does not say that at all Yes, it does, despite your inability to accept the fact. >> That being so, so-called grass fed beef accrues collateral >> deaths from the crops they eat, so you can't keep making >> the claim that the production of grass fed beef doesn't. In >> short, stop lying. >=============== >I'm not. Yes, you are lying, and the evidence from U.S.D.A. proves that you are. There's no getting away from it. >>>>>>>> [SUMMARY: These proposed minimum requirements >>>>>>>> for livestock and meat industry production/marketing >>>>>>>> claims, when adopted, will become the United States >>>>>>>> Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims. >>>>>>>> ..... >>>>>>>> Grass Fed Claims--Background: This claim refers >>>>>>>> to the feeding regimen for livestock raised on grass, >>>>>>>> green or range pasture, or forage throughout their >>>>>>>> life cycle, with only limited supplemental grain >>>>>>>> feeding allowed. Since it is necessary to assure the >>>>>>>> animal's well being at all times, limited supplementation >>>>>>>> is allowed during adverse environmental conditions. >>>>>>>> Grass feeding usually results in products containing >>>>>>>> lower levels of external and internal fat (including >>>>>>>> marbling) than grain-fed livestock products. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Claim and Standard: >>>>>>>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or >>>>>>>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy >>>>>>>> source throughout the animal's life cycle. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dated: December 20, 2002. >>>>>>>> A.J. Yates, >>>>>>>> Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. >>>>>>>> [FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BILLING CODE 3410-02-P] >>>>>>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt >>>> >>>> There's that link. >>>================== >>>yes, and it doesn't say what you claim it does, killer. >> >> That claims standard says exactly what I'm saying, that >> so-called grass fed beef is fed 20% grains throughout its >> entire life and can be finished at the feedlot like any other >> steer. That being so, so-called grass fed beef accrues >> collateral deaths from the crops they eat, so you can't >> keep making the claim that the production of grass fed >> beef doesn't. In short, stop lying. >============ >Can can stop you lys You're barely making sense with your childish drivel. Learn to write, and then you'll stand a better chance in understanding the claims standard issued by U.S.D.A. which clearly shows that so-called grass fed beef is grain fed after all. >>>>>>>>>> You can't even bring yourself to concede that a vegan >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> eat a single meal without killing animals, >>>>>>>>>================================ >>>>>>>>>No fool, I never claimed that at all. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then, do you accept the fact that a vegan can eat a meal >>>>>>>> without any association of collateral deaths involved? >>>>>>>======================= >>>>>>>Not as practiced by you and every other vegan here on >>>>>>>usenet >>>>>> >>>>>> Then you are indeed posing a false dilemma known as the >>>>>> perfect solution fallacy. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Perfect Solution Fallacy. >>>>>> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that >>>>>> occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect >>>>>> solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected >>>>>> because some part of the problem would still exist after >>>>>> it was implemented. Presumably, assuming no solution >>>>>> is perfect then no solution would last very long politically >>>>>> once it had been implemented. Still, many people (notably >>>>>> utopians) seem to find the idea of a perfect solution >>>>>> compelling, perhaps because it is easy to imagine. >>>>>============================ >>>>>LOL Reposting your stupidity only confirms your stupidity >>>> >>>> That definition is valid, and I'll repost it as many times as >>>> needed. >>>> =========================== >>>LOL Or until you really believe it? >> >> There's every reason to believe that that definition of the >> fallacy you invoke while using the collateral deaths argument >> is correct and sound. The collateral deaths argument is >> debunked, so think of some other way to push meat onto >> vegans. >=============== >No Yes, liar. The collateral deaths argument has been debunked by showing that it amounts to nothing more than a dirty little false dilemma. >>>>>> Examples: >>>>>> (critic) >>>>>> This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will >>>>>> still be able to get through! >>>>>> (Rejoinder) >>>>>> Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, >>>>>> but would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it >>>>>> would stop? >>>>>> (critic) >>>>>> These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to >>>>>> work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter >>>>>> what. >>>>>> (Rejoinder) >>>>>> It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the >>>>>> amount by which it would reduce the total amount of >>>>>> drunk driving enough to make the policy worthwhile? >>>>>> (Critic) >>>>>> Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in >>>>>> car wrecks. >>>>>> (Rejoinder) >>>>>> It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but >>>>>> isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to >>>>>> make seat belts worthwhile? >>>>>> >>>>>> It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit >>>>>> any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not >>>>>> work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may >>>>>> be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when >>>>>> a specific example of a solution's failing is described in >>>>>> eye- catching detail and base rates are ignored (see >>>>>> availability heuristic). >>>>>> The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma. >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy >>>> >>>> There it is again. Read it and weep. >>>============================== >>>I have. >> >> Then you should have noted how it pertains to the collateral >> deaths argument, and shows it for the false dilemma that it is. >========= >Nope. Then you're more dense than I originally believed, if that's possible. You can't escape the fact that your argument poses a false dilemma, even by feigning ignorance, so get used to that fact and try something else to get vegans to eat meat instead if you can, you dirty meat pusher. >> Do you believe that the solution (drug squad) to drug >> addiction must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy >> simply because drug addicts still exist after the solution's >> implementation? >> >> Do you believe that the solution (oral hygiene) to dental >> decay must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy >> simply because tooth decay still occurs after the solution's >> implementation? >> >> If the answer is 'no' to both of those examples, and it is, it >> then follows that the same answer must be given when >> considering; >> >> Do you believe that the solution to halt animal deaths in >> man's diet (veganism) must be rejected as a nonsense >> and hypocrisy simply because animal deaths (CD) still >> occur after the solution's implementation? >> >> As we can see, the collateral deaths argument against the >> proposition of veganism poses a false dilemma, and so it >> is rejected on that basis, as well as quite a few others I >> can think of as well. I knew you'd fail to address those examples, you dirty liar. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:40:09 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:03:12 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:29:29 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Perfect Solution Fallacy. >>>>>>>> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that >>>>>>>> occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect >>>>>>>> solution exists and/or that a solution should be >>>>>>>> rejected because some part of the problem would >>>>>>>> still exist after it was implemented. Presumably, >>>>>>>> assuming no solution is perfect then no solution >>>>>>>> would last very long politically once it had been >>>>>>>> implemented. Still, many people (notably utopians) >>>>>>>> seem to find the idea of a perfect solution compelling, >>>>>>>> perhaps because it is easy to imagine. >>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Read it and find that you've been wasting your time >>>>>>>> on the collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Har har >>>>>> >>>>>> There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths >>>>>> argument against veganism is a fallacy. >>>>>========================== >>>>>ROTFLMAO What a hoot! >>>> >>>> Get used to it, Etter, however hard it must be for someone >>>> like you to accept. You have no choice but to accept the >>>> fact that the collateral deaths argument is specious in that >>>> it poses a false dilemma. >>>=========================== >>>LOL The problem for you is that you cannot accept the fact >>>that you kill animals for nothing more than your convenience and >>>entertainment. There is no meaning to your veganism, killer. >> >> Once again you have fallen for the perfect solution fallacy >> by rejecting *my* veganism on the basis that, despite *my* >> implementation of veganism as a solution to animal deaths, >> animal deaths still occur in a World where animal deaths >> cannot be avoided in food production generally. In short, >> you're posing a false dilemma as described above. Thanks >> for lending yourself so willingly in such a clear >> demonstration. >=========== >No Yes, you stupid imbecile, you've tried posing exactly the same false dilemma that you always do, and I reject it on the basis that it invokes a fallacy. You lose, you dirty little liar. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:41:07 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:04:32 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> >>>> No. If you want to support your claims, YOU do your own >>>> research and then bring me the results. The onus is on you >>>> to support your claims, not me, so get busy. >>>========================= >>>ROTFLMAO Right after you, killer!! >> >> Rather, after you.While cranking on at the vegans as >> being hypocrites and liars for allegedly ignoring or refusing >> to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the >> production of every morsel of food they eat, the production >> of electricity they take advantage of when using Usenet, and >> for the production of just about every consumable item you >> can think of, why do you refuse to acknowledge that the >> production of the beef you claim to eat causes collateral >> deaths? >> >> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >> >> and >> >> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >> >> You're the only ****wit on these forums who still refuses >> to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the >> production of a food item, yet you're always the first to >> criticise vegans for allegedly refusing to acknowledge >> the collateral deaths associated with the food items they >> eat, even after they've declared that they acknowledge >> them. You're a rank hypocrite and a liar, Rick. I see you're incapable of addressing your hypocrisy and lies in this thread as well. I'm not surprised in the least to see you whiff off after being made such a fool of because you're just a trolling, lying hypocrite. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:38:39 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:49:50 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:01:06 GMT, "rick" > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>news:ba0bq15ro7ktiac6vl5jvnv3rvuv2nu3bu@4ax. com... >>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:24:31 GMT, "rick" > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:fs6aq15gh5pf609t993i99dhs8abt6kglg@4a x.com... >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:11:55 GMT, "rick" >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>news:epg8q11pghk6fr2tvngavsen9e1oknbbmt@ 4ax.com... >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:35:25 GMT, "rick" >>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>news:8j95q1p10h6mvbok0t0bsefcmptdevaif ... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There's no perfect solution to this problem of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> collateral deaths found in agriculture, and the >>>>>>>>>>>>> vegan's critic is often foolishly persuaded to try >>>>>>>>>>>>> using this dilemma to his advantage when he's run >>>>>>>>>>>>> out of valid arguments. >>>>>>>>>>>>==================== >>>>>>>>>>>>LOL It's the vegan that has no valid argument fool. >>>>>>>>>>>>You've yet to EVER prove your claims that your deit >>>>>>>>>>>>is better. I have easily shown that there are diets >>>>>>>>>>>>that are better than many vegan diets, and yours in >>>>>>>>>>>>particular, killer. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, you can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and >>>>>>>>>>> fruits. >>>>>>>>>>===================== >>>>>>>>>>You don't do that do you, fool! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, your grass fed beef or hunted meat cannot >>>>>>>>> best forging for wild vegetables and fruits. Whether I >>>>>>>>> forage or not is irrelevant. >>>>>>>>=========================== >>>>>>>>LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, I've shown that I'm right by offering a better >>>>>>> solution >>>>>>> than the grass fed beef or hunted meat you offer: >>>>>>> foraging >>>>>>> for wild vegetables and fruits. You'll do best to include >>>>>>> that solution when offering the least harm diet, but >>>>>>> being >>>>>>> the meat pusher that you are you'll probably ignore it >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> continue offering your CD-laden grass fed beef instead. >>>>>>=================================== >>>>>>No >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I have. You can't beat foraging for wild vegetables >>>>> and >>>>> fruits. >>>>> ============================== >>>>Resorting to your dishonest snipping again >>> >>> I snip where I want without your permission, so deal with >>> my comment and stop whining.You can't beat foraging >>> for vegetables and fruits with your CD-laden grass fed >>> beef and hunted meat, so why don't you offer that instead >>> when asked for your opinion on what you consider to be >>> the least-harm diet, you meat pushing liar? >>================= >>Because fairy-tales don't count. > > Foraging for wild vegetables and fruits isn't a fairy tale, and > it beats your CD-laden so-called grass fed beef and hunted > meat every time, so why don't you offer that instead? Look > below at the information on foraging, you stupid liar. ========================== Fairy-tales, fool. > > [Many people who live in the countryside already know how > to harvest nature's bounty, food that is available to anyone > who takes the time and trouble to learn about 'wild foods' > that abound in their localities. Much of this knowledge has > been passed down through the generations, and many of the > 'wild foods' that made up the staple diets of peoples over the > past 15,000 years or more are still available today ... > > Below are a small selection of books about the 'wild foods' > that can be found in the countryside, both in North America, > and overlapping with plants common to parts of northwestern > Europe. In subsequent pages there are books about small-scale > organic food production, survival skills and wilderness > living, > along with articles and some step-by-step details about > becoming > as 'self-sufficient' as possible in an increasingly uncertain > world. > Useful skills for expeditions, exploring, camping trips, and > for > those simply wanting to re-learn the 'ancient survival skills' > of our > ancestors who survived the cataclysms of the distant past ... > ... > The most seriously committed vegans forage for their own foods, > taking advantage of some of nature's lesser-known but often > intensely flavorful wild bounty. As "Wildman" Steve Brill > points > out in The Wild Vegetarian Cookbook, it takes a lot of > education > and plenty of experience to identify and make use of the > bounty > of the earth's forests and seas. Foragers must learn to > distinguish > not only between the toxic and the edible but also must > discern > which among the edible plants are actually tasty and worth > harvesting and cooking. Brill offers an encyclopedia of lore > and > plenty of identifying botanical data for wild foods, but more > pictures > would help sort out these thousands of plants from one > another, > especially in the perilous world of fungi identification. > Recipes > abound, and they follow vegan principles, using everyday oils, > vinegars, and other basic ingredients.] > http://www.morien-institute.org/wildfoodbooks_us.html > > So, why do you promote a least-harm diet that includes the > deaths > of animals when foraging is the better option? Why, to promote > meat at any cost, that's why, you dirty meat pusher. ====================== I promote a viable, convienent, available for everyone diet, unlike you, fool. I see you still cannot defend YOUR diet, hypocrite? Why is it that you continue to focus on a fairy-tale instead of the diet you really eat? Oh, yeah, because the one you eat causes massive, unnecessary death and suffering of animals, eh killer? > >>>>>>>>>>You cannot claim that grass-fed beef isn't an option >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Grass fed beef isn't a viable option because those >>>>>>>>> animals accrue collateral deaths like any other steer >>>>>>>>> in the feedlot from the crops they are fed. >>>>>>>>============================= >>>>>>>>No fool, they do not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Evidence from U.S.D.A. shows that grass fed beef can be >>>>>>> and is fed grains at the feedlot like any other steer, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> still qualify as grass fed beef. >>>>>>========================== >>>>>>No fool, they do not. >>>>> >>>>> I've shown you the evidence at least three times now, so if >>>>> you have a dispute with U.S.D.A. take it up with them. >>>>======================= >>>>I did >>> >>> If you did, you would have seen that the meat from those >>> so-called grass fed animals can legitimately carry a “USDA >>> Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed” if as >>> little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no limits >>> on >>> the other 20 percent. Read U.S.D.A.'s claims standard for >>> grass fed beef again and see it for yourself. >>============== >>No > > Yes, liar. Grass fed beef IS finished at the feedlot like any > other steer and accumulates collateral deaths by virtue of > the feed given it during that time. That is the inescapable > fact that ruins your argument permanently. =============================== No, fool, they are not. Too bad you're just too stupid to understand, eh killer? > >>> Claim and Standard: >>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or >>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy >>> source throughout the animal's life cycle. >>> >>> Dated: December 20, 2002. >>> A.J. Yates, >>> Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. >>> [FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am] >>> >>> BILLING CODE 3410-02-P] >>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt >>> >>> Comments from disgruntled grass fed beef producers >>> bear this out and reveal the lie behind grass fed beef; >>> >>> [Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the >>> most commented upon topic in this docket. We >>> will not belabor all the points of concern which >>> are addressed but will focus on the areas of >>> concern to our cooperative of growers. While >>> Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method >>> IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS >>> NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that >>> you need to define both as what they ARE since >>> that is what is motivating the consumer. >>> >>> While the intent of this language would suggest >>> that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished, >>> especially in Feedlots, the language as written is >>> not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing >>> 80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at >>> the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef >>> animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for >>> 70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be >>> fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under >>> these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with >>> consumer expectations as is borne out in the >>> website comments.] >>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf >>> >>> Grass fed beef can be and is finished on grains like any >>> other steer with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of approval, despite >>> your empty, desperate denials. > > You can't escape this fact, you dirty liar, and denying it > doesn't help you, either. ========================= The facts speak for themselves, all beef cattle eat grass most of their lives, and then only 3/4 of those are sent to feedlots. That's striaght from the USDA fool. Too bad you're just too stupid to understand, eh killer? > >>>>>>>>> While the meat pushers on these vegetarian and animal- >>>>>>>>> related forums try to convince vegans that grass fed >>>>>>>>> beef is that: grass fed, and therefore has a much >>>>>>>>> lesser >>>>>>>>> association with the collateral deaths caused by >>>>>>>>> farmers >>>>>>>>> growing animal feeds, they neglect to mention that >>>>>>>>> grass fed beef is also fed grains at the feedlot just >>>>>>>>> like any other steer, >>>>>>>>============================= >>>>>>>>Still willfully ignorant, eh killer? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The evidence is indisputable and from U.S.D.A. You >>>>>>> have no reason to dispute it, and it stands until you do. >>>>>>========================== >>>>>>LOL >>>>> >>>>> The evidence from U.S.D.A. ruins your claim that grass fed >>>>> beef is all grass fed. It's finished at the feedlot and >>>>> still >>>>> qualifies as grass fed with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of >>>>> approval. >>>>=========================== >>>>No >>> >>> Yes, you can't ignore the claims standard for grass fed beef >>> issued by U.S.D.A. and the messages from disgruntled farmers >>> over it. Even consumer magazines show the lie behind >>> so-called >>> grass fed beef, and indicate the farmers' protests over the >>> claims standard. Read on. >>==================== >>You do ignore the facts > > No, that's you. You can't dodge U.S.D.A.'s claims standard for > grass fed beef by claiming it doesn't exist. Look again below > to see what consumer magazines have to say about it. ============================ Too bad you're just too stupid to understand reality, eh killer? > >>> [The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,” >>> which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would >>> be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either. >>> >>> A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification program >>> for “process claims,” including feeding methods, would only >>> add to the confusion. Products that passed an inspection >>> could >>> carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label >>> “grass fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were >>> grass, >>> with no limits on the other 20 percent; “grain fed” could be >>> used with a diet of as little as 50 percent grain. The >>> agency >>> has delayed implementation of the rule after protests from >>> farmer and consumer groups, including Consumers Union, >>> publisher of Consumer Reports magazine.] >>> http://tinyurl.com/b63f3 >>> >>> You must stop lying to people by claiming grass fed beef >>> isn't >>> finished on grains, because we can plainly see from the >>> claims >>> standard issued by U.S.D.A. that so-called grass fed beef can >>> carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label >>> “grass >>> fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with >>> no >>> limits on the other 20 percent. > > Did you get that, liar Rick? You must stop lying to people. ================================= No where does that say that all beef is finished or fed any grains. Too bad you're just too stupid to understand, eh killer? > >>>>>>> I've shown that they are, despite your denials. Read on >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> see that they are, just below this line. >>>>>>====================== >>>>>>I've read your lys >>>>> >>>>> It's evidence from U.S.D.A., you idiot. You can't dispute >>>>> it >>>>> as a lie, you imbecile. >>>>============================= >>>>Yes, I can >>> >>> Not legitimately, you can't. You can't ignore U.S.D.A.'s >>> claims >>> standard by pretending it doesn't exist. You're a stupid >>> joke, >>> Rick. >>============ >>LOL > > You've nothing to laugh about, you dirty liar. Your claims > about > grass fed beef have now been revealed to be a dirty lie from a > dirty meat pusher; you. ========================= Too bad you're just too stupid to understand, eh killer? > >>>>>>>>> and therefore has a larger association >>>>>>>>> with collateral deaths than they would like to admit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Meat-labeling guidelines are all over the place, >>>>>>>>> allowing >>>>>>>>> producers to make whatever claims they want to with >>>>>>>>> impunity, so U.S.D.A. has "proposed minimum >>>>>>>>> requirements for livestock and meat industry >>>>>>>>> production/ >>>>>>>>> marketing claims, when adopted, will become the United >>>>>>>>> States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing >>>>>>>>> Claims." They are as follows; >>>>>>>>===================== >>>>>>>>You've been show the idiocy of your claims >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, I haven't. My claims are backed by evidence from >>>>>>> U.S.D.A. and accompanying notes from disgruntled >>>>>>> farmers. There's no getting away from the fact that >>>>>>> the grass fed beef you offer as an option to regular >>>>>>> beef is bogus, because both animals are finished on >>>>>>> grains at the feedlot. It's not an alternative to regular >>>>>>> steers at all if both are fed grains at the feedlot, as >>>>>>> shown by U.S.D.A. >>>>>>========================== >>>>>>no fool, they are not backed up by the USDA. >>>>> >>>>> I've provided the link which directs you straight to >>>>> U.S.D.A.'s >>>>> page, just below in the summary, so stop lying Rick. >>>>============================== >>>>No fool, they don't say what you claim. >>> >>> That claims standard says exactly what I'm saying, that >>> so-called grass fed beef is fed 20% grains throughout its >>> entire life and finished at the feedlot like any other steer. >>============= >>No, it does not say that at all > > Yes, it does, despite your inability to accept the fact. ==================== I posted the facts fool. Too bad you're just too stupid to understand, eh killer? > >>> That being so, so-called grass fed beef accrues collateral >>> deaths from the crops they eat, so you can't keep making >>> the claim that the production of grass fed beef doesn't. In >>> short, stop lying. >>=============== >>I'm not. > > Yes, you are lying, and the evidence from U.S.D.A. proves > that you are. There's no getting away from it. ====================== "...All cattle start out eating grass; three-fourths of them are "finished" (grown to maturity) in feedlots where they are fed specially formulated feed based on corn or other grains..." http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets...able/index.asp Styraight from the USDAm again for your reading impaired braincells, fool. Read 'em a weep. All you keep posting is a PROPOSAL fool. A proposal is not a fact, is not reality. Too bad you're just too stupid to understand, eh killer? > >>>>>>>>> [SUMMARY: These proposed minimum requirements >>>>>>>>> for livestock and meat industry production/marketing >>>>>>>>> claims, when adopted, will become the United States >>>>>>>>> Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims. >>>>>>>>> ..... >>>>>>>>> Grass Fed Claims--Background: This claim refers >>>>>>>>> to the feeding regimen for livestock raised on grass, >>>>>>>>> green or range pasture, or forage throughout their >>>>>>>>> life cycle, with only limited supplemental grain >>>>>>>>> feeding allowed. Since it is necessary to assure the >>>>>>>>> animal's well being at all times, limited >>>>>>>>> supplementation >>>>>>>>> is allowed during adverse environmental conditions. >>>>>>>>> Grass feeding usually results in products containing >>>>>>>>> lower levels of external and internal fat (including >>>>>>>>> marbling) than grain-fed livestock products. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Claim and Standard: >>>>>>>>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or >>>>>>>>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy >>>>>>>>> source throughout the animal's life cycle. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dated: December 20, 2002. >>>>>>>>> A.J. Yates, >>>>>>>>> Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. >>>>>>>>> [FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> BILLING CODE 3410-02-P] >>>>>>>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt >>>>> >>>>> There's that link. >>>>================== >>>>yes, and it doesn't say what you claim it does, killer. >>> >>> That claims standard says exactly what I'm saying, that >>> so-called grass fed beef is fed 20% grains throughout its >>> entire life and can be finished at the feedlot like any other >>> steer. That being so, so-called grass fed beef accrues >>> collateral deaths from the crops they eat, so you can't >>> keep making the claim that the production of grass fed >>> beef doesn't. In short, stop lying. >>============ >>Can can stop you lys > > You're barely making sense with your childish drivel. Learn > to write, and then you'll stand a better chance in > understanding > the claims standard issued by U.S.D.A. which clearly shows > that so-called grass fed beef is grain fed after all. > ============================== Learn to read fool and you'll have a better chance to make something of yourself other than usenet fool. Too bad you're just too stupid to understand, eh killer? >>>>>>>>>>> You can't even bring yourself to concede that a vegan >>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>> eat a single meal without killing animals, >>>>>>>>>>================================ >>>>>>>>>>No fool, I never claimed that at all. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then, do you accept the fact that a vegan can eat a >>>>>>>>> meal >>>>>>>>> without any association of collateral deaths involved? >>>>>>>>======================= >>>>>>>>Not as practiced by you and every other vegan here on >>>>>>>>usenet >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then you are indeed posing a false dilemma known as the >>>>>>> perfect solution fallacy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Perfect Solution Fallacy. >>>>>>> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that >>>>>>> occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect >>>>>>> solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected >>>>>>> because some part of the problem would still exist after >>>>>>> it was implemented. Presumably, assuming no solution >>>>>>> is perfect then no solution would last very long >>>>>>> politically >>>>>>> once it had been implemented. Still, many people (notably >>>>>>> utopians) seem to find the idea of a perfect solution >>>>>>> compelling, perhaps because it is easy to imagine. >>>>>>============================ >>>>>>LOL Reposting your stupidity only confirms your stupidity >>>>> >>>>> That definition is valid, and I'll repost it as many times >>>>> as >>>>> needed. >>>>> =========================== >>>>LOL Or until you really believe it? >>> >>> There's every reason to believe that that definition of the >>> fallacy you invoke while using the collateral deaths argument >>> is correct and sound. The collateral deaths argument is >>> debunked, so think of some other way to push meat onto >>> vegans. >>=============== >>No > > Yes, liar. The collateral deaths argument has been debunked > by showing that it amounts to nothing more than a dirty little > false dilemma. ========================= No again, fool. The only thing you have bebunked is any thought that you had even two brain cells remaining. We see now that even that is not the case. Too bad you're just too stupid to understand, eh killer? > >>>>>>> Examples: >>>>>>> (critic) >>>>>>> This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists >>>>>>> will >>>>>>> still be able to get through! >>>>>>> (Rejoinder) >>>>>>> Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, >>>>>>> but would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it >>>>>>> would stop? >>>>>>> (critic) >>>>>>> These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to >>>>>>> work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter >>>>>>> what. >>>>>>> (Rejoinder) >>>>>>> It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the >>>>>>> amount by which it would reduce the total amount of >>>>>>> drunk driving enough to make the policy worthwhile? >>>>>>> (Critic) >>>>>>> Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> car wrecks. >>>>>>> (Rejoinder) >>>>>>> It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to >>>>>>> make seat belts worthwhile? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to >>>>>>> omit >>>>>>> any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, >>>>>>> it may >>>>>>> be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, >>>>>>> when >>>>>>> a specific example of a solution's failing is described >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> eye- catching detail and base rates are ignored (see >>>>>>> availability heuristic). >>>>>>> The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma. >>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy >>>>> >>>>> There it is again. Read it and weep. >>>>============================== >>>>I have. >>> >>> Then you should have noted how it pertains to the collateral >>> deaths argument, and shows it for the false dilemma that it >>> is. >>========= >>Nope. > > Then you're more dense than I originally believed, if that's > possible. You can't escape the fact that your argument > poses a false dilemma, even by feigning ignorance, so get > used to that fact and try something else to get vegans to > eat meat instead if you can, you dirty meat pusher. ======================= You know all about ignorance fool. You exude ignorance. Too bad you're just too stupid to understand, eh killer? > >>> Do you believe that the solution (drug squad) to drug >>> addiction must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy >>> simply because drug addicts still exist after the solution's >>> implementation? >>> >>> Do you believe that the solution (oral hygiene) to dental >>> decay must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy >>> simply because tooth decay still occurs after the solution's >>> implementation? >>> >>> If the answer is 'no' to both of those examples, and it is, >>> it >>> then follows that the same answer must be given when >>> considering; >>> >>> Do you believe that the solution to halt animal deaths in >>> man's diet (veganism) must be rejected as a nonsense >>> and hypocrisy simply because animal deaths (CD) still >>> occur after the solution's implementation? >>> >>> As we can see, the collateral deaths argument against the >>> proposition of veganism poses a false dilemma, and so it >>> is rejected on that basis, as well as quite a few others I >>> can think of as well. > > I knew you'd fail to address those examples, you dirty liar. ========================== The 'examples' like your argument are bogus fool. they have nothing to comment about. They have been shown as drivel many many times. That you keep trotting them out just displays your willful ignorance. Too bad you're just too stupid to understand, eh killer? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:40:09 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:03:12 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:29:29 GMT, "rick" > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>news:6alaq1h4sevdvrpp186tsg79vs0s0kkism@4ax. com... >>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Perfect Solution Fallacy. >>>>>>>>> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that >>>>>>>>> occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect >>>>>>>>> solution exists and/or that a solution should be >>>>>>>>> rejected because some part of the problem would >>>>>>>>> still exist after it was implemented. Presumably, >>>>>>>>> assuming no solution is perfect then no solution >>>>>>>>> would last very long politically once it had been >>>>>>>>> implemented. Still, many people (notably utopians) >>>>>>>>> seem to find the idea of a perfect solution compelling, >>>>>>>>> perhaps because it is easy to imagine. >>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Read it and find that you've been wasting your time >>>>>>>>> on the collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to >>>>>>>>> say. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Har har >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths >>>>>>> argument against veganism is a fallacy. >>>>>>========================== >>>>>>ROTFLMAO What a hoot! >>>>> >>>>> Get used to it, Etter, however hard it must be for someone >>>>> like you to accept. You have no choice but to accept the >>>>> fact that the collateral deaths argument is specious in >>>>> that >>>>> it poses a false dilemma. >>>>=========================== >>>>LOL The problem for you is that you cannot accept the fact >>>>that you kill animals for nothing more than your convenience >>>>and >>>>entertainment. There is no meaning to your veganism, >>>>killer. >>> >>> Once again you have fallen for the perfect solution fallacy >>> by rejecting *my* veganism on the basis that, despite *my* >>> implementation of veganism as a solution to animal deaths, >>> animal deaths still occur in a World where animal deaths >>> cannot be avoided in food production generally. In short, >>> you're posing a false dilemma as described above. Thanks >>> for lending yourself so willingly in such a clear >>> demonstration. >>=========== >>No <dishonest snipping by twits the loser noted and restored below> > > Yes, you stupid imbecile, you've tried posing exactly the > same false dilemma that you always do, and I reject it on > the basis that it invokes a fallacy. You lose, you dirty little > liar. =========== No fool, once again you have demonstarted you complete willingness to kill animals for your conveninece and entertainment. As a bonus you have proven your complete stupidity. Keep up the good work, killer. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:41:07 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:04:32 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>>>> >>>>> No. If you want to support your claims, YOU do your own >>>>> research and then bring me the results. The onus is on you >>>>> to support your claims, not me, so get busy. >>>>========================= >>>>ROTFLMAO Right after you, killer!! >>> >>> Rather, after you.While cranking on at the vegans as >>> being hypocrites and liars for allegedly ignoring or refusing >>> to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the >>> production of every morsel of food they eat, the production >>> of electricity they take advantage of when using Usenet, and >>> for the production of just about every consumable item you >>> can think of, why do you refuse to acknowledge that the >>> production of the beef you claim to eat causes collateral >>> deaths? >>> >>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>> >>> and >>> >>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>> >>> You're the only ****wit on these forums who still refuses >>> to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the >>> production of a food item, yet you're always the first to >>> criticise vegans for allegedly refusing to acknowledge >>> the collateral deaths associated with the food items they >>> eat, even after they've declared that they acknowledge >>> them. You're a rank hypocrite and a liar, Rick. > > I see you're incapable of addressing your hypocrisy and > lies in this thread as well. ========================== I see you continue to be incabable of posting proof of your claims, eh killer? Keep up the good work! You make it soooo easy, hypocrite... I'm not surprised in the least > to see you whiff off after being made such a fool of > because you're just a trolling, lying hypocrite. =========================== I see you still don't know the meaning of the word, eh killer? thanks for another great laugh! |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
"Derek" > wrote >>There's no getting away from it > > Exactly. So quit wasting your time trying. The "False [moral] Dilemma" here is the killing of animals in the production of food, and veganism is it's false solution. The collateral deaths revelation unmasks the false dilemma while at the same time tearing away the facade of veganism. And all the best for the Holiday Season. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
"Derek" > wrote > On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:11:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote >>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:31:18 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> (Critic) >>>>>>>>>>> Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral >>>>>>>>>>> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals >>>>>>>>>>> still die for their food during crop production. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The Fallacy is that veganism is a Perfect Solution, a "death-free >>>>>>>>lifestyle". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Vegans don't claim that their lifestyle is the perfect solution >>>>>>> to the killing of animals in food production. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes, for the most part that is exactly what they believe. >>>>> >>>>> No. >>>> >>>>At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution, >>> >>> No, >> >>What *do* they think is the best solution? > > I'll leave you to ask them that; Aren't you one? Or at least I thought you were representing their position, YOU answer. If veganism is not the best solution to this "Dilemma" then what is? [..] |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:58:22 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:38:39 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:49:50 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:01:06 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:24:31 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:11:55 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:35:25 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's no perfect solution to this problem of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> collateral deaths found in agriculture, and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> vegan's critic is often foolishly persuaded to try >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using this dilemma to his advantage when he's run >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of valid arguments. >>>>>>>>>>>>>==================== >>>>>>>>>>>>>LOL It's the vegan that has no valid argument fool. >>>>>>>>>>>>>You've yet to EVER prove your claims that your deit >>>>>>>>>>>>>is better. I have easily shown that there are diets >>>>>>>>>>>>>that are better than many vegan diets, and yours in >>>>>>>>>>>>>particular, killer. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, you can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and >>>>>>>>>>>> fruits. >>>>>>>>>>>===================== >>>>>>>>>>>You don't do that do you, fool! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, your grass fed beef or hunted meat cannot >>>>>>>>>> best forging for wild vegetables and fruits. Whether I >>>>>>>>>> forage or not is irrelevant. >>>>>>>>>=========================== >>>>>>>>>LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, I've shown that I'm right by offering a better solution >>>>>>>> than the grass fed beef or hunted meat you offer: foraging >>>>>>>> for wild vegetables and fruits. You'll do best to include >>>>>>>> that solution when offering the least harm diet, but being >>>>>>>> the meat pusher that you are you'll probably ignore it and >>>>>>>> continue offering your CD-laden grass fed beef instead. >>>>>>>=================================== >>>>>>>No >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I have. You can't beat foraging for wild vegetables >>>>>> and fruits. >>>>>> ============================== >>>>>Resorting to your dishonest snipping again >>>> >>>> I snip where I want without your permission, so deal with >>>> my comment and stop whining.You can't beat foraging >>>> for vegetables and fruits with your CD-laden grass fed >>>> beef and hunted meat, so why don't you offer that instead >>>> when asked for your opinion on what you consider to be >>>> the least-harm diet, you meat pushing liar? >>>================= >>>Because fairy-tales don't count. >> >> Foraging for wild vegetables and fruits isn't a fairy tale, and >> it beats your CD-laden so-called grass fed beef and hunted >> meat every time, so why don't you offer that instead? Look >> below at the information on foraging, you stupid liar. >========================== >Fairy-tales, fool. People have survived for thousands of years on staple diets by foraging wild vegetables and fruits. Read the comments on foraging again (below). [Many people who live in the countryside already know how to harvest nature's bounty, food that is available to anyone who takes the time and trouble to learn about 'wild foods' that abound in their localities. Much of this knowledge has been passed down through the generations, and many of the 'wild foods' that made up the staple diets of peoples over the past 15,000 years or more are still available today ... Below are a small selection of books about the 'wild foods' that can be found in the countryside, both in North America, and overlapping with plants common to parts of northwestern Europe. In subsequent pages there are books about small-scale organic food production, survival skills and wilderness living, along with articles and some step-by-step details about becoming as 'self-sufficient' as possible in an increasingly uncertain world. Useful skills for expeditions, exploring, camping trips, and for those simply wanting to re-learn the 'ancient survival skills' of our ancestors who survived the cataclysms of the distant past ... ... The most seriously committed vegans forage for their own foods, taking advantage of some of nature's lesser-known but often intensely flavorful wild bounty. As "Wildman" Steve Brill points out in The Wild Vegetarian Cookbook, it takes a lot of education and plenty of experience to identify and make use of the bounty of the earth's forests and seas. Foragers must learn to distinguish not only between the toxic and the edible but also must discern which among the edible plants are actually tasty and worth harvesting and cooking. Brill offers an encyclopedia of lore and plenty of identifying botanical data for wild foods, but more pictures would help sort out these thousands of plants from one another, especially in the perilous world of fungi identification. Recipes abound, and they follow vegan principles, using everyday oils, vinegars, and other basic ingredients.] http://www.morien-institute.org/wildfoodbooks_us.html Now that's the least-harm diet, but instead of promoting that you promote a diet that kills animals instead because you're a meat pusher. You're busted. >> So, why do you promote a least-harm diet that includes the >> deaths of animals when foraging is the better option? Why, >> to promote meat at any cost, that's why, you dirty meat pusher. >====================== >I promote a viable, convienent, available for everyone diet ... instead of a diet which IS the least harm diet known to you. The enquirer *isn't* asking you which diet is the most viable or convenient; he's asking you which is the least-harm diet. >unlike you, fool. You can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and fruits as the least-harm diet, and that's exactly what I'm offering, so it's a lie to say I'm not. >I see you still cannot defend YOUR diet, There's nothing about my diet that needs defending, so I don't know why you keep repeating that stupid sentence at every turn. >>>> That being so, so-called grass fed beef accrues collateral >>>> deaths from the crops they eat, so you can't keep making >>>> the claim that the production of grass fed beef doesn't. In >>>> short, stop lying. >>>=============== >>>I'm not. >> >> Yes, you are lying, and the evidence from U.S.D.A. proves >> that you are. There's no getting away from it. >====================== >"...All cattle start out eating grass; three-fourths of them are >"finished" (grown to maturity) in feedlots where they are fed >specially formulated feed based on corn or other grains..." >http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets...able/index.asp > >Styraight from the USDA Fine. Now go back to the U.S.D.A. and see how it defines the remainder of that "three fourths of them" which aren't (allegedly) grain fed: grass fed. Grass Fed Claims--Background: This claim refers to the feeding regimen for livestock raised on grass, green or range pasture, or forage throughout their life cycle, with only limited supplemental grain feeding allowed. Since it is necessary to assure the animal's well being at all times, limited supplementation is allowed during adverse environmental conditions. Grass feeding usually results in products containing lower levels of external and internal fat (including marbling) than grain-fed livestock products. Claim and Standard: [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy source throughout the animal's life cycle. Dated: December 20, 2002. A.J. Yates, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P] http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt This standard means that grass fed beef can in fact be fed up to 80% grains for 60 days in a feedlot, just like any other steer, and still qualify as grass fed beef. Comments from disgruntled grass fed beef producers bear this out and reveal the lie behind grass fed beef; [Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the most commented upon topic in this docket. We will not belabor all the points of concern which are addressed but will focus on the areas of concern to our cooperative of growers. While Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that you need to define both as what they ARE since that is what is motivating the consumer. While the intent of this language would suggest that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished, especially in Feedlots, the language as written is not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing 80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for 70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with consumer expectations as is borne out in the website comments.] http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf [Products that passed an inspection could carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no limits on the other 20 percent; “grain fed” could be used with a diet of as little as 50 percent grain.] http://tinyurl.com/b63f3 You cannot ignore the fact that customers of grass fed beef which carries the "USDA Process Verified" shield next to the label "grass fed" may be buying meat from animals that have been finished on grains at a feedlot with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of approval. Ergo, grass fed beef accrues collateral deaths like any other steer at the feedlot. It's not an alternative to grain fed beef while being grain fed beef. >>>>>>>>>> [SUMMARY: These proposed minimum requirements >>>>>>>>>> for livestock and meat industry production/marketing >>>>>>>>>> claims, when adopted, will become the United States >>>>>>>>>> Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims. >>>>>>>>>> ..... >>>>>>>>>> Grass Fed Claims--Background: This claim refers >>>>>>>>>> to the feeding regimen for livestock raised on grass, >>>>>>>>>> green or range pasture, or forage throughout their >>>>>>>>>> life cycle, with only limited supplemental grain >>>>>>>>>> feeding allowed. Since it is necessary to assure the >>>>>>>>>> animal's well being at all times, limited supplementation >>>>>>>>>> is allowed during adverse environmental conditions. >>>>>>>>>> Grass feeding usually results in products containing >>>>>>>>>> lower levels of external and internal fat (including >>>>>>>>>> marbling) than grain-fed livestock products. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Claim and Standard: >>>>>>>>>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or >>>>>>>>>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy >>>>>>>>>> source throughout the animal's life cycle. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dated: December 20, 2002. >>>>>>>>>> A.J. Yates, >>>>>>>>>> Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. >>>>>>>>>> [FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> BILLING CODE 3410-02-P] >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt >>>>>> >>>>>> There's that link. >>>>>================== >>>>>yes, and it doesn't say what you claim it does, killer. >>>> >>>> That claims standard says exactly what I'm saying, that >>>> so-called grass fed beef is fed 20% grains throughout its >>>> entire life and can be finished at the feedlot like any other >>>> steer. That being so, so-called grass fed beef accrues >>>> collateral deaths from the crops they eat, so you can't >>>> keep making the claim that the production of grass fed >>>> beef doesn't. In short, stop lying. >>>============ >>>Can can stop you lys >> >> You're barely making sense with your childish drivel. Learn >> to write, and then you'll stand a better chance in understanding >> the claims standard issued by U.S.D.A. which clearly shows >> that so-called grass fed beef is grain fed after all. >> ============================== >Learn to read fool "Can can stop you lys" is not a sentence; it's gibberish. YOU need to learn to read if you think it's a sentence, and write too. >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't even bring yourself to concede that a vegan >>>>>>>>>>>> can eat a single meal without killing animals, >>>>>>>>>>>================================ >>>>>>>>>>>No fool, I never claimed that at all. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then, do you accept the fact that a vegan can eat a >>>>>>>>>> meal without any association of collateral deaths involved? >>>>>>>>>======================= >>>>>>>>>Not as practiced by you and every other vegan here on >>>>>>>>>usenet >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then you are indeed posing a false dilemma known as the >>>>>>>> perfect solution fallacy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Perfect Solution Fallacy. >>>>>>>> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that >>>>>>>> occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect >>>>>>>> solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected >>>>>>>> because some part of the problem would still exist after >>>>>>>> it was implemented. Presumably, assuming no solution >>>>>>>> is perfect then no solution would last very long politically >>>>>>>> once it had been implemented. Still, many people (notably >>>>>>>> utopians) seem to find the idea of a perfect solution >>>>>>>> compelling, perhaps because it is easy to imagine. >>>>>>>============================ >>>>>>>LOL Reposting your stupidity only confirms your stupidity >>>>>> >>>>>> That definition is valid, and I'll repost it as many times >>>>>> as needed. >>>>>> =========================== >>>>>LOL Or until you really believe it? >>>> >>>> There's every reason to believe that that definition of the >>>> fallacy you invoke while using the collateral deaths argument >>>> is correct and sound. The collateral deaths argument is >>>> debunked, so think of some other way to push meat onto >>>> vegans. >>>=============== >>>No >> >> Yes, liar. The collateral deaths argument has been debunked >> by showing that it amounts to nothing more than a dirty little >> false dilemma. >========================= >No Yes, absolutely, but you're bound to deny it because you deny everything you don't want to believe, even when shown the evidence. Take your denial of the collateral deaths associated with the production of the grass fed beef you claim to eat, for example. While cranking on at the vegans as being hypocrites and liars for allegedly ignoring or refusing to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the production of every morsel of food they eat, the production of electricity they take advantage of when using Usenet, and for the production of just about every consumable item you can think of, why do you refuse to acknowledge that the production of the beef you claim to eat causes collateral deaths? "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." and "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 You're the only ****wit on these forums who still refuses to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the production of a food item, yet you're always the first to criticise vegans for allegedly refusing to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the food items they eat, even after they've declared that they acknowledge them. You're a rank hypocrite and a liar, living in denial. >>>>>>>> Examples: >>>>>>>> (critic) >>>>>>>> This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists >>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>> still be able to get through! >>>>>>>> (Rejoinder) >>>>>>>> Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, >>>>>>>> but would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it >>>>>>>> would stop? >>>>>>>> (critic) >>>>>>>> These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to >>>>>>>> work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter >>>>>>>> what. >>>>>>>> (Rejoinder) >>>>>>>> It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the >>>>>>>> amount by which it would reduce the total amount of >>>>>>>> drunk driving enough to make the policy worthwhile? >>>>>>>> (Critic) >>>>>>>> Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in >>>>>>>> car wrecks. >>>>>>>> (Rejoinder) >>>>>>>> It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, >>>>>>>> but isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough >>>>>>>> to make seat belts worthwhile? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to >>>>>>>> omit any specifics about how much the solution is claimed >>>>>>>> to not work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, >>>>>>>> it may be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, >>>>>>>> when a specific example of a solution's failing is described >>>>>>>> in eye- catching detail and base rates are ignored (see >>>>>>>> availability heuristic). >>>>>>>> The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma. >>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy >>>>>> >>>>>> There it is again. Read it and weep. >>>>>============================== >>>>>I have. >>>> >>>> Then you should have noted how it pertains to the collateral >>>> deaths argument, and shows it for the false dilemma that it >>>> is. >>>========= >>>Nope. >> >> Then you're more dense than I originally believed, if that's >> possible. You can't escape the fact that your argument >> poses a false dilemma, even by feigning ignorance, so get >> used to that fact and try something else to get vegans to >> eat meat instead if you can, you dirty meat pusher. >======================= >You know all about ignorance fool. A typical non-response, always expected when you've been beaten into the ground. >>>> Do you believe that the solution (drug squad) to drug >>>> addiction must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy >>>> simply because drug addicts still exist after the solution's >>>> implementation? >>>> >>>> Do you believe that the solution (oral hygiene) to dental >>>> decay must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy >>>> simply because tooth decay still occurs after the solution's >>>> implementation? >>>> >>>> If the answer is 'no' to both of those examples, and it is, >>>> it then follows that the same answer must be given when >>>> considering; >>>> >>>> Do you believe that the solution to halt animal deaths in >>>> man's diet (veganism) must be rejected as a nonsense >>>> and hypocrisy simply because animal deaths (CD) still >>>> occur after the solution's implementation? >>>> >>>> As we can see, the collateral deaths argument against the >>>> proposition of veganism poses a false dilemma, and so it >>>> is rejected on that basis, as well as quite a few others I >>>> can think of as well. >> >> I knew you'd fail to address those examples, you dirty liar. >========================== >The 'examples' like your argument are bogus fool. No, they're valid examples which show by analogy how the collateral deaths argument poses a false dilemma and is rejected. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
helping out dishonest twits...
Here. let me just take care of the whole thing for you, fool. Since you cannot reply without lys, delusion and anipping. All indicators that you have lost, killer. Keep up the good work! You're the best argument there is for the lunacy and ignorance of vegans usenet wide, hypocrite... |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:21:31 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote >> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:11:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote >>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:31:18 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> (Critic) >>>>>>>>>>>> Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral >>>>>>>>>>>> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals >>>>>>>>>>>> still die for their food during crop production. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The Fallacy is that veganism is a Perfect Solution, a "death-free >>>>>>>>>lifestyle". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Vegans don't claim that their lifestyle is the perfect solution >>>>>>>> to the killing of animals in food production. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yes, for the most part that is exactly what they believe. >>>>>> >>>>>> No. >>>>> >>>>>At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution, >>>> >>>> No, >>> >>>What *do* they think is the best solution? >> >> I'll leave you to ask them that; > >Aren't you one? Yes, I am. >Or at least I thought you were representing their position No, I let them represent their own position. >YOU answer. Veganism. Now, that behind us, when are you going to summon the courage to address this post you keep snipping away and explain why you insist on arguing with your straw man vegan instead of the real vegans if not to knock your straw vegan down easily to then declare a defeat of the real vegan's position? <restore entire post> No, you don't get to make claims on behalf of all vegans. That's your straw man again. Abstaining from meat is a solution to avoid the killing of animals for food, and while that solution still involves the killing of some animals in crop production, it's a fallacy to reject that solution on that basis. >> Yet again, instead of dealing with real vegans in the real >> World who acknowledge collateral deaths in crop production, >> you choose to focus on the imaginary straw man vegan that >> doesn't acknowledge them instead because that straw man is >> easy to knock down, leaving the way open for you to declare >> you've demolished the true vegan's position in the real World. >> That's just not good enough, and your criticism, while directed >> only at your straw man, is rejected as nonsense. > >You could have just said "strawman" you wordy ****. At least you admit that the vegan you argue with is your straw man, so that's something. >>>> Only your straw >>>> vegan claims that so he's easier to demolish. If you're only >>>> capable of dealing with the imaginary vegans inside your >>>> head, you're in the wrong place when trying to deal with the >>>> real vegans in the real World here. >>> >>>Real World vegans display the attitudes and ideas I am attributing to >>>them. >> >> No, they don't. I've provided examples from various vegan web >> sites and authors discussing the subject at length, and which you >> subsequently snipped away. Repeating your claim that *all* >> vegans refuse to acknowledge them in light of this evidence is >> absurd and an obviously lie on your part. > >A couple of sites give cds a passing mention, always in some obscure part of >the site, always to dismiss their importance. Whatever they say about their importance is of little concern here. What IS of concern is your reluctance to concede that, contrary to what you try to claim, vegan literature does acknowledge them, and individual vegans like myself discuss them at length. Those fact in place, it's a lie to claim vegans ignore them. In short, you're a liar. >>>> I've shown you comments >>>> from vegan web sites that deal with the problem of CDs, and >>>> once again you've snipped those comments away, only to >>>> proceed with trying to demolish your imaginary vegan again. >>>> That's not good enough, so until you address the real vegan >>>> your criticism of him has to be ignored. >>> >>>The issue of collateral deaths is ignored or trivialized by vegans. >> >> No, once again, it is not. Try dealing with the arguments put >> forward by the real vegans in the real World instead of those >> imaginary vegans inside your head. It's patently obvious that >> you have no valid complaint against the real vegan until you do. > >It's obvious that you're talking through your hat. That's a non-response. You cannot expect your criticism of vegans to be taken seriously while your definition and criticism focuses on your imaginary vegan. What would be the point in arguing against a critic who's only criticism focuses on HIS imaginary vegan? You're a joke. >> When or if you finally decide to challenge the real vegan's >> solution to the animal deaths surrounding man's diet, don't >> make the mistake in rejecting veganism on the basis that >> some deaths will still occur after its proposed implementation >> because you'll be invoking the perfect solution fallacy. Like >> I said, you've been wasting your time on this collateral deaths >> issue for years, and it's about time you thought of something >> else to challenge the vegan with apart from fallacies and lies. > >Thanks for mentioning the Perfect Solution fallacy, it's very descriptive of >veganism. Rather, it pertains to the fallacy non-vegans use to reject veganism. Rejecting veganism as a solution to the animal deaths associated in man's diet on the basis that animal deaths will still exist after veganism is implemented in a World where collateral deaths are ubiquitous is specious. >Vegans think that there is a Perfect Solution to animal death and >suffering in one's diet and they think that veganism is it. It's certainly the best solution where the deaths of farmed animals and fish is concerned, and their huge associated collateral deaths. >What a bunch of ******s. Hitting a nerve? That's good. The collateral deaths argument is debunked, so it's back to the drawing board for you until you can come up with something that doesn't invoke logical fallacies, doesn't include a straw man vegan who refuses to acknowledge collateral deaths, and isn't based on lies. You're screwed. All the antis are screwed, and it's your own fault because you've hinged everything on the collateral deaths argument and now been shown that it's nothing more than a common little false dilemma. Do you believe that the solution (drug squad) to drug addiction must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy simply because drug addicts still exist after the solution's implementation? Do you believe that the solution (oral hygiene) to dental decay must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy simply because tooth decay still occurs after the solution's implementation? If the answer is 'no' to both of those examples, and it is, it then follows that the same answer must be given when considering; Do you believe that the solution to halt animal deaths in man's diet (veganism) must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy simply because animal deaths (CD) still occur after the solution's implementation? As we can see, the collateral deaths argument against the proposition of veganism poses a false dilemma, and so it is rejected on that basis, as well as quite a few others I can think of as well. <end restore> >[..] > |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:59:47 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:40:09 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:03:12 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:29:29 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The Perfect Solution Fallacy. >>>>>>>>>> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that >>>>>>>>>> occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect >>>>>>>>>> solution exists and/or that a solution should be >>>>>>>>>> rejected because some part of the problem would >>>>>>>>>> still exist after it was implemented. Presumably, >>>>>>>>>> assuming no solution is perfect then no solution >>>>>>>>>> would last very long politically once it had been >>>>>>>>>> implemented. Still, many people (notably utopians) >>>>>>>>>> seem to find the idea of a perfect solution compelling, >>>>>>>>>> perhaps because it is easy to imagine. >>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Read it and find that you've been wasting your time >>>>>>>>>> on the collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to >>>>>>>>>> say. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Har har >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths >>>>>>>> argument against veganism is a fallacy. >>>>>>>========================== >>>>>>>ROTFLMAO What a hoot! >>>>>> >>>>>> Get used to it, Etter, however hard it must be for someone >>>>>> like you to accept. You have no choice but to accept the >>>>>> fact that the collateral deaths argument is specious in >>>>>> that it poses a false dilemma. >>>>>=========================== >>>>>LOL The problem for you is that you cannot accept the fact >>>>>that you kill animals for nothing more than your convenience >>>>>and entertainment. There is no meaning to your veganism, >>>>>killer. >>>> >>>> Once again you have fallen for the perfect solution fallacy >>>> by rejecting *my* veganism on the basis that, despite *my* >>>> implementation of veganism as a solution to animal deaths, >>>> animal deaths still occur in a World where animal deaths >>>> cannot be avoided in food production generally. In short, >>>> you're posing a false dilemma as described above. Thanks >>>> for lending yourself so willingly in such a clear >>>> demonstration. >>>=========== >>>No >> >> Yes, you stupid imbecile, you've tried posing exactly the >> same false dilemma that you always do, and I reject it on >> the basis that it invokes a fallacy. You lose, you dirty little >> liar. >=========== >No Repeating you denial at this stage after being shown this false dilemma you pose is absurd, but then you deny the facts to everything that ruins your trolling here, so it isn't as absurd as I first believed. I reject your argument on the basis that it poses a false dilemma, and I've given you examples analogous to your collateral deaths argument to show that you are posing a sub fallacy of the false dilemma known as 'the perfect solution fallacy.' You and your false dilemma are old news now. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:01:50 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:41:07 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:04:32 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> >>>>>> No. If you want to support your claims, YOU do your own >>>>>> research and then bring me the results. The onus is on you >>>>>> to support your claims, not me, so get busy. >>>>>========================= >>>>>ROTFLMAO Right after you, killer!! >>>> >>>> Rather, after you.While cranking on at the vegans as >>>> being hypocrites and liars for allegedly ignoring or refusing >>>> to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the >>>> production of every morsel of food they eat, the production >>>> of electricity they take advantage of when using Usenet, and >>>> for the production of just about every consumable item you >>>> can think of, why do you refuse to acknowledge that the >>>> production of the beef you claim to eat causes collateral >>>> deaths? >>>> >>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." >>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7 >>>> >>>> You're the only ****wit on these forums who still refuses >>>> to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the >>>> production of a food item, yet you're always the first to >>>> criticise vegans for allegedly refusing to acknowledge >>>> the collateral deaths associated with the food items they >>>> eat, even after they've declared that they acknowledge >>>> them. You're a rank hypocrite and a liar, Rick. >> >> I see you're incapable of addressing your hypocrisy and >> lies in this thread as well. >========================== >I see you continue to be incabable of posting proof of your >claims, eh killer? My claim at this point, if we look at the thread, is this; "You're the only ****wit on these forums who still refuses to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the production of a food item, yet you're always the first to criticise vegans for allegedly refusing to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the food items they eat, even after they've declared that they acknowledge them. " And that claim is supported by your quotes that deny the collateral deaths associated with the production of the beef you claim to eat, so it's a lie to now claim I haven't supported my claim. >>I'm not surprised in the least >> to see you whiff off after being made such a fool of >> because you're just a trolling, lying hypocrite. >=========================== >I see you still don't know the meaning of the word After reading your posts and seeing your denial and sheer hypocrisy, I know the meaning of the word troll. Heckling is all you do, and you're not very good or imaginative at it. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:19:01 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote > >>>There's no getting away from it >> >> Exactly. > >So quit wasting your time trying. Rather it's you rather than me whose trying to escape the implications of that fallacy to the collateral deaths argument because it shows you've been posing a false dilemma all these years. >The "False [moral] Dilemma" here is the killing of animals in the production >of food, and veganism is it's false solution. Once again you have fallen for the same fallacy by rejecting veganism as a solution on the basis that some animals deaths will still occur after its implementation in a World where animal deaths in food production are allegedly inescapable. The Perfect Solution Fallacy. The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented. Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution would last very long politically once it had been implemented. Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to imagine. Examples: (critic) This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will still be able to get through! (Rejoinder) Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, but would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would stop? (critic) These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter what. (Rejoinder) It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the amount by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving enough to make the policy worthwhile? (Critic) Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car wrecks. (Rejoinder) It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to make seat belts worthwhile? It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when a specific example of a solution's failing is described in eye- catching detail and base rates are ignored (see availability heuristic). The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy Thank you for taking part in such a clear demonstration. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:21:31 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote >>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:11:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote >>>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:31:18 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (Critic) >>>>>>>>>>>>> Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral >>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; >>>>>>>>>>>>> animals >>>>>>>>>>>>> still die for their food during crop production. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>The Fallacy is that veganism is a Perfect Solution, a "death-free >>>>>>>>>>lifestyle". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Vegans don't claim that their lifestyle is the perfect solution >>>>>>>>> to the killing of animals in food production. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yes, for the most part that is exactly what they believe. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. >>>>>> >>>>>>At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution, >>>>> >>>>> No, >>>> >>>>What *do* they think is the best solution? >>> >>> I'll leave you to ask them that; >> >>Aren't you one? > > Yes, I am. > >>Or at least I thought you were representing their position > > No, I let them represent their own position. > >>YOU answer. > > Veganism. That would tend to prove my point now wouldn't it? > Now, that behind us, when are you going to > summon the courage to address this post you keep > snipping away and explain why you insist on arguing > with your straw man vegan instead of the real vegans > if not to knock your straw vegan down easily to then > declare a defeat of the real vegan's position? Since we just established that the position I am addressing *is* indeed your position, you can dispense with all the rubbish. > <restore entire post> > No, you don't get to make claims on behalf of all vegans. > That's your straw man again. Abstaining from meat is a > solution to avoid the killing of animals for food, and while > that solution still involves the killing of some animals in > crop production, it's a fallacy to reject that solution on > that basis. No, it's a fallacy that the killing of animals in food production is a moral problem in the first place. [..] >>It's obvious that you're talking through your hat. > > That's a non-response. You cannot expect your criticism of > vegans to be taken seriously while your definition and criticism > focuses on your imaginary vegan. What would be the point in > arguing against a critic who's only criticism focuses on HIS > imaginary vegan? You're a joke. Since you just admitted that he's not imaginary, who's the joke? >>> When or if you finally decide to challenge the real vegan's >>> solution to the animal deaths surrounding man's diet, don't >>> make the mistake in rejecting veganism on the basis that >>> some deaths will still occur after its proposed implementation >>> because you'll be invoking the perfect solution fallacy. Like >>> I said, you've been wasting your time on this collateral deaths >>> issue for years, and it's about time you thought of something >>> else to challenge the vegan with apart from fallacies and lies. >> >>Thanks for mentioning the Perfect Solution fallacy, it's very descriptive >>of >>veganism. > > Rather, it pertains to the fallacy non-vegans use to reject > veganism. Rejecting veganism as a solution to the animal > deaths associated in man's diet on the basis that animal > deaths will still exist after veganism is implemented in a > World where collateral deaths are ubiquitous is specious. The idea that killing animals is a moral problem in a world where collateral deaths are ubiquitous is specious. The vegan *invents* a moral issue, then invents a false solution. >>Vegans think that there is a Perfect Solution to animal death and >>suffering in one's diet and they think that veganism is it. > > It's certainly the best solution where the deaths of farmed > animals and fish is concerned, and their huge associated > collateral deaths. > >>What a bunch of ******s. > > Hitting a nerve? No, not in the least, just, what a bunch of ******s.. > That's good. The collateral deaths argument > is debunked, so it's back to the drawing board for you until > you can come up with something that doesn't invoke logical > fallacies, doesn't include a straw man vegan who refuses to > acknowledge collateral deaths, and isn't based on lies. Paying lip service to collateral deaths is not nearly good enough, the revelation demands that you take account of it in your moral calculations. > You're screwed. All the antis are screwed, and it's your > own fault because you've hinged everything on the > collateral deaths argument and now been shown that it's > nothing more than a common little false dilemma. Veganism is a non-solution to a non-extistent problem. You applied this little principle too late. > Do you believe that the solution (drug squad) to drug > addiction must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy > simply because drug addicts still exist after the solution's > implementation? Pretty much, yes. Law enforcement is the wrong approach to drug addiction. > Do you believe that the solution (oral hygiene) to dental > decay must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy > simply because tooth decay still occurs after the solution's > implementation? Tooth decay does not occur if oral hygiene is properly followed. > If the answer is 'no' to both of those examples, and it is, it > then follows that the same answer must be given when > considering; > > Do you believe that the solution to halt animal deaths in > man's diet (veganism) must be rejected as a nonsense > and hypocrisy simply because animal deaths (CD) still > occur after the solution's implementation? Absolutely, because the death of animals in agriculture is NOT a real moral problem to begin with, AND veganism does not solve it anyway. > > As we can see, the collateral deaths argument against the > proposition of veganism poses a false dilemma, and so it > is rejected on that basis, as well as quite a few others I > can think of as well. Veganism must be rejected utterly because it creates a false dilemma then addresses it with a solution that does not work. > <end restore> Thanks for giving me another opportunity to kick your ass. And all the best for the Holiday Season. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:19:01 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote >> >>>>There's no getting away from it >>> >>> Exactly. >> >>So quit wasting your time trying. > > Rather it's you rather than me whose trying to escape > the implications of that fallacy to the collateral deaths > argument because it shows you've been posing a false > dilemma all these years. Yes, YOU have. >>The "False [moral] Dilemma" here is the killing of animals in the >>production >>of food, and veganism is it's false solution. > > Once again you have fallen for the same fallacy by > rejecting veganism as a solution on the basis that some > animals deaths will still occur after its implementation in > a World where animal deaths in food production are > allegedly inescapable. No, I reject the vegan premise that the killing of animals in agriculture is a Moral Dilemma. That is patently absurd. > The Perfect Solution Fallacy. > The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs > when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists > and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part > of the problem would still exist after it was implemented. Irrelevant when the moral problem is imaginary. Animal death is ubiquitous and unavoidable. > Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution > would last very long politically once it had been implemented. > Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of > a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to > imagine. Veganism is a false solution to an imaginary moral problem. Veganism from a categorical standpoint does not even necessarily reduce the number of animal deaths > Examples: > (critic) > This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will still be > able to get through! Terrorism is a real problem, killing of animals in agriculture is not. > (Rejoinder) > Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, but > would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would stop? > (critic) Veganism from a categorical standpoint does not even necessarily reduce the number of animal deaths. It's a false solution, even to the imaginary problem it created. > These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work. > People are still going to drink and drive no matter what. > (Rejoinder) Drunk driving is a real problem, animals deaths in agriculture is not. > It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the amount > by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving > enough to make the policy worthwhile? Veganism from a categorical standpoint does not even necessarily reduce the number of animal deaths. It's a false solution, even to the imaginary problem it created. > (Critic) > Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car Dying in car wrecks is a real problem, animals deaths in agriculture is not. > wrecks. > (Rejoinder) > It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but > isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to make > seat belts worthwhile? Veganism from a categorical standpoint does not even necessarily reduce the number of animal deaths. It's a false solution, even to the imaginary problem it created. > It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit > any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not > work, but express it only in vague terms. Veganism specifically fails to address the problem of collateral deaths of animals, even after setting up the false moral dilemma of animal deaths. > Alternatively, it may > be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when > a specific example of a solution's failing is described in eye- > catching detail and base rates are ignored (see availability > heuristic). > The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy > > Thank you for taking part in such a clear demonstration. My pleasure, thank you for allowing me to demonstrate once again that veganism is a false solution to an imaginary moral dilemma. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
|
|||
|
|||
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy":a false dilemma.
Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The idea that killing animals is a moral problem in a world where collateral > deaths are ubiquitous is specious. No, of course not. You could just as well claim that the idea that killing *humans* is a moral problem in a world where human deaths, collateral, accidental, and intentional, are ubiquitous is specious. The scale may be different in *some* areas -- although not all -- for humans. In some times and places, the scale is similar, and sometimes even the rationale is similar. But because it's *our* species, humans other than those doing the killing usually consider the killing a moral problem. Consider "ethnic cleansing" or "the final solution" or the campaign against the kulaks in Soviet Russia, or the killing of the aristocrats in France during the Terror, or many other examples. The humans killed were defined as a threat or even a "pest" in much the same way animals are defined in agriculture. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Paying lip service to collateral deaths is not nearly good enough, the > revelation demands that you take account of it in your moral calculations. Taking account of something does not require that others respond in the same way you would. You cannot say someone has not considered the issue because you don't like the results of their consideration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Veganism must be rejected utterly because it creates a false dilemma then > addresses it with a solution that does not work. The solution does not work *for you*. It does work for others, because the moral issue for them is, or may be, different. If the issue is the property status of farmed animals, and the injustice of denying them appropriate liberty and moral status, veganism is a solution to that moral issue. You cannot define that moral issue as meaningless *for others* because you see it as meaningless for you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|