"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.

"Glorfindel" wrote in message
...
Derek wrote:



There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths
argument
against veganism is a fallacy.

Glorfindel wrote:

Yes, that is true, for several reasons.
===================
It's false, for many more reasons, killer...


Current methods of crop production (probably; presumptively )
may
involve collateral deaths, but raising, transporting, and
marketing
animals for food *certainly* do, and always will.
============================
Your veggies are transported far greater distances than my meats
are fool. There is barely any transportation for the beef I eat.
The fruits I eat, and you eat, are transported across tha country
and the world. You eat far more imported veggies.


The question of
which diet involves fewer cannot be answered on a
black-and-white
basis, because each individual diet must be evaluated
independently.
============================
ROTFLMAO Which the human dreck you're responding to will naver
address. He want's to focus on a fairy-tale.



However, given the optimum example of each type, a vegan diet
will
always involve fewer deaths than a diet including meat, given
the
same parameters in each case.
===============================
You do have proof, right killer?


An *ideal* vegan diet would indeed
involve no animal deaths at all, while even an *ideal* omnivore
diet would involve at least some animal deaths. As Derek has
noted,
the ideal in either case is probably impossible in the real
world,
so it cannot be used to critique any specific diet in the real
world. It can only be used as a goal, or theoretical concept,
and
in that case, the vegan diet must be better for animals.
================================
Ah, you too intend on focusing on fairy-tales. I see that you,
like human drecks, can't discuss real-world diets.



Secondly, as far as the concept of animal rights, or animal
liberation,
is concerned, the vegan diet wins hands-down.
==============================
ROTFLMAO No it does not. And on top of that YOU continue to
prove that animals have no rights, and that YOU don't believe
they do with your constant posting to usenet, hypocrite.


Even a diet of hunted
meat involves a violation of the rights of the hunted animal by
its death at human hands.
========================
Animals have no rights, and even your prove they do not, killer.


An equivalent diet of gathering need not
involve any intentional killing of rights-bearing animals at
all.
If we consider a diet involving farmed animals, the animals'
rights
are violated both by the entire process of breeding and raising
them, and the basic injustice of treating them as property, and
again in the process of slaughtering them. Collateral deaths
in
the field, or in protection of food in storage, would involve,
at the
most, the single injustice of lack of consideration of the
animals'
rights in "pest control."
========================
fair-tales...



There is absolutely no way a diet involving meat can be seen as
more
just for animals, or less harmful for them, if the same
criteria are
applied to any individual example. It is only by comparing
vastly
different examples ("comparing apples and oranges" ) that any
diet
including meat can be seen as less harmful on a utilitarian
basis.
This must be a dishonest approach to the issue.
=============================
No fool, the dishonesty is from vegans. They cannot compare
real-world diets to each other. But then, that's not news
because they don't even compare the foods they do eat to each
other and make choices that cause n0/fewer/less deaths of
animals. You follow only a simply rule for your simple mind, eat
no meat. You focus only on what you think others are doing so
that you can ignore your own bloody footprints.
The truth is that the typical usenet vegan does nothing to
alleviate animal death and suffering. You could reduce your
impact without any major changes in lifestyle/convenience by
replacing 100s of 1000s of veggie calories with the death of one
animal. Those meat choices are readily available while your
fairy-tale gathering is, well, just a fairy-tale.
Another proof of your relying on your simple rule for your simple
mind is your focus on meat. A product that you claim not to eat,
and totally ignoring any comparisons of the foods you do eat. If
animal death and suffering were of any real concern to vegans
there would be a list of veggies and the cost in animal deaths
that each cause. I know that there is no concern for this as
vegan food groups/recipes/foods always talk about bananas. A
product that has caused the destruction of millions and millions
of acres of rain-forests, and depends on massive use of
pesticides and transportation.



BTW, Jane Goodall has recently published a new book on the
issue of
animal- and environmentally-friendly diet, for those who are
interested.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:46:50 -0700, Glorfindel wrote:

Derek wrote:



There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
against veganism is a fallacy.

Glorfindel wrote:

Yes, that is true, for several reasons.

Current methods of crop production (probably; presumptively ) may
involve collateral deaths, but raising, transporting, and marketing
animals for food *certainly* do, and always will.

Precisely, and the distinction between the two does bear some
consideration when deciding which is the more ethical choice.
Like you say, raising animals for slaughter will always involve
the death of at least one animal while raising vegetables
doesn't require the deaths of any.

The question of
which diet involves fewer cannot be answered on a black-and-white
basis, because each individual diet must be evaluated independently.
However, given the optimum example of each type, a vegan diet will
always involve fewer deaths than a diet including meat, given the
same parameters in each case. An *ideal* vegan diet would indeed
involve no animal deaths at all, while even an *ideal* omnivore
diet would involve at least some animal deaths.

That's very similar in sentiment to what I wrote above. I must
stop jumping in before reading to the end of peoples' posts. Too
late to rub it out now.

As Derek has noted,
the ideal in either case is probably impossible in the real world,
so it cannot be used to critique any specific diet in the real
world. It can only be used as a goal, or theoretical concept, and
in that case, the vegan diet must be better for animals.

Secondly, as far as the concept of animal rights, or animal liberation,
is concerned, the vegan diet wins hands-down. Even a diet of hunted
meat involves a violation of the rights of the hunted animal by
its death at human hands. An equivalent diet of gathering need not
involve any intentional killing of rights-bearing animals at all.
If we consider a diet involving farmed animals, the animals' rights
are violated both by the entire process of breeding and raising
them, and the basic injustice of treating them as property, and
again in the process of slaughtering them.

Well said, Glorfindel.

Collateral deaths in
the field, or in protection of food in storage, would involve, at the
most, the single injustice of lack of consideration of the animals'
rights in "pest control."

There is absolutely no way a diet involving meat can be seen as more
just for animals, or less harmful for them, if the same criteria are
applied to any individual example. It is only by comparing vastly
different examples ("comparing apples and oranges" ) that any diet
including meat can be seen as less harmful on a utilitarian basis.
This must be a dishonest approach to the issue.

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 to read Jane's work. As yet I read
nothing from her at all, and that's an embarrassing admission.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:02:14 -0500, Doug Jones wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:37:21 +0000, Derek wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:37:36 -0500, Doug Jones wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:31:44 +0000, Derek wrote:
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.

Actually, it isn't.

It poses a false dilemma, as described in the definition I've
provided. Your denial or feigned ignorance of it doesn't
escape the fact that while collateral deaths exist ubiquitously
in food production, rejecting veganism as a solution to the deaths
associated with man's diet generally, is specious.

I'll take your lack of a comment to that as tacit acceptance.

However, every argument, except for one, *for* veganism is fallacious.

Show how "veganism is fallacious." Don't just declare it like
a petulant child; show how.

No? Didn't feel like it?

It is not healthier than other diets

Ipse dixit and false.

it is not more environmentally friendly

Ipse dixit and false.

it does not cause fewer deaths

Ipse dixit and false.

and it not more efficient.

Ipse dixit and false.
.
Each of those arguments falls apart in the face of real data

Then show it instead of making these unsupported claims.

Hello? When are you going to support those wild claims with
some hard evidence?

of which the collateral deaths argument is one.

The collateral deaths argument is specious and debunked.

The *only* argument for it is "I prefer it." That's the only valid
one. Everything else is garbage.

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.

Dreck 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. According to your
twin, you're a shiftless giro parasite. Is your nation paying you to
read and stir shit on usenet?

Dreck blew more platitude-filled hot air:
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

Non sequitur: you're not right because of a solution. Your claim that
you're offering a "better" solution is also a logical fallacy.

You might have a case of establishing your virtue if you were to
*PRACTICE* what you preach; I'm not convinced, though, that you'd be
better because you eat some things and refuse to eat other things. All
you're doing now is showing what a shit-stirring windbag you really are
by promoting ideals you never intend to follow yourself. It's just a
specious platitude.

Veganism is the product of clueless Utopian urbanites who, almost as a
rule, *don't* forage and, worse with respect to their disingenuous
platitudes, really don't care that they're causing animals to die via
their consumption of commercially-grown foods. They only care that they
don't violate the rule of not eating animal parts. They extend this rule
to include things that *might* have animal parts, such as the
ingredients found on lists like this:
http://www.veganwolf.com/animal_ingredients.htm

Dreck continued blowing hot air:
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.

According to such (il)logic, then, vegans could also consume dairy
because veal calves are collateral to milk production.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:10:10 GMT, usual suspect wrote:
Derek wrote:

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

Non sequitur

You've misused the term. My comment follows from what I
wrote, and from Rick's response to what I wrote. Foraging
for wild vegetables and fruits easily beats grass fed beef or
hunted meat.

[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, meat pusher.

Veganism is the product of clueless Utopian urbanites

Your opinion on the followers of veganism is irrelevant and
besides the proposition they hold.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:13:44 GMT, usual suspect wrote:
Derek wrote:

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.

According to such (il)logic, then, vegans could also consume dairy
because veal calves are collateral to milk production.

No, you've clearly failed to understand the fallacy. Read it again.

Hang on - are you saying that non-vegans don't eat fruit, vegetables
and grain products?

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.

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.

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 =----

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?

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 =----