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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-12-2005, 10:49 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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:[email protected] com...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:35:25 GMT, "rick"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news:[email protected] 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.



  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-12-2005, 10:51 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-12-2005, 10:51 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.




  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-12-2005, 11:04 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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...


  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-12-2005, 11:08 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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, [email protected] 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!!!


  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-12-2005, 11:26 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:08:38 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:45:05 +0000, Derek wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:33:54 -0500, [email protected] 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.
  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2005, 12:11 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?



  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2005, 12:13 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2005, 12:44 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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???
  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2005, 04:11 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:45:05 +0000, Derek wrote:

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:33:54 -0500, [email protected] 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.




  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2005, 01:15 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2005, 01:35 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2005, 01:37 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2005, 02:18 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2005, 02:39 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]" [email protected] Vegan 128 27-05-2018 11:27 PM
Zionist pressure group ADL offers solution to the "December Dilemma"of European Christmas celebrations Jim34 General Cooking 36 13-12-2007 03:42 AM
"dead-frog numbers [was: faq collateral included deaths in organic rice production]" [email protected] Vegan 4 14-09-2006 05:31 PM
Collateral Deaths Associated with the Vegetarian Diet Derek Vegan 0 16-12-2005 12:54 PM
Animal Collateral Deaths [email protected] Vegan 33 13-11-2003 10:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:02 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017