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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2005, 06:38 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 21:49:50 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:01:06 GMT, "rick"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:24:31 GMT, "rick"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news:[email protected] com...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:11:55 GMT, "rick"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news:[email protected] x.com...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:35:25 GMT, "rick"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news:[email protected] 4ax.com...

There's no perfect solution to this problem of the
collateral deaths found in agriculture, and the
vegan's critic is often foolishly persuaded to try
using this dilemma to his advantage when he's run
out of valid arguments.
====================
LOL It's the vegan that has no valid argument fool.
You've yet to EVER prove your claims that your deit
is better. I have easily shown that there are diets
that
are better than many vegan diets, and yours in
particular,
killer.

No, you can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and
fruits.
=====================
You don't do that do you, fool!

Nevertheless, your grass fed beef or hunted meat cannot
best forging for wild vegetables and fruits. Whether I
forage or not is irrelevant.
===========================
LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong

No, I've shown that I'm right by offering a better solution
than the grass fed beef or hunted meat you offer: foraging
for wild vegetables and fruits. You'll do best to include
that solution when offering the least harm diet, but being
the meat pusher that you are you'll probably ignore it and
continue offering your CD-laden grass fed beef instead.
===================================
No

Yes, I have. You can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and
fruits.
==============================

Resorting to your dishonest snipping again


I snip where I want without your permission, so deal with
my comment and stop whining.

====================
LOL I'm just noting that it displays your dishonesty, fool. Do
keep it up, it makes my work much easier, killer.


You can't beat foraging
for vegetables and fruits with your CD-laden grass fed
beef and hunted meat, so why don't you offer that instead
when asked for your opinion on what you consider to be
the least-harm diet, you meat pushing liar?

=================
Because fairy-tales don't count. I've never denied that that
would be the case, but there are no usenet vegans practicing such
a lifestyle, hypocrite. Now, why can't you address the issue
that YOUR diet does not do what you claim it does? You cannot
post proof. Instead, as usual, you have to focus on what others
can/are doing so that you can ignore your bloody footprints.





You cannot claim that grass-fed beef isn't an option

Grass fed beef isn't a viable option because those
animals
accrue collateral deaths like any other steer in the
feedlot from the crops they are fed.
=============================
No fool, they do not.

Evidence from U.S.D.A. shows that grass fed beef can be
and is fed grains at the feedlot like any other steer, and
still qualify as grass fed beef.
==========================
No fool, they do not.

I've shown you the evidence at least three times now, so if
you have a dispute with U.S.D.A. take it up with them.

=======================
I did


If you did, you would have seen that the meat from those
so-called grass fed animals can legitimately carry a “USDA
Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed” if as
little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no limits on
the other 20 percent. Read U.S.D.A.'s claims standard for
grass fed beef again and see it for yourself.

==============
No fool, you read the proposals, again. Then read what USDA
actually says about beef. You lose, again, fool.



Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.

Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

Comments from disgruntled grass fed beef producers
bear this out and reveal the lie behind grass fed beef;

[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

Grass fed beef can be and is finished on grains like any
other steer with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of approval, despite
your empty, desperate denials.

While the meat pushers on these vegetarian and animal-
related forums try to convince vegans that grass fed
beef is that: grass fed, and therefore has a much lesser
association with the collateral deaths caused by farmers
growing animal feeds, they neglect to mention that
grass fed beef is also fed grains at the feedlot just
like
any other steer,
=============================
Still willfully ignorant, eh killer?

The evidence is indisputable and from U.S.D.A. You
have no reason to dispute it, and it stands until you do.
==========================
LOL

The evidence from U.S.D.A. ruins your claim that grass fed
beef is all grass fed. It's finished at the feedlot and still
qualifies as grass fed with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of approval.

===========================
No


Yes, you can't ignore the claims standard for grass fed beef
issued by U.S.D.A. and the messages from disgruntled farmers
over it. Even consumer magazines show the lie behind so-called
grass fed beef, and indicate the farmers' protests over the
claims
standard. Read on.

====================
You do ignore the facts fool. Read what the USDA really says.



[The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,”
which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would
be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either.

A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification program
for “process claims,” including feeding methods, would only
add to the confusion. Products that passed an inspection could
carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label
“grass
fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with
no
limits on the other 20 percent; “grain fed” could be used with
a
diet of as little as 50 percent grain. The agency has delayed
implementation of the rule after protests from farmer and
consumer groups, including Consumers Union, publisher of
Consumer Reports magazine.]
http://tinyurl.com/b63f3

You must stop lying to people by claiming grass fed beef isn't
finished on grains, because we can plainly see from the claims
standard issued by U.S.D.A. that so-called grass fed beef can
carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass
fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no
limits on the other 20 percent.

I've shown that they are, despite your denials. Read on and
see that they are, just below this line.
======================
I've read your lys

It's evidence from U.S.D.A., you idiot. You can't dispute it
as a lie, you imbecile.

=============================
Yes, I can


Not legitimately, you can't. You can't ignore U.S.D.A.'s claims
standard by pretending it doesn't exist. You're a stupid joke,
Rick.

============
LOL A proposal does not an industry make fool. The USDA site
trells you how many beef cows do not get sent to feedlots fool.
Too bad you're too stupid to read for comprehension, eh killer?





and therefore has a larger association
with collateral deaths than they would like to admit.

Meat-labeling guidelines are all over the place, allowing
producers to make whatever claims they want to with
impunity, so U.S.D.A. has "proposed minimum
requirements for livestock and meat industry production/
marketing claims, when adopted, will become the United
States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing
Claims." They are as follows;
=====================
You've been show the idiocy of your claims

No, I haven't. My claims are backed by evidence from
U.S.D.A. and accompanying notes from disgruntled
farmers. There's no getting away from the fact that
the grass fed beef you offer as an option to regular
beef is bogus, because both animals are finished on
grains at the feedlot. It's not an alternative to regular
steers at all if both are fed grains at the feedlot, as
shown by U.S.D.A.
==========================
no fool, they are not backed up by the USDA.

I've provided the link which directs you straight to
U.S.D.A.'s
page, just below in the summary, so stop lying Rick.

==============================
No fool, they don't say what you claim.


That claims standard says exactly what I'm saying, that
so-called grass fed beef is fed 20% grains throughout its
entire life and finished at the feedlot like any other steer.

=============
No, it does not say that at all fool. Read again without your
blinders....


That being so, so-called grass fed beef accrues collateral
deaths from the crops they eat, so you can't keep making
the claim that the production of grass fed beef doesn't. In
short, stop lying.

===============
I'm not. That's all left up to you, hypocrite.




[SUMMARY: These proposed minimum requirements
for livestock and meat industry production/marketing
claims, when adopted, will become the United States
Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims.
.....
Grass Fed Claims--Background: This claim refers
to the feeding regimen for livestock raised on grass,
green or range pasture, or forage throughout their
life cycle, with only limited supplemental grain
feeding allowed. Since it is necessary to assure the
animal's well being at all times, limited
supplementation
is allowed during adverse environmental conditions.
Grass feeding usually results in products containing
lower levels of external and internal fat (including
marbling) than grain-fed livestock products.

Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.

Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

There's that link.

==================
yes, and it doesn't say what you claim it does, killer.


That claims standard says exactly what I'm saying, that
so-called grass fed beef is fed 20% grains throughout its
entire life and can be finished at the feedlot like any other
steer. That being so, so-called grass fed beef accrues
collateral deaths from the crops they eat, so you can't
keep making the claim that the production of grass fed
beef doesn't. In short, stop lying.

============
Can can stop you lys anythime fool. Just read for comprehension,
killer.



You can't even bring yourself to concede that a vegan
can
eat a single meal without killing animals,
================================
No fool, I never claimed that at all.

Then, do you accept the fact that a vegan can eat a meal
without any association of collateral deaths involved?
=======================
Not as practiced by you and every other vegan here on
usenet

Then you are indeed posing a false dilemma known as the
perfect solution fallacy.

The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that
occurs
when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no
solution
would last very long politically once it had been
implemented.
Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea
of
a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy
to
imagine.
============================
LOL Reposting your stupidity only confirms your stupidity

That definition is valid, and I'll repost it as many times as
needed.
===========================

LOL Or until you really believe it?


There's every reason to believe that that definition of the
fallacy you invoke while using the collateral deaths argument
is correct and sound. The collateral deaths argument is
debunked, so think of some other way to push meat onto
vegans.

===============
No, the CDs argument blows your entire house of cards to the
ground fool.



Examples:
(critic)
This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will
still be able to get through!
(Rejoinder)
Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through,
but
would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would
stop?
(critic)
These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to
work.
People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.
(Rejoinder)
It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the
amount
by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving
enough to make the policy worthwhile?
(Critic)
Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in
car wrecks.
(Rejoinder)
It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but
isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to
make
seat belts worthwhile?

It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit
any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not
work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it
may
be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when
a specific example of a solution's failing is described in
eye- catching detail and base rates are ignored (see
availability
heuristic).
The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

There it is again. Read it and weep.

==============================
I have.


Then you should have noted how it pertains to the collateral
deaths argument, and shows it for the false dilemma that it is.

=========
Nope. It shows how incredibly stupid you are...


Do you believe that the solution (drug squad) to drug
addiction must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy
simply because drug addicts still exist after the solution's
implementation?

Do you believe that the solution (oral hygiene) to dental
decay must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy
simply because tooth decay still occurs after the solution's
implementation?

If the answer is 'no' to both of those examples, and it is, it
then follows that the same answer must be given when
considering;

Do you believe that the solution to halt animal deaths in
man's diet (veganism) must be rejected as a nonsense
and hypocrisy simply because animal deaths (CD) still
occur after the solution's implementation?

As we can see, the collateral deaths argument against the
proposition of veganism poses a false dilemma, and so it
is rejected on that basis, as well as quite a few others I
can think of as well.




  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2005, 06:40 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 17:03:12 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:29:29 GMT, "rick"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote

The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that
occurs
when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
and/or that a solution should be rejected because some
part
of the problem would still exist after it was
implemented.
Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no
solution
would last very long politically once it had been
implemented.
Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the
idea of
a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy
to
imagine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on
the
collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.

Har har

There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths
argument against veganism is a fallacy.
==========================
ROTFLMAO What a hoot!

Get used to it, Etter, however hard it must be for someone
like
you to accept. You have no choice but to accept the fact that
the collateral deaths argument is specious in that it poses a
false dilemma.

===========================
LOL The problem for you is that you cannot accept the fact
that
you kill animals for nothing more than your convenience and
entertainment. There is no meaning to your veganism, killer.


Once again you have fallen for the perfect solution fallacy
by rejecting *my* veganism on the basis that, despite *my*
implementation of veganism as a solution to animal deaths,
animal deaths still occur in a World where animal deaths
cannot be avoided in food production generally. In short,
you're posing a false dilemma as described above. Thanks
for lending yourself so willingly in such a clear
demonstration.

===========
No fool, once again you have demonstarted you complete
willingness to kill animals for your conveninece and
entertainment.
As a bonus you have proven your complete stupidity. Keep up the
good work, killer.


  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2005, 06:41 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 22:04:32 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
. ..

No. If you want to support your claims, YOU do your own
research and then bring me the results. The onus is on you
to support your claims, not me, so get busy.

=========================
ROTFLMAO Right after you, killer!!


Rather, after you.

============
You have NEVER provided proof of any of your claims fool. Thanks
for again displaying your hypocricy and stupidity!


While cranking on at the vegans as
being hypocrites and liars for allegedly ignoring or refusing
to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the
production of every morsel of food they eat, the production
of electricity they take advantage of when using Usenet, and
for the production of just about every consumable item you
can think of, why do you refuse to acknowledge that the
production of the beef you claim to eat causes collateral
deaths?

"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

and

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

You're the only ****wit on these forums who still refuses
to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the
production of a food item, yet you're always the first to
criticise vegans for allegedly refusing to acknowledge
the collateral deaths associated with the food items they
eat, even after they've declared that they acknowledge
them. You're a rank hypocrite and a liar, Rick.



  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2005, 07:45 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 Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:38:39 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:49:50 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:01:06 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:24:31 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:11:55 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:35:25 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...

There's no perfect solution to this problem of the
collateral deaths found in agriculture, and the
vegan's critic is often foolishly persuaded to try
using this dilemma to his advantage when he's run
out of valid arguments.
====================
LOL It's the vegan that has no valid argument fool.
You've yet to EVER prove your claims that your deit
is better. I have easily shown that there are diets
that are better than many vegan diets, and yours in
particular, killer.

No, you can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and
fruits.
=====================
You don't do that do you, fool!

Nevertheless, your grass fed beef or hunted meat cannot
best forging for wild vegetables and fruits. Whether I
forage or not is irrelevant.
===========================
LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong

No, I've shown that I'm right by offering a better solution
than the grass fed beef or hunted meat you offer: foraging
for wild vegetables and fruits. You'll do best to include
that solution when offering the least harm diet, but being
the meat pusher that you are you'll probably ignore it and
continue offering your CD-laden grass fed beef instead.
===================================
No

Yes, I have. You can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and
fruits.
==============================
Resorting to your dishonest snipping again


I snip where I want without your permission, so deal with
my comment and stop whining.You can't beat foraging
for vegetables and fruits with your CD-laden grass fed
beef and hunted meat, so why don't you offer that instead
when asked for your opinion on what you consider to be
the least-harm diet, you meat pushing liar?

=================
Because fairy-tales don't count.


Foraging for wild vegetables and fruits isn't a fairy tale, and
it beats your CD-laden so-called grass fed beef and hunted
meat every time, so why don't you offer that instead? Look
below at the information on foraging, you stupid liar.

[Many people who live in the countryside already know how
to harvest nature's bounty, food that is available to anyone
who takes the time and trouble to learn about 'wild foods'
that abound in their localities. Much of this knowledge has
been passed down through the generations, and many of the
'wild foods' that made up the staple diets of peoples over the
past 15,000 years or more are still available today ...

Below are a small selection of books about the 'wild foods'
that can be found in the countryside, both in North America,
and overlapping with plants common to parts of northwestern
Europe. In subsequent pages there are books about small-scale
organic food production, survival skills and wilderness living,
along with articles and some step-by-step details about becoming
as 'self-sufficient' as possible in an increasingly uncertain world.
Useful skills for expeditions, exploring, camping trips, and for
those simply wanting to re-learn the 'ancient survival skills' of our
ancestors who survived the cataclysms of the distant past ...
...
The most seriously committed vegans forage for their own foods,
taking advantage of some of nature's lesser-known but often
intensely flavorful wild bounty. As "Wildman" Steve Brill points
out in The Wild Vegetarian Cookbook, it takes a lot of education
and plenty of experience to identify and make use of the bounty
of the earth's forests and seas. Foragers must learn to distinguish
not only between the toxic and the edible but also must discern
which among the edible plants are actually tasty and worth
harvesting and cooking. Brill offers an encyclopedia of lore and
plenty of identifying botanical data for wild foods, but more pictures
would help sort out these thousands of plants from one another,
especially in the perilous world of fungi identification. Recipes
abound, and they follow vegan principles, using everyday oils,
vinegars, and other basic ingredients.]
http://www.morien-institute.org/wildfoodbooks_us.html

So, why do you promote a least-harm diet that includes the deaths
of animals when foraging is the better option? Why, to promote
meat at any cost, that's why, you dirty meat pusher.

You cannot claim that grass-fed beef isn't an option

Grass fed beef isn't a viable option because those
animals accrue collateral deaths like any other steer
in the feedlot from the crops they are fed.
=============================
No fool, they do not.

Evidence from U.S.D.A. shows that grass fed beef can be
and is fed grains at the feedlot like any other steer, and
still qualify as grass fed beef.
==========================
No fool, they do not.

I've shown you the evidence at least three times now, so if
you have a dispute with U.S.D.A. take it up with them.
=======================
I did


If you did, you would have seen that the meat from those
so-called grass fed animals can legitimately carry a “USDA
Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed” if as
little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no limits on
the other 20 percent. Read U.S.D.A.'s claims standard for
grass fed beef again and see it for yourself.

==============
No


Yes, liar. Grass fed beef IS finished at the feedlot like any
other steer and accumulates collateral deaths by virtue of
the feed given it during that time. That is the inescapable
fact that ruins your argument permanently.

Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.

Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

Comments from disgruntled grass fed beef producers
bear this out and reveal the lie behind grass fed beef;

[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

Grass fed beef can be and is finished on grains like any
other steer with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of approval, despite
your empty, desperate denials.


You can't escape this fact, you dirty liar, and denying it
doesn't help you, either.

While the meat pushers on these vegetarian and animal-
related forums try to convince vegans that grass fed
beef is that: grass fed, and therefore has a much lesser
association with the collateral deaths caused by farmers
growing animal feeds, they neglect to mention that
grass fed beef is also fed grains at the feedlot just
like any other steer,
=============================
Still willfully ignorant, eh killer?

The evidence is indisputable and from U.S.D.A. You
have no reason to dispute it, and it stands until you do.
==========================
LOL

The evidence from U.S.D.A. ruins your claim that grass fed
beef is all grass fed. It's finished at the feedlot and still
qualifies as grass fed with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of approval.
===========================
No


Yes, you can't ignore the claims standard for grass fed beef
issued by U.S.D.A. and the messages from disgruntled farmers
over it. Even consumer magazines show the lie behind so-called
grass fed beef, and indicate the farmers' protests over the
claims standard. Read on.

====================
You do ignore the facts


No, that's you. You can't dodge U.S.D.A.'s claims standard for
grass fed beef by claiming it doesn't exist. Look again below
to see what consumer magazines have to say about it.

[The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,”
which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would
be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either.

A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification program
for “process claims,” including feeding methods, would only
add to the confusion. Products that passed an inspection could
carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label
“grass fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass,
with no limits on the other 20 percent; “grain fed” could be
used with a diet of as little as 50 percent grain. The agency
has delayed implementation of the rule after protests from
farmer and consumer groups, including Consumers Union,
publisher of Consumer Reports magazine.]
http://tinyurl.com/b63f3

You must stop lying to people by claiming grass fed beef isn't
finished on grains, because we can plainly see from the claims
standard issued by U.S.D.A. that so-called grass fed beef can
carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass
fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no
limits on the other 20 percent.


Did you get that, liar Rick? You must stop lying to people.

I've shown that they are, despite your denials. Read on and
see that they are, just below this line.
======================
I've read your lys

It's evidence from U.S.D.A., you idiot. You can't dispute it
as a lie, you imbecile.
=============================
Yes, I can


Not legitimately, you can't. You can't ignore U.S.D.A.'s claims
standard by pretending it doesn't exist. You're a stupid joke,
Rick.

============
LOL


You've nothing to laugh about, you dirty liar. Your claims about
grass fed beef have now been revealed to be a dirty lie from a
dirty meat pusher; you.

and therefore has a larger association
with collateral deaths than they would like to admit.

Meat-labeling guidelines are all over the place, allowing
producers to make whatever claims they want to with
impunity, so U.S.D.A. has "proposed minimum
requirements for livestock and meat industry production/
marketing claims, when adopted, will become the United
States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing
Claims." They are as follows;
=====================
You've been show the idiocy of your claims

No, I haven't. My claims are backed by evidence from
U.S.D.A. and accompanying notes from disgruntled
farmers. There's no getting away from the fact that
the grass fed beef you offer as an option to regular
beef is bogus, because both animals are finished on
grains at the feedlot. It's not an alternative to regular
steers at all if both are fed grains at the feedlot, as
shown by U.S.D.A.
==========================
no fool, they are not backed up by the USDA.

I've provided the link which directs you straight to
U.S.D.A.'s
page, just below in the summary, so stop lying Rick.
==============================
No fool, they don't say what you claim.


That claims standard says exactly what I'm saying, that
so-called grass fed beef is fed 20% grains throughout its
entire life and finished at the feedlot like any other steer.

=============
No, it does not say that at all


Yes, it does, despite your inability to accept the fact.

That being so, so-called grass fed beef accrues collateral
deaths from the crops they eat, so you can't keep making
the claim that the production of grass fed beef doesn't. In
short, stop lying.

===============
I'm not.


Yes, you are lying, and the evidence from U.S.D.A. proves
that you are. There's no getting away from it.

[SUMMARY: These proposed minimum requirements
for livestock and meat industry production/marketing
claims, when adopted, will become the United States
Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims.
.....
Grass Fed Claims--Background: This claim refers
to the feeding regimen for livestock raised on grass,
green or range pasture, or forage throughout their
life cycle, with only limited supplemental grain
feeding allowed. Since it is necessary to assure the
animal's well being at all times, limited supplementation
is allowed during adverse environmental conditions.
Grass feeding usually results in products containing
lower levels of external and internal fat (including
marbling) than grain-fed livestock products.

Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.

Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

There's that link.
==================
yes, and it doesn't say what you claim it does, killer.


That claims standard says exactly what I'm saying, that
so-called grass fed beef is fed 20% grains throughout its
entire life and can be finished at the feedlot like any other
steer. That being so, so-called grass fed beef accrues
collateral deaths from the crops they eat, so you can't
keep making the claim that the production of grass fed
beef doesn't. In short, stop lying.

============
Can can stop you lys


You're barely making sense with your childish drivel. Learn
to write, and then you'll stand a better chance in understanding
the claims standard issued by U.S.D.A. which clearly shows
that so-called grass fed beef is grain fed after all.

You can't even bring yourself to concede that a vegan
can
eat a single meal without killing animals,
================================
No fool, I never claimed that at all.

Then, do you accept the fact that a vegan can eat a meal
without any association of collateral deaths involved?
=======================
Not as practiced by you and every other vegan here on
usenet

Then you are indeed posing a false dilemma known as the
perfect solution fallacy.

The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that
occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect
solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected
because some part of the problem would still exist after
it was implemented. Presumably, assuming no solution
is perfect then no solution would last very long politically
once it had been implemented. Still, many people (notably
utopians) seem to find the idea of a perfect solution
compelling, perhaps because it is easy to imagine.
============================
LOL Reposting your stupidity only confirms your stupidity

That definition is valid, and I'll repost it as many times as
needed.
===========================
LOL Or until you really believe it?


There's every reason to believe that that definition of the
fallacy you invoke while using the collateral deaths argument
is correct and sound. The collateral deaths argument is
debunked, so think of some other way to push meat onto
vegans.

===============
No


Yes, liar. The collateral deaths argument has been debunked
by showing that it amounts to nothing more than a dirty little
false dilemma.

Examples:
(critic)
This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will
still be able to get through!
(Rejoinder)
Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through,
but would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it
would stop?
(critic)
These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to
work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter
what.
(Rejoinder)
It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the
amount by which it would reduce the total amount of
drunk driving enough to make the policy worthwhile?
(Critic)
Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in
car wrecks.
(Rejoinder)
It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but
isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to
make seat belts worthwhile?

It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit
any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not
work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may
be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when
a specific example of a solution's failing is described in
eye- catching detail and base rates are ignored (see
availability heuristic).
The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

There it is again. Read it and weep.
==============================
I have.


Then you should have noted how it pertains to the collateral
deaths argument, and shows it for the false dilemma that it is.

=========
Nope.


Then you're more dense than I originally believed, if that's
possible. You can't escape the fact that your argument
poses a false dilemma, even by feigning ignorance, so get
used to that fact and try something else to get vegans to
eat meat instead if you can, you dirty meat pusher.

Do you believe that the solution (drug squad) to drug
addiction must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy
simply because drug addicts still exist after the solution's
implementation?

Do you believe that the solution (oral hygiene) to dental
decay must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy
simply because tooth decay still occurs after the solution's
implementation?

If the answer is 'no' to both of those examples, and it is, it
then follows that the same answer must be given when
considering;

Do you believe that the solution to halt animal deaths in
man's diet (veganism) must be rejected as a nonsense
and hypocrisy simply because animal deaths (CD) still
occur after the solution's implementation?

As we can see, the collateral deaths argument against the
proposition of veganism poses a false dilemma, and so it
is rejected on that basis, as well as quite a few others I
can think of as well.


I knew you'd fail to address those examples, you dirty liar.
  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2005, 07:50 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 Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:40:09 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:03:12 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:29:29 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote

The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that
occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect
solution exists and/or that a solution should be
rejected because some part of the problem would
still exist after it was implemented. Presumably,
assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
would last very long politically once it had been
implemented. Still, many people (notably utopians)
seem to find the idea of a perfect solution compelling,
perhaps because it is easy to imagine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

Read it and find that you've been wasting your time
on the collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.

Har har

There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths
argument against veganism is a fallacy.
==========================
ROTFLMAO What a hoot!

Get used to it, Etter, however hard it must be for someone
like you to accept. You have no choice but to accept the
fact that the collateral deaths argument is specious in that
it poses a false dilemma.
===========================
LOL The problem for you is that you cannot accept the fact
that you kill animals for nothing more than your convenience and
entertainment. There is no meaning to your veganism, killer.


Once again you have fallen for the perfect solution fallacy
by rejecting *my* veganism on the basis that, despite *my*
implementation of veganism as a solution to animal deaths,
animal deaths still occur in a World where animal deaths
cannot be avoided in food production generally. In short,
you're posing a false dilemma as described above. Thanks
for lending yourself so willingly in such a clear
demonstration.

===========
No


Yes, you stupid imbecile, you've tried posing exactly the
same false dilemma that you always do, and I reject it on
the basis that it invokes a fallacy. You lose, you dirty little
liar.


  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2005, 07:54 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 Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:41:07 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:04:32 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...

No. If you want to support your claims, YOU do your own
research and then bring me the results. The onus is on you
to support your claims, not me, so get busy.
=========================
ROTFLMAO Right after you, killer!!


Rather, after you.While cranking on at the vegans as
being hypocrites and liars for allegedly ignoring or refusing
to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the
production of every morsel of food they eat, the production
of electricity they take advantage of when using Usenet, and
for the production of just about every consumable item you
can think of, why do you refuse to acknowledge that the
production of the beef you claim to eat causes collateral
deaths?

"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

and

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

You're the only ****wit on these forums who still refuses
to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the
production of a food item, yet you're always the first to
criticise vegans for allegedly refusing to acknowledge
the collateral deaths associated with the food items they
eat, even after they've declared that they acknowledge
them. You're a rank hypocrite and a liar, Rick.


I see you're incapable of addressing your hypocrisy and
lies in this thread as well. I'm not surprised in the least
to see you whiff off after being made such a fool of
because you're just a trolling, lying hypocrite.
  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2005, 09:58 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 Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:38:39 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:49:50 GMT, "rick"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:01:06 GMT, "rick"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news:[email protected] com...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:24:31 GMT, "rick"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news:[email protected] x.com...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:11:55 GMT, "rick"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news:[email protected] 4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:35:25 GMT, "rick"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news:8j95q1p10h6mvbok0t0bsefcmptdevaif ...

There's no perfect solution to this problem of the
collateral deaths found in agriculture, and the
vegan's critic is often foolishly persuaded to try
using this dilemma to his advantage when he's run
out of valid arguments.
====================
LOL It's the vegan that has no valid argument fool.
You've yet to EVER prove your claims that your deit
is better. I have easily shown that there are diets
that are better than many vegan diets, and yours in
particular, killer.

No, you can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and
fruits.
=====================
You don't do that do you, fool!

Nevertheless, your grass fed beef or hunted meat cannot
best forging for wild vegetables and fruits. Whether I
forage or not is irrelevant.
===========================
LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong

No, I've shown that I'm right by offering a better
solution
than the grass fed beef or hunted meat you offer:
foraging
for wild vegetables and fruits. You'll do best to include
that solution when offering the least harm diet, but
being
the meat pusher that you are you'll probably ignore it
and
continue offering your CD-laden grass fed beef instead.
===================================
No

Yes, I have. You can't beat foraging for wild vegetables
and
fruits.
==============================
Resorting to your dishonest snipping again

I snip where I want without your permission, so deal with
my comment and stop whining.You can't beat foraging
for vegetables and fruits with your CD-laden grass fed
beef and hunted meat, so why don't you offer that instead
when asked for your opinion on what you consider to be
the least-harm diet, you meat pushing liar?

=================
Because fairy-tales don't count.


Foraging for wild vegetables and fruits isn't a fairy tale, and
it beats your CD-laden so-called grass fed beef and hunted
meat every time, so why don't you offer that instead? Look
below at the information on foraging, you stupid liar.

==========================
Fairy-tales, fool.




[Many people who live in the countryside already know how
to harvest nature's bounty, food that is available to anyone
who takes the time and trouble to learn about 'wild foods'
that abound in their localities. Much of this knowledge has
been passed down through the generations, and many of the
'wild foods' that made up the staple diets of peoples over the
past 15,000 years or more are still available today ...

Below are a small selection of books about the 'wild foods'
that can be found in the countryside, both in North America,
and overlapping with plants common to parts of northwestern
Europe. In subsequent pages there are books about small-scale
organic food production, survival skills and wilderness
living,
along with articles and some step-by-step details about
becoming
as 'self-sufficient' as possible in an increasingly uncertain
world.
Useful skills for expeditions, exploring, camping trips, and
for
those simply wanting to re-learn the 'ancient survival skills'
of our
ancestors who survived the cataclysms of the distant past ...
...
The most seriously committed vegans forage for their own foods,
taking advantage of some of nature's lesser-known but often
intensely flavorful wild bounty. As "Wildman" Steve Brill
points
out in The Wild Vegetarian Cookbook, it takes a lot of
education
and plenty of experience to identify and make use of the
bounty
of the earth's forests and seas. Foragers must learn to
distinguish
not only between the toxic and the edible but also must
discern
which among the edible plants are actually tasty and worth
harvesting and cooking. Brill offers an encyclopedia of lore
and
plenty of identifying botanical data for wild foods, but more
pictures
would help sort out these thousands of plants from one
another,
especially in the perilous world of fungi identification.
Recipes
abound, and they follow vegan principles, using everyday oils,
vinegars, and other basic ingredients.]
http://www.morien-institute.org/wildfoodbooks_us.html

So, why do you promote a least-harm diet that includes the
deaths
of animals when foraging is the better option? Why, to promote
meat at any cost, that's why, you dirty meat pusher.

======================
I promote a viable, convienent, available for everyone diet,
unlike you, fool. I see you still cannot defend YOUR diet,
hypocrite? Why is it that you continue to focus on a fairy-tale
instead of the diet you really eat? Oh, yeah, because the one
you eat causes massive, unnecessary death and suffering of
animals, eh killer?



You cannot claim that grass-fed beef isn't an option

Grass fed beef isn't a viable option because those
animals accrue collateral deaths like any other steer
in the feedlot from the crops they are fed.
=============================
No fool, they do not.

Evidence from U.S.D.A. shows that grass fed beef can be
and is fed grains at the feedlot like any other steer,
and
still qualify as grass fed beef.
==========================
No fool, they do not.

I've shown you the evidence at least three times now, so if
you have a dispute with U.S.D.A. take it up with them.
=======================
I did

If you did, you would have seen that the meat from those
so-called grass fed animals can legitimately carry a “USDA
Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed” if as
little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no limits
on
the other 20 percent. Read U.S.D.A.'s claims standard for
grass fed beef again and see it for yourself.

==============
No


Yes, liar. Grass fed beef IS finished at the feedlot like any
other steer and accumulates collateral deaths by virtue of
the feed given it during that time. That is the inescapable
fact that ruins your argument permanently.

===============================
No, fool, they are not. Too bad you're just too stupid to
understand, eh killer?



Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.

Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

Comments from disgruntled grass fed beef producers
bear this out and reveal the lie behind grass fed beef;

[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

Grass fed beef can be and is finished on grains like any
other steer with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of approval, despite
your empty, desperate denials.


You can't escape this fact, you dirty liar, and denying it
doesn't help you, either.

=========================
The facts speak for themselves, all beef cattle eat grass most of
their lives, and then only 3/4 of those are sent to feedlots.
That's striaght from the USDA fool. Too bad you're just too
stupid to understand, eh killer?



While the meat pushers on these vegetarian and animal-
related forums try to convince vegans that grass fed
beef is that: grass fed, and therefore has a much
lesser
association with the collateral deaths caused by
farmers
growing animal feeds, they neglect to mention that
grass fed beef is also fed grains at the feedlot just
like any other steer,
=============================
Still willfully ignorant, eh killer?

The evidence is indisputable and from U.S.D.A. You
have no reason to dispute it, and it stands until you do.
==========================
LOL

The evidence from U.S.D.A. ruins your claim that grass fed
beef is all grass fed. It's finished at the feedlot and
still
qualifies as grass fed with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of
approval.
===========================
No

Yes, you can't ignore the claims standard for grass fed beef
issued by U.S.D.A. and the messages from disgruntled farmers
over it. Even consumer magazines show the lie behind
so-called
grass fed beef, and indicate the farmers' protests over the
claims standard. Read on.

====================
You do ignore the facts


No, that's you. You can't dodge U.S.D.A.'s claims standard for
grass fed beef by claiming it doesn't exist. Look again below
to see what consumer magazines have to say about it.

============================
Too bad you're just too stupid to understand reality, eh killer?



[The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,”
which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would
be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either.

A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification program
for “process claims,” including feeding methods, would only
add to the confusion. Products that passed an inspection
could
carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label
“grass fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were
grass,
with no limits on the other 20 percent; “grain fed” could be
used with a diet of as little as 50 percent grain. The
agency
has delayed implementation of the rule after protests from
farmer and consumer groups, including Consumers Union,
publisher of Consumer Reports magazine.]
http://tinyurl.com/b63f3

You must stop lying to people by claiming grass fed beef
isn't
finished on grains, because we can plainly see from the
claims
standard issued by U.S.D.A. that so-called grass fed beef can
carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label
“grass
fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with
no
limits on the other 20 percent.


Did you get that, liar Rick? You must stop lying to people.

=================================
No where does that say that all beef is finished or fed any
grains. Too bad you're just too stupid to understand, eh killer?


I've shown that they are, despite your denials. Read on
and
see that they are, just below this line.
======================
I've read your lys

It's evidence from U.S.D.A., you idiot. You can't dispute
it
as a lie, you imbecile.
=============================
Yes, I can

Not legitimately, you can't. You can't ignore U.S.D.A.'s
claims
standard by pretending it doesn't exist. You're a stupid
joke,
Rick.

============
LOL


You've nothing to laugh about, you dirty liar. Your claims
about
grass fed beef have now been revealed to be a dirty lie from a
dirty meat pusher; you.

=========================
Too bad you're just too stupid to understand, eh killer?



and therefore has a larger association
with collateral deaths than they would like to admit.

Meat-labeling guidelines are all over the place,
allowing
producers to make whatever claims they want to with
impunity, so U.S.D.A. has "proposed minimum
requirements for livestock and meat industry
production/
marketing claims, when adopted, will become the United
States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing
Claims." They are as follows;
=====================
You've been show the idiocy of your claims

No, I haven't. My claims are backed by evidence from
U.S.D.A. and accompanying notes from disgruntled
farmers. There's no getting away from the fact that
the grass fed beef you offer as an option to regular
beef is bogus, because both animals are finished on
grains at the feedlot. It's not an alternative to regular
steers at all if both are fed grains at the feedlot, as
shown by U.S.D.A.
==========================
no fool, they are not backed up by the USDA.

I've provided the link which directs you straight to
U.S.D.A.'s
page, just below in the summary, so stop lying Rick.
==============================
No fool, they don't say what you claim.

That claims standard says exactly what I'm saying, that
so-called grass fed beef is fed 20% grains throughout its
entire life and finished at the feedlot like any other steer.

=============
No, it does not say that at all


Yes, it does, despite your inability to accept the fact.

====================
I posted the facts fool. Too bad you're just too stupid to
understand, eh killer?



That being so, so-called grass fed beef accrues collateral
deaths from the crops they eat, so you can't keep making
the claim that the production of grass fed beef doesn't. In
short, stop lying.

===============
I'm not.


Yes, you are lying, and the evidence from U.S.D.A. proves
that you are. There's no getting away from it.

======================
"...All cattle start out eating grass; three-fourths of them are
"finished" (grown to maturity) in feedlots where they are fed
specially formulated feed based on corn or other grains..."
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets...able/index.asp

Styraight from the USDAm again for your reading impaired
braincells, fool. Read 'em a weep. All you keep posting is a
PROPOSAL fool. A proposal is not a fact, is not reality. Too
bad you're just too stupid to understand, eh killer?




[SUMMARY: These proposed minimum requirements
for livestock and meat industry production/marketing
claims, when adopted, will become the United States
Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims.
.....
Grass Fed Claims--Background: This claim refers
to the feeding regimen for livestock raised on grass,
green or range pasture, or forage throughout their
life cycle, with only limited supplemental grain
feeding allowed. Since it is necessary to assure the
animal's well being at all times, limited
supplementation
is allowed during adverse environmental conditions.
Grass feeding usually results in products containing
lower levels of external and internal fat (including
marbling) than grain-fed livestock products.

Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.

Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

There's that link.
==================
yes, and it doesn't say what you claim it does, killer.

That claims standard says exactly what I'm saying, that
so-called grass fed beef is fed 20% grains throughout its
entire life and can be finished at the feedlot like any other
steer. That being so, so-called grass fed beef accrues
collateral deaths from the crops they eat, so you can't
keep making the claim that the production of grass fed
beef doesn't. In short, stop lying.

============
Can can stop you lys


You're barely making sense with your childish drivel. Learn
to write, and then you'll stand a better chance in
understanding
the claims standard issued by U.S.D.A. which clearly shows
that so-called grass fed beef is grain fed after all.
==============================

Learn to read fool and you'll have a better chance to make
something of yourself other than usenet fool.
Too bad you're just too stupid to understand, eh killer?


You can't even bring yourself to concede that a vegan
can
eat a single meal without killing animals,
================================
No fool, I never claimed that at all.

Then, do you accept the fact that a vegan can eat a
meal
without any association of collateral deaths involved?
=======================
Not as practiced by you and every other vegan here on
usenet

Then you are indeed posing a false dilemma known as the
perfect solution fallacy.

The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that
occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect
solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected
because some part of the problem would still exist after
it was implemented. Presumably, assuming no solution
is perfect then no solution would last very long
politically
once it had been implemented. Still, many people (notably
utopians) seem to find the idea of a perfect solution
compelling, perhaps because it is easy to imagine.
============================
LOL Reposting your stupidity only confirms your stupidity

That definition is valid, and I'll repost it as many times
as
needed.
===========================
LOL Or until you really believe it?

There's every reason to believe that that definition of the
fallacy you invoke while using the collateral deaths argument
is correct and sound. The collateral deaths argument is
debunked, so think of some other way to push meat onto
vegans.

===============
No


Yes, liar. The collateral deaths argument has been debunked
by showing that it amounts to nothing more than a dirty little
false dilemma.

=========================
No again, fool. The only thing you have bebunked is any thought
that you had even two brain cells remaining. We see now that
even that is not the case.
Too bad you're just too stupid to understand, eh killer?


Examples:
(critic)
This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists
will
still be able to get through!
(Rejoinder)
Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through,
but would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it
would stop?
(critic)
These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to
work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter
what.
(Rejoinder)
It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the
amount by which it would reduce the total amount of
drunk driving enough to make the policy worthwhile?
(Critic)
Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die
in
car wrecks.
(Rejoinder)
It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks,
but
isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to
make seat belts worthwhile?

It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to
omit
any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to
not
work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively,
it may
be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness,
when
a specific example of a solution's failing is described
in
eye- catching detail and base rates are ignored (see
availability heuristic).
The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

There it is again. Read it and weep.
==============================
I have.

Then you should have noted how it pertains to the collateral
deaths argument, and shows it for the false dilemma that it
is.

=========
Nope.


Then you're more dense than I originally believed, if that's
possible. You can't escape the fact that your argument
poses a false dilemma, even by feigning ignorance, so get
used to that fact and try something else to get vegans to
eat meat instead if you can, you dirty meat pusher.

=======================
You know all about ignorance fool. You exude ignorance. Too bad
you're just too stupid to understand, eh killer?


Do you believe that the solution (drug squad) to drug
addiction must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy
simply because drug addicts still exist after the solution's
implementation?

Do you believe that the solution (oral hygiene) to dental
decay must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy
simply because tooth decay still occurs after the solution's
implementation?

If the answer is 'no' to both of those examples, and it is,
it
then follows that the same answer must be given when
considering;

Do you believe that the solution to halt animal deaths in
man's diet (veganism) must be rejected as a nonsense
and hypocrisy simply because animal deaths (CD) still
occur after the solution's implementation?

As we can see, the collateral deaths argument against the
proposition of veganism poses a false dilemma, and so it
is rejected on that basis, as well as quite a few others I
can think of as well.


I knew you'd fail to address those examples, you dirty liar.

==========================
The 'examples' like your argument are bogus fool. they have
nothing to comment about. They have been shown as drivel many
many times. That you keep trotting them out just displays your
willful ignorance. Too bad you're just too stupid to understand,
eh killer?


  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2005, 09:59 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 Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:40:09 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:03:12 GMT, "rick"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:29:29 GMT, "rick"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news:[email protected] com...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote

The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that
occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect
solution exists and/or that a solution should be
rejected because some part of the problem would
still exist after it was implemented. Presumably,
assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
would last very long politically once it had been
implemented. Still, many people (notably utopians)
seem to find the idea of a perfect solution compelling,
perhaps because it is easy to imagine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

Read it and find that you've been wasting your time
on the collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to
say.

Har har

There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths
argument against veganism is a fallacy.
==========================
ROTFLMAO What a hoot!

Get used to it, Etter, however hard it must be for someone
like you to accept. You have no choice but to accept the
fact that the collateral deaths argument is specious in
that
it poses a false dilemma.
===========================
LOL The problem for you is that you cannot accept the fact
that you kill animals for nothing more than your convenience
and
entertainment. There is no meaning to your veganism,
killer.

Once again you have fallen for the perfect solution fallacy
by rejecting *my* veganism on the basis that, despite *my*
implementation of veganism as a solution to animal deaths,
animal deaths still occur in a World where animal deaths
cannot be avoided in food production generally. In short,
you're posing a false dilemma as described above. Thanks
for lending yourself so willingly in such a clear
demonstration.

===========
No

dishonest snipping by twits the loser noted and restored below

Yes, you stupid imbecile, you've tried posing exactly the
same false dilemma that you always do, and I reject it on
the basis that it invokes a fallacy. You lose, you dirty little
liar.

===========
No fool, once again you have demonstarted you complete
willingness to kill animals for your conveninece and
entertainment.
As a bonus you have proven your complete stupidity. Keep up the
good work, killer.


  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2005, 10:01 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 Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:41:07 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:04:32 GMT, "rick"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
m...

No. If you want to support your claims, YOU do your own
research and then bring me the results. The onus is on you
to support your claims, not me, so get busy.
=========================
ROTFLMAO Right after you, killer!!

Rather, after you.While cranking on at the vegans as
being hypocrites and liars for allegedly ignoring or refusing
to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the
production of every morsel of food they eat, the production
of electricity they take advantage of when using Usenet, and
for the production of just about every consumable item you
can think of, why do you refuse to acknowledge that the
production of the beef you claim to eat causes collateral
deaths?

"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

and

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

You're the only ****wit on these forums who still refuses
to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the
production of a food item, yet you're always the first to
criticise vegans for allegedly refusing to acknowledge
the collateral deaths associated with the food items they
eat, even after they've declared that they acknowledge
them. You're a rank hypocrite and a liar, Rick.


I see you're incapable of addressing your hypocrisy and
lies in this thread as well.

==========================
I see you continue to be incabable of posting proof of your
claims, eh killer? Keep up the good work! You make it soooo
easy, hypocrite...


I'm not surprised in the least
to see you whiff off after being made such a fool of
because you're just a trolling, lying hypocrite.

===========================
I see you still don't know the meaning of the word, eh killer?
thanks for another great laugh!



  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2005, 10:19 PM 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

There's no getting away from it


Exactly.


So quit wasting your time trying.

The "False [moral] Dilemma" here is the killing of animals in the production
of food, and veganism is it's false solution. The collateral deaths
revelation unmasks the false dilemma while at the same time tearing away the
facade of veganism.

And all the best for the Holiday Season.





  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2005, 10:21 PM 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 23:11:42 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:31:18 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:


(Critic)
Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
still die for their food during crop production.

This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy

The Fallacy is that veganism is a Perfect Solution, a "death-free
lifestyle".

Vegans don't claim that their lifestyle is the perfect solution
to the killing of animals in food production.

Yes, for the most part that is exactly what they believe.

No.

At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution,

No,


What *do* they think is the best solution?


I'll leave you to ask them that;


Aren't you one? Or at least I thought you were representing their position,
YOU answer. If veganism is not the best solution to this "Dilemma" then what
is?

[..]


  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-12-2005, 12:16 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 Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:58:22 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:38:39 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:49:50 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:01:06 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:24:31 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:11:55 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:35:25 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...

There's no perfect solution to this problem of the
collateral deaths found in agriculture, and the
vegan's critic is often foolishly persuaded to try
using this dilemma to his advantage when he's run
out of valid arguments.
====================
LOL It's the vegan that has no valid argument fool.
You've yet to EVER prove your claims that your deit
is better. I have easily shown that there are diets
that are better than many vegan diets, and yours in
particular, killer.

No, you can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and
fruits.
=====================
You don't do that do you, fool!

Nevertheless, your grass fed beef or hunted meat cannot
best forging for wild vegetables and fruits. Whether I
forage or not is irrelevant.
===========================
LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong

No, I've shown that I'm right by offering a better solution
than the grass fed beef or hunted meat you offer: foraging
for wild vegetables and fruits. You'll do best to include
that solution when offering the least harm diet, but being
the meat pusher that you are you'll probably ignore it and
continue offering your CD-laden grass fed beef instead.
===================================
No

Yes, I have. You can't beat foraging for wild vegetables
and fruits.
==============================
Resorting to your dishonest snipping again

I snip where I want without your permission, so deal with
my comment and stop whining.You can't beat foraging
for vegetables and fruits with your CD-laden grass fed
beef and hunted meat, so why don't you offer that instead
when asked for your opinion on what you consider to be
the least-harm diet, you meat pushing liar?
=================
Because fairy-tales don't count.


Foraging for wild vegetables and fruits isn't a fairy tale, and
it beats your CD-laden so-called grass fed beef and hunted
meat every time, so why don't you offer that instead? Look
below at the information on foraging, you stupid liar.

==========================
Fairy-tales, fool.


People have survived for thousands of years on staple diets
by foraging wild vegetables and fruits. Read the comments
on foraging again (below).

[Many people who live in the countryside already know how
to harvest nature's bounty, food that is available to anyone
who takes the time and trouble to learn about 'wild foods'
that abound in their localities. Much of this knowledge has
been passed down through the generations, and many of the
'wild foods' that made up the staple diets of peoples over the
past 15,000 years or more are still available today ...

Below are a small selection of books about the 'wild foods'
that can be found in the countryside, both in North America,
and overlapping with plants common to parts of northwestern
Europe. In subsequent pages there are books about small-scale
organic food production, survival skills and wilderness living,
along with articles and some step-by-step details about becoming
as 'self-sufficient' as possible in an increasingly uncertain world.
Useful skills for expeditions, exploring, camping trips, and for
those simply wanting to re-learn the 'ancient survival skills' of our
ancestors who survived the cataclysms of the distant past ...
...
The most seriously committed vegans forage for their own foods,
taking advantage of some of nature's lesser-known but often
intensely flavorful wild bounty. As "Wildman" Steve Brill points
out in The Wild Vegetarian Cookbook, it takes a lot of education
and plenty of experience to identify and make use of the bounty
of the earth's forests and seas. Foragers must learn to distinguish
not only between the toxic and the edible but also must discern
which among the edible plants are actually tasty and worth
harvesting and cooking. Brill offers an encyclopedia of lore and
plenty of identifying botanical data for wild foods, but more
pictures would help sort out these thousands of plants from one
another, especially in the perilous world of fungi identification.
Recipes abound, and they follow vegan principles, using everyday
oils, vinegars, and other basic ingredients.]
http://www.morien-institute.org/wildfoodbooks_us.html

Now that's the least-harm diet, but instead of promoting that you
promote a diet that kills animals instead because you're a meat
pusher. You're busted.

So, why do you promote a least-harm diet that includes the
deaths of animals when foraging is the better option? Why,
to promote meat at any cost, that's why, you dirty meat pusher.

======================
I promote a viable, convienent, available for everyone diet


... instead of a diet which IS the least harm diet known to you.
The enquirer *isn't* asking you which diet is the most viable or
convenient; he's asking you which is the least-harm diet.

unlike you, fool.


You can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and fruits as the
least-harm diet, and that's exactly what I'm offering, so it's
a lie to say I'm not.

I see you still cannot defend YOUR diet,


There's nothing about my diet that needs defending, so I don't
know why you keep repeating that stupid sentence at every
turn.

That being so, so-called grass fed beef accrues collateral
deaths from the crops they eat, so you can't keep making
the claim that the production of grass fed beef doesn't. In
short, stop lying.
===============
I'm not.


Yes, you are lying, and the evidence from U.S.D.A. proves
that you are. There's no getting away from it.

======================
"...All cattle start out eating grass; three-fourths of them are
"finished" (grown to maturity) in feedlots where they are fed
specially formulated feed based on corn or other grains..."
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets...able/index.asp

Styraight from the USDA


Fine. Now go back to the U.S.D.A. and see how it defines
the remainder of that "three fourths of them" which aren't
(allegedly) grain fed: grass fed.

Grass Fed Claims--Background: This claim refers
to the feeding regimen for livestock raised on grass,
green or range pasture, or forage throughout their
life cycle, with only limited supplemental grain
feeding allowed. Since it is necessary to assure the
animal's well being at all times, limited supplementation
is allowed during adverse environmental conditions.
Grass feeding usually results in products containing
lower levels of external and internal fat (including
marbling) than grain-fed livestock products.

Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.

Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

This standard means that grass fed beef can in fact be
fed up to 80% grains for 60 days in a feedlot, just like
any other steer, and still qualify as grass fed beef.

Comments from disgruntled grass fed beef producers
bear this out and reveal the lie behind grass fed beef;

[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

[Products that passed an inspection could carry a
“USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass
fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with
no limits on the other 20 percent; “grain fed” could be used
with a diet of as little as 50 percent grain.]
http://tinyurl.com/b63f3

You cannot ignore the fact that customers of grass fed beef
which carries the "USDA Process Verified" shield next to the
label "grass fed" may be buying meat from animals that have
been finished on grains at a feedlot with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of
approval. Ergo, grass fed beef accrues collateral deaths like any
other steer at the feedlot. It's not an alternative to grain fed beef
while being grain fed beef.

[SUMMARY: These proposed minimum requirements
for livestock and meat industry production/marketing
claims, when adopted, will become the United States
Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims.
.....
Grass Fed Claims--Background: This claim refers
to the feeding regimen for livestock raised on grass,
green or range pasture, or forage throughout their
life cycle, with only limited supplemental grain
feeding allowed. Since it is necessary to assure the
animal's well being at all times, limited supplementation
is allowed during adverse environmental conditions.
Grass feeding usually results in products containing
lower levels of external and internal fat (including
marbling) than grain-fed livestock products.

Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.

Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

There's that link.
==================
yes, and it doesn't say what you claim it does, killer.

That claims standard says exactly what I'm saying, that
so-called grass fed beef is fed 20% grains throughout its
entire life and can be finished at the feedlot like any other
steer. That being so, so-called grass fed beef accrues
collateral deaths from the crops they eat, so you can't
keep making the claim that the production of grass fed
beef doesn't. In short, stop lying.
============
Can can stop you lys


You're barely making sense with your childish drivel. Learn
to write, and then you'll stand a better chance in understanding
the claims standard issued by U.S.D.A. which clearly shows
that so-called grass fed beef is grain fed after all.
==============================

Learn to read fool


"Can can stop you lys" is not a sentence; it's gibberish. YOU
need to learn to read if you think it's a sentence, and write too.

You can't even bring yourself to concede that a vegan
can eat a single meal without killing animals,
================================
No fool, I never claimed that at all.

Then, do you accept the fact that a vegan can eat a
meal without any association of collateral deaths involved?
=======================
Not as practiced by you and every other vegan here on
usenet

Then you are indeed posing a false dilemma known as the
perfect solution fallacy.

The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that
occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect
solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected
because some part of the problem would still exist after
it was implemented. Presumably, assuming no solution
is perfect then no solution would last very long politically
once it had been implemented. Still, many people (notably
utopians) seem to find the idea of a perfect solution
compelling, perhaps because it is easy to imagine.
============================
LOL Reposting your stupidity only confirms your stupidity

That definition is valid, and I'll repost it as many times
as needed.
===========================
LOL Or until you really believe it?

There's every reason to believe that that definition of the
fallacy you invoke while using the collateral deaths argument
is correct and sound. The collateral deaths argument is
debunked, so think of some other way to push meat onto
vegans.
===============
No


Yes, liar. The collateral deaths argument has been debunked
by showing that it amounts to nothing more than a dirty little
false dilemma.

=========================
No


Yes, absolutely, but you're bound to deny it because you deny
everything you don't want to believe, even when shown the
evidence. Take your denial of the collateral deaths associated
with the production of the grass fed beef you claim to eat, for
example.

While cranking on at the vegans as being hypocrites and liars
for allegedly ignoring or refusing to acknowledge the collateral
deaths associated with the production of every morsel of food
they eat, the production of electricity they take advantage of
when using Usenet, and for the production of just about every
consumable item you can think of, why do you refuse to
acknowledge that the production of the beef you claim to eat
causes collateral deaths?

"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

and

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

You're the only ****wit on these forums who still refuses
to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the
production of a food item, yet you're always the first to
criticise vegans for allegedly refusing to acknowledge
the collateral deaths associated with the food items they
eat, even after they've declared that they acknowledge
them. You're a rank hypocrite and a liar, living in denial.

Examples:
(critic)
This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists
will
still be able to get through!
(Rejoinder)
Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through,
but would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it
would stop?
(critic)
These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to
work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter
what.
(Rejoinder)
It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the
amount by which it would reduce the total amount of
drunk driving enough to make the policy worthwhile?
(Critic)
Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in
car wrecks.
(Rejoinder)
It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks,
but isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough
to make seat belts worthwhile?

It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to
omit any specifics about how much the solution is claimed
to not work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively,
it may be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness,
when a specific example of a solution's failing is described
in eye- catching detail and base rates are ignored (see
availability heuristic).
The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

There it is again. Read it and weep.
==============================
I have.

Then you should have noted how it pertains to the collateral
deaths argument, and shows it for the false dilemma that it
is.
=========
Nope.


Then you're more dense than I originally believed, if that's
possible. You can't escape the fact that your argument
poses a false dilemma, even by feigning ignorance, so get
used to that fact and try something else to get vegans to
eat meat instead if you can, you dirty meat pusher.

=======================
You know all about ignorance fool.


A typical non-response, always expected when you've been
beaten into the ground.

Do you believe that the solution (drug squad) to drug
addiction must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy
simply because drug addicts still exist after the solution's
implementation?

Do you believe that the solution (oral hygiene) to dental
decay must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy
simply because tooth decay still occurs after the solution's
implementation?

If the answer is 'no' to both of those examples, and it is,
it then follows that the same answer must be given when
considering;

Do you believe that the solution to halt animal deaths in
man's diet (veganism) must be rejected as a nonsense
and hypocrisy simply because animal deaths (CD) still
occur after the solution's implementation?

As we can see, the collateral deaths argument against the
proposition of veganism poses a false dilemma, and so it
is rejected on that basis, as well as quite a few others I
can think of as well.


I knew you'd fail to address those examples, you dirty liar.

==========================
The 'examples' like your argument are bogus fool.


No, they're valid examples which show by analogy how the
collateral deaths argument poses a false dilemma and is
rejected.
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-12-2005, 12:25 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default helping out dishonest twits...





Here. let me just take care of the whole thing for you, fool.
Since you cannot reply without lys, delusion and anipping.
All indicators that you have lost, killer. Keep up the good
work! You're the best argument there is for the lunacy and
ignorance of vegans usenet wide, hypocrite...


  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-12-2005, 12:27 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 Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:21:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:11:42 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:31:18 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

(Critic)
Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
still die for their food during crop production.

This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy

The Fallacy is that veganism is a Perfect Solution, a "death-free
lifestyle".

Vegans don't claim that their lifestyle is the perfect solution
to the killing of animals in food production.

Yes, for the most part that is exactly what they believe.

No.

At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution,

No,

What *do* they think is the best solution?


I'll leave you to ask them that;


Aren't you one?


Yes, I am.

Or at least I thought you were representing their position


No, I let them represent their own position.

YOU answer.


Veganism. Now, that behind us, when are you going to
summon the courage to address this post you keep
snipping away and explain why you insist on arguing
with your straw man vegan instead of the real vegans
if not to knock your straw vegan down easily to then
declare a defeat of the real vegan's position?

restore entire post
No, you don't get to make claims on behalf of all vegans.
That's your straw man again. Abstaining from meat is a
solution to avoid the killing of animals for food, and while
that solution still involves the killing of some animals in
crop production, it's a fallacy to reject that solution on
that basis.

Yet again, instead of dealing with real vegans in the real
World who acknowledge collateral deaths in crop production,
you choose to focus on the imaginary straw man vegan that
doesn't acknowledge them instead because that straw man is
easy to knock down, leaving the way open for you to declare
you've demolished the true vegan's position in the real World.
That's just not good enough, and your criticism, while directed
only at your straw man, is rejected as nonsense.


You could have just said "strawman" you wordy ****.


At least you admit that the vegan you argue with is your
straw man, so that's something.

Only your straw
vegan claims that so he's easier to demolish. If you're only
capable of dealing with the imaginary vegans inside your
head, you're in the wrong place when trying to deal with the
real vegans in the real World here.

Real World vegans display the attitudes and ideas I am attributing to
them.


No, they don't. I've provided examples from various vegan web
sites and authors discussing the subject at length, and which you
subsequently snipped away. Repeating your claim that *all*
vegans refuse to acknowledge them in light of this evidence is
absurd and an obviously lie on your part.


A couple of sites give cds a passing mention, always in some obscure part of
the site, always to dismiss their importance.


Whatever they say about their importance is of little concern
here. What IS of concern is your reluctance to concede that,
contrary to what you try to claim, vegan literature does
acknowledge them, and individual vegans like myself discuss
them at length. Those fact in place, it's a lie to claim vegans
ignore them. In short, you're a liar.

I've shown you comments
from vegan web sites that deal with the problem of CDs, and
once again you've snipped those comments away, only to
proceed with trying to demolish your imaginary vegan again.
That's not good enough, so until you address the real vegan
your criticism of him has to be ignored.

The issue of collateral deaths is ignored or trivialized by vegans.


No, once again, it is not. Try dealing with the arguments put
forward by the real vegans in the real World instead of those
imaginary vegans inside your head. It's patently obvious that
you have no valid complaint against the real vegan until you do.


It's obvious that you're talking through your hat.


That's a non-response. You cannot expect your criticism of
vegans to be taken seriously while your definition and criticism
focuses on your imaginary vegan. What would be the point in
arguing against a critic who's only criticism focuses on HIS
imaginary vegan? You're a joke.

When or if you finally decide to challenge the real vegan's
solution to the animal deaths surrounding man's diet, don't
make the mistake in rejecting veganism on the basis that
some deaths will still occur after its proposed implementation
because you'll be invoking the perfect solution fallacy. Like
I said, you've been wasting your time on this collateral deaths
issue for years, and it's about time you thought of something
else to challenge the vegan with apart from fallacies and lies.


Thanks for mentioning the Perfect Solution fallacy, it's very descriptive of
veganism.


Rather, it pertains to the fallacy non-vegans use to reject
veganism. Rejecting veganism as a solution to the animal
deaths associated in man's diet on the basis that animal
deaths will still exist after veganism is implemented in a
World where collateral deaths are ubiquitous is specious.

Vegans think that there is a Perfect Solution to animal death and
suffering in one's diet and they think that veganism is it.


It's certainly the best solution where the deaths of farmed
animals and fish is concerned, and their huge associated
collateral deaths.

What a bunch of ******s.


Hitting a nerve? That's good. The collateral deaths argument
is debunked, so it's back to the drawing board for you until
you can come up with something that doesn't invoke logical
fallacies, doesn't include a straw man vegan who refuses to
acknowledge collateral deaths, and isn't based on lies.

You're screwed. All the antis are screwed, and it's your
own fault because you've hinged everything on the
collateral deaths argument and now been shown that it's
nothing more than a common little false dilemma.

Do you believe that the solution (drug squad) to drug
addiction must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy
simply because drug addicts still exist after the solution's
implementation?

Do you believe that the solution (oral hygiene) to dental
decay must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy
simply because tooth decay still occurs after the solution's
implementation?

If the answer is 'no' to both of those examples, and it is, it
then follows that the same answer must be given when
considering;

Do you believe that the solution to halt animal deaths in
man's diet (veganism) must be rejected as a nonsense
and hypocrisy simply because animal deaths (CD) still
occur after the solution's implementation?

As we can see, the collateral deaths argument against the
proposition of veganism poses a false dilemma, and so it
is rejected on that basis, as well as quite a few others I
can think of as well.
end restore

[..]

  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-12-2005, 12:37 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 Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:59:47 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:40:09 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:03:12 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:29:29 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote

The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that
occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect
solution exists and/or that a solution should be
rejected because some part of the problem would
still exist after it was implemented. Presumably,
assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
would last very long politically once it had been
implemented. Still, many people (notably utopians)
seem to find the idea of a perfect solution compelling,
perhaps because it is easy to imagine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

Read it and find that you've been wasting your time
on the collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to
say.

Har har

There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths
argument against veganism is a fallacy.
==========================
ROTFLMAO What a hoot!

Get used to it, Etter, however hard it must be for someone
like you to accept. You have no choice but to accept the
fact that the collateral deaths argument is specious in
that it poses a false dilemma.
===========================
LOL The problem for you is that you cannot accept the fact
that you kill animals for nothing more than your convenience
and entertainment. There is no meaning to your veganism,
killer.

Once again you have fallen for the perfect solution fallacy
by rejecting *my* veganism on the basis that, despite *my*
implementation of veganism as a solution to animal deaths,
animal deaths still occur in a World where animal deaths
cannot be avoided in food production generally. In short,
you're posing a false dilemma as described above. Thanks
for lending yourself so willingly in such a clear
demonstration.
===========
No


Yes, you stupid imbecile, you've tried posing exactly the
same false dilemma that you always do, and I reject it on
the basis that it invokes a fallacy. You lose, you dirty little
liar.

===========
No


Repeating you denial at this stage after being shown this
false dilemma you pose is absurd, but then you deny the
facts to everything that ruins your trolling here, so it isn't
as absurd as I first believed. I reject your argument on
the basis that it poses a false dilemma, and I've given you
examples analogous to your collateral deaths argument to
show that you are posing a sub fallacy of the false dilemma
known as 'the perfect solution fallacy.' You and your false
dilemma are old news now.


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 09:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2021 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017