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
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-12-2005, 11:52 AM 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.

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. He argues;

(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 by
assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
implemented.

(Rejoinder)
Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans,
and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill animals
intentionally for food. Furthermore, the crops grown to feed
farmed animals far outweigh those grown ourselves, and they
also cause collateral deaths proportionally, as does fishing our
oceans for other sources of meat, known as by-catch. So while
the vegan abstains from farmed meat and fish he in fact reduces
those collateral deaths from what they would be if he were to
eat those meats.

A harsh critic of veganism even declared;

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed
the livestock. There would be far less agriculture
in general if everyone were vegetarian."
Jonathan Ball 4th May 03

And

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat."
Jonathan Ball 22nd May 03

So, even while animals die during the course of crop
production, to assume the vegan's solution to this problem
should be rejected because some part of the problem would
still exist after it was implemented is specious.

A description of this fallacy and some further examples are
provided below.

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

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

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

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-12-2005, 03:28 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Doug Jones
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:52:45 +0000, Derek
wrote:

There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;

snip
So, even while animals die during the course of crop
production, to assume the vegan's solution to this problem
should be rejected because some part of the problem would
still exist after it was implemented is specious.


Congratulations. You've just committed the fallacy of "shifting the
goal posts"

I'm particularly struck by your wonderful embrace of the idea that
"accidental" deaths don't count in your moral calculus.

As long as we can say "oops!" or "didn't mean to!" it's perfectly all
right to kill animals. cool.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-12-2005, 03:49 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 Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:28:49 -0500, Doug Jones wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:52:45 +0000, Derek wrote:

There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;

snip

restore
(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 by
assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
implemented.

(Rejoinder)
Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans,
and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill animals
intentionally for food. Furthermore, the crops grown to feed
farmed animals far outweigh those grown ourselves, and they
also cause collateral deaths proportionally, as does fishing our
oceans for other sources of meat, known as by-catch. So while
the vegan abstains from farmed meat and fish he in fact reduces
those collateral deaths from what they would be if he were to
eat those meats.

A harsh critic of veganism even declared;

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed
the livestock. There would be far less agriculture
in general if everyone were vegetarian."
Jonathan Ball 4th May 03

And

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat."
Jonathan Ball 22nd May 03
end restore

So, even while animals die during the course of crop
production, to assume the vegan's solution to this problem
should be rejected because some part of the problem would
still exist after it was implemented is specious.


Congratulations. You've just committed the fallacy of "shifting the
goal posts"


No, I haven't.

I'm particularly struck by your wonderful embrace of the idea that
"accidental" deaths don't count in your moral calculus.


Your mental block is probably due to the fact that I haven't
even mentioned "accidental" deaths, let alone state that they
don't count in my moral calculus. And you accuse me of
shifting the goal posts?

As long as we can say "oops!" or "didn't mean to!" it's perfectly all
right to kill animals. cool.


No, I haven't implied that at all.

restore
A description of this fallacy and some further examples are
provided below.

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

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

It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit
any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not
work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may
be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when
a specific example of a solution's failing is described in eye-
catching detail and base rates are ignored (see availability
heuristic).
The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy
end restore
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-12-2005, 05:56 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Doug Jones
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:49:03 +0000, Derek
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:28:49 -0500, Doug Jones wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:52:45 +0000, Derek wrote:

There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;

snip

restore
(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 by
assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
implemented.

(Rejoinder)
Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans,
and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill animals
intentionally for food. Furthermore, the crops grown to feed
farmed animals far outweigh those grown ourselves, and they
also cause collateral deaths proportionally, as does fishing our
oceans for other sources of meat, known as by-catch. So while
the vegan abstains from farmed meat and fish he in fact reduces
those collateral deaths from what they would be if he were to
eat those meats.

A harsh critic of veganism even declared;

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed
the livestock. There would be far less agriculture
in general if everyone were vegetarian."
Jonathan Ball 4th May 03

And

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat."
Jonathan Ball 22nd May 03
end restore

So, even while animals die during the course of crop
production, to assume the vegan's solution to this problem
should be rejected because some part of the problem would
still exist after it was implemented is specious.


Congratulations. You've just committed the fallacy of "shifting the
goal posts"


No, I haven't.

I'm particularly struck by your wonderful embrace of the idea that
"accidental" deaths don't count in your moral calculus.


Your mental block is probably due to the fact that I haven't
even mentioned "accidental" deaths, let alone state that they
don't count in my moral calculus. And you accuse me of
shifting the goal posts?

As long as we can say "oops!" or "didn't mean to!" it's perfectly all
right to kill animals. cool.


No, I haven't implied that at all.

restore
A description of this fallacy and some further examples are
provided below.

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

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

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


Which still doesn't address your shifting goalposts. The core claim
that has been made by most vegan proponents is:

Their diet involves *no* (not fewer) animal deaths

Now, you are shifting the goal post by claiming that it involves
"fewer" deaths, again, without demonstrating that it does.

When it has been pointed out that agriculture does involve animal
deaths, you shift your goalposts to saying that they're "incidental"
and "accidental".

Saying that the argument poses a "false dilemma" just shows that one
of the core claims made by vegan proponents is false. Thank you.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-12-2005, 06:38 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 Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:56:45 -0500, Doug Jones wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:49:03 +0000, Derek wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:28:49 -0500, Doug Jones wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:52:45 +0000, Derek wrote:

There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;
snip

restore
(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 by
assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
implemented.

(Rejoinder)
Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans,
and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill animals
intentionally for food. Furthermore, the crops grown to feed
farmed animals far outweigh those grown ourselves, and they
also cause collateral deaths proportionally, as does fishing our
oceans for other sources of meat, known as by-catch. So while
the vegan abstains from farmed meat and fish he in fact reduces
those collateral deaths from what they would be if he were to
eat those meats.

A harsh critic of veganism even declared;

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed
the livestock. There would be far less agriculture
in general if everyone were vegetarian."
Jonathan Ball 4th May 03

And

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat."
Jonathan Ball 22nd May 03
end restore

So, even while animals die during the course of crop
production, to assume the vegan's solution to this problem
should be rejected because some part of the problem would
still exist after it was implemented is specious.


Congratulations. You've just committed the fallacy of "shifting the
goal posts"


No, I haven't.

I'm particularly struck by your wonderful embrace of the idea that
"accidental" deaths don't count in your moral calculus.


Your mental block is probably due to the fact that I haven't
even mentioned "accidental" deaths, let alone state that they
don't count in my moral calculus. And you accuse me of
shifting the goal posts?


Well, when are you going to show where I mentioned "accidental"
deaths and said they don't count in my moral calculus?

As long as we can say "oops!" or "didn't mean to!" it's perfectly all
right to kill animals. cool.


No, I haven't implied that at all.


Aren't you going to apologise for claiming I did, or are you
too arrogant?

restore
A description of this fallacy and some further examples are
provided below.

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

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

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


Which still doesn't address your shifting goalposts.


There's no goalpost moving involved in my post, as you'll
see but probably ignore.

The core claim
that has been made by most vegan proponents is:

Their diet involves *no* (not fewer) animal deaths


No, that's your straw man rather than the argument put
forward by me here and by other vegans. I've not said
no animals die during crop production.

Now, you are shifting the goal post by claiming that it involves
"fewer" deaths, again, without demonstrating that it does.


False. I clearly wrote;
(Rejoinder)
*Some* animals die during crop production, ..., not "fewer"
deaths, not *no* deaths, but SOME deaths. Get it right.
When you do, you'll see that no goalpost moves have been
made from "some" deaths.

When it has been pointed out that agriculture does involve animal
deaths, you shift your goalposts to saying that they're "incidental"
and "accidental".


No, that's another lie. Show where I wrote "they're incidental and
accidental." You wont because you can't, and you can't because
you've lied about what I wrote.

Saying that the argument poses a "false dilemma" just shows that one
of the core claims made by vegan proponents is false.


Rather, your straw man isn't the core claims made by me here
or any vegans that I know. Try something else, and this time
make it a more honest effort.


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2005, 03:26 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.


"Derek" wrote

(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 here is that veganism is a Perfect Solution, a "death-free
lifestyle". Every vegan behaves as if this were true, even after they learn
it is false.


  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2005, 10:08 AM 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 Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:26:05 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" 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 here is


... the one you snipped away, unable to deal with it and the
fact that it shows where you've been arguing against the vegan
speciously for years.

restore
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. He argues;

(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 by
assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
implemented.

(Rejoinder)
Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans,
and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill animals
intentionally for food. Furthermore, the crops grown to feed
farmed animals far outweigh those grown ourselves, and they
also cause collateral deaths proportionally, as does fishing our
oceans for other sources of meat, known as by-catch. So while
the vegan abstains from farmed meat and fish he in fact reduces
those collateral deaths from what they would be if he were to
eat those meats.

A harsh critic of veganism even declared;

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed
the livestock. There would be far less agriculture
in general if everyone were vegetarian."
Jonathan Ball 4th May 03

And

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat."
Jonathan Ball 22nd May 03

So, even while animals die during the course of crop
production, to assume the vegan's solution to this problem
should be rejected because some part of the problem would
still exist after it was implemented is specious.

A description of this fallacy and some further examples are
provided below.

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

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

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

that veganism is a Perfect Solution, a "death-free
lifestyle". Every vegan behaves as if this were true, even after they learn
it is false.


That's your straw man vegan you thwack about because
the real vegans in the real World do acknowledge the
collateral deaths in crop production. No one believes
farming industries, or any other industry for that matter,
cause no collateral deaths. I've shown you articles from
vegan sources acknowledging CDs plenty of times now,
but you're still only interested in tackling your imaginary
vegan who refuses to acknowledge them instead because
it's easier for you. Here's an article from a vegan source
to remind you, yet again, that the vegan you argue against
is the vegan inside your head rather than the real vegan in
the real World.

[Collateral Damage

I was recently challenged to justify my consumption of rice.
After all, I am told, the process of harvesting rice (growing
in water) kills untold numbers of frogs, turtles, and fish.]
Robert Cohen author of: MILK A-Z
Executive Director )
Dairy Education Board
http://www.notmilk.com
This file: http://www.notmilk.com/collateraldamage.txt

Vegan web sources and literature acknowledge and discuss
the collateral deaths in agriculture at length. They aren't
ignored like you claim. It's clear, then, that your only argument
is against your imaginary vegan, and the argument you use
against this straw man vegan, as well as the real vegan,
commits the Perfect Solution Fallacy. You've been wasting
your time on this issue of collateral deaths for years now, I'm
very glad to say.
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2005, 10:46 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.


"Derek" wrote
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:26:05 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" 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".

Your whole post is the same tired old exercise in moving the goalposts.

Keep re-pasting it, but it's not going to make it any truer.


  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2005, 11:21 AM 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 Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:46:00 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:26:05 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" 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. 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. 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.
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2005, 04:35 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
...
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.


He argues;

(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.

=========================
By the millions upon millions, and in mnany cases far more than
for some meat-inckuded diets. Therefore, your argument is bogus,
again.


This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
for their food in the practical World,

===========================
Nice stretch, fool. The poroblem is that you have yet to prove
that a vegan diet does ANYTHING to alleviate animal death and
suffering. Especially yours, hypocrite. Your argument loses,
again...


and so their solution to
abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
implemented.

=============================
Another nice move, fool. The fact remains that you have yet to
prove that a vegan diet automatically does anything for animal
deaths, except to kill millions and millions of them. Therefore,
your argument is bogus, again.



(Rejoinder)
Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans,

===========================
Yes, they are. Your pal, Aristotle even told you that you are
complicit, in english, killer.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill animals
intentionally for food.

==========================
false. You know the animals are there, the farmer knows the
animals are there, and you REWARD him for their deaths by oaying
him your un-earned doll money... Therefore, your argument is
bogus, again.


Furthermore, the crops grown to feed
farmed animals far outweigh those grown ourselves,

==========================
Strawman, killer. The fact remains that there is NO need to feed
crops to animals for you to eat meat.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


and they
also cause collateral deaths proportionally, as does fishing
our
oceans for other sources of meat, known as by-catch. So while
the vegan abstains from farmed meat and fish he in fact reduces
those collateral deaths from what they would be if he were to
eat those meats.

A harsh critic of veganism even declared;

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed
the livestock. There would be far less agriculture
in general if everyone were vegetarian."
Jonathan Ball 4th May 03

And

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat."
Jonathan Ball 22nd May 03

So, even while animals die during the course of crop
production, to assume the vegan's solution to this problem
should be rejected because some part of the problem would
still exist after it was implemented is specious.

A description of this fallacy and some further examples are
provided below.

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.

====================
The problem remains that you do nothing to try to live up to the
delusions of veganism. Your failure to prove that it
automatically means less death and suffering to animals is bogus,
again. Your whole exercise is a futile attempt to delude
yourself that you are somehow doing something, whne all you
accomplish is far more death and suffering than necessary.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.



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

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





  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2005, 05:47 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 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.
Grass fed beef and hunted meat will always include the
death of an animal or animals. The vegan will always beat
the flesh eater where deaths are concerned, so you can
take your CD laden grass fed beef and shove it, Rick.

He argues;

(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.

=========================
By the millions upon millions, and in mnany cases far more than
for some meat-inckuded diets. Therefore, your argument is bogus,
again.


Rather, you've just committed the same fallacy: the perfect
solution fallacy. Thanks for that demonstration.

This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
for their food in the practical World,

===========================
Nice stretch


You can't even bring yourself to concede that a vegan can
eat a single meal without killing animals, so when arguing
that the vegan's solution to the problem of animal deaths
surrounding diet should be rejected because animal deaths
still exist after veganism is implemented, you commit the
perfect solution fallacy.

and so their solution to
abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
implemented.

=============================
Another nice move


Agreed, because it's about time you realised your argument
against the vegan is a fallacy.

(Rejoinder)
Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans,

===========================
Yes, they are.


No. I don't request that collateral deaths occur, I don't condone
them, and nor do I intentionally cause them. You don't get to
say what others condone.

and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill animals
intentionally for food.

==========================
false. You know the animals are there


No, I don't.

the farmer knows the animals are there


That's correct. He causes them.

and you REWARD him for their deaths


No, I don't reward him for anything but the crops he produces.
I certainly don't reward him for the deaths he causes. Do you
reward taxi drivers for the deaths they cause while going about
their work, or our servicemen for the collateral deaths they
cause while making a grab for Saddam's oil? You're laughable.

Furthermore, the crops grown to feed
farmed animals far outweigh those grown ourselves,

==========================
Strawman, killer.


Not at all. In fact, of the total domestic consumption of cereal
grains 72% are used to feed livestock, 11% are for direct human
consumption, and the remaining 17% are used by the food industry
to produce different food products and alcoholic beverages.
Therefore, almost 90% of the cereal grains are consumed indirectly
by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans and oil seeds.
A large fraction of soybeans is used for feeding livestock, either
directly or in the form of by-products (bean meal) of soy oil
production, and in the food industry to produce soy oil for human
consumption.
http://dieoff.org/page55.htm

The fact remains that there is NO need to feed
crops to animals for you to eat meat.


The fact remains that they ARE fed crops, and that the crops
required take up 72% of the total domestic consumption of
cereal grains. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans and soy
oil.

and they
also cause collateral deaths proportionally, as does fishing
our
oceans for other sources of meat, known as by-catch. So while
the vegan abstains from farmed meat and fish he in fact reduces
those collateral deaths from what they would be if he were to
eat those meats.

A harsh critic of veganism even declared;

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed
the livestock. There would be far less agriculture
in general if everyone were vegetarian."
Jonathan Ball 4th May 03

And

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat."
Jonathan Ball 22nd May 03


I see you have no comment in response to Jonathan's
statements. Like he says, "If you insist on playing the
counting game, you'll lose." He's right, you've lost.

So, even while animals die during the course of crop
production, to assume the vegan's solution to this problem
should be rejected because some part of the problem would
still exist after it was implemented is specious.

A description of this fallacy and some further examples are
provided below.

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.

====================
The problem remains that you do nothing to try to live up to the
delusions of veganism.


Non sequitur and a dodge. Read the definition of that fallacy again.

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

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


Your entire argument against the vegan is fallacious, as shown
by the definition given above.
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2005, 08:11 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 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! You cannot claim that grass-fed
beef isn't an option because it isn't the norm, and then try to
claim that gathering wild veggies is, hypocrite.


Grass fed beef and hunted meat will always include the
death of an animal or animals. The vegan will always beat
the flesh eater where deaths are concerned, so you can
take your CD laden grass fed beef and shove it, Rick.

======================
ROTFLMAO Again, you have failed to prove that your diet is
better, killer. Thanks for the real admission that it isn't,
fool.



He argues;

(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.

=========================
By the millions upon millions, and in mnany cases far more than
for some meat-inckuded diets. Therefore, your argument is
bogus,
again.


Rather, you've just committed the same fallacy: the perfect
solution fallacy. Thanks for that demonstration.

========================
No, I did not, fool. YOU are the one claiming some perfection,
killer. I claim that you haven't proven yoyr delusions, and you
haven't, hypocrite.



This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are
killed
for their food in the practical World,

===========================
Nice stretch


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. I do claim, and you have
proven that YOU do not do anything to make a difference, killer.



so when arguing
that the vegan's solution to the problem of animal deaths
surrounding diet should be rejected because animal deaths
still exist after veganism is implemented, you commit the
perfect solution fallacy.

========================
No fool, you need to go back to reading comprehension 101. You
are the one making claims that you cannot back up, killer.



and so their solution to
abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals
for
food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
implemented.

=============================
Another nice move


Agreed, because it's about time you realised your argument
against the vegan is a fallacy.

========================
You've already been proven wrong, killer.


(Rejoinder)
Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans,

===========================
Yes, they are.


No. I don't request that collateral deaths occur, I don't
condone
them, and nor do I intentionally cause them. You don't get to
say what others condone.

======================
Your pal Aristotle has already told you, in english, that you are
complicit, hypocrite.



and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill
animals
intentionally for food.

==========================
false. You know the animals are there


No, I don't.

=====================
Then you are willfully and terminally ignorant. Why do you claim
CDs exist, and then claim you don't know about them? You really
are just too stupid for this game, hypocrite.



the farmer knows the animals are there


That's correct. He causes them.

=====================
And you reward him, killer.



and you REWARD him for their deaths


No, I don't reward him for anything but the crops he produces.
I certainly don't reward him for the deaths he causes. Do you
reward taxi drivers for the deaths they cause while going about
their work, or our servicemen for the collateral deaths they
cause while making a grab for Saddam's oil? You're laughable.

Furthermore, the crops grown to feed
farmed animals far outweigh those grown ourselves,

==========================
Strawman, killer.


Not at all. In fact, of the total domestic consumption of
cereal
grains 72% are used to feed livestock, 11% are for direct human
consumption, and the remaining 17% are used by the food
industry
to produce different food products and alcoholic beverages.
Therefore, almost 90% of the cereal grains are consumed
indirectly
by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans and oil
seeds.
A large fraction of soybeans is used for feeding livestock,
either
directly or in the form of by-products (bean meal) of soy oil
production, and in the food industry to produce soy oil for
human
consumption.
http://dieoff.org/page55.htm

=======================
ROTFLMAO Propaganda sites!! What a hoot!!! your argument is
bogus, again.



The fact remains that there is NO need to feed
crops to animals for you to eat meat.


The fact remains that they ARE fed crops, and that the crops
required take up 72% of the total domestic consumption of
cereal grains. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans and soy
oil.

=======================
Ther fact remains that YOU do not gather wild veggies, killer.
You cause far more animal deaths than necessary, and more than
many meat eaters. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.



and they
also cause collateral deaths proportionally, as does fishing
our
oceans for other sources of meat, known as by-catch. So while
the vegan abstains from farmed meat and fish he in fact
reduces
those collateral deaths from what they would be if he were to
eat those meats.

A harsh critic of veganism even declared;

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed
the livestock. There would be far less agriculture
in general if everyone were vegetarian."
Jonathan Ball 4th May 03

And

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat."
Jonathan Ball 22nd May 03


I see you have no comment in response to Jonathan's
statements. Like he says, "If you insist on playing the
counting game, you'll lose." He's right, you've lost.

====================
your argument is bogus, again.




So, even while animals die during the course of crop
production, to assume the vegan's solution to this problem
should be rejected because some part of the problem would
still exist after it was implemented is specious.

A description of this fallacy and some further examples are
provided below.

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.

====================
The problem remains that you do nothing to try to live up to
the
delusions of veganism.


Non sequitur and a dodge. Read the definition of that fallacy
again.

======================
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.



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

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


Your entire argument against the vegan is fallacious, as shown
by the definition given above.

=========
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2005, 08:33 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.rights.promotion
 
Posts: n/a
Default The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma.

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:52:45 +0000, Derek wrote:

There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage

[...]
(Rejoinder)
Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans,
and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill animals
intentionally for food.


The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should
Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet.

S.L. Davis, Department of Animal Sciences, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR 97331.

Published in the Proceedings of the Third Congress of the
European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, 2001,
pp 440-450.

Key words: veganism, least harm, farm animals, field animals.

Introduction
Although the debate over the moral status of animals has been
going on for thousands of years (Shapiro, 2000), there has
been a resurgence of interest in this issue in the last quarter of
the 20th century. One of the landmark philosophical works of
this period was the book by Regan (1983) called "A Case for
Animal Rights." In that book, Regan concludes that animals
do have moral standing, that they are subjects-of-a-life with
interests that deserve equal consideration to the same interests
in humans, and therefore have the right to live their lives
without human interference. As a consequence, he concludes
that humans have a moral obligation to consume a vegan (use
no animal products) diet and eliminate animal agriculture.
However, production of an all vegan diet also comes at the
cost of the lives of many animals, including mice, moles,
gophers, pheasants, etc. Therefore, I asked Regan, "What
is the morally relevant difference between killing a field mouse
(or other animal of the field) so that humans may eat and killing
a pig (or chicken, calf or lamb) for the same purpose? Animals
must die so that humans may eat, regardless whether they eat
a vegan diet or not. So, how are we to choose our food supply
in a morally responsible manner?" Regan's response could be
summarized by what may be called the "Least Harm Principle"
or LHP (Regan, Personal Communication). According to LHP,
we must choose the food products that, overall, cause the
least harm to the least number of animals. The following
analysis is an attempt to try to determine what humans should
eat if we apply that principle.

Regan's Vegan Conclusion is Problematic

I find Regan's response to my question to be problematic for
two reasons. The first reason is because it seems to be a
philosophical slight of hand for one to turn to a utilitarian
defense (LHP) of a challenge to his vegan conclusion which
is based on animal rights theory. If the question, "What is
the morally relevant difference?" can't be supported by the
animal rights theory, then it seems to me that the animal rights
theory must be rejected. Instead, Regan turns to utilitarian
theory (which examines consequences of one's actions) to
defend the vegan conclusion.

The second problem I see with his vegan conclusion is that
he claims that the least harm would be done to animals if
animal agriculture was eliminated. It may certainly be true
that fewer animals may be killed if animal agriculture was
eliminated, but could the LHP also lead to other alternative
conclusions?

Would pasture-based animal agriculture cause least harm?

Animals of the field are killed by several factors, including:

1. Tractors and farm implements run over them.
2. Plows and cultivators destroy underground burrows
and kill animals.
3. Removal of the crops (harvest) removes ground
cover allowing animals on the surface to be killed
by predators.
4. Application of pesticides.

So, every time the tractor goes through the field to plow,
disc, cultivate, apply fertilizer and/or pesticide, harvest,
etc., animals are killed. And, intensive agriculture such
as corn and soybeans (products central to a vegan diet)
kills far more animals of the field than would extensive
agriculture like forage production, particularly if the forage
was harvested by ruminant animals instead of machines.
So perhaps fewer animals would be killed by producing
beef, lamb, and dairy products for humans to eat instead
of the vegan diet envisioned by Regan.

Accurate numbers of mortality aren't available, but Tew
and Macdonald (1993) reported that wood mouse
population density in cereal fields dropped from 25/ha
preharvest to less than 5/ha postharvest. This decrease
was attributed to migration out of the field and to mortality.
Therefore, it may be reasonable to estimate mortality of
10 animals/ha in conventional corn and soybean
production.

There are 120 million ha of harvested cropland in the US
(USDA, 2000). If all of that land was used to produce a
plant-based diet, and if 10 animals of the field are killed
per ha per year, then 10 x 120 million = 1200 million or
1.2 billion would be killed to produce a vegan diet. If half
of that land (60 million) was converted to forage
production and if forage production systems decreased
the number of animals of the field killed per year by 50%
(5 per year per ha), the number of animals killed would be:

1. 60 million ha of traditional agriculture x 10 animals
per ha = 0.6 billion animals killed.
2. 60 million ha of forage production x 5 animals of
the field = 0.3 billion.

Therefore, in this hypothetical example, the change to
include some forage-based animal agriculture would
result in the loss of only 0.9 billion animals of the field
instead of 1.2 billion to support a vegan diet. As a
result, the LHP would suggest that we are morally
obligated to consume a diet of ruminant products, not
a vegan diet, because it would result in the death of
fewer animals of the field.

But what of the ruminant animals that would need to
die to feed people? According to the USDA numbers
quoted by Francione (2000), of the 8.4 billion animals
killed each year for food in the US, 8 billion of those
are poultry and only 41 million are ruminants (cows,
calves, sheep, lambs). Even if the numbers of
ruminants killed for food each year doubled to replace
the 8 billion poultry, the total number of animals that
would need to be killed under this alternative would
still be fewer (0.9 billion + 82 million = 0.982 billion)
than in the vegan alternative (1.2 billion).

In conclusion, applying the Least Harm Principle as
proposed by Regan would actually argue that we
are morally obligated to move to a ruminant-based
diet rather than a vegan diet.

References

Davis, S.L. 2000. What is the Morally Relevant
Difference between the Mouse and the Pig?
Pp. 107-109 in the Proceedings of EurSafe 2000;
2nd Congress of the European Society for
Agricultural and Food Ethics.

Francione, Gary L. 2000. Introduction to Animal
Rights: Your child or the dog? Temple University
Press. Philadelphia.

Regan, Tom. 1983. A Case for Animal Rights.
University of California Press, Berkeley.

Shapiro, L.S. 2000. Applied Animal Ethics,
pp. 34-37. Delmar Press.

Tew, T.E. and D.W. Macdonald. 1993. The
effects of harvest on arable wood mice.
Biological Conservation 65:279-283.

USDA. 2000.
www.nass.usda.gov/Census/Census97/highlights.
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2005, 08:55 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 Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:46:00 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:26:05 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" 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. A few have gotten
burned and retreated to fallback positions but the outrageous moral
assumptions that accompanied the original belief tend to remain intact.

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.

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. It is
only ever raised as an issue by vegans in defensive mode in attempts to
justify their attitudes and attack their critics, just as you did.


  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-12-2005, 10:08 AM 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 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.

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.

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, 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;

[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

These "proposed minimum requirements mean that
grass fed beef can in fact be fed up to 80% grains for
60 days in a feedlot, just like any other steer, and still
qualify as grass fed beef.

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

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

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

and

Dear Mr. Carpenter,
The proposed definition of the claim ?grass fed,? as it
may appear on future USDA approved beef labels, is
meaningless in the context of the current United States
cattle market and would violate consumer trust if put
into effect.

The huge majority of all beef cattle in the United States
are ?finished? on a grain-based ration in a commercial
feed lot. Even so, virtually all American cattle spend
80% or more of their lives on pasture eating grasses,
legumes and naturally occurring seeds (grain). Calling
these animals ?grass fed,? as proposed in the new label
claim definition, ignores the fact that in most cases their
whole diet for the last few months of their lives contains
no grass at all. Calling these animals ?grass fed? therefore
becomes meaningless since virtually all cattle are grass fed
as in the proposed definition.

However, for the last decade, a small, but growing number
of producers, including ourselves, have been marketing
cattle finished exclusively on pasture and hay without the
use of unnatural levels of grain-based seeds. This grass-
finished beef has been marketed as ?grassfed? or ?grass-
fed?, and these terms have come to be recognized by
millions of consumers. The enormous publicity over the
last year for grassfed meats (following on best-selling
books such as The Omega Diet and Fast Food Nation)
has reinforced the perception that ?grass fed? is
synonymous with grass-finished and, by extension, that no
supplemental grain has been provided to the animals.

So, I feel that to call an animal that has received as much
as 20% of its total nutrition in a grain feeding finishing
program ?grass fed? could be misleading and confusing
to the consumer. Grain finishing of ruminants is an artificial
feeding practice born of our unique circumstances here in
the United States. Grass feeding is the basis for ruminant
health consistent with the genetic structure and nutritional
requirements of the animals. The claim ?grass fed? as used
on a USDA-approved label should mean that a grassfed
animal has received no grain other than that which is naturally
occurring on pasture or in hay feeds.

I am glad that the USDA is attempting to bring some order
to the grassfed meat discussion, but I join those voices that
have been raised calling for a larger forum in which to discuss
the definition of the grassfed claim as well as other new claims.
I ask that the March 31, 2003, deadline for public comment
be extended indefinitely to give all citizens, most particularly
those who have been building the grassfed meats market, our
customers, and those who support our efforts, the opportunity
to have our perspective thoroughly considered.

Thank you for your serious consideration of my comments.

Sincerely,

Ernest Phinney
General Manager
Western Grasslands Beef]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc102.txt

Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what it's name
implies, and has just as much an association with
the collateral deaths found in crop production as
any other steer in the feedlot.

Grass fed beef and hunted meat will always include the
death of an animal or animals. The vegan will always beat
the flesh eater where deaths are concerned, so you can
take your CD laden grass fed beef and shove it, Rick.

======================
ROTFLMAO


What a silly response.

He argues;

(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.
=========================
By the millions upon millions, and in mnany cases far more than
for some meat-inckuded diets. Therefore, your argument is
bogus, again.


Rather, you've just committed the same fallacy: the perfect
solution fallacy. Thanks for that demonstration.

========================
No, I did not


You're arguing that the vegan's solution to the deaths associated
with man's diet should be rejected because animal deaths would
still exist after veganism is implemented, and that, dummy, is
using the perfect solution fallacy: a false dilemma.

This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are
killed for their food in the practical World,
===========================
Nice stretch


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?

so when arguing
that the vegan's solution to the problem of animal deaths
surrounding diet should be rejected because animal deaths
still exist after veganism is implemented, you commit the
perfect solution fallacy.

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


Absolutely yes. Other examples include;
(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?

As we can see, to reject a solution (veganism) to the animal
deaths found in man's diet on the basis that some deaths
will still occur after the solution is implemented invokes the
perfect solution fallacy, especially while that arguer insists
all foods cause animal deaths. In short, you're posing a false
dilemma to get your point accepted, and that wont do.

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

and so their solution to
abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals
for
food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
implemented.
=============================
Another nice move


Agreed, because it's about time you realised your argument
against the vegan is a fallacy.

========================
You've already been proven wrong, killer.


I've shown that your argument against the vegan poses a false
dilemma. Get used to it.

(Rejoinder)
Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans,
===========================
Yes, they are.


No. I don't request that collateral deaths occur, I don't
condone
them, and nor do I intentionally cause them. You don't get to
say what others condone.

======================
Your pal Aristotle has already told you, in english, that you are
complicit, hypocrite.


Rather, his theory on moral responsibility shows that the
farmer is blameworthy for the deaths he voluntarily
causes, and that he cannot escape that blame by claiming
he is compelled externally by the vegan to cause those
deaths.

[ Aristotle (384-323 BCE) seems to have been the first
to construct explicitly a theory of moral responsibility.
.....
The remainder of Aristotle's discussion is devoted to
spelling out the conditions under which it is appropriate
to hold a moral agent blameworthy or praiseworthy for
some particular action or trait. His general proposal is
that one is an apt candidate for praise or blame if and
only if the action and/or disposition is voluntary.

According to Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has
two distinctive features. First, there is a control condition:
the action or trait must have its origin in the agent. That
is, it must be up to the agent whether to perform that action
or possess the trait -- it cannot be compelled externally.
Second, Aristotle proposes an epistemic condition: the agent
must be aware of what it is she is doing or bringing about.]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entr*ies/m...ponsibility/#2

and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill
animals intentionally for food.
==========================
false. You know the animals are there


No, I don't.

=====================
Then you are willfully and terminally ignorant.


Then, in light of YOUR fact that all vegan foods accrue
animal deaths, to reject veganism on the basis that animal
deaths will still occur after its implementation you invoke
the perfect solution fallacy once again. Nice going, Rick;
you're the perfect demonstration for showing this fallacy
to its maximum effect.

the farmer knows the animals are there


That's correct. He causes them.

=====================
And you reward him, killer.


No, I don't, no matter how many times you repeat that
unsupported claim.

and you REWARD him for their deaths


No, I don't reward him for anything but the crops he produces.
I certainly don't reward him for the deaths he causes. Do you
reward taxi drivers for the deaths they cause while going about
their work, or our servicemen for the collateral deaths they
cause while making a grab for Saddam's oil? You're laughable.


Did you get that: you're laughable.

Furthermore, the crops grown to feed
farmed animals far outweigh those grown ourselves,
==========================
Strawman, killer.


Not at all. In fact, of the total domestic consumption of
cereal
grains 72% are used to feed livestock, 11% are for direct human
consumption, and the remaining 17% are used by the food
industry
to produce different food products and alcoholic beverages.
Therefore, almost 90% of the cereal grains are consumed
indirectly
by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans and oil
seeds.
A large fraction of soybeans is used for feeding livestock,
either
directly or in the form of by-products (bean meal) of soy oil
production, and in the food industry to produce soy oil for
human
consumption.
http://dieoff.org/page55.htm

=======================
ROTFLMAO Propaganda sites!!


No, by David Pimentel - Cornell University and Mario Giampietro
Isiituto Nazionale dell; Nutrizione, Rome. Also, to show that the
information I've given isn't from "propaganda sites", like you presume,
the paragraph starts off with, "For instance, according to FAO (199lc)
the cereal grains consumed directly per capita are just a small fraction
of the total per capita cereal grains consumption (directly and indirectly)
in the United States. In fact, of the total domestic consumption of cereal
grains 72% are used to feed livestock ...." Bad dodge, Rick.

What a hoot!!! your argument is bogus, again.


Apparently not.

The fact remains that there is NO need to feed
crops to animals for you to eat meat.


The fact remains that they ARE fed crops, and that the crops
required take up 72% of the total domestic consumption of
cereal grains. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans and soy
oil.

=======================
Ther fact remains that YOU do not gather wild veggies


I can do if I wanted to beat your grass fed beef and hunted meat,
and that's something you ought to include when offering a least-
harm diet if you weren't the meat pusher that you are.

and they also cause collateral deaths proportionally, as does
fishing our oceans for other sources of meat, known as by-
catch. So while the vegan abstains from farmed meat and
fish he in fact reduces those collateral deaths from what they
would be if he were to eat those meats.

A harsh critic of veganism even declared;

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed
the livestock. There would be far less agriculture
in general if everyone were vegetarian."
Jonathan Ball 4th May 03

And

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat."
Jonathan Ball 22nd May 03


I see you have no comment in response to Jonathan's
statements. Like he says, "If you insist on playing the
counting game, you'll lose." He's right, you've lost.

====================
your argument is bogus, again.


Non sequitur and therefore a dodge. Why don't you criticise
Jon for those comments if you don't agree with them, Rick?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]" [email protected] Vegan 128 27-05-2018 11:27 PM
Zionist pressure group ADL offers solution to the "December Dilemma"of European Christmas celebrations Jim34 General Cooking 36 13-12-2007 02:42 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 11:54 AM
Animal Collateral Deaths [email protected] Vegan 33 13-11-2003 09:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:48 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017