"Derek" > wrote in message
...
>
> Another valid form is to deny (tollens) the consequent;
> 1) If A, then B
> 2) -B (tollens)
> therefore
> 3) -A
>
> The conclusion in that syllogism wouldn't be reiterating
> the antecedent in (1), it would be denying it.
>
> > The actual non-logically formulated thinking of the typical vegan goes
> > something like, "If I abstain from animal products I cause (nearly) zero
> > animals to suffer and die."
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> > You're not dispelling this statement with your current arguments, you're
> > reinforcing that vegan arguments are generally illogical.
>
> If you can find a flaw in my above syllogism, then go
> ahead and do so. Simply flapping your arms around
> and whining, "It's illogical. It's illogical" isn't good
> enough and won't do.


It is important to note that this logic only applies if we first accept
without question that a=>b. As in any axiomatic system, we begin with
definitions which we accept, and rules which we accept without proof. Only
then can we use logic to reach conclusions. If we disagree on the
definitions, we can't go any further. (That depends what you mean by "is")