"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> >> >>In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
>> >> >>"veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
>> >> >>they don't really believe their absolute claim that
>> >> >>killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
>> >> >>effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
>> >> >>see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > You are putting forth a very contrived logical position.
>> >>
>> >> No, it isn't. It's a very well reasoned position, one
>> >> that is essentially accepted even by most "vegans".
>> >
>> > Ah, we return to an argument must be right because it common or
>> > popular.
>> > So much for "great minds".
>>
>> He didn't argue that the logic was right *because* it was essentially
>> accepted by most vegans, he said it was logical based on it's own merits,
>> *and* essentially accepted by most vegans.
>>
>> Ron, honestly, your comprehension skills are sadly lacking.
>
> "Essentially argued even by most...." is exactly what he wrote.

Read it again, "essentially ***accepted*** even by most "vegans".

You appear to be attempting to allege an "argumentum ad populum" fallacy
where none exists. He is not using vegan arguments to support his case, they
would not do so, since vegan *arguments* indicate that killing animals is
wrong. He is using the fact that their actions implicitly support his
argument as part of his *conclusion*. Vegans do not "argue" that killing
animals is not wrong, Jay Santos was not saying they did, in fact they at
least implicitly argue that it IS wrong. He revealed through his reasoning
that by their *actions* they implicitly "accept" that it is NOT wrong. I
apologize if that is hard to understand, but you have to have a basic grasp
of the subject matter to begin with.