In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.

Could you please clarify "not wrong". I find you more confusing than
ever. There are a variety of possibilities such as wrong, neutral or
right. I imagine with could anything across a spectrum from almost right
to not quite wrong.

Please clarify what you mean by "not wrong."

For example, is paying my taxes "not wrong"?