 |
|
| 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 | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals I do not eat meat; Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear. However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and if so, exclude it from their diet. Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend - and none of the other participants seemed especially eager to eliminate canned black olives from their diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms. Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the animal collateral death toll caused by the production and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if the geographic locale of production has anything to do with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't kill animals. It simply is not credible. How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans" *still* accept it. I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on what they call "ethics", their devotion to the religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them away. In that light, the obsessive Search for Micrograms takes on the character of a religious ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by >subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals This premiss is false on the basis that an improper relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat) and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists. Such a conditional statement insists that I cause harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat can be sourced from animals which have died from natural causes and without causing any harms. > I do not eat meat; > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. > >This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the >Antecedent. It certainly does, and this is why you built it and then attribute it to vegans. You're building a straw man. [The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.] http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#strawman A more accurate and valid argument would be thus; 1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent), I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent). 2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent) therefore 3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent) [snip straw man] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
Derek wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > > >>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by >>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: >> >> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals > > > This premiss Is believed by all "vegans". > >> I do not eat meat; >> >> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. >> >>This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the >>Antecedent. > > > It certainly does And is why "veganism" is a false belief. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >> >>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by >>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: >>> >>> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals >> >> This premiss > >Is believed by all "vegans". > <unsnip> This premiss is false on the basis that an improper relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat) and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists. Such a conditional statement insists that I cause harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat can be sourced from animals which have died from natural causes and without causing any harms. > I do not eat meat; > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. > >This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the >Antecedent. It certainly does, and this is why you built it and then attribute it to vegans. You're building a straw man. [The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.] http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#strawman A more accurate and valid argument would be thus; 1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent), I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent). 2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent) therefore 3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent) <endsnip> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
Derek wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by >>>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: >>>> >>>> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals >>> >>>This premiss >> >>Is believed by all "vegans". >> > > <unsnip> > This premiss is believed by all "vegans". > >> I do not eat meat; >> >> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. >> >>This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the >>Antecedent. > > > It certainly does Yes, it certainly does. It is why "veganism" is irrational. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:36:57 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>> >>>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by >>>>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: >>>>> >>>>> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals >>>> >>>>This premiss >>> >>>Is believed by all "vegans". <unsnip> This premiss is false on the basis that an improper relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat) and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists. Such a conditional statement insists that I cause harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat can be sourced from animals which have died from natural causes and without causing any harms. > I do not eat meat; > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. > >This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the >Antecedent. It certainly does, and this is why you built it and then attribute it to vegans. You're building a straw man. [The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.] http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#strawman A more accurate and valid argument would be thus; 1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent), I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent). 2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent) therefore 3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent) <endsnip> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
Derek wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:36:57 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>> >>>>Derek wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by >>>>>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: >>>>>> >>>>>> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals >>>>> >>>>>This premiss >>>> >>>>Is believed by all "vegans". > > This premiss Is believed by all "vegans". > >> I do not eat meat; >> >> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. >> >>This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the >>Antecedent. > > > It certainly does Yes, it certainly does. That's why "veganism" is a fallacy-based belief. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:02:47 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:36:57 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by >>>>>>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals >>>>>> >>>>>>This premiss >>>>> >>>>>Is believed by all "vegans". >> >> This premiss > >Is believed by all "vegans". Straw man. <unsnip> This premiss is false on the basis that an improper relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat) and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists. Such a conditional statement insists that I cause harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat can be sourced from animals which have died from natural causes and without causing any harms. > I do not eat meat; > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. > >This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the >Antecedent. It certainly does, and this is why you built it and then attribute it to vegans. You're building a straw man. [The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.] http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#strawman A more accurate and valid argument would be thus; 1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent), I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent). 2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent) therefore 3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent) <endsnip> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
bone health- Eur J Nutr 40 : 200-213 (2001)
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
Derek wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:02:47 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:36:57 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>> >>>>Derek wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by >>>>>>>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This premiss >>>>>> >>>>>>Is believed by all "vegans". >>> >>>This premiss >> >>Is believed by all "vegans". > > This premiss Is believed by all "vegans". > >> I do not eat meat; >> >> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. >> >>This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the >>Antecedent. > > > It certainly does Yes, it certainly does. That's why "veganism" is a fallacy-based belief. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:12:51 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:02:47 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:36:57 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by >>>>>>>>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>This premiss >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Is believed by all "vegans". Straw man. <unsnip> This premiss is false on the basis that an improper relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat) and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists. Such a conditional statement insists that I cause harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat can be sourced from animals which have died from natural causes and without causing any harms. > I do not eat meat; > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. > >This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the >Antecedent. It certainly does, and this is why you built it and then attribute it to vegans. You're building a straw man. [The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.] http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#strawman A more accurate and valid argument would be thus; 1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent), I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent). 2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent) therefore 3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent) <endsnip> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
Derek wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:12:51 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by >>>>>>>>>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>This premiss >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Is believed by all "vegans". > > This premiss is Believed by all "vegans". It's the beginning of their belief in a fallacy. > >> I do not eat meat; >> >> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. >> >>This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the >>Antecedent. > > > It certainly does Yes, it certainly does. That's why "veganism" is a fallacy-based belief. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... > Derek wrote: > > On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:12:51 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by > >>>>>>>>>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>This premiss > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Is believed by all "vegans". > > > > This premiss is > > Believed by all "vegans". Straw man. <unsnip> This premiss is false on the basis that an improper relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat) and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists. Such a conditional statement insists that I cause harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat can be sourced from animals which have died from natural causes and without causing any harms. > I do not eat meat; > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. > >This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the >Antecedent. It certainly does, and this is why you built it and then attribute it to vegans. You're building a straw man. [The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.] http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#strawman A more accurate and valid argument would be thus; 1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent), I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent). 2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent) therefore 3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent) <endsnip> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
Derek wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:12:51 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>> >>>>Derek wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by >>>>>>>>>>>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>This premiss >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Is believed by all "vegans". >>> >>>This premiss is >> >>Believed by all "vegans". > > > Straw man. > > <unsnip> > This premiss is Believed by all "vegans". > >> I do not eat meat; >> >> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. >> >>This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the >>Antecedent. > > > It certainly does Yes, it certainly does. That's why "veganism" is a fallacy-based belief. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
"Derek" > wrote > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote > > Derek wrote: > > > On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:12:51 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > > >>Derek wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by > > >>>>>>>>>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>This premiss > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>Is believed by all "vegans". > > > > > > This premiss is > > > > Believed by all "vegans". > > Straw man. > > <unsnip> > This premiss is false on the basis that an improper > relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat) > and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists. > Such a conditional statement insists that I cause > harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat > can be sourced from animals which have died from > natural causes and without causing any harms. There is no debate over the ethics of consuming the meat of animals who have died from natural causes. There is no source for humans of meat from animals who have died of natural causes in the developed world. For the purpose of this discussion, and for all practical purposes, eating meat implies the killing of an animal "in it's prime". The existence of a relatively unused alternative to doing so does not invalidate the premiss. "Meat" in this context is referring to "produced" meat. > > I do not eat meat; > > > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. > > > >This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the > >Antecedent. > > It certainly does, and this is why you built it and then > attribute it to vegans. You're building a straw man. > > [The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent > someone else's position so that it can be attacked > more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, > then conclude that the original position has been > demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with > the actual arguments that have been made.] > http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#strawman You have failed to demonstrate a strawman. > A more accurate and valid argument would be thus; > > 1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent), > I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent). > 2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent) > therefore > 3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent) That's not even a statement of logic. It merely says, 1) If A therefore B 2) A therefore 3) B Duh! The intent of logic is to draw conclusions, not just reiterate the premiss. 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." You're not dispelling this statement with your current arguments, you're reinforcing that vegan arguments are generally illogical. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > "Derek" > wrote > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote > > > Derek wrote: > > > > On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:12:51 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > > > >>Derek wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by > > > >>>>>>>>>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>This premiss > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>Is believed by all "vegans". > > > > > > > > This premiss is > > > > > > Believed by all "vegans". > > > > Straw man. > > > > <unsnip> > > This premiss is false on the basis that an improper > > relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat) > > and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists. > > Such a conditional statement insists that I cause > > harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat > > can be sourced from animals which have died from > > natural causes and without causing any harms. > > There is no debate over the ethics of consuming the meat of animals who have > died from natural causes. There is no source for humans of meat from animals > who have died of natural causes in the developed world. For the purpose of > this discussion, and for all practical purposes, eating meat implies the > killing of an animal "in it's prime". Try to understand for just one minute that *for the purpose of this discussion* Jon has offered a syllogism as a tool to *prove* vegans follow a logical fallacy in their reasoning when avoiding meat. There's only two ways to prove such a proposition: weight of evidence or deductive logic. Jon clearly has no weight of evidence to prove his proposition since he would have to first prove he can read every vegan's mind, so he is trying to rely on using deductive reasoning instead with a syllogism. My task now is to deal with that tool he's using *for the purpose of this discussion* by showing his syllogism to be invalid, and I have done so by showing an improper relationship exists between the antecedent and the consequent in his first premiss. Secondly, my task is then to show that HIS argument is not the argument put forward by vegans. In short, he is building a straw man with a false first premiss. [..] > > > I do not eat meat; > > > > > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. > > > > > >This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the > > >Antecedent. > > > > It certainly does, and this is why you built it and then > > attribute it to vegans. You're building a straw man. > > > > [The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent > > someone else's position so that it can be attacked > > more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, > > then conclude that the original position has been > > demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with > > the actual arguments that have been made.] > > http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#strawman > > You have failed to demonstrate a strawman. The argument Jon insists vegans use is not their's, so he is building a straw man instead of dealing with their real argument, or at least the valid and sound syllogism I offered below. > > A more accurate and valid argument would be thus; > > > > 1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent), > > I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent). > > 2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent) > > therefore > > 3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent) > > That's not even a statement of logic. It is, you fool. Learn something about syllogisms. > It merely says, > > 1) If A therefore B > 2) A > therefore > 3) B Nearly, but no. Stripped down MY syllogism goes 1) If A, *then* B 2) A (ponens) therefore 3) B You'll find that that IS a valid piece of deductive logic. The second premiss affirms the antecedent given in the first premiss (ponens). Therefore, the only *logical* conclusion must be to accept the consequent in the first premiss as well. > Duh! The intent of logic is to draw conclusions, not just reiterate the > premiss. The conclusion in a syllogism accepts or rejects the truth of the antecedent or consequent given in the first premiss, so while it might seem to be just merely reiterating the premiss you're failing to note which part the conclusion is reiterating and why. 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
"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") |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 14:51:26 GMT, "William Hershman" > wrote:
>"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. Then do you challenge the truth of either premiss or the form in which the syllogism is laid out? 1) If A, then B 2) A (ponens) therefore 3) B 1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent), then I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent). 2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent) therefore 3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent) > (That depends what you mean by "is") What does, and where did you get "is" from anyway? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 14:51:26 GMT, "William Hershman" > wrote: > > > >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. > > Then do you challenge the truth of either premiss or > the form in which the syllogism is laid out? > > 1) If A, then B > 2) A (ponens) > therefore > 3) B > > 1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent), then > I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent). > 2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent) > therefore > 3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent) > I don't challenge either one. I can't. I'm saying that in this example, we'd all have to agree that the B is a consequence of A. I'm not sure if what you have labeled as 1) is true or not. Therefore, we cannot apply the rules of logic. It is possible that A does not cause B. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:18:36 GMT, "William Hershman" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 14:51:26 GMT, "William Hershman" > wrote: >> > >> >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. >> >> Then do you challenge the truth of either premiss or >> the form in which the syllogism is laid out? >> >> 1) If A, then B >> 2) A (ponens) >> therefore >> 3) B >> >> 1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent), then >> I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent). >> 2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent) >> therefore >> 3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent) > >I don't challenge either one. I can't. I'm saying that in this example, >we'd all have to agree that the B is a consequence of A. I'm not sure if >what you have labeled as 1) is true or not. Therefore, we cannot apply >the rules of logic. It is possible that A does not cause B. The consequence of my action (abstaining from meat) would either 1) cause no impact whatsoever in the suffering and death of farmed animals. (in which case I would then ask you to multiply my example by 50 million to prove I do have an impact, however small). 2) cause an impact, however small. There can be no doubt that if one abstains from farmed animal products, then one would cause less farmed animals to suffer and die. Something analogous would be; 1) If abstain from lighting bonfires, then I cause less pollution. Both premisses stand or fall together. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:46:11 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, The stupid Gonad wrote: > >>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by >>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: >> >> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals > >This premiss is false on the basis that an improper >relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat) >and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists. >Such a conditional statement insists that I cause >harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat >can be sourced from animals which have died from >natural causes and without causing any harms. > >> I do not eat meat; >> >> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. >> >>This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the >>Antecedent. > >It certainly does, and this is why you built it and then >attribute it to vegans. You're building a straw man. Of course. The Gonad has no opposition to veg*nism, because he's an "ARA". His supposed opposition will always be stupid if it exists at all, but more likely it will be nothing more than insults directed at veg*ns. >[The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent >someone else's position so that it can be attacked >more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, >then conclude that the original position has been >demolished. I've been telling the Gonad that for years. Not only has the moron never refuted my position, but he has never even acknowledged what it is. In four years of posting the Gonad hasn't even managed to get to the starting line yet. >It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with >the actual arguments that have been made.] It is not only a lie, but also a kind of theft. A person presents an idea, then a lying scumbag "AR" rep like the Gonad insists that it is something else. If he successfully persuades people that his lie is the other person's position, then he has in a way stolen the original idea. Interesting that I can ***easily*** recognise it when he does it to you, but you can't recognise it when he does it to me. Well, maybe it's not all that interesting, being that you "ARAs" are working together. >http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#strawman > >A more accurate and valid argument would be thus; > >1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent), > I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent). >2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent) >therefore >3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent) Veg*nism does nothing at all to help farm animals. If people want to promote better lives for farm animals with their diet they need to be more conscientious consumers of animal products, *not!* veg*ns. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT, The stupid Gonad wrote:
>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by >subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals > > I do not eat meat; > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. > > >This argument Is a lie that the Gonad invented. The lie begins with the first word of this retarded "FAQ". >contains a classic fallacy: Denying the >Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to >cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed >in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals >is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted >millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of >vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a >result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest >control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal >CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear. > >However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous >time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last >trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the >Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts >in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there >are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and >if so, exclude it from their diet. · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone else does. What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have to avoid the following in order to be successful: __________________________________________________ _______ Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film, Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk, Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ __________________________________________________ _______ Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin, Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt, auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance greases, brake fluid http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ __________________________________________________ _______ contact-lens care products, glues for paper and cardboard cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats, sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ __________________________________________________ _______ Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants, Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes, Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes, Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ The meat industry provides life for the animals that it slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do in any other habitat. They also depend on it for their lives like the animals in any other habitat. If people consume animal products from animals they think are raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the future. From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people get thousands of servings of dairy products. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and decent lives for cattle. · [...] >How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for >Micrograms? Who cares Gonad? As alway you have **nothing!!!** to offer! You simply insult other people's positions, without offering any kind of superior position for them to consider. Why don't you suggest any alternative? Either that or explain why your completely inconsiderate postion is the "ethical" course which should be taken? Why do you NEVER have anything of value to offer? Gonad. You stupid moron. (answer: The Gonad is an "ARA", pretending--extremely badly!--to be an "AR" opponent. This being the case, we will never see him suggest anything which could be considered ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of farm animals.) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
"Derek" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > > "Derek" > wrote > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote > > > > Derek wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:12:51 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > > > > >>Derek wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by > > > > >>>>>>>>>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>This premiss > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>Is believed by all "vegans". > > > > > > > > > > This premiss is > > > > > > > > Believed by all "vegans". > > > > > > Straw man. > > > > > > <unsnip> > > > This premiss is false on the basis that an improper > > > relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat) > > > and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists. > > > Such a conditional statement insists that I cause > > > harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat > > > can be sourced from animals which have died from > > > natural causes and without causing any harms. > > > > There is no debate over the ethics of consuming the meat of animals who have > > died from natural causes. There is no source for humans of meat from animals > > who have died of natural causes in the developed world. For the purpose of > > this discussion, and for all practical purposes, eating meat implies the > > killing of an animal "in it's prime". > > Try to understand I understand perfectly, in his statement Jonathan uses the word "meat" in the universally understood way, "the flesh-food of animals derived by killing the animal", and you naively think you can defeat him with a diversionary tactic. This whole subject revolves around the keeping and/or killing of animals for their meat, scavenging animals that have died of natural causes is a non-sequitor, a red herring. It's a typical lame Derek equivocation tactic. Every time you open your mouth you prove that vegan arguments are corrupt. > for just one minute that *for the > purpose of this discussion* Jon has offered a syllogism > as a tool to *prove* vegans follow a logical fallacy in > their reasoning when avoiding meat. He does not "offer a syllogism", he makes an observation and then describes the fallacy named in the observation. > There's only two > ways to prove such a proposition: weight of evidence > or deductive logic. Jon clearly has no weight of evidence > to prove his proposition since he would have to first > prove he can read every vegan's mind, so he is trying to > rely on using deductive reasoning instead with a syllogism. Pure rubbish, he made an astute observation about the nature of the fundamental vegan rule of behaviour. You will not refute it by introducing red herrings and tossing around terms like "logical syllogism". You could try to argue it with plain reason, but you can't, because it happens to be true. > My task now is to deal with that tool he's using *for the > purpose of this discussion* by showing his syllogism to > be invalid, and I have done so by showing an improper > relationship exists between the antecedent and the > consequent in his first premiss. **** off, you're in way over your head. > Secondly, my task is then to show that HIS argument > is not the argument put forward by vegans. Which you can't do, because it is. > In short, he > is building a straw man with a false first premiss. No, in short, you are waving your hands wildly trying to distract, and you're failing. > [..] > > > > I do not eat meat; > > > > > > > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. > > > > > > > >This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the > > > >Antecedent. > > > > > > It certainly does, and this is why you built it and then > > > attribute it to vegans. You're building a straw man. > > > > > > [The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent > > > someone else's position so that it can be attacked > > > more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, > > > then conclude that the original position has been > > > demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with > > > the actual arguments that have been made.] > > > http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#strawman > > > > You have failed to demonstrate a strawman. > > The argument Jon insists vegans use is not their's, Yes it is. > so > he is building a straw man instead of dealing with > their real argument, He is dealing with their real position. You're trying to tap dance around and disguise their real argument. > or at least the valid and sound > syllogism I offered below. It's a stupid, circular, meaningless series of statements. > > > > A more accurate and valid argument would be thus; > > > > > > 1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent), > > > I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent). > > > 2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent) > > > therefore > > > 3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent) > > > > That's not even a statement of logic. > > It is, you fool. Learn something about syllogisms. > > > It merely says, > > > > 1) If A therefore B > > 2) A > > therefore > > 3) B > > Nearly, but no. **** off, it's exactly what it says. Stripped down MY syllogism goes > 1) If A, *then* B > 2) A (ponens) > therefore > 3) B That's just what I said. > You'll find that that IS a valid piece of deductive > logic. The second premiss affirms the antecedent > given in the first premiss (ponens). Therefore, the > only *logical* conclusion must be to accept the > consequent in the first premiss as well. > > > Duh! The intent of logic is to draw conclusions, not just reiterate the > > premiss. > > The conclusion in a syllogism accepts or rejects the > truth of the antecedent or consequent given in the > first premiss, so while it might seem to be just merely > reiterating the premiss you're failing to note which part > the conclusion is reiterating and why. It is simply reiterating the premiss, therefore it cannot be wrong. Jonathan and I both dispute your premiss, and vegan positions affirm that what you are presenting does NOT represent the vegan premiss. > > 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. This isn't an excercise in formal logic, it's an exercise in basic thinking, which you keep failing. > > 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. Yes it ABSOLUTELY is. The "Irrational Search for Micrograms" is just one powerful bit of evidence. > > 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. Your "syllogism" is irrelevant. It's nothing more than a flimsy attempt at diversion. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> There can be no doubt that if one abstains from > farmed animal products, then one would cause > less farmed animals to suffer and die. Something > analogous would be; > 1) If abstain from lighting bonfires, then I cause > less pollution. > > Both premisses stand or fall together. There's all kinda doubt. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
"William Hershman" > wrote in message news:2HOwc.11127$HG.9007@attbi_s53... > "Derek" > wrote in message ... > > > > There can be no doubt that if one abstains from > > farmed animal products, then one would cause > > less farmed animals to suffer and die. Something > > analogous would be; > > 1) If abstain from lighting bonfires, then I cause > > less pollution. > > > > Both premisses stand or fall together. > > There's all kinda doubt. Then show where, else my premiss remains true. As you've said so yourself, "I don't challenge either one. I can't.", therefore my conclusion stands; 3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > "Derek" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > > > "Derek" > wrote > > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote > > > > > Derek wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:12:51 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > > > > > >>Derek wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>This premiss > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>Is believed by all "vegans". > > > > > > > > > > > > This premiss is > > > > > > > > > > Believed by all "vegans". > > > > > > > > Straw man. > > > > > > > > <unsnip> > > > > This premiss is false on the basis that an improper > > > > relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat) > > > > and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists. > > > > Such a conditional statement insists that I cause > > > > harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat > > > > can be sourced from animals which have died from > > > > natural causes and without causing any harms. > > > > > > There is no debate over the ethics of consuming > > > the meat of animals who have died from natural > > > causes. There is no source for humans of meat > > > from animals who have died of natural causes in > > > the developed world. For the purpose of this > > > discussion, and for all practical purposes, eating > > > meat implies the killing of an animal "in it's prime". > > > > Try to understand > > I understand perfectly No, you don't. Jon is offering a syllogism and that is what I am debunking. > > for just one minute that *for the > > purpose of this discussion* Jon has offered a syllogism > > as a tool to *prove* vegans follow a logical fallacy in > > their reasoning when avoiding meat. > > He does not "offer a syllogism", He does, you stupid fool. His argument has two premisses and a conclusion. THAT is a syllogism, stupid. > > There's only two > > ways to prove such a proposition: weight of evidence > > or deductive logic. Jon clearly has no weight of evidence > > to prove his proposition since he would have to first > > prove he can read every vegan's mind, so he is trying to > > rely on using deductive reasoning instead with a syllogism. > > Pure rubbish At the very start of this thread Jon offered a syllogism in the form 1) If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals 2) I do not eat meat; Therefore, 3)I do not cause harm to animals. It has two premisses and a conclusion. It's also commits a fallacy, since the second premiss denies the antecedent in the first premiss. > > My task now is to deal with that tool he's using *for the > > purpose of this discussion* by showing his syllogism to > > be invalid, and I have done so by showing an improper > > relationship exists between the antecedent and the > > consequent in his first premiss. > > **** off, you're in way over your head. Says the dummy who failed to spot that Jon had even offered a syllogism in the first place. Yeah right. > > Secondly, my task is then to show that HIS argument > > is not the argument put forward by vegans. > > Which you can't do, because it is. Then show where vegans have put forward such an argument where since they don't eat meat, then no animals die during the production of the crops they eat. The ONLY prat stupid enough to believe the poduction of their food causes no CD is Rick Etter. "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." Rick Etter 2003-11-15 Vegans don't deny animals die during the production of their food as Rick does, so the argument insisting vegans do is a straw man. [..] > > > > A more accurate and valid argument would be thus; > > > > > > > > 1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent), > > > > I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent). > > > > 2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent) > > > > therefore > > > > 3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the > > > > consequent) > > > > > > That's not even a statement of logic. > > > > It is, you fool. Learn something about syllogisms. Especially since you couldn't see that Jon's argument; "the vegan fallacy" is a syllogism. > > > It merely says, > > > > > > 1) If A therefore B > > > 2) A > > > therefore > > > 3) B > > > > Nearly, but no. > > **** off, it's exactly what it says. No, it doesn't. I know what I wrote, and what I did write is still there to show that you are wrong. > Stripped down MY syllogism goes > > 1) If A, *then* B > > 2) A (ponens) > > therefore > > 3) B > > That's just what I said. No, it isn't. You wrote something similar but not quite the same. YOUR first premise went; "1) If A therefore B" but my first premise is a conditional "if, then" proposition "1) If A, *then* B" > > You'll find that that IS a valid piece of deductive > > logic. The second premiss affirms the antecedent > > given in the first premiss (ponens). Therefore, the > > only *logical* conclusion must be to accept the > > consequent in the first premiss as well. I'll take you lack of an answer as a tacit admission then. > > > Duh! The intent of logic is to draw conclusions, not just reiterate the > > > premiss. > > > > The conclusion in a syllogism accepts or rejects the > > truth of the antecedent or consequent given in the > > first premiss, so while it might seem to be just merely > > reiterating the premiss you're failing to note which part > > the conclusion is reiterating and why. > > It is simply reiterating the premiss No, the conclusion is only affirming the consequent in the first premiss. Not the whole premiss. [..] > > 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. > > This isn't an excercise in formal logic Well, it looks like you're in need of some practice at it. [..] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > "Derek" > wrote > > > "Dutch" > wrote > > > > "Derek" > wrote > > > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote > > > > > > Derek wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:12:51 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > > > > > > >>Derek wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>This premiss > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>Is believed by all "vegans". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This premiss is > > > > > > > > > > > > Believed by all "vegans". > > > > > > > > > > Straw man. > > > > > > > > > > <unsnip> > > > > > This premiss is false on the basis that an improper > > > > > relationship between the antecedent (If I eat meat) > > > > > and the consequent (I cause harm to animals) exists. > > > > > Such a conditional statement insists that I cause > > > > > harm to animals EVERT time I eat meat, but meat > > > > > can be sourced from animals which have died from > > > > > natural causes and without causing any harms. > > > > > > > > There is no debate over the ethics of consuming > > > > the meat of animals who have died from natural > > > > causes. There is no source for humans of meat > > > > from animals who have died of natural causes in > > > > the developed world. For the purpose of this > > > > discussion, and for all practical purposes, eating > > > > meat implies the killing of an animal "in it's prime". > > > > > > Try to understand > > > > I understand perfectly > > No, you don't. Jon is offering a syllogism and that is > what I am debunking. As you always do when someone exposes your shabby games, you removed the context of your opponent's comments. <unsnip> In his statement Jonathan uses the word "meat" in the universally understood way, "the flesh-food of animals derived by killing the animal", and you naively think you can defeat him with a diversionary tactic. This whole subject revolves around the keeping and/or killing of animals for their meat, scavenging animals that have died of natural causes is a non-sequitor, a red herring. It's a typical lame Derek equivocation tactic. Every time you open your mouth you prove that vegan arguments are corrupt. > > > > for just one minute that *for the > > > purpose of this discussion* Jon has offered a syllogism > > > as a tool to *prove* vegans follow a logical fallacy in > > > their reasoning when avoiding meat. > > > > He does not "offer a syllogism", > > He does, you stupid fool. His argument has two premisses > and a conclusion. THAT is a syllogism, stupid. You use unecessarily esoteric words to appear learned. He made an observation about vegans. > > > There's only two > > > ways to prove such a proposition: weight of evidence > > > or deductive logic. Jon clearly has no weight of evidence > > > to prove his proposition since he would have to first > > > prove he can read every vegan's mind, so he is trying to > > > rely on using deductive reasoning instead with a syllogism. > > > > Pure rubbish > > At the very start of this thread Jon offered a syllogism > in the form > > 1) If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals > 2) I do not eat meat; > Therefore, > 3)I do not cause harm to animals. > > It has two premisses and a conclusion. It's also commits > a fallacy, since the second premiss denies the antecedent > in the first premiss. Of course it denies the antecedent, that's the fallacy he has correctly observed in vegan thinking. my task is then to show that HIS argument > > > is not the argument put forward by vegans. > > > > Which you can't do, because it is. > > Then show where vegans have put forward such an > argument By concluding that meat consumption is wrong based on the fact that it involves killing animals. This belief is universal among vegans. [..] > > > > 1) If A therefore B > > > > 2) A > > > > therefore > > > > 3) B > > > > > > Nearly, but no. > > > > **** off, it's exactly what it says. > > No, it doesn't. I know what I wrote, and what I did > write is still there to show that you are wrong. > > > Stripped down MY syllogism goes > > > 1) If A, *then* B > > > 2) A (ponens) > > > therefore > > > 3) B > > > > That's just what I said. > > No, it isn't. You wrote something similar but not > quite the same. YOUR first premise went; > "1) If A therefore B" > but my first premise is a conditional "if, then" proposition > "1) If A, *then* B" If->then, if->therefore, wtf is the difference? > > > You'll find that that IS a valid piece of deductive > > > logic. The second premiss affirms the antecedent > > > given in the first premiss (ponens). Therefore, the > > > only *logical* conclusion must be to accept the > > > consequent in the first premiss as well. > > I'll take you lack of an answer as a tacit admission > then. All you did was repeat the premiss if a, then b a, then b It's not invalid, but it's no more than simply making an assertion. > > > > Duh! The intent of logic is to draw conclusions, not just reiterate the > > > > premiss. > > > > > > The conclusion in a syllogism accepts or rejects the > > > truth of the antecedent or consequent given in the > > > first premiss, so while it might seem to be just merely > > > reiterating the premiss you're failing to note which part > > > the conclusion is reiterating and why. > > > > It is simply reiterating the premiss > > No, the conclusion is only affirming the consequent in > the first premiss. Not the whole premiss. Yes. you're tap dancing. As you always do, you're trying to look like an educated person when you're obviously a crank. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
Derek wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message ... > >>"Derek" > wrote >> >>>There's only two >>>ways to prove such a proposition: weight of evidence >>>or deductive logic. Jon clearly has no weight of evidence >>>to prove his proposition since he would have to first >>>prove he can read every vegan's mind, so he is trying to >>>rely on using deductive reasoning instead with a syllogism. >> >>Pure rubbish > > > At the very start of this thread Jon offered a syllogism > in the form > > 1) If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals > 2) I do not eat meat; > Therefore, > 3)I do not cause harm to animals. > > It has two premisses and a conclusion. It's also commits > a fallacy, since the second premiss denies the antecedent > in the first premiss. It certainly does! ALL "vegans" commit this fallacy, including you. >>>Secondly, my task is then to show that HIS argument >>>is not the argument put forward by vegans. And you FAIL, utterly, because it is PRECISELY the argument put forward by stupid, smarmy, sanctimonious, self-congratulatory, hypocritical, lying "vegans": which is to say, ALL "vegans". >> >>Which you can't do, because it is. > > > Then show where vegans have put forward such an > argument where since they don't eat meat, then no > animals die during the production of the crops they > eat. Go Vegan and live cruelty free. Peace is only found with how we live our lives...not through some external belief in spirituality. Treat all animals the way you would want to be treated. Vegans may be smaller, but we are far more healthy on average. http://tinyurl.com/7gvl The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer isn't fooling anyone. http://tinyurl.com/7gw1 Right there, ****knob. That second nugget of bullshit is from you: you claim, falsely, that by being "vegan", you live a "death free lifestyle". You do not. Your "lifestyle" causes animals to die. Don't bother arguing it; you lost years ago. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net... > Derek wrote: [..] > > At the very start of this thread Jon offered a syllogism > > in the form > > > > 1) If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals > > 2) I do not eat meat; > > Therefore, > > 3)I do not cause harm to animals. > > > > It has two premisses and a conclusion. It's also commits > > a fallacy, since the second premiss denies the antecedent > > in the first premiss. > > It certainly does! ALL "vegans" commit this fallacy, > including you. Ipse dixit and false. You have no support for that claim at all, and being that I myself don't commit this fallacy, for I do know that animals die during crop production, then your claim that ALL vegans commit this fallacy is clearly absurd. > >>>Secondly, my task is then to show that HIS argument > >>>is not the argument put forward by vegans. > > And you FAIL It might be put forward by a few, but I've never seen any examples of it here, so once again your claim falls to ground. The only clear example of someone denying collateral deaths exist during the production of their food is a meatarian's; "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs." "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period." Rick Etter 2003-11-15 No vegan on these animal related news groups has ever denied the collateral deaths associated with their food, so not only is your first premiss false on the basis of an invalid relationship between its antecedent and consequent, it's false on the basis that you have no evidence to support the general meaning of it either. > >>Which you can't do, because it is. > > > > Then show where vegans have put forward such an > > argument where since they don't eat meat, then no > > animals die during the production of the crops they > > eat. > > Go Vegan and live cruelty free. Peace is only found > with how we live our lives...not through some > external belief in spirituality. Treat all animals > the way you would want to be treated. Vegans may be > smaller, but we are far more healthy on average. > http://tinyurl.com/7gvl What part of that statement implies animals aren't killed during crop production, or that cruelty from the hands of others doesn't exist while personally living a cruelty-free lifestyle oneself? > The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your > useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your > finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer > isn't fooling anyone. > http://tinyurl.com/7gw1 Again, what part in that statement implies deaths aren't caused by the hands of others while personally living a death-free lifestyle oneself? To paraphrase, one might easy state; "The atheist lives a religion-free lifestyle, and your useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your finger at them for the prayers said by theists on their behalf isn't fooling anyone." You lose, Jon. You always will. Throw again. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
Dreck Nash, stupid liar, lied:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net... > >>Dreck Nash, stupid liar, lied: > > [..] > >>>At the very start of this thread Jon offered a syllogism >>>in the form >>> >>>1) If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals >>>2) I do not eat meat; >>>Therefore, >>>3)I do not cause harm to animals. >>> >>>It has two premisses and a conclusion. It's also commits >>>a fallacy, since the second premiss denies the antecedent >>>in the first premiss. >> >>It certainly does! ALL "vegans" commit this fallacy, >>including you. > > > Ipse dixit and false. No, well established, documented and true. > >>>>>Secondly, my task is then to show that HIS argument >>>>>is not the argument put forward by vegans. >> >>And you FAIL > > > It might be put forward by a few No, ALL: >> >> Go Vegan and live cruelty free. Peace is only found >> with how we live our lives...not through some >> external belief in spirituality. Treat all animals >> the way you would want to be treated. Vegans may be >> smaller, but we are far more healthy on average. >> http://tinyurl.com/7gvl > > > What part of that statement implies animals aren't > killed during crop production "cruelty free". > > >> The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your >> useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your >> finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer >> isn't fooling anyone. >> http://tinyurl.com/7gw1 > > > Again, what part in that statement implies deaths > aren't caused by the hands of others "death free" Both of the examples are by ****WITS who believe that merely by not consuming animal parts, the two ****WITS aren't causing cruelty and death. QED |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote > Dreck Nash, stupid liar, lied: > > It might be put forward by a few > > No, ALL: > > >> > >> Go Vegan and live cruelty free. Peace is only found > >> with how we live our lives...not through some > >> external belief in spirituality. Treat all animals > >> the way you would want to be treated. Vegans may be > >> smaller, but we are far more healthy on average. > >> http://tinyurl.com/7gvl > > > > > > What part of that statement implies animals aren't > > killed during crop production > > "cruelty free". > > > > > > >> The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your > >> useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your > >> finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer > >> isn't fooling anyone. > >> http://tinyurl.com/7gw1 > > > > > > Again, what part in that statement implies deaths > > aren't caused by the hands of others > > > "death free" > > > Both of the examples are by ****WITS who believe that > merely by not consuming animal parts, the two ****WITS > aren't causing cruelty and death. QED The universal vegan core belief is that it's wrong to eat meat or consume other animal products, and the reasoning given is that it's wrong because those things involve the killing of animals. It's this fatuous core belief that embodies the fallacy of denying the antecedent. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:46:43 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net... >>>Derek wrote: >> >>>>At the very start of this thread Jon offered a syllogism >>>>in the form >>>> >>>>1) If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals >>>>2) I do not eat meat; >>>>Therefore, >>>>3)I do not cause harm to animals. >>>> >>>>It has two premisses and a conclusion. It's also commits >>>>a fallacy, since the second premiss denies the antecedent >>>>in the first premiss. >>> >>>It certainly does! ALL "vegans" commit this fallacy, >>>including you. >> >> Ipse dixit and false. > >No, well established, documented and true. The two examples you brought here aren't in any way representative of ALL vegans, and nor do they imply a belief that no animals die during crop production, so your claim has been undeniably proved false. >>>>>>Secondly, my task is then to show that HIS argument >>>>>>is not the argument put forward by vegans. >>> >>>And you FAIL >> >> It might be put forward by a few > >No, ALL: My example alone proves your claim to be false. >>> Go Vegan and live cruelty free. Peace is only found >>> with how we live our lives...not through some >>> external belief in spirituality. Treat all animals >>> the way you would want to be treated. Vegans may be >>> smaller, but we are far more healthy on average. >>> http://tinyurl.com/7gvl >> >> >> What part of that statement implies animals aren't >> killed during crop production > >"cruelty free". Then your comprehension skills are certainly in doubt because those two words don't imply animals aren't killed during crop production. The author is merely claiming HE lives a cruelty free lifestyle, not that cruelty doesn't exists around him caused by others. >>> The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your >>> useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your >>> finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer >>> isn't fooling anyone. >>> http://tinyurl.com/7gw1 >> >> >> Again, what part in that statement implies deaths >> aren't caused by the hands of others > >"death free" Again, your comprehension skills are certainly in doubt because those two words don't imply animals aren't killed during crop production. The author, me, is merely claiming HE lives a death-free lifestyle, not that deaths aren't caused by others around him. To paraphrase that above quote of mine I might just have easily written; "The civilian lives a death-free lifestyle, and your useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your finger at him for the deaths caused by troops on his behalf isn't fooling anyone." or "The atheist lives a religion-free lifestyle, and your useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your finger at him for the prayers said by theists on his behalf isn't fooling anyone." You lose, Jon. You always will. Throw again. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
Derek wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:46:43 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net... >>> >>>>Derek wrote: >>> >>>>>At the very start of this thread Jon offered a syllogism >>>>>in the form >>>>> >>>>>1) If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals >>>>>2) I do not eat meat; >>>>>Therefore, >>>>>3)I do not cause harm to animals. >>>>> >>>>>It has two premisses and a conclusion. It's also commits >>>>>a fallacy, since the second premiss denies the antecedent >>>>>in the first premiss. >>>> >>>>It certainly does! ALL "vegans" commit this fallacy, >>>>including you. >>> >>>Ipse dixit and false. >> >>No, well established, documented and true. > > > The two examples you brought here are PERFECTLY > representative of ALL vegans I know. That's why I selected, them you stupid fat bluefooted crippled ****. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
"Derek" > wrote
> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:46:43 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > >>>>1) If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals > >>>>2) I do not eat meat; > >>>>Therefore, > >>>>3)I do not cause harm to animals. > >>>> > >>>>It has two premisses and a conclusion. It's also commits > >>>>a fallacy, since the second premiss denies the antecedent > >>>>in the first premiss. > >>> > >>>It certainly does! ALL "vegans" commit this fallacy, > >>>including you. > >> > >> Ipse dixit and false. > > > >No, well established, documented and true. > > The two examples you brought here aren't in any way > representative of ALL vegans The universal vegan core belief is that it's wrong to eat meat or consume other animal products, and the fatuous reasoning given is that it's wrong because those things involve the killing of animals. It is this universal core belief that embodies the fallacy of denying the antecedent. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:35:54 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:46:43 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net... >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>> >>>>>>At the very start of this thread Jon offered a syllogism >>>>>>in the form >>>>>> >>>>>>1) If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals >>>>>>2) I do not eat meat; >>>>>>Therefore, >>>>>>3)I do not cause harm to animals. >>>>>> >>>>>>It has two premisses and a conclusion. It's also commits >>>>>>a fallacy, since the second premiss denies the antecedent >>>>>>in the first premiss. >>>>> >>>>>It certainly does! ALL "vegans" commit this fallacy, >>>>>including you. >>>> >>>>Ipse dixit and false. >>> >>>No, well established, documented and true. >> >> The two examples you brought here are PERFECTLY >> representative of ALL vegans > >I know. I didn't write that sentence you responded to. You unethically re-worded my sentence to mean something completely different to what I wrote. Is this the best you can do against your opponent: alter his sentences to suit before responding to them? You're an unethical troll, but I think you knew that anyway. <unsnip> [start, Jonathan Ball] >>> The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your >>> useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your >>> finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer >>> isn't fooling anyone. >>> http://tinyurl.com/7gw1 >> >> Again, what part in that statement implies deaths >> aren't caused by the hands of others > >"death free" Again, your comprehension skills are certainly in doubt because those two words don't imply animals aren't killed during crop production. The author, me, is merely claiming HE lives a death-free lifestyle, not that deaths aren't caused by others around him. To paraphrase that above quote of mine I might just have easily written; "The civilian lives a death-free lifestyle, and your useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your finger at him for the deaths caused by troops on his behalf isn't fooling anyone." or "The atheist lives a religion-free lifestyle, and your useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your finger at him for the prayers said by theists on his behalf isn't fooling anyone." You lose, Jon. You always will. Throw again. <endsnip> You're all washed up, Jonnie boy. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:05:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote >> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:46:43 GMT, Jonathan Ball >wrote: > >> >>>>1) If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals >> >>>>2) I do not eat meat; >> >>>>Therefore, >> >>>>3)I do not cause harm to animals. >> >>>> >> >>>>It has two premisses and a conclusion. It's also commits >> >>>>a fallacy, since the second premiss denies the antecedent >> >>>>in the first premiss. >> >>> >> >>>It certainly does! ALL "vegans" commit this fallacy, >> >>>including you. >> >> >> >> Ipse dixit and false. >> > >> >No, well established, documented and true. >> >> The two examples you brought here aren't in any way >> representative of ALL vegans > >The universal vegan core belief is that it's wrong to eat meat or consume >other animal products You don't get to redefine veganism. [The term "vegan" (pronounced VEE-gn) was coined by Donald Watson in 1944, and was at once adopted by the group who founded The Vegan Society in England later that year. The Vegan Society was the first organized secular group to promote a compassionate lifestyle. Their definition of "veganism," which is accepted as the decisive standard worldwide, is as follows: Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals. In its Articles of Association, the legal documents of the Society, a slightly different version is presented: Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and practical - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals, and the environment. Both interpretations begin by stating that veganism is a "way of life," and "a philosophy." Neither emphasizes diet over other aspects of compassionate living, because in vegan practice no one area is more significant than another; all are expected to be implemented simultaneously. In the second version, a disclaimer about practicality has been inserted, revealing that the founders acknowledged the impossibility of totally divesting oneself of all animal products and derivatives in the modern world. This phrase is also critical because it helps practitioners understand that veganism is not about personal perfection or "purity," but rather the avoidance and elimination of exploitation of and cruelty to animals.] http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
"Derek" > wrote
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:05:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > > The universal vegan core belief is that it's wrong to eat meat or > > consume other animal products, and the fatuous reasoning given > > is that it's wrong because those things involve the killing of animals. > > It is this universal core belief that embodies the fallacy of denying > > the antecedent. > You don't get to redefine veganism. That's no "redefinition", it's a perfectly accurate reflection on the beliefs of vegans. All the hand-waving rhetoric and equivocation from vegsource you pasted only serve to reinforce the accuracy of my statements. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
"Derek" > wrote
> > I didn't write that sentence you responded to. You > unethically re-worded my sentence to mean something > completely different to what I wrote. Somebody misrepresented your statements? Awwww, that's too bad, you don't deserve such treatment. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
Derek wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:35:54 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:46:43 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>> >>>>Derek wrote: >>>> >>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net... >>>>> >>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>At the very start of this thread Jon offered a syllogism >>>>>>>in the form >>>>>>> >>>>>>>1) If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals >>>>>>>2) I do not eat meat; >>>>>>>Therefore, >>>>>>>3)I do not cause harm to animals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It has two premisses and a conclusion. It's also commits >>>>>>>a fallacy, since the second premiss denies the antecedent >>>>>>>in the first premiss. >>>>>> >>>>>>It certainly does! ALL "vegans" commit this fallacy, >>>>>>including you. >>>>> >>>>>Ipse dixit and false. >>>> >>>>No, well established, documented and true. >>> >>>The two examples you brought here are PERFECTLY >>>representative of ALL vegans >> >>I know. > > > I didn't write that sentence you responded to. You > unethically re-worded my sentence No, there was nothing unethical about it. I did it not because I am unethical, but because you are a worthless piece of shit, and I don't have the minimal respect for you necessary to engage you in genuine discussion. I did it to shit on your head, Dreck. You put yourself in this position. You never participated honestly here, and I finally became sick of you and your clownish antics. You simply do not deserve even basic decency from others. You have worked hard to become an object of scorn and contempt, and you have succeeded. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
Dutch wrote:
> "Derek" > wrote > >>I didn't write that sentence you responded to. You >>unethically re-worded my sentence to mean something >>completely different to what I wrote. > > > Somebody misrepresented your statements? Awwww, that's too bad, you don't > deserve such treatment. That actually is treating him far better than he deserves. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
