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

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 =----

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>

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 =----

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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?

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:55:07 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"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.

No. Yet again, instead of dealing with real vegans in the real
World who acknowledge collateral deaths in crop production,
you choose to focus on the imaginary straw man vegan that
doesn't acknowledge them instead because that straw man is
easy to knock down, leaving the way open for you to declare
you've demolished the true vegan's position in the real World.
That's just not good enough, and your criticism, while directed
only at your straw man, is rejected as nonsense.

>> 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.

No, they don't. I've provided examples from various vegan web
sites and authors discussing the subject at length, and which you
subsequently snipped away. Repeating your claim that *all*
vegans refuse to acknowledge them in light of this evidence is
absurd and an obviously lie on your part.

>> 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.

No, once again, it is not. Try dealing with the arguments put
forward by the real vegans in the real World instead of those
imaginary vegans inside your head. It's patently obvious that
you have no valid complaint against the real vegan until you do.

When or if you finally decide to challenge the real vegan's
solution to the animal deaths surrounding man's diet, don't
make the mistake in rejecting veganism on the basis that
some deaths will still occur after its proposed implementation
because you'll be invoking the perfect solution fallacy. Like
I said, you've been wasting your time on this collateral deaths
issue for years, and it's about time you thought of something
else to challenge the vegan with apart from fallacies and lies.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:33:54 -0500, dh@. 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
>[...]
>>(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,

.. and how many times those figures have been found
to be nothing other than guesswork. Davis' guesswork
is not peer-reviewed and has many flaws, as follows;

[While eating animals who are grazed rather than
intensively confined would vastly improve the welfare
of farmed animals given their current mistreatment,
Davis does not succeed in showing this is preferable
to vegetarianism. First, Davis makes a mathematical
error in using total rather than per capita estimates
of animals killed; second, he focuses on the number
of animals killed in ruminant and crop production
systems and ignores important considerations about
the welfare of animals under both systems; and third,
he does not consider the number of animals who are
prevented from existing under the two systems. After
correcting for these errors, Davis’s argument makes
a strong case for, rather than against, adopting a
vegetarian diet.

First, Davis makes an error in calculating how many
animals would be killed to feed a vegan-vegetarian
population. He explains:

There are 120 million ha of cropland harvested in the
USA each year. If all of that land was used to produce
crops to support a vegan diet, and if 15 animals of the
field are killed per ha per year, then
15 x 120 million = 1800 million or 1.8 billion animals
would be killed annually to produce a vegan diet for
the USA (p. 5).

Davis estimates that only 7.5 animals of the field per
hectare die in ruminant-pasture. If we were to convert
half of the 120 million hectares of U.S. cropland to
ruminant-pasture and half to growing vegetables, Davis
claims we could feed the U.S. population on a diet of
ruminant meat and crops and kill only 1.35 billion animals
annually in the process. Thus, Davis concludes his
omnivorous proposal would save the lives of 450 million
animals each year (p. 6-7).

Davis mistakenly assumes the two systems—crops only
and crops with ruminant-pasture—using the same total
amount of land, would feed identical numbers of people
(i.e., the U.S. population). In fact, crop and ruminant
systems produce different amounts of food per hectare
-- the two systems would feed different numbers of people.
To properly compare the harm caused by the two systems,
we ought to calculate how many animals are killed in
feeding equal populations—or the number of animals killed
per consumer.

Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare
in crop production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture
(7.5). If this is true, then as long as crop production uses
less than half as many hectares as ruminant-pasture to
deliver the same amount of food, a vegetarian will kill fewer
animals than an omnivore. In fact, crop production uses less
than half as many hectares as grass-fed dairy and one-tenth
as many hectares as grass-fed beef to deliver the same
amount of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein
can be produced on as few as 1.0 hectares planted with soy
and corn, 2.6 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed dairy
cows, or 10 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed beef
cattle (Vandehaar 1998; UNFAO 1996). As such, to obtain
the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults,
a vegan-vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually, a
lacto-vegetarian would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davis-
style omnivore would kill 1.5 wild animals. Thus, correcting
Davis’s math, we see that a vegan-vegetarian population
would kill the fewest number of wild animals, followed
closely by a lacto-vegetarian population.

However, suppose this were not the case and that, in fact,
fewer animals would be killed under Davis’s omnivorism.
Would it follow that Davis’s plan causes the least harm?
Not necessarily. Early in the paper, Davis shifts from
discussing the harm done to animals under different
agricultural systems to the number of animals killed. This
shift is not explained by Davis and is not justified by the
most common moral views, all of which recognize harms
in addition to those associated with killing.]
http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob.../leastharm.htm

Davis' guesswork and bad math was debunked years ago,
so it's small wonder why he hasn't put his little paper up for
a peer review.

Nevertheless, that debunked and put aside, 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

Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.

"Derek" > wrote
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:55:07 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"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.
>
> No.

At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution, and we know
that categorical statements are dangerous.

> Yet again, instead of dealing with real vegans in the real
> World who acknowledge collateral deaths in crop production,
> you choose to focus on the imaginary straw man vegan that
> doesn't acknowledge them instead because that straw man is
> easy to knock down, leaving the way open for you to declare
> you've demolished the true vegan's position in the real World.
> That's just not good enough, and your criticism, while directed
> only at your straw man, is rejected as nonsense.

You could have just said "strawman" you wordy ****.

>>> 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.
>
> No, they don't. I've provided examples from various vegan web
> sites and authors discussing the subject at length, and which you
> subsequently snipped away. Repeating your claim that *all*
> vegans refuse to acknowledge them in light of this evidence is
> absurd and an obviously lie on your part.

A couple of sites give cds a passing mention, always in some obscure part of
the site, always to dismiss their importance. Contrast that to the thousands
on veganism extoling it's superiority.

>>> 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.
>
> No, once again, it is not. Try dealing with the arguments put
> forward by the real vegans in the real World instead of those
> imaginary vegans inside your head. It's patently obvious that
> you have no valid complaint against the real vegan until you do.

It's obvious that you're talking through your hat. Did you really think this
tact had merit?

> When or if you finally decide to challenge the real vegan's
> solution to the animal deaths surrounding man's diet, don't
> make the mistake in rejecting veganism on the basis that
> some deaths will still occur after its proposed implementation
> because you'll be invoking the perfect solution fallacy. Like
> I said, you've been wasting your time on this collateral deaths
> issue for years, and it's about time you thought of something
> else to challenge the vegan with apart from fallacies and lies.

Thanks for mentioning the Perfect Solution fallacy, it's very descriptive of
veganism. Vegans think that there is a Perfect Solution to animal death and
suffering in one's diet and they think that veganism is it. What a bunch of
******s.

"Derek" > wrote
> The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
> when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists

Veganism

> 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)

ie vegans

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
>
> Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
> collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.

Har har

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:31:18 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:55:07 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"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.
>>
>> No.
>
>At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution,

No, you don't get to make claims on behalf of all vegans.
That's your straw man again. Abstaining from meat is a
solution to avoid the killing of animals for food, and while
that solution still involves the killing of some animals in
crop production, it's a fallacy to reject that solution on
that basis.

>> Yet again, instead of dealing with real vegans in the real
>> World who acknowledge collateral deaths in crop production,
>> you choose to focus on the imaginary straw man vegan that
>> doesn't acknowledge them instead because that straw man is
>> easy to knock down, leaving the way open for you to declare
>> you've demolished the true vegan's position in the real World.
>> That's just not good enough, and your criticism, while directed
>> only at your straw man, is rejected as nonsense.
>
>You could have just said "strawman" you wordy ****.

At least you admit that the vegan you argue with is your
straw man, so that's something.

>>>> 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.
>>
>> No, they don't. I've provided examples from various vegan web
>> sites and authors discussing the subject at length, and which you
>> subsequently snipped away. Repeating your claim that *all*
>> vegans refuse to acknowledge them in light of this evidence is
>> absurd and an obviously lie on your part.
>
>A couple of sites give cds a passing mention, always in some obscure part of
>the site, always to dismiss their importance.

Whatever they say about their importance is of little concern
here. What IS of concern is your reluctance to concede that,
contrary to what you try to claim, vegan literature does
acknowledge them, and individual vegans like myself discuss
them at length. Those fact in place, it's a lie to claim vegans
ignore them. In short, you're a liar.

>>>> 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.
>>
>> No, once again, it is not. Try dealing with the arguments put
>> forward by the real vegans in the real World instead of those
>> imaginary vegans inside your head. It's patently obvious that
>> you have no valid complaint against the real vegan until you do.
>
>It's obvious that you're talking through your hat.

That's a non-response. You cannot expect your criticism of
vegans to be taken seriously while your definition and criticism
focuses on your imaginary vegan. What would be the point in
arguing against a critic who's only criticism focuses on HIS
imaginary vegan? You're a joke.

>> When or if you finally decide to challenge the real vegan's
>> solution to the animal deaths surrounding man's diet, don't
>> make the mistake in rejecting veganism on the basis that
>> some deaths will still occur after its proposed implementation
>> because you'll be invoking the perfect solution fallacy. Like
>> I said, you've been wasting your time on this collateral deaths
>> issue for years, and it's about time you thought of something
>> else to challenge the vegan with apart from fallacies and lies.
>
>Thanks for mentioning the Perfect Solution fallacy, it's very descriptive of
>veganism.

Rather, it pertains to the fallacy non-vegans use to reject
veganism. Rejecting veganism as a solution to the animal
deaths associated in man's diet on the basis that animal
deaths will still exist after veganism is implemented in a
World where collateral deaths are ubiquitous is specious.

>Vegans think that there is a Perfect Solution to animal death and
>suffering in one's diet and they think that veganism is it.

It's certainly the best solution where the deaths of farmed
animals and fish is concerned, and their huge associated
collateral deaths.

>What a bunch of ******s.

Hitting a nerve? That's good. The collateral deaths argument
is debunked, so it's back to the drawing board for you until
you can come up with something that doesn't invoke logical
fallacies, doesn't include a straw man vegan who refuses to
acknowledge collateral deaths, and isn't based on lies.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>>
>> The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
>> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
>> when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
>
>Veganism
>
>> 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)
>
>ie vegans
>
>> 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
>>
>> Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
>> collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.
>
>Har har

There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
against veganism is a fallacy.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> 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
m...
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
===========================
LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong, fool. I talk about
real-world, viable diets. You have to resort to a diet that you
cannot, will not, and won't even consider as one as your only
example! What a hoot! As I have said, Therefore, your argument
is bogus, again.



>
>>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.
=============================
No fool, they do not. Your willful ignorance and propaganda
delusions are showing, hypocrite. They are fed no crops, and are
not sent to feed-lots. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
> 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,
=============================
Still willfully ignorant, eh killer? they are not sent to
feed-lots, despite your continued lys, hypocrite, Therefore,
your argument is bogus, again.


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;
=====================
You've been show the idiocy of your claims, many times already
fool. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.

> begin idiocy and willful ignorance...
> [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
> stop continued idiocy, but willful ignorance is still
> intatct...



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

>
>>> 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.
=======================
Because of a silly claim that you have continued to fail at
proving, killer.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>>>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.
==========================
No fool, I am not. Unlike you, I'm not telling to force anybody
to eat anything at all. I just rightly point out that IF saving
animals is your real goal, and you wish to maintain a real-world,
modern conveninece oriented diet, then your vegan one is NOT the
solution. But then, you've already proven that saving animals
from unnecessary deaths is NOT any goal of yours, hypocrite.
Afterall, here you are spewing your innane, willful ignorance for
all the world to se, killer. 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
>>>
>>> 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?
=======================
Not as practiced by you and every other vegan here on usenet,
hypocrite. I've always told you that somewhere I'm sure there is
at least one person living their 'ethics' in regards to animal
death and suffering. YOU are not that person, and YOU continue
to kill far more animals than necessary because YOU won't even
pick and choose among the food that YOU do eat, much less
actually look for a real reduction in your bloody footprints,
hypocrite. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>> 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;
=====================
No, you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about,
killer.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.

snip typical idiocy...
Therefore, your argument is bogus, 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
>>>
>>> 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.
=====================
No, you haven't, because you have failed to prove that a vegan
diet does anything you have claimed, killer.
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.
>>>
>>> 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.
> ======================================
No, fool. He places as much blame on you because you made the
choices you did fully knowing the outcome, and without any
coersion or outside force from anybody else. the choices you
k=]make are fully yours, knowing that they are death sentences to
the animals you claim to care about. You are comlicit,
hypocrite. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


> [ 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.
=============================
Nope. You failed again, killer. You yet to prove the original
claim of veganism, killer. Therefore, your argument is bogus,
again.


>
>>>> 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.
> =================================
It's completel supported and proven, killer. You make the choice
to buy his food knowing full well how he produces it. YOU could
make other choices, yet you don't. You are therefore rewarding
the farmer for producing his veggies in a manner that provides
you cheap, clean, convienent food. Therefore, your argument is
bogus, again.



>>>> 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.
=====================
No fool, it was so foolish as to not even deserve a response.
You've been shown many times that the analogies are bogus and
that you have a real hard time with analogies. It ether of the
two cases above, many actions are taken to avoid and punish any
such occurances when neglegence is involved. Now, if in your
warped view of the world, if you believe punishment=reward, then
go for it hypocrite. Otherwise, you have lost again as there are
no prior actions taken, nor are there any punishments given for
the killing oif animal in the production of your veggies. In
fact, many of those deaths are deliberate, intentional and
targeting animals for death and suffering. Therefore, your
argument is bogus, again.


>
>>>>> 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.
> ==============================
No fool. The dodge is all yours because you have never, and will
never be able to support your original claim.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>>What a hoot!!! your argument is bogus, again.
>
> Apparently not.
> =========================
completly, fool...


>>>>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.
=========================================
LOL You couldn't do that form of gathering if you wanted to,
fool. You'd kill yourself withing a month! Again, my choice is
at least a viable option. You have failed at proving your claims
about veganism, again, hypocrite.
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.
>
> Non sequitur and therefore a dodge. Why don't you criticise
> Jon for those comments if you don't agree with them, Rick?
============================================
Because the focus is on your idiocy fool. You can try to deflect
it all you want, but you remain the head hypocrite in charge of
willful ignorance and stupidity.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>
>>> The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
>>> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
>>> when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
>>
>>Veganism
>>
>>> 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)
>>
>>ie vegans
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
>>> collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.
>>
>>Har har
>
> There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
> against veganism is a fallacy.
==========================
ROTFLMAO What a hoot! Because twits the liar has so claimed, eh
killer? It would only be a fallacy if you were to prove your
claims that veganism automatically is better. It's already been
proven that veganism as practiced by YOU is only about tracking
bloody footprints around the world, hypocrite.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:31:44 +0000, Derek >
wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>
>>> The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
>>> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
>>> when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
>>
>>Veganism
>>
>>> 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)
>>
>>ie vegans
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
>>> collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.
>>
>>Har har
>
>There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
>against veganism is a fallacy.

Actually, it isn't.

However, every argument, except for one, *for* veganism is fallacious.
It is not healthier than other diets, it is not more environmentally
friendly, it does not cause fewer deaths, and it not more efficient.

Each of those arguments falls apart in the face of real data, of which
the collateral deaths argument is one.

The *only* argument for it is "I prefer it." That's the only valid
one. Everything else is garbage.

----== 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 =----

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:24:31 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> 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.
>===========================
>LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong

No, I've shown that I'm right by offering a better solution
than the grass fed beef or hunted meat you offer: foraging
for wild vegetables and fruits. You'll do best to include
that solution when offering the least harm diet, but being
the meat pusher that you are you'll probably ignore it and
continue offering your CD-laden grass fed beef instead.

>>>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.
>=============================
>No fool, they do not.

Evidence from U.S.D.A. shows that grass fed beef can be
and is fed grains at the feedlot like any other steer, and still
qualify as grass fed beef.

>> 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,
>=============================
>Still willfully ignorant, eh killer?

The evidence is indisputable and from U.S.D.A. You
have no reason to dispute it, and it stands until you do.

>they are not sent to feed-lots, despite your continued lys, hypocrite

I've shown that they are, despite your denials. Read on and
see that they are, just below this line.

>> 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;
>=====================
>You've been show the idiocy of your claims

No, I haven't. My claims are backed by evidence from
U.S.D.A. and accompanying notes from disgruntled
farmers. There's no getting away from the fact that
the grass fed beef you offer as an option to regular
beef is bogus, because both animals are finished on
grains at the feedlot. It's not an alternative to regular
steers at all if both are fed grains at the feedlot, as
shown by U.S.D.A.

>> [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.
>========================
>Nope.

Your denial at this point in spite of all that evidence I've
provided is absurd, though fully expected.

>>>> 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.
>=======================
>Because of a silly claim that you have continued to fail at
>proving

I've supported it by offering a better option to your best: foraging
for wild vegetables and fruits. Better, best, bested - how's that for
a declension? You lose, Etter.

>>>>>>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.
>==========================
>No fool, I am not.

Yes, twerp: you are.

>>>>>> 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?
>=======================
>Not as practiced by you and every other vegan here on usenet

Then you are indeed posing a false dilemma known as the
perfect solution fallacy.

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

>>>> 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;
>=====================
>No

Yes, dummy, despite your futile whining to the contrary, you
are posing a false dilemma whether you accept that charge
or not.

>>>>>> (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.
>> ======================================
>No

Yes. Read on.

>> [ 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

There you are.

>>>>>> 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.
>=============================
>Nope.

Absolutely yes, despite your empty denials. Your collateral
deaths argument against the vegan poses a false dilemma
and is correctly rejected on that basis. You've been wasting
your time on this issue for years, so I doubt you'll allow
yourself to accept the facts when shown to you, being you.

>>>>> 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.
>> =================================
>It's completel supported and proven

No, you don't get to say what I reward others for, and you
don't get to rest your argument on such a wild assumption
without looking completely desperate and stupid.

>>>>> 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.
>=====================
>No fool

Then I'll repeat it. You're laughable. No one rewards taxi drivers
for the deaths they cause when ordering a cab, and no one
rewards our servicemen for the collateral human deaths they
cause while making a grab for Saddam's oil. Likewise, no one
rewards farmers for the collateral deaths they cause while
producing veg.

>>>>>> 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.
>> ==============================
>No fool.

Yes, twerp, despite your denials. The information I've provided
above isn't from propaganda sites, like you presume, and even
when shown this you still deny it. You're hopelessly lost in
denial.

>>>>>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.
>=========================================
>LOL You couldn't do that form of gathering if you wanted to

Then once again you fall for the same fallacy by posing a
false dilemma.

>>>>>> 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?
>============================================
>Because the focus is on your idiocy fool.

I agree entirely with every word Jon has written in those quotes,
yet you're only willing to criticise vegans when they write the
same thing. Thanks for demonstrating your hypocrisy so clearly
for us all today.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:37:36 -0500, Doug Jones > wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:31:44 +0000, Derek >wrote:
>>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
>>>> collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.
>>>
>>>Har har
>>
>>There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
>>against veganism is a fallacy.
>
>Actually, it isn't.

It poses a false dilemma, as described in the definition I've
provided. Your denial or feigned ignorance of it doesn't
escape the fact that while collateral deaths exist ubiquitously
in food production, rejecting veganism as a solution to the deaths
associated with man's diet generally, is specious.

>However, every argument, except for one, *for* veganism is fallacious.

Show how "veganism is fallacious." Don't just declare it like
a petulant child; show how.

>It is not healthier than other diets

Ipse dixit and false.

> it is not more environmentally friendly

Ipse dixit and false.

> it does not cause fewer deaths

Ipse dixit and false.

>and it not more efficient.

Ipse dixit and false.
..
>Each of those arguments falls apart in the face of real data

Then show it instead of making these unsupported claims.

> of which the collateral deaths argument is one.

The collateral deaths argument is specious and debunked.

>The *only* argument for it is "I prefer it." That's the only valid
>one. Everything else is garbage.

That's your opinion, and I don't agree with it.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:29:29 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
>>>> collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.
>>>
>>>Har har
>>
>> There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
>> against veganism is a fallacy.
>==========================
>ROTFLMAO What a hoot!

Get used to it, Etter, however hard it must be for someone like
you to accept. You have no choice but to accept the fact that
the collateral deaths argument is specious in that it poses a
false dilemma.

Derek wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
> against veganism is a fallacy.

Glorfindel wrote:

Yes, that is true, for several reasons.

Current methods of crop production (probably; presumptively ) may
involve collateral deaths, but raising, transporting, and marketing
animals for food *certainly* do, and always will. The question of
which diet involves fewer cannot be answered on a black-and-white
basis, because each individual diet must be evaluated independently.
However, given the optimum example of each type, a vegan diet will
always involve fewer deaths than a diet including meat, given the
same parameters in each case. An *ideal* vegan diet would indeed
involve no animal deaths at all, while even an *ideal* omnivore
diet would involve at least some animal deaths. As Derek has noted,
the ideal in either case is probably impossible in the real world,
so it cannot be used to critique any specific diet in the real
world. It can only be used as a goal, or theoretical concept, and
in that case, the vegan diet must be better for animals.

Secondly, as far as the concept of animal rights, or animal liberation,
is concerned, the vegan diet wins hands-down. Even a diet of hunted
meat involves a violation of the rights of the hunted animal by
its death at human hands. An equivalent diet of gathering need not
involve any intentional killing of rights-bearing animals at all.
If we consider a diet involving farmed animals, the animals' rights
are violated both by the entire process of breeding and raising
them, and the basic injustice of treating them as property, and
again in the process of slaughtering them. Collateral deaths in
the field, or in protection of food in storage, would involve, at the
most, the single injustice of lack of consideration of the animals'
rights in "pest control."

There is absolutely no way a diet involving meat can be seen as more
just for animals, or less harmful for them, if the same criteria are
applied to any individual example. It is only by comparing vastly
different examples ("comparing apples and oranges" ) that any diet
including meat can be seen as less harmful on a utilitarian basis.
This must be a dishonest approach to the issue.

BTW, Jane Goodall has recently published a new book on the issue of
animal- and environmentally-friendly diet, for those who are interested.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:24:31 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:11:55 GMT, "rick" >
>>> wrote:
>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:35:25 GMT, "rick" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
>>>>>>news:8j95q1p10h6mvbok0t0bsefcmptdevaifj@4ax. com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>===========================
>>LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong
>
> No, I've shown that I'm right by offering a better solution
> than the grass fed beef or hunted meat you offer: foraging
> for wild vegetables and fruits. You'll do best to include
> that solution when offering the least harm diet, but being
> the meat pusher that you are you'll probably ignore it and
> continue offering your CD-laden grass fed beef instead.
===================================
No, you've proven again your own hypocricy fool. You do not and
will not try this so-called option.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>>>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.
>>=============================
>>No fool, they do not.
>
> Evidence from U.S.D.A. shows that grass fed beef can be
> and is fed grains at the feedlot like any other steer, and
> still
> qualify as grass fed beef.
==========================
No fool, they do not. Try again...

"...How are Cattle Raised?
All cattle start out eating grass; three-fourths of them are
"finished" (grown to maturity) in feedlots where they are fed
specially formulated feed based on corn or other grains...."
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets...able/index.asp

too bad you're still too stupid to play, killer...


>
>>> 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,
>>=============================
>>Still willfully ignorant, eh killer?
>
> The evidence is indisputable and from U.S.D.A. You
> have no reason to dispute it, and it stands until you do.
==========================
LOL See above fool.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>they are not sent to feed-lots, despite your continued lys,
>>hypocrite
>
> I've shown that they are, despite your denials. Read on and
> see that they are, just below this line.
======================
I've read your lys before, fool. They are still lys.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>> 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;
>>=====================
>>You've been show the idiocy of your claims
>
> No, I haven't. My claims are backed by evidence from
> U.S.D.A. and accompanying notes from disgruntled
> farmers. There's no getting away from the fact that
> the grass fed beef you offer as an option to regular
> beef is bogus, because both animals are finished on
> grains at the feedlot. It's not an alternative to regular
> steers at all if both are fed grains at the feedlot, as
> shown by U.S.D.A.
==========================
no fool, they are not backed up by the USDA. I just posted proof
of your idiocy...
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.

>
>>> [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.
>>========================
>>Nope.
>
> Your denial at this point in spite of all that evidence I've
> provided is absurd, though fully expected.
====================
You've provided nothing, killer. Well, to be honest, you have
provided the same lys over and over. they are still lys though,
hypocrite...
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>>>> 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.
>>=======================
>>Because of a silly claim that you have continued to fail at
>>proving
>
> I've supported it by offering a better option to your best:
> foraging
> for wild vegetables and fruits. Better, best, bested - how's
> that for
> a declension? You lose, Etter.
===============================
LOL No you haven't fool. Try again, and give a viable
real-world alternative, like I have. I admitted that fairy tale
lives can be better, but they don't apply to the way YOU eat,
hypocrite...



>
>>>>>>>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.
>>==========================
>>No fool, I am not.
>
> Yes, twerp: you are.
> ============================
Nope, you lose, 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
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>=======================
>>Not as practiced by you and every other vegan here on usenet
>
> Then you are indeed posing a false dilemma known as the
> perfect solution fallacy.
>
> 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.
============================
LOL Reposting your stupidity only confirms your stupidity, fool.
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
>
>>>>> 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;
>>=====================
>>No
>
> Yes, dummy, despite your futile whining to the contrary, you
> are posing a false dilemma whether you accept that charge
> or not.
=============================
No fool, you just can't comprehend anything you read.
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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>> ======================================
>>No
>
> Yes. Read on.
=========================
Again, I have read your idiocy. Your problem is that Aristotke
ahs already told you, in english, that you are complicit. You
keep posting the proof of your complicity and then pretend that
it doesn't apply.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>> [ 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
>
> There you are.
> ==========================
Yes, there you are. You are complicit. You are not compelled to
buy the food you know causes death and suffering, you CHOOSE to
buy it. It is YOUR actions that make you complicit.
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
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>=============================
>>Nope.
>
> Absolutely yes, despite your empty denials. Your collateral
> deaths argument against the vegan poses a false dilemma
> and is correctly rejected on that basis. You've been wasting
> your time on this issue for years, so I doubt you'll allow
> yourself to accept the facts when shown to you, being you.
===========================
LOL This from the willfully ignorant that doesn't know reality
when it's in your face! What a hoot!
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.




>
>>>>>> 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.
>>> =================================
>>It's completel supported and proven
>
> No, you don't get to say what I reward others for, and you
> don't get to rest your argument on such a wild assumption
> without looking completely desperate and stupid.
=========================
ROTFLMAO I'm not the one proving my contentions fool! You are
proving who you reward by YOUR actions, not because I say so,
killer. You really are this stupid, aren't you?
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.




>
>>>>>> 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.
>>=====================
>>No fool
>
> Then I'll repeat it. You're laughable. No one rewards taxi
> drivers
> for the deaths they cause when ordering a cab, and no one
> rewards our servicemen for the collateral human deaths they
> cause while making a grab for Saddam's oil. Likewise, no one
> rewards farmers for the collateral deaths they cause while
> producing veg.
=======================
Yes, fool, they are rewarded for those actions. Since you seem
to like punishment as rewards. See dave...
No such actions take place for even the deliberate deaths oif
animals for your food. In fact, you even contionue to PAY for
those deaths!
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>> ==============================
>>No fool.
>
> Yes, twerp, despite your denials. The information I've provided
> above isn't from propaganda sites, like you presume, and even
> when shown this you still deny it. You're hopelessly lost in
> denial.
==================================
Nope, the denial is all yopurs fool. You continue to deny the
world of the proof that veganism automatically is better. You
keep saying it, but always seem to be short on proof.
Therefore, 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
>>>
>>> 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.
>>=========================================
>>LOL You couldn't do that form of gathering if you wanted to
>
> Then once again you fall for the same fallacy by posing a
> false dilemma.
========================
nope. 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.
>>>
>>> Non sequitur and therefore a dodge. Why don't you criticise
>>> Jon for those comments if you don't agree with them, Rick?
>>============================================
>>Because the focus is on your idiocy fool.
>
> I agree entirely with every word Jon has written in those
> quotes,
> yet you're only willing to criticise vegans when they write the
> same thing. Thanks for demonstrating your hypocrisy so clearly
> for us all today.
=================================
LOL My discussion is with you, fool. But thanks again for
proving that you cannot address the issue of YOUR lack of proof
for your ignorant claims.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:37:21 +0000, Derek >
wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:37:36 -0500, Doug Jones > wrote:
>>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:31:44 +0000, Derek >wrote:
>>>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
>>>>> collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.
>>>>
>>>>Har har
>>>
>>>There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
>>>against veganism is a fallacy.
>>
>>Actually, it isn't.
>
>It poses a false dilemma, as described in the definition I've
>provided. Your denial or feigned ignorance of it doesn't
>escape the fact that while collateral deaths exist ubiquitously
>in food production, rejecting veganism as a solution to the deaths
>associated with man's diet generally, is specious.
>
>>However, every argument, except for one, *for* veganism is fallacious.
>
>Show how "veganism is fallacious." Don't just declare it like
>a petulant child; show how.
>
>>It is not healthier than other diets
>
>Ipse dixit and false.
>
>> it is not more environmentally friendly
>
>Ipse dixit and false.
>
>> it does not cause fewer deaths
>
>Ipse dixit and false.
>
>>and it not more efficient.
>
>Ipse dixit and false.
>.
>>Each of those arguments falls apart in the face of real data
>
>Then show it instead of making these unsupported claims.
>
>> of which the collateral deaths argument is one.
>
>The collateral deaths argument is specious and debunked.
>
>>The *only* argument for it is "I prefer it." That's the only valid
>>one. Everything else is garbage.
>
>That's your opinion, and I don't agree with it.

Ok, here's a real example for you. Simple one, easy to prove. No
"indirect", no "accidental" or anything else. I pick up a pound of
organically grown brocolli. At the same time, I pick up a one-pound
lobster. I eat the lobster, you eat the brocolli. Which one of us
has just killed more animals *directly*? Hint - you have.


----== 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 =----

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:29:29 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" >
>>> wrote:
>>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
>>>>> collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.
>>>>
>>>>Har har
>>>
>>> There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths
>>> argument
>>> against veganism is a fallacy.
>>==========================
>>ROTFLMAO What a hoot!
>
> Get used to it, Etter, however hard it must be for someone like
> you to accept. You have no choice but to accept the fact that
> the collateral deaths argument is specious in that it poses a
> false dilemma.
===========================
LOL The problem for you is that you cannot accept the fact that
you kill animals for nothing more than your convenience and
entertainment. There is no meaning to your veganism, killer.

"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> Derek wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths
>> argument
>> against veganism is a fallacy.
>
> Glorfindel wrote:
>
> Yes, that is true, for several reasons.
===================
It's false, for many more reasons, killer...

>
> Current methods of crop production (probably; presumptively )
> may
> involve collateral deaths, but raising, transporting, and
> marketing
> animals for food *certainly* do, and always will.
============================
Your veggies are transported far greater distances than my meats
are fool. There is barely any transportation for the beef I eat.
The fruits I eat, and you eat, are transported across tha country
and the world. You eat far more imported veggies.


The question of
> which diet involves fewer cannot be answered on a
> black-and-white
> basis, because each individual diet must be evaluated
> independently.
============================
ROTFLMAO Which the human dreck you're responding to will naver
address. He want's to focus on a fairy-tale.



> However, given the optimum example of each type, a vegan diet
> will
> always involve fewer deaths than a diet including meat, given
> the
> same parameters in each case.
===============================
You do have proof, right killer?


An *ideal* vegan diet would indeed
> involve no animal deaths at all, while even an *ideal* omnivore
> diet would involve at least some animal deaths. As Derek has
> noted,
> the ideal in either case is probably impossible in the real
> world,
> so it cannot be used to critique any specific diet in the real
> world. It can only be used as a goal, or theoretical concept,
> and
> in that case, the vegan diet must be better for animals.
================================
Ah, you too intend on focusing on fairy-tales. I see that you,
like human drecks, can't discuss real-world diets.


>
> Secondly, as far as the concept of animal rights, or animal
> liberation,
> is concerned, the vegan diet wins hands-down.
==============================
ROTFLMAO No it does not. And on top of that YOU continue to
prove that animals have no rights, and that YOU don't believe
they do with your constant posting to usenet, hypocrite.


Even a diet of hunted
> meat involves a violation of the rights of the hunted animal by
> its death at human hands.
========================
Animals have no rights, and even your prove they do not, killer.


An equivalent diet of gathering need not
> involve any intentional killing of rights-bearing animals at
> all.
> If we consider a diet involving farmed animals, the animals'
> rights
> are violated both by the entire process of breeding and raising
> them, and the basic injustice of treating them as property, and
> again in the process of slaughtering them. Collateral deaths
> in
> the field, or in protection of food in storage, would involve,
> at the
> most, the single injustice of lack of consideration of the
> animals'
> rights in "pest control."
========================
fair-tales...


>
> There is absolutely no way a diet involving meat can be seen as
> more
> just for animals, or less harmful for them, if the same
> criteria are
> applied to any individual example. It is only by comparing
> vastly
> different examples ("comparing apples and oranges" ) that any
> diet
> including meat can be seen as less harmful on a utilitarian
> basis.
> This must be a dishonest approach to the issue.
=============================
No fool, the dishonesty is from vegans. They cannot compare
real-world diets to each other. But then, that's not news
because they don't even compare the foods they do eat to each
other and make choices that cause n0/fewer/less deaths of
animals. You follow only a simply rule for your simple mind, eat
no meat. You focus only on what you think others are doing so
that you can ignore your own bloody footprints.
The truth is that the typical usenet vegan does nothing to
alleviate animal death and suffering. You could reduce your
impact without any major changes in lifestyle/convenience by
replacing 100s of 1000s of veggie calories with the death of one
animal. Those meat choices are readily available while your
fairy-tale gathering is, well, just a fairy-tale.
Another proof of your relying on your simple rule for your simple
mind is your focus on meat. A product that you claim not to eat,
and totally ignoring any comparisons of the foods you do eat. If
animal death and suffering were of any real concern to vegans
there would be a list of veggies and the cost in animal deaths
that each cause. I know that there is no concern for this as
vegan food groups/recipes/foods always talk about bananas. A
product that has caused the destruction of millions and millions
of acres of rain-forests, and depends on massive use of
pesticides and transportation.


>
> BTW, Jane Goodall has recently published a new book on the
> issue of
> animal- and environmentally-friendly diet, for those who are
> interested.
>

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:46:50 -0700, Glorfindel > wrote:

>Derek wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
>> against veganism is a fallacy.
>
>Glorfindel wrote:
>
>Yes, that is true, for several reasons.
>
>Current methods of crop production (probably; presumptively ) may
>involve collateral deaths, but raising, transporting, and marketing
>animals for food *certainly* do, and always will.

Precisely, and the distinction between the two does bear some
consideration when deciding which is the more ethical choice.
Like you say, raising animals for slaughter will always involve
the death of at least one animal while raising vegetables
doesn't require the deaths of any.

>The question of
>which diet involves fewer cannot be answered on a black-and-white
>basis, because each individual diet must be evaluated independently.
>However, given the optimum example of each type, a vegan diet will
>always involve fewer deaths than a diet including meat, given the
>same parameters in each case. An *ideal* vegan diet would indeed
>involve no animal deaths at all, while even an *ideal* omnivore
>diet would involve at least some animal deaths.

That's very similar in sentiment to what I wrote above. I must
stop jumping in before reading to the end of peoples' posts. Too
late to rub it out now.

>As Derek has noted,
>the ideal in either case is probably impossible in the real world,
>so it cannot be used to critique any specific diet in the real
>world. It can only be used as a goal, or theoretical concept, and
>in that case, the vegan diet must be better for animals.
>
>Secondly, as far as the concept of animal rights, or animal liberation,
>is concerned, the vegan diet wins hands-down. Even a diet of hunted
>meat involves a violation of the rights of the hunted animal by
>its death at human hands. An equivalent diet of gathering need not
>involve any intentional killing of rights-bearing animals at all.
>If we consider a diet involving farmed animals, the animals' rights
>are violated both by the entire process of breeding and raising
>them, and the basic injustice of treating them as property, and
>again in the process of slaughtering them.

Well said, Glorfindel.

>Collateral deaths in
>the field, or in protection of food in storage, would involve, at the
>most, the single injustice of lack of consideration of the animals'
>rights in "pest control."
>
>There is absolutely no way a diet involving meat can be seen as more
>just for animals, or less harmful for them, if the same criteria are
>applied to any individual example. It is only by comparing vastly
>different examples ("comparing apples and oranges" ) that any diet
>including meat can be seen as less harmful on a utilitarian basis.
>This must be a dishonest approach to the issue.
>
>BTW, Jane Goodall has recently published a new book on the issue of
>animal- and environmentally-friendly diet, for those who are interested.

I ought to set some time aside to read Jane's work. As yet I read
nothing from her at all, and that's an embarrassing admission.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:02:14 -0500, Doug Jones > wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:37:21 +0000, Derek >wrote:
>>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:37:36 -0500, Doug Jones > wrote:
>>>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:31:44 +0000, Derek >wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
>>>>>> collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.
>>>>>
>>>>>Har har
>>>>
>>>>There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
>>>>against veganism is a fallacy.
>>>
>>>Actually, it isn't.
>>
>>It poses a false dilemma, as described in the definition I've
>>provided. Your denial or feigned ignorance of it doesn't
>>escape the fact that while collateral deaths exist ubiquitously
>>in food production, rejecting veganism as a solution to the deaths
>>associated with man's diet generally, is specious.

I'll take your lack of a comment to that as tacit acceptance.

>>>However, every argument, except for one, *for* veganism is fallacious.
>>
>>Show how "veganism is fallacious." Don't just declare it like
>>a petulant child; show how.

No? Didn't feel like it?

>>>It is not healthier than other diets
>>
>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>
>>> it is not more environmentally friendly
>>
>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>
>>> it does not cause fewer deaths
>>
>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>
>>>and it not more efficient.
>>
>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>.
>>>Each of those arguments falls apart in the face of real data
>>
>>Then show it instead of making these unsupported claims.

Hello? When are you going to support those wild claims with
some hard evidence?

>>> of which the collateral deaths argument is one.
>>
>>The collateral deaths argument is specious and debunked.
>>
>>>The *only* argument for it is "I prefer it." That's the only valid
>>>one. Everything else is garbage.
>>
>>That's your opinion, and I don't agree with it.
>
>Ok, here's a real example for you. Simple one, easy to prove. No
>"indirect", no "accidental" or anything else. I pick up a pound of
>organically grown brocolli. At the same time, I pick up a one-pound
>lobster. I eat the lobster, you eat the brocolli. Which one of us
>has just killed more animals *directly*? Hint - you have.

How can that BE when YOU kill and eat the lobster? All I've
done is eat the broccoli.

Dreck wrote:
>>BTW, Jane Goodall has recently published a new book on the issue of
>>animal- and environmentally-friendly diet, for those who are interested.
>
> I ought to set some time aside

Set some time aside for more productive pursuits. According to your
twin, you're a shiftless giro parasite. Is your nation paying you to
read and stir shit on usenet?

Dreck blew more platitude-filled hot air:
>>>>>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.
>>
>>===========================
>>LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong
>
> No, I've shown that I'm right by offering a better solution

Non sequitur: you're not right because of a solution. Your claim that
you're offering a "better" solution is also a logical fallacy.

You might have a case of establishing your virtue if you were to
*PRACTICE* what you preach; I'm not convinced, though, that you'd be
better because you eat some things and refuse to eat other things. All
you're doing now is showing what a shit-stirring windbag you really are
by promoting ideals you never intend to follow yourself. It's just a
specious platitude.

Veganism is the product of clueless Utopian urbanites who, almost as a
rule, *don't* forage and, worse with respect to their disingenuous
platitudes, really don't care that they're causing animals to die via
their consumption of commercially-grown foods. They only care that they
don't violate the rule of not eating animal parts. They extend this rule
to include things that *might* have animal parts, such as the
ingredients found on lists like this:
http://www.veganwolf.com/animal_ingredients.htm

Dreck continued blowing hot air:
> Rejecting veganism as a solution to the animal
> deaths associated in man's diet on the basis that animal
> deaths will still exist after veganism is implemented in a
> World where collateral deaths are ubiquitous is specious.

According to such (il)logic, then, vegans could also consume dairy
because veal calves are collateral to milk production.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:10:10 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>
>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>===========================
>>>LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong
>>
>> No, I've shown that I'm right by offering a better solution
>
>Non sequitur

You've misused the term. My comment follows from what I
wrote, and from Rick's response to what I wrote. Foraging
for wild vegetables and fruits easily beats grass fed beef or
hunted meat.

[Many people who live in the countryside already know how
to harvest nature's bounty, food that is available to anyone
who takes the time and trouble to learn about 'wild foods'
that abound in their localities. Much of this knowledge has
been passed down through the generations, and many of the
'wild foods' that made up the staple diets of peoples over the
past 15,000 years or more are still available today ...

Below are a small selection of books about the 'wild foods'
that can be found in the countryside, both in North America,
and overlapping with plants common to parts of northwestern
Europe. In subsequent pages there are books about small-scale
organic food production, survival skills and wilderness living,
along with articles and some step-by-step details about becoming
as 'self-sufficient' as possible in an increasingly uncertain world.
Useful skills for expeditions, exploring, camping trips, and for
those simply wanting to re-learn the 'ancient survival skills' of our
ancestors who survived the cataclysms of the distant past ...
...
The most seriously committed vegans forage for their own foods,
taking advantage of some of nature's lesser-known but often
intensely flavorful wild bounty. As "Wildman" Steve Brill points
out in The Wild Vegetarian Cookbook, it takes a lot of education
and plenty of experience to identify and make use of the bounty
of the earth's forests and seas. Foragers must learn to distinguish
not only between the toxic and the edible but also must discern
which among the edible plants are actually tasty and worth
harvesting and cooking. Brill offers an encyclopedia of lore and
plenty of identifying botanical data for wild foods, but more pictures
would help sort out these thousands of plants from one another,
especially in the perilous world of fungi identification. Recipes
abound, and they follow vegan principles, using everyday oils,
vinegars, and other basic ingredients.]
http://www.morien-institute.org/wildfoodbooks_us.html

So, why do you promote a least-harm diet that includes the deaths
of animals when foraging is the better option? Why, to promote
meat at any cost, that's why, meat pusher.

>Veganism is the product of clueless Utopian urbanites

Your opinion on the followers of veganism is irrelevant and
besides the proposition they hold.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:13:44 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>
>> Rejecting veganism as a solution to the animal
>> deaths associated in man's diet on the basis that animal
>> deaths will still exist after veganism is implemented in a
>> World where collateral deaths are ubiquitous is specious.
>
>According to such (il)logic, then, vegans could also consume dairy
>because veal calves are collateral to milk production.

No, you've clearly failed to understand the fallacy. Read it again.

Hang on - are you saying that non-vegans don't eat fruit, vegetables
and grain products?