>        If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

>        I do not eat meat;

>        Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

> This argument contains a classic fallacy:  Denying the
> Antecedent.  It is obvious there are other ways to
> cause harm to animals.  The one that is much discussed
> in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> is collateral animal deaths in agriculture.  Uncounted
> millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> control.  Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.

> However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> trace of animal parts from their diet.  I call this the
> Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> in food.  The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> if so, exclude it from their diet.

> Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> dark.  She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> diets.  Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.

> Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> all but unchallenged.  What little challenge is mounted
> is not credible.  One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> kill animals.  It simply is not credible.

> How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> Micrograms?  It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> *still* accept it.

> I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> form of religion.  Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> away.  In that light, the obsessive Search for
> Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.

> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

> I do not eat meat;

> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

>       If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

>       I do not eat meat;

>       Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

> This argument contains a classic fallacy:  Denying the
> Antecedent.  It is obvious there are other ways to
> cause harm to animals.  The one that is much discussed
> in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> is collateral animal deaths in agriculture.  Uncounted
> millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> control.  Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.

> However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> trace of animal parts from their diet.  I call this the
> Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> in food.  The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> if so, exclude it from their diet.

> Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> dark.  She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> diets.  Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.

> Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> all but unchallenged.  What little challenge is mounted
> is not credible.  One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> kill animals.  It simply is not credible.

> How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> Micrograms?  It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> *still* accept it.

> I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> form of religion.  Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> away.  In that light, the obsessive Search for
> Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.

> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

> I do not eat meat;

> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

> This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
> Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
> cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
> in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
> millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.

> However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
> Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> if so, exclude it from their diet.

> Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.

> Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
> is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> kill animals. It simply is not credible.

> How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> *still* accept it.

> I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
> Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.

>> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

>> I do not eat meat;

>> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

> Rudy Canoza predictably embarrasses himself yet again; his
> claim "All "vegans" begin their belief ..." is totally bogus,
> as is his normal style.
> Vegans also stop consuming animal flesh for the well
> documented positive health rewards.  Thus the choice is
> purely selfish, in that it reduces harm to the self. not
> just to prey animals.
> TCCampbell; The China Study
> http://tinyurl.com/2v689m

> http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#meat

> Laurie

> --
> Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
> http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
> news:alt.food.vegan.science

> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by subscribing to a
> >> logically fallacious argument:

> >> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

> >> I do not eat meat;

> >> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

> >     Rudy Canoza predictably

> gets it right.

> > not all vegans are idealistic fucktards....

> They are.

> > "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message
> >news:DbSdnYhnkofWCbHVnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> >> All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> >> subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:

> >>       If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

> >>       I do not eat meat;

> >>       Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

> >> This argument contains a classic fallacy:  Denying the
> >> Antecedent.  It is obvious there are other ways to
> >> cause harm to animals.  The one that is much discussed
> >> in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> >> is collateral animal deaths in agriculture.  Uncounted
> >> millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> >> vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> >> result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> >> control.  Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> >> CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.

> >> However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> >> time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> >> trace of animal parts from their diet.  I call this the
> >> Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> >> in food.  The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> >> are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> >> if so, exclude it from their diet.

> >> Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> >> comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> >> juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> >> dark.  She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> >> smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> >> - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> >> eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> >> diets.  Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> >> of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.

> >> Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> >> that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> >> animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> >> and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> >> all but unchallenged.  What little challenge is mounted
> >> is not credible.  One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> >> t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> >> groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> >> buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> >> the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> >> with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> >> kill animals.  It simply is not credible.

> >> How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> >> Micrograms?  It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> >> that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> >> *still* accept it.

> >> I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> >> form of religion.  Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> >> what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> >> religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> >> away.  In that light, the obsessive Search for
> >> Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> >> ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> >> cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

>       If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals

>       I do not eat meat;

>       Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.

> This argument contains a classic fallacy:  Denying the
> Antecedent.  It is obvious there are other ways to
> cause harm to animals.  The one that is much discussed
> in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
> is collateral animal deaths in agriculture.  Uncounted
> millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
> vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
> result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
> control.  Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
> CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.

> However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
> time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
> trace of animal parts from their diet.  I call this the
> Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
> in food.  The idea, of course, is to determine if there
> are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
> if so, exclude it from their diet.

> Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
> comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
> juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
> dark.  She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
> smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
> - and none of the other participants seemed especially
> eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
> diets.  Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
> of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.

> Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
> that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
> animal collateral death toll caused by the production
> and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
> all but unchallenged.  What little challenge is mounted
> is not credible.  One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
> t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
> groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
> buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
> the geographic locale of production has anything to do
> with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
> kill animals.  It simply is not credible.

> How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
> Micrograms?  It is as if, despite some of them knowing
> that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
> *still* accept it.

> I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
> form of religion.  Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
> what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
> religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
> away.  In that light, the obsessive Search for
> Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
> ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
> cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.