How do you explain the weird Search for Micrograms?
Jonathan Ball
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.
I look forward to reading alternate explanations.
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3EF4C63C...@whitehouse.not...
P.S. Somebody earlier was talking about crossposting.
Now get those stolen plants watered, most likely you also pinched the
fucking hosepipe.
Isabelle
know does either. the whole point is to minimize suffering as much as we
can, and NOT eliminate responsibility. i don't think you know any vegans
personally, do you? get your facts together, mister.
Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3EF4C63C...@whitehouse.not...
Graham Burnett
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3EF4C63C...@whitehouse.not...
Miller
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3EF4C63C...@whitehouse.not...
From your first sentence, I can see that you subscribe to a logically
fallacious argument: Namely, that you think you know specifics about being a
vegetarian, and that all vegetarians are the same. Vegan obsessive search
for micrograms? Oh yeah, right, we have so many of those where I live you
have to be careful one does not trip over them while shopping at the mall.
Then you go on to build a silly straw-man argument that ends up equating
"veganism" (whatever the hell that is) with a religion. What nonsense.
Many vegetarians, like myself, are really not that concerned about animals
who are raised like corn or apples to be consumed by humans. We just do not
like to eat meat, is all. People are entitled to their tastes, I think, as
long as they do not harm others. If you like to eat meat by all means do
so. I really do not understand why many people apparently have this
driving, prejudicial need to attack what they do not understand. Is it diet
insecurity, or what? I mean, get over it already.
Scott
JethroUK©
animals would never have life at all had it not that they conclusively be
eaten
so the "causing harm to animals" argument is ridiculous
vegans need quieting by this very thought
if they feel we should not eat animals then they need a much more coherent
argument
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3EF4C63C...@whitehouse.not...
rick etter
"Isabelle" <isabe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Q46Ja.1505$BC3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> who says all vegans subscribe to this? i certainly don't, and no vegan i
> know does either. the whole point is to minimize suffering as much as we
> can,
Yet this claim is something you really do nothing about. You can't show any
minimizing, and in fact, here you are on usenet without any 'need' to be
causing the death and suffering of animals needlessly for nothing more than
your own entertainment. You might as well take in a few bullfights while
you're at it.
and NOT eliminate responsibility. i don't think you know any vegans
> personally, do you? get your facts together, mister.
===============
Well, there are no vegans on usenet. They violate their own sanctimonious
bleatings and display their hypocrisy by posting their stupidity around the
world for all to see.
rick etter
"Miller" <chumley7...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:vfa3ir...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
snips...
> > I look forward to reading alternate explanations.
>
> From your first sentence, I can see that you subscribe to a logically
> fallacious argument: Namely, that you think you know specifics about being
a
> vegetarian, and that all vegetarians are the same. Vegan obsessive search
> for micrograms? Oh yeah, right, we have so many of those where I live you
> have to be careful one does not trip over them while shopping at the mall.
==================
Google yourself for awhile. You'll see just the sort of thing right here.
An obsesssive concern for even the possiblility that some small portion of a
food might have been touched by an animal product. Look up olives for a
start. That was a real hoot! Squid ink used to dye the olives.
> Then you go on to build a silly straw-man argument that ends up equating
> "veganism" (whatever the hell that is) with a religion. What nonsense.
===============
No, it's not. It's far closer to religion that you'd like to let on. What
it isn't is 'just a diet'.
>
> Many vegetarians, like myself, are really not that concerned about animals
> who are raised like corn or apples to be consumed by humans. We just do
not
> like to eat meat, is all.
=====================
hen the post wasn't about you, was it? Try again, with comprhension this
time. VEGANS was the subject, and yes, they do make a big deal, to extremes
about any small part of micrograms of animal product in their food.
People are entitled to their tastes, I think, as
> long as they do not harm others. If you like to eat meat by all means do
> so. I really do not understand why many people apparently have this
> driving, prejudicial need to attack what they do not understand. Is it
diet
> insecurity, or what? I mean, get over it already.
=================
Nope, it's not about a diet at all. It's about the sanctimonious
blatherings and hatred by those that would tell others what they can or
cannot eat if they were given the chance. Check out some of the more ardent
vegan loons around, you'll see that they would decide what anyone can eat,
or not.
>
> Scott
>
>
Dutch
> who says all vegans subscribe to this?
He does, I do. You do.
> i certainly don't, and no vegan i
> know does either.
The principle is inherent in veganism.
> the whole point is to minimize suffering as much as we
> can,
How much is that? What does that mean? Does it mean as much as you find
convenient right now? Are you telling us that you could NOT do more? You
have never spent a moment counting the suffering your lifestyle causes, so
how do you know that you are minimizing it "as much as you can"?
> and NOT eliminate responsibility.
The vegan by nature weighs his or her own impact favorably against that of
the omnivore, you all do it.
> i don't think you know any vegans
> personally, do you? get your facts together, mister.
I know lots of them, I was one once. Do you eat Caesar salads with
anchovies? Do you eat sauces or soups made from animals if they are served
to you? Do you go to great lengths to avoid ingesting food made with
animals?
You're the classic blinkered vegan.
Dutch
> whatever
So you have no alternative explanation for the Search for Micrograms?
Dutch
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
He didn't use the term vegetarian except when naming one of the newsgroups.
The post is about "vegans", not vegetarians.
Vegan obsessive search
> for micrograms? Oh yeah, right, we have so many of those where I live you
> have to be careful one does not trip over them while shopping at the mall.
Believe it.
> Then you go on to build a silly straw-man argument that ends up equating
> "veganism" (whatever the hell that is) with a religion. What nonsense.
Look it up before you call it nonsense. Your reply is knee-jerk ignorance.
> Many vegetarians, like myself, are really not that concerned about animals
> who are raised like corn or apples to be consumed by humans. We just do
not
> like to eat meat, is all. People are entitled to their tastes, I think,
as
> long as they do not harm others. If you like to eat meat by all means do
> so. I really do not understand why many people apparently have this
> driving, prejudicial need to attack what they do not understand. Is it
diet
> insecurity, or what? I mean, get over it already.
Why do people defend what they don't understand?
Jonathan Ball
Nope. You don't know that at all. I specifically and
explicitly limited it to "vegans", not all vegetarians.
You can't read, can you?
> Vegan obsessive search for micrograms?
Yes. You've heard of it before, perhaps?
> Oh yeah, right, we have so many of those where I live you
> have to be careful one does not trip over them while shopping at the mall.
> Then you go on to build a silly straw-man argument that ends up equating
> "veganism" (whatever the hell that is) with a religion. What nonsense.
It isn't nonsense, and my equation of it with religion
can hardly constitute a strawman. Clearly, you don't
know what a strawman argument is.
>
> Many vegetarians, like myself,
Aha! NOW the shrill defensiveness comes into a fuller
context.
> are really not that concerned about animals
> who are raised like corn or apples to be consumed by humans. We just do not
> like to eat meat, is all.
So you're not a "vegan", but you have some measure of
attraction to their, er, "cause".
> People are entitled to their tastes, I think, as
> long as they do not harm others.
Not at issue.
> If you like to eat meat by all means do
> so. I really do not understand why many people apparently have this
> driving, prejudicial need to attack what they do not understand.
Now, THERE is a strawman.
Jonathan Ball
> whatever
Graham, I've had surprisingly fruitful discussions with
you in the past, and I hardly consider you the typical
fanatical "vegan". So why don't you try to answer the
overall question? Why DO "vegan", virtually all of
them, engage in this weird, obsessive Search for
Micrograms?
I can understand people not eating meat; that doesn't
seem all that unreasonable to me. The Search for
Micrograms, and that frenzied reaction when something
they've been eating is revealed to contain a few, seems
positively WEIRD.
Jonathan Ball
> who says all vegans subscribe to this? i certainly don't, and no vegan i
> know does either. the whole point is to minimize suffering as much as we
> can, and NOT eliminate responsibility.
But of course, you ARE NOT minimizing suffering as much
as you can, *merely* by eschewing meat. You could
easily reduce the suffering you cause by a more
judicious choice of vegetables.
How much rice do you eat?
> i don't think you know any vegans
> personally, do you?
Yes, I do. A good half dozen, personally. There are
also those I "know" through contact in usenet.
> get your facts together, mister.
I have done. How about you? How much collateral death
do you cause?
Jonathan Ball
> most animals that *are* eaten, were born to be eaten - such that the said
> animals would never have life at all had it not that they conclusively be
> eaten
>
> so the "causing harm to animals" argument is ridiculous
Not necessarily. "vegans" adopt the attitude that,
although there is no morally compelling reason
livestock animals *ought* to be born, once they are
alive, it is a bad thing for humans to kill them.
>
> vegans need quieting by this very thought
>
> if they feel we should not eat animals then they need a much more coherent
> argument
Well, they certainly need a more coherent argument than
their goofy binary rule.
Beach
heath and anti cancer fighting ingredients that illuminates much of the problem.
Second, you a LOT few animals are hurt. go with Natural Vegan and never turn
back.
And, avoid genetically engineered like the prague!
bob
turk
Bottom line: who causes more environmental damage, meat eaters or vegans?
Answer that, nitwit.
turk
turk
And why do you feel so personally threatened by vegans? Guilt? Fear that
they may be right? Must be rough waking up screaming in the night fearing
that vegans could actually change the world...
turk
Dutch
> First, if you eat organic produce, which is MUCH healthier for your
> heath and anti cancer fighting ingredients that illuminates much of the
problem.
>
> Second, you a LOT few animals are hurt. go with Natural Vegan and never
turn
> back.
>
> And, avoid genetically engineered like the prague!
>
> bob
Exhibit "A" - The Lucid Vegan.
Dutch
news:2QcJa.58856$Fa6.39121@sccrnsc02...
Meat eaters by far, there 100 times as many of them. If you mean "per
capita" then the question is insufficient, which vegans, which meat eaters?
Some meat eaters hunt and grow most of their own food, they cause far less
environmental damge than your typical urban, commerical agribusiness,
shrink-wrap, vegan consumer. Who's a nitwit?
Dutch
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
> > Isabelle wrote:
> > > who says all vegans subscribe to this? i certainly don't, and no vegan
i
> > > know does either. the whole point is to minimize suffering as much as
we
> > > can, and NOT eliminate responsibility.
> >
> > But of course, you ARE NOT minimizing suffering as much
> > as you can, *merely* by eschewing meat. You could
> > easily reduce the suffering you cause by a more
> > judicious choice of vegetables.
> >
> > How much rice do you eat?
> >
> > > i don't think you know any vegans
> > > personally, do you?
> >
> > Yes, I do. A good half dozen, personally. There are
> > also those I "know" through contact in usenet.
> >
> > > get your facts together, mister.
> >
> > I have done. How about you? How much collateral death
> > do you cause?
>
> And why do you feel so personally threatened by vegans?
Why do you assume because he asked questions he feels threatened? Vegans are
very quick to assume their diets are automatically more healthy, cause less
environmental damage, and far less animal suffering (or none) than
meat-eaters'. It's reasonable to ask you to show how you arrive at these
conclusions.
> Guilt?
Not bloody likely.
> Fear that
> they may be right?
Not a chance.
Must be rough waking up screaming in the night fearing
> that vegans could actually change the world...
Are you planning to attempt a rational explanation for "The Search for
Micrograms" or like a typical vegan are you just going to beat around the
bush?
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3EF4C63C...@whitehouse.not...
>
> All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>
you've started.
> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
Fallacy of the beard.
If A is permitted, then by a gradual series of small steps
through B, C,..., X, Y, eventually Z will be too.
We should not permit Z.
Therefore, we should not permit A.
This type is based upon the claim that allowing a
controversial type of action will lead inevitably to
allowing some admittedly bad type of action. It is
the slide from A to Z via the intermediate steps B
through Y that is the "slope", and the smallness of
each step that makes it "slippery".
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/index.html
This completely ruins your first premise, and there's
another problem with it that you should know about.
If your premise states "If x, then y", "y" must follow in
all cases. It must follow "x" every time without any
exeptions. Eating meat doesn't always cause harm to
animals, so your premise, "If I eat meat, I cause harm
to animals" is bogus.
Your premise is akin to saying, "If certain numbers
are divisible by 3, then they are divisible by 6." This
is true in a lot of circumstances, but the premise is
totally flawed when we look at the exeption 39.
Likewise, your premise is totally flawed when we
take into account the exeption that meat can be eaten
without causing harms in some circumstances.
Besides, you've already admitted that this premise
is false, remember?
It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise;
it's the premise of "vegans".
Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003
But building a hypothetical opponent carrying a bogus
premise that you yourself cribbed together isn't a valid
refutation to your opponent's position: it's a straw man.
The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone
else's position so that it can be attacked more easily,
knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude
that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy
because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have
been made.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman
Return to your blackboard, because you've admitted the
premise is false, and it's patently clear you are arguing
from a position which you know is dishonest and false.
turk
news:sGeJa.257479$3C2.7...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> "turk" <tur...@attbi.com> wrote
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
>
> > > Isabelle wrote:
> > > > who says all vegans subscribe to this? i certainly don't, and no
vegan
> i
> > > > know does either. the whole point is to minimize suffering as much
as
> we
> > > > can, and NOT eliminate responsibility.
> > >
> > > But of course, you ARE NOT minimizing suffering as much
> > > as you can, *merely* by eschewing meat. You could
> > > easily reduce the suffering you cause by a more
> > > judicious choice of vegetables.
> > >
> > > How much rice do you eat?
> > >
> > > > i don't think you know any vegans
> > > > personally, do you?
> > >
> > > Yes, I do. A good half dozen, personally. There are
> > > also those I "know" through contact in usenet.
> > >
> > > > get your facts together, mister.
> > >
> > > I have done. How about you? How much collateral death
> > > do you cause?
> >
> > And why do you feel so personally threatened by vegans?
>
> Why do you assume because he asked questions he feels threatened?
He didn't 'ask questions'. He proposed some ridiculous theory for why
vegans are being dishonest about their convictions.
Vegans are
> very quick to assume their diets are automatically more healthy, cause
less
> environmental damage, and far less animal suffering (or none) than
> meat-eaters'. It's reasonable to ask you to show how you arrive at these
> conclusions.
Let's see...I don't cause the wanton destruction of rain forests (certainly
not what it takes to raise cattle), I don't cause the overproduction of
cattle, who's flatulance does more damage to the environment than do cars,
and, most improtantly, I reduce the amount of animals killed for food.
> > Guilt?
>
> Not bloody likely.
Then why the obsession?
> > Fear that
> > they may be right?
>
> Not a chance.
Then why the obsession?
> Must be rough waking up screaming in the night fearing
> > that vegans could actually change the world...
>
> Are you planning to attempt a rational explanation for "The Search for
> Micrograms" or like a typical vegan are you just going to beat around the
> bush?
The "Search for Micrograms" has little or anything to do with what that
half-wit even typed.
It really bothers people like you that there are people out there who
actually realize that there are consequences to the actions we take. You
just want to enjoy your hedonism with no repercussions. It doesn't work
that way. At this rate, your grandkids, if not your children, will suffer
for your habits.
And you, like many naysayers on this board, miss the point. No one claimed
veganism was perfect. But we actually make an effort to save the world and
reduce suffering and damage. All you do is criticize and take the
apocalyptic view of 'I can't matter'. And right now, you don't. You
actually could make a difference if you pulled your head out of your
oft-sodomized ass. There's a world out there worth saving, no matter what
your brainwashing might convince you.
turk
JethroUK©
no morally compelling reason livestock animals *ought* to be born, once they
the point i'm making is - livestock is born only to be eaten - bearing this
fact in mind
it's a pretty simple yes/no decision
would a vegan prefer the animals concerned never to have a life in the first
place? if so, whilst i wouldn't agree (on the 'some life is better than
none' point of view) - but they would have a valid argument
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3EF53547...@whitehouse.not...
rick etter
Why? Don't you know the answer?
Let's consider a guy named Eustace Conway, he eats meat. However, unlike
you, he doesn't have electricity, provides most of his food through hunting
and farming. Compared to him, you're an environmental disaster.
But, lets' not go all that way to extreme. Let's take those that eat grass
fed beef and game. One animal provides 100s of 1000s of calories and 100s
of meals. One animal that was never fed grain crops, never injected with
chemicals, and lived and ate a life that was intended. Now, let's replace
those 100s of 1000s of calories with your monoculture crops. Just who do
you propose caused far more environmental damgae? Every field of your food
IS environmental damge. the ecosystem that was there is destroyed! You
cause more problems for the ground, and you kill more animals in the long
run.
Your claimed caring about the environment or animals is just all hot air.
vegans only use that as a tool for their hatred and loathing. If, as vegans
claim, they 'do all they can' to eliminate/reduce animal death and
suffering, you wouldn't be here on usenet causing needless death and
suffering of animals for no more reason than your selfishness and
entertainment. You might as well go enjoy a good bullfight too, killer.
>
> turk
>
>
rick etter
No, it's that nasty nazi streak in veganism that would tell others what they
can and cannot eat.
>
> turk
>
>
Jonathan Ball
Why is that the "bottom line"?
>
> Answer that, nitwit.
According to your fellow "vegan" loons, the answer
would be neither; the farmers are the ones who cause
the damage.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:3EF53480...@whitehouse.not...
>
>>Isabelle wrote:
>>
>>>who says all vegans subscribe to this? i certainly don't, and no vegan i
>>>know does either. the whole point is to minimize suffering as much as we
>>>can, and NOT eliminate responsibility.
>>
>>But of course, you ARE NOT minimizing suffering as much
>>as you can, *merely* by eschewing meat. You could
>>easily reduce the suffering you cause by a more
>>judicious choice of vegetables.
>>
>>How much rice do you eat?
>>
>>
>>>i don't think you know any vegans
>>>personally, do you?
>>
>>Yes, I do. A good half dozen, personally. There are
>>also those I "know" through contact in usenet.
>>
>>
>>>get your facts together, mister.
>>
>>I have done. How about you? How much collateral death
>>do you cause?
>
>
> And why do you feel so personally threatened by vegans? Guilt?
No.
> Fear that they may be right?
Hardly.
> Must be rough waking up screaming in the night fearing
> that vegans could actually change the world...
No, I don't really think they could. They *want* to
change it, though, and their only method for changing
it is murderous tyranny. All "vegans" are fascists at
heart, and some of them much more openly.
rick etter
No, you don't. Just not eating meat means nothing you ignorant dolt. You
do nothing.
All you do is criticize and take the
> apocalyptic view of 'I can't matter'. And right now, you don't. You
> actually could make a difference if you pulled your head out of your
> oft-sodomized ass. There's a world out there worth saving, no matter what
> your brainwashing might convince you.
==================
It's your fascination with foods that get packed and shipped around the
world that will cause the destruction stupid. Those that eat meat, and give
the producers an alternative, like grassfed, hormone free, antibiotic free
meats are the ones that are accomplishing something. What do you do?
Nothing. Just cause demand to go up for fruits and veggies that cannot be
produced in many areas of the world and have to be imported. That causes
far more environmental damage than raising grass fed beef. It's your
delusions and brainwashing that has blinders on killer. try to open yours
eyes, and mind sometime, hypocrite.
>
> turk
>
>
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3EF4C63C...@whitehouse.not...
>
>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>>
>
> ALL? That'll take some proving. You're sunk before
> you've started.
>
>
>> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>>
>
> Fallacy of the beard.
[snip misrepresentation of the "vegans'" first premise]
It is not a "fallacy of the beard", Dreck. You clearly
don't know what you're talking about.
>
> This completely ruins your first premise,
It isn't my premise. It is the "vegans'" premise; ALL
of them.
> and there's
> another problem with it that you should know about.
> If your premise states "If x, then y", "y" must follow in
> all cases. It must follow "x" every time without any
> exeptions.
False. And the word is "exception", not "exeption".
You got a free pass the first time you wrote that, but
now that you've committed the same misspelling a second
time, we know it isn't a typo. It's your illiteracy.
> Eating meat doesn't always cause harm to
> animals, so your premise, "If I eat meat, I cause harm
> to animals" is bogus.
It isn't, as I have explained before. The premise is
true, as it applies to the typical "vegan".
Jonathan Ball
JethroUKŠ wrote:
> "....Not necessarily. "vegans" adopt the attitude that, although there is
> no morally compelling reason livestock animals *ought* to be born, once they
> are alive, it is a bad thing for humans to kill them...."
>
> the point i'm making is - livestock is born only to be eaten - bearing this
> fact in mind
There's no reason to bear this factlette in mind, "Jethro".
>
> it's a pretty simple yes/no decision
>
> would a vegan prefer the animals concerned never to have a life in the first
> place? if so, whilst i wouldn't agree (on the 'some life is better than
> none' point of view) - but they would have a valid argument
You're done. I doesn't really matter what fuckwitted
UK shit-for-brains is pretending to adopt Fuckwit
Jethro Harrison's "getting to experience life"
argument, you're done.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3EF5E686...@whitehouse.not...
> Derek wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3EF4C63C...@whitehouse.not...
> >
> >>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> >>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
> >
> > ALL? That'll take some proving. You're sunk before
> > you've started.
> >
ALL vegans believe what you say they believe, even
though the one's here tell you you are wrong?
> >> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
> >
> > Fallacy of the beard.
>
> [snip misrepresentation of the "vegans'" first premise]
>
> It is not a "fallacy of the beard", Dreck. You clearly
> don't know what you're talking about.
>
Snipping my evidence that proves my refutation to
be correct won't improve your position.
When assuming the premise, "If I eat meat, I cause
harms to animals" it invokes a causal version of the
beard fallacy. To paraphrase the example given in
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/index.html
If I eat meat, then by a gradual series of steps I
cause harm to animals.
We should not permit harm to animals
Therefore, I should not eat meat."
If A is permitted, then by a gradual series of small steps
through B, C,..., X, Y, eventually Z will be too.
We should not permit Z.
Therefore, we should not permit A.
This type is based upon the claim that allowing a
controversial type of action will lead inevitably to
allowing some admittedly bad type of action. It is
the slide from A to Z via the intermediate steps B
through Y that is the "slope", and the smallness of
each step that makes it "slippery".
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/index.html]
> >
> > This completely ruins your first premise,
>
> It isn't my premise. It is the "vegans'" premise; ALL
> of them.
>
Show your evidence.
> > and there's
> > another problem with it that you should know about.
> > If your premise states "If x, then y", "y" must follow in
> > all cases. It must follow "x" every time without any
> > exeptions.
>
> False.
To say that q is a "necessary component" of p is to mean
that if one has p one must also have q, that is: "if p then q".
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/index.html
You need to study.
> > Eating meat doesn't always cause harm to
> > animals, so your premise, "If I eat meat, I cause harm
> > to animals" is bogus.
>
> It isn't, as I have explained before. The premise is
> true, as it applies to the typical "vegan".
>
The premise is false as it stands in its own right irrespective
of what you might try applying it to. It's a false premise,
and you have admitted it, even after initially lying by stating
it was true for all these years. You're nailed.
Kimberly
news:vfa3ir...@corp.supernews.com...
> From your first sentence, I can see that you subscribe to a logically
> fallacious argument: Namely, that you think you know specifics about being
a
> vegetarian, and that all vegetarians are the same. Vegan obsessive search
> for micrograms? Oh yeah, right, we have so many of those where I live you
> have to be careful one does not trip over them while shopping at the mall.
> Then you go on to build a silly straw-man argument that ends up equating
> "veganism" (whatever the hell that is) with a religion. What nonsense.
>
> Many vegetarians, like myself, are really not that concerned about animals
> who are raised like corn or apples to be consumed by humans. We just do
not
> like to eat meat, is all. People are entitled to their tastes, I think,
as
> long as they do not harm others. If you like to eat meat by all means do
> so. I really do not understand why many people apparently have this
> driving, prejudicial need to attack what they do not understand. Is it
diet
> insecurity, or what? I mean, get over it already.
>>>>>
Hon, I don't know which NG you are coming from but I don't think it's
A.A.E.V. Try reading this group for a few days and you'll see what they are
talking about. Vegans are the reason omnivores often attack regular
vegetarians like you or I. Vegans are those preachy, self-righteous
extremists who can't buy bottled water without having it clinically tested
for traces of animal parts.
-Kimberly, who just had this discussion at dinner last night when her
companion called her a vegan.
Immortalist
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3EF4C63C...@whitehouse.not...
> All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
>
> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
>
> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
I do not eat meat but work at a slaughter-house;
Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals except when at work.
LOL
---------------------------
1. If I eat meat, I cause *more* harm to animals than if I don't
2. I do not consciously eat meat though injesting -some- meat products,
without my knowledge, is occaisionally likely.
3. [Therefore]: I cause *less* harm to animals than those who regularly
consume animal meat and products.
4. That I cause less harm to animals satisfies my own ethical standards of
decency.
5. I desire to cause as little suffering and death in animals as is
logically possible in my life.
6. [Therefore]: in at least my case, being a vegetarian is the moral and
decent thing to do.
7. That this is a moral and decent lifstyle, at least in my case, may be
applicable to others.
Therefore: That we can control the amount of harm and death we cause to
animals -and vegetarians cause less harm -and death than meat-eaters -and in
my case morals and standards of decency are promoted, other people *may* be
likewise moral if they reduce the amount of death and suffering their
behavior can contribute to animals.
Jonathan Ball
EXACTLY right! You obviously "get" the weird,
obsessive Search for Micrograms.
If you are a health or environment oriented vegetarian,
no intelligent omnivore attacks you, anyway. One of
the most perceptive and intelligent opponents of the
self-righteous, sanctimonious "vegans"/"aras" in
a.a.e.v. was a vegetarian named Martin Martens; alas,
he no longer participates. Martin can't eat meat
because of a dangerous allergic reaction to it.
>
> http://www.vegan.com/faq.php
>
> -Kimberly, who just had this discussion at dinner last night when her
> companion called her a vegan.
Take heart. There are those of us who are opposed to
"ar", and its dietary expression of "veganism", who
*do* know the difference.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3EF5E686...@whitehouse.not...
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3EF4C63C...@whitehouse.not...
>>>
>>>
>>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
>>>>subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>>>
>>>ALL? That'll take some proving. You're sunk before
>>>you've started.
>>>
>>
> You failed to address this. How do you intend to prove
> ALL vegans believe what you say they believe, even
> though the one's here tell you you are wrong?
ONES, you illiterate fuck; not "one's". The plural of
"one" is "ones".
It isn't worth addressing. The ONES who tell me I'm
wrong are clearly lying. YOU for example: you have
claimed you lead a "death free 'lifestyle'", merely due
to being "vegan". Thus, you clearly believe in the
fallacious argument: you believe that because you
don't eat meat, you don't cause any harm to animals.
Note, shitbag: you have also EXPLICITLY said that you
don't cause any harm to animals EVEN THOUGH animals are
killed to produce and distribute your food.
>
>
>>>> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>>>
>>>Fallacy of the beard.
>>
>>[snip misrepresentation of the "vegans'" first premise]
>>
>>It is not a "fallacy of the beard", Dreck. You clearly
>>don't know what you're talking about.
>>
>
> Snipping my evidence that proves my refutation to
> be correct won't improve your position.
[snip inapplicable crap]
You haven't presented any "evidence" of anything except
your misunderstanding.
>
>
>>>This completely ruins your first premise,
>>
>>It isn't my premise. It is the "vegans'" premise; ALL
>>of them.
>>
>
> Show your evidence.
There's a passage from "The High Window", one of
Raymond Chandler's "Philip Marlowe" stories. A
detective named Jesse Breeze (love Chandler's character
names, eh?) is telling Marlowe something he knows about
a murder case. Marlowe asks him how he knows it. "I
know it," Breeze said, spreading his hands. "Look,
there are things you know because you have them down in
black and white. And there are things you know because
they are reasonable and have to be so."
Dreck, this is one of those things that everyone knows
is true because it is reasonable and has to be so.
Move on, Dreck.
>
>
>>>and there's
>>>another problem with it that you should know about.
>>>If your premise states "If x, then y", "y" must follow in
>>>all cases. It must follow "x" every time without any
>>>exeptions.
>>
>>False.
>
>
> To say that q is a "necessary component" of p is to mean
> that if one has p one must also have q, that is: "if p then q".
> http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/index.html
>
> You need to study.
You need to learn about context.
>
>
>>>Eating meat doesn't always cause harm to
>>>animals, so your premise, "If I eat meat, I cause harm
>>>to animals" is bogus.
>>
>>It isn't, as I have explained before. The premise is
>>true, as it applies to the typical "vegan".
>>
>
> The premise is false as it stands in its own right irrespective
> of what you might try applying it to.
The premise is true as a would-be "vegan" considers his
options.
> It's a false premise,
It is a true premise.
> and you have admitted it,
Nope. Not in the one-size-fits-all erroneous sense you
are trying to give it. It is false as a strict
statement, but a strict statement is not the correct
context.
> even after initially lying by stating
> it was true for all these years. You're nailed.
It *is* true, as a "vegan" considers his options.
Anyway, if you really want to get bogged down in an
argument of the truth of the premise, you need to argue
with the "vegans" who believe the argument, not with
me. Other opponents of "ar" and "veganism" have
attacked the argument on the same grounds you are. I
personally feel it's a mistake, because the premise
*is* true, in the relevant context.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:3EF4C63C...@whitehouse.not...
>
>>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.
>>
>
>
> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> I do not eat meat but work at a slaughter-house;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals except when at work.
>
> LOL
> ---------------------------
>
> 1. If I eat meat, I cause *more* harm to animals than if I don't
If "vegans" really approached it this way, we would not
observe the weird, obsessive Search for Micrograms. If
they really approached it this way, they would not eat
meat, and they wouldn't wear leather or wool, and they
wouldn't *buy* honey and milk and eggs to eat. But
they wouldn't OBSESS with ensuring that they extirpate
the last few molecules of those things from their diet.
They wouldn't, for example, as the stupid broad
"Runny" did in alt.food.vegan, stop eating black olives
because she had heard, unreliably, that the juice in
which they are canned contains octopus ink.
Sorry; this idea that "vegans" think they are causing
*less* harm, rather than no harm, is inconsistent with
Immortalist
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
How would one show how much harm is being done? Would this method ensure
that (some or no) harm is being done? How would a belief that *no* harm is
being done to animals because of a particular lifestyle, be completely
justified and remove *all* chance for error?
http://www-philosophy.ucdavis.edu/phi102/tkch3.htm
Jonathan Ball
Good question. Unfortunately, it's a question that
"vegans" NEVER attempt to answer.
> Would this method ensure
> that (some or no) harm is being done? How would a belief that *no* harm is
> being done to animals because of a particular lifestyle, be completely
> justified and remove *all* chance for error?
I think you're asking the wrong person.
>
> http://www-philosophy.ucdavis.edu/phi102/tkch3.htm
>
>
Immortalist
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
Maybe this is the crucial question that when addressed could move this
debate off the ground.
> > Would this method ensure
> > that (some or no) harm is being done? How would a belief that *no* harm
is
> > being done to animals because of a particular lifestyle, be completely
> > justified and remove *all* chance for error?
>
> I think you're asking the wrong person.
>
Does this mean you are the wrong person to ask one about their strong faith
in completely justified beliefs?
> >
> > http://www-philosophy.ucdavis.edu/phi102/tkch3.htm
> >
> >
>
>
Graham Burnett
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> Graham Burnett wrote:
> > whatever
>
> Graham, I've had surprisingly fruitful discussions with
> you in the past, and I hardly consider you the typical
> fanatical "vegan". So why don't you try to answer the
> overall question? Why DO "vegan", virtually all of
> them, engage in this weird, obsessive Search for
> Micrograms?
>
Sorry I was drunk. It just struck me that the same old things go round a
round here like a merry go round, same old issues and arguements, nobody
ever listens to anybody anyway so what's the point? Lifes too short, I'm
busy enjoying the garden at the moment and quaffing plenty of summer ales...
i feel much better for it than rehashing the same old same old on these news
groups. it kind of feels like a healthier way of spending time as well, not
that my waistline would agree... ;-)
Cheers Graham
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>
>>>>>
>>>>>1. If I eat meat, I cause *more* harm to animals than if I don't
>>>>
>>>>If "vegans" really approached it this way, we would not
>>>>observe the weird, obsessive Search for Micrograms. If
>>>>they really approached it this way, they would not eat
>>>>meat, and they wouldn't wear leather or wool, and they
>>>>wouldn't *buy* honey and milk and eggs to eat. But
>>>>they wouldn't OBSESS with ensuring that they extirpate
>>>>the last few molecules of those things from their diet.
>>>> They wouldn't, for example, as the stupid broad
>>>>"Runny" did in alt.food.vegan, stop eating black olives
>>>>because she had heard, unreliably, that the juice in
>>>>which they are canned contains octopus ink.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry; this idea that "vegans" think they are causing
>>>>*less* harm, rather than no harm, is inconsistent with
>>>>the weird, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>How would one show how much harm is being done?
>>
>>Good question. Unfortunately, it's a question that
>>"vegans" NEVER attempt to answer.
>>
>
>
> Maybe this is the crucial question that when addressed could move this
> debate off the ground.
You'll turn cyanotic if you hold your breath waiting
for an answer. It has been posed repeatedly, and the
"vegan" never even attempt to answer it.
>
>
>>>Would this method ensure
>>>that (some or no) harm is being done? How would a belief that *no* harm
>>>is being done to animals because of a particular lifestyle, be completely
>>>justified and remove *all* chance for error?
>>
>>I think you're asking the wrong person.
>>
>
>
> Does this mean you are the wrong person to ask one about their strong faith
> in completely justified beliefs?
Probably not. I suppose you could reasonably pose that
question to anyone. It would be a complete change of
topic in the thread, though.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:3EF5232B...@whitehouse.not...
>
>>Graham Burnett wrote:
>>
>>>whatever
>>
>>Graham, I've had surprisingly fruitful discussions with
>>you in the past, and I hardly consider you the typical
>>fanatical "vegan". So why don't you try to answer the
>>overall question? Why DO "vegan", virtually all of
>>them, engage in this weird, obsessive Search for
>>Micrograms?
>>
>
>
> Sorry I was drunk.
Oh; okay. I had a decent quantity of wine a little
later, too.
> It just struck me that the same old things go round a
> round here like a merry go round, same old issues and arguements, nobody
> ever listens to anybody anyway so what's the point? Lifes too short, I'm
> busy enjoying the garden at the moment and quaffing plenty of summer ales...
> i feel much better for it than rehashing the same old same old on these news
> groups. it kind of feels like a healthier way of spending time as well, not
> that my waistline would agree... ;-)
Get a bicycle. Of course, then you'll just drink even
more ale.
>
> Cheers Graham
>
>
Kimberly
> Kimberly wrote:
> If you are a health or environment oriented vegetarian,
> no intelligent omnivore attacks you, anyway.
>>>>
They do in small towns. I live in Southeast Alaska. We get an influx of
19-year-old handkerchief heads in the summertime on the ultimate quest for a
spiritual awakening. They hand out pamphlets and preach about the timber
industry like they know what the f*ck they are talking about. They sit in
the restaurants and drill the poor servers on the content of every
ingredient in every dish on the menu. They don't shower for four months,
then they hop on the ferry and pollute their way back down to Seattle which
is INFINITELY more environmentally pure than our rainforest.
Don't get me wrong, I love animals. I love nature. Hell, I wouldn't have a
dog and live here if I didn't. I have no problem with people feeling more
passionately about these issues than I, either. I *do* have a problem with
idiots who make unfounded sweeping judgments and cram them down everybody's
throat. I *do* have a problem with holier-than-thou attitudes, no matter
what the cause. Over in alt.culture.alaska there is a gentleman in Barrow
who constantly has to defend his occupation of whaling. They kill a few
whales and this gets the entire community through the winter. The whales
live a better (and freer!) life than most cows, pigs, chickens, etc. I just
don't get it.
Oh, well. Crazy world.
-Kimberly
Dutch
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
[..]
> > >>Sorry; this idea that "vegans" think they are causing
> > >>*less* harm, rather than no harm, is inconsistent with
> > >>the weird, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > How would one show how much harm is being done?
> >
> > Good question. Unfortunately, it's a question that
> > "vegans" NEVER attempt to answer.
> >
>
> Maybe this is the crucial question that when addressed could move this
> debate off the ground.
This debate *is* well off the ground, at least the "anti" side is.
ARA/vegans believe, religiously, that it is *wrong* to use animals as
commodities. The problem is, ARA/vegans *argue* (debate) based on the false
premise that such use is defacto *bad*. The confusion caused by this
mixed-up approach is evident. The total inability to explain this obsessive
avoidance of micrograms is just one example. I know why vegans obsessively
avoid micrograms, but I'll be damned if I'm going to tell you. You should be
able to get it yourself now.
[..]
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> 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.
>
>
Better still ~~Jonnie~~ answer Dereks post, you low life, woman stalking
coward.
>
Karl Hungus
"Ray" <camco...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:rM4Ja.1233$nG4...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > I look forward to reading alternate explanations.
> >
> P.S. Somebody earlier was talking about crossposting.
>
> Now get those stolen plants watered, most likely you also pinched the
> fucking hosepipe.
Translation: I have been stymied, therefore I will resort to ad hominem.
Karl Hungus
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>
>
Throwing down this red herring certainly isn't very vegan of you . . .
rick etter
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vfbteei...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:3EF4C63C...@whitehouse.not...
> > 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.
> >
>
> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> I do not eat meat but work at a slaughter-house;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals except when at work.
>
> LOL
> ---------------------------
>
> 1. If I eat meat, I cause *more* harm to animals than if I don't
False.
>
> 2. I do not consciously eat meat though injesting -some- meat products,
> without my knowledge, is occaisionally likely.
==============
More than likely, plus your whole lifestyle is built on the bodies of
animals you kill for nothing more than entertainment and selfishness.
>
> 3. [Therefore]: I cause *less* harm to animals than those who regularly
> consume animal meat and products.
===============
False, again. No matter how many times you repeat it, it won't magically
come true.
>
> 4. That I cause less harm to animals satisfies my own ethical standards of
> decency.
===============
But you don't. You don't even reallytry to eliminate/reduce unnecesary
animal death and suffering. You prove that with every inane post to usenet
to preach your hypocrisy.
>
> 5. I desire to cause as little suffering and death in animals as is
> logically possible in my life.
==============
You're falling far short of that, bucko. Actually, since you're here you
prove that all you do is pay lip service to your religion.
>
> 6. [Therefore]: in at least my case, being a vegetarian is the moral and
> decent thing to do.
=================
You haven't shown that yet, killer.
>
> 7. That this is a moral and decent lifstyle, at least in my case, may be
> applicable to others.
==================
And eating meat can and is a moral and decent lifestyle too. And, it's
applicable to everyone.
>
> Therefore: That we can control the amount of harm and death we cause to
> animals -and vegetarians cause less harm -and death than meat-eaters
================
False, again, stupid. You have never been able to prove this little tidbit
of delusion. But give it a try, many have failed before you, maybe you'll
get lucky somehow, eh killer?
rick etter
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
snippage...
> > >
> > > How would one show how much harm is being done?
> >
> > Good question. Unfortunately, it's a question that
> > "vegans" NEVER attempt to answer.
> >
>
> Maybe this is the crucial question that when addressed could move this
> debate off the ground.
==================
Give it a go. It's been asked, repeatedly. No one has yet to prove their
little lys and delusions.
snips...
Miller
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:Oj8Ja.4081$Ly2.7...@cletus.bright.net...
>
>
>
>
> > > I look forward to reading alternate explanations.
> >
> > fallacious argument: Namely, that you think you know specifics about
being
> a
> > vegetarian, and that all vegetarians are the same. Vegan obsessive
search
> > for micrograms? Oh yeah, right, we have so many of those where I live
you
> > have to be careful one does not trip over them while shopping at the
mall.
> Google yourself for awhile. You'll see just the sort of thing right here.
> An obsesssive concern for even the possiblility that some small portion of
a
> food might have been touched by an animal product. Look up olives for a
> start. That was a real hoot! Squid ink used to dye the olives.
>
>
>
>
> > Then you go on to build a silly straw-man argument that ends up equating
> > "veganism" (whatever the hell that is) with a religion. What nonsense.
> No, it's not. It's far closer to religion that you'd like to let on.
What
> it isn't is 'just a diet'.
>
>
> >
> > Many vegetarians, like myself, are really not that concerned about
animals
> > who are raised like corn or apples to be consumed by humans. We just do
> not
> > like to eat meat, is all.
> hen the post wasn't about you, was it? Try again, with comprhension this
> time. VEGANS was the subject, and yes, they do make a big deal, to
extremes
> about any small part of micrograms of animal product in their food.
>
>
>
> People are entitled to their tastes, I think, as
> > long as they do not harm others. If you like to eat meat by all means
do
> > so. I really do not understand why many people apparently have this
> > driving, prejudicial need to attack what they do not understand. Is it
> diet
> > insecurity, or what? I mean, get over it already.
> Nope, it's not about a diet at all. It's about the sanctimonious
> blatherings and hatred by those that would tell others what they can or
> cannot eat if they were given the chance. Check out some of the more
ardent
> vegan loons around, you'll see that they would decide what anyone can eat,
> or not.
>
>
Thanks for the clarification. Just as long as we are not painting with a
broad brush, eh? I still say that these Vegan-types are few and far
between. (I would disagree with thinking all vegetarians are like this just
as much as I would disagree that all members of the DNR are planning on
bombing FBI buildings.)
Scott
Miller
> "Miller" <chumley7...@chartermi.net> wrote
> >
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> 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.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > From your first sentence, I can see that you subscribe to a logically
> > fallacious argument: Namely, that you think you know specifics about
being
> a
> > vegetarian, and that all vegetarians are the same.
>
newsgroups.
> The post is about "vegans", not vegetarians.
>
> Vegan obsessive search
> > for micrograms? Oh yeah, right, we have so many of those where I live
you
> > have to be careful one does not trip over them while shopping at the
mall.
>
>
> > Then you go on to build a silly straw-man argument that ends up equating
> > "veganism" (whatever the hell that is) with a religion. What nonsense.
>
>
> > Many vegetarians, like myself, are really not that concerned about
animals
> > who are raised like corn or apples to be consumed by humans. We just do
> not
> as
> > long as they do not harm others. If you like to eat meat by all means
do
> > so. I really do not understand why many people apparently have this
> > driving, prejudicial need to attack what they do not understand. Is it
> diet
> > insecurity, or what? I mean, get over it already.
>
>
I apoligize for confusing the use of the term vegan with vegetarian. For
the rest of your post, just forget it, its not worth it.
Scott
rick etter
Glad you see we're not 'attacking' you. If you read closely, you'll see
that no one serious is objecting to veggie diets. Hell, everybody eats
veggies. Even the 'typical american' diet that gets blasted by vegan loons
is predominantly veggie. Veganism however is not about a diet. It's a
lifestyle, taken by many here on usenet as much a faith as any religion.
Jonathan Ball
>>
>>
>
>
> Thanks for the clarification. Just as long as we are not painting with a
> broad brush, eh? I still say that these Vegan-types are few and far
> between.
They are indeed a tiny minority within a small
minority. Only about 15% of all vegetarians are "vegans".
> (I would disagree with thinking all vegetarians are like this just
> as much as I would disagree that all members of the DNR are planning on
> bombing FBI buildings.)
But I never suggested that all vegetarians are like
this. I was explicitly talking only about "vegans".
JethroUK©
I take it you're stumped :o)
"...There's no reason to bear this factlette in mind, "Jethro"..."
There is if you expect to answer the simple question
"...You're done. I doesn't really matter what fuckwitted UK
shit-for-brains is pretending to adopt Fuckwit Jethro Harrison's "getting to
experience life" argument, you're done...."
i'll have to take it you're a vegan & and i blew any argument out of the
water with this simple observation - expect you feel like a cheeseburger
wtfx Jethro Harrison ?
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3EF5EFB3...@whitehouse.not...
JethroUK©
end up in a hamburger
Would vegans prefer these animals never have a life at all?
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3EF65318...@whitehouse.not...
JethroUK©
end up in a hamburger
Would vegans prefer these animals never have a life at all?
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3EF5227...@whitehouse.not...
> Miller wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > news:3EF4C63C...@whitehouse.not...
> >>I look forward to reading alternate explanations.
> >
> >
> > From your first sentence, I can see that you subscribe to a logically
> > fallacious argument: Namely, that you think you know specifics about
being a
> > vegetarian, and that all vegetarians are the same.
>
> Nope. You don't know that at all. I specifically and
> explicitly limited it to "vegans", not all vegetarians.
> You can't read, can you?
>
> > Vegan obsessive search for micrograms?
>
> Yes. You've heard of it before, perhaps?
>
> > Oh yeah, right, we have so many of those where I live you
> > have to be careful one does not trip over them while shopping at the
mall.
> > Then you go on to build a silly straw-man argument that ends up equating
> > "veganism" (whatever the hell that is) with a religion. What nonsense.
>
> It isn't nonsense, and my equation of it with religion
> can hardly constitute a strawman. Clearly, you don't
> know what a strawman argument is.
>
> >
> > Many vegetarians, like myself,
>
> Aha! NOW the shrill defensiveness comes into a fuller
> context.
>
> > are really not that concerned about animals
> > who are raised like corn or apples to be consumed by humans. We just do
not
> > like to eat meat, is all.
>
> So you're not a "vegan", but you have some measure of
> attraction to their, er, "cause".
>
> > People are entitled to their tastes, I think, as
> > long as they do not harm others.
>
> Not at issue.
>
> > If you like to eat meat by all means do
> > so. I really do not understand why many people apparently have this
> > driving, prejudicial need to attack what they do not understand.
>
> Now, THERE is a strawman.
>
> > Is it diet
> > insecurity, or what? I mean, get over it already.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
>
>
JethroUK©
end up in a hamburger
Would vegans prefer these animals never have a life at all?
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3EF5F5D5...@whitehouse.not...
JethroUK©
end up in a hamburger
Would vegans prefer these animals never have a life at all?
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3EF5F7E3...@whitehouse.not...
JethroUK©
end up in a hamburger
Would vegans prefer these animals never have a life at all?
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3EF61736...@whitehouse.not...
JethroUK©
end up in a hamburger
Would vegans prefer these animals never have a life at all?
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3EF6178C...@whitehouse.not...
JethroUK©
end up in a hamburger
Would vegans prefer these animals never have a life at all?
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3EF5E4FA...@whitehouse.not...
> turk wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > news:3EF53480...@whitehouse.not...
> >
> >>Isabelle wrote:
> >>
> >>>who says all vegans subscribe to this? i certainly don't, and no vegan
i
> >>>know does either. the whole point is to minimize suffering as much as
we
> >>>can, and NOT eliminate responsibility.
> >>
> >>But of course, you ARE NOT minimizing suffering as much
> >>as you can, *merely* by eschewing meat. You could
> >>easily reduce the suffering you cause by a more
> >>judicious choice of vegetables.
> >>
> >>How much rice do you eat?
> >>
> >>
> >>>i don't think you know any vegans
> >>>personally, do you?
> >>
> >>Yes, I do. A good half dozen, personally. There are
> >>also those I "know" through contact in usenet.
> >>
> >>
> >>>get your facts together, mister.
> >>
> >>I have done. How about you? How much collateral death
> >>do you cause?
> >
> >
> > And why do you feel so personally threatened by vegans? Guilt?
>
> No.
>
> > Fear that they may be right?
>
> Hardly.
>
> > Must be rough waking up screaming in the night fearing
> > that vegans could actually change the world...
>
> No, I don't really think they could. They *want* to
> change it, though, and their only method for changing
> it is murderous tyranny. All "vegans" are fascists at
> heart, and some of them much more openly.
>
JethroUK©
end up in a hamburger
Would vegans prefer these animals never have a life at all?
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3EF5E493...@whitehouse.not...
> turk wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > news:3EF53480...@whitehouse.not...
> >
> >>Isabelle wrote:
> >>
> >>>who says all vegans subscribe to this? i certainly don't, and no vegan
i
> >>>know does either. the whole point is to minimize suffering as much as
we
> >>>can, and NOT eliminate responsibility.
> >>
> >>But of course, you ARE NOT minimizing suffering as much
> >>as you can, *merely* by eschewing meat. You could
> >>easily reduce the suffering you cause by a more
> >>judicious choice of vegetables.
> >>
> >>How much rice do you eat?
> >>
> >>
> >>>i don't think you know any vegans
> >>>personally, do you?
> >>
> >>Yes, I do. A good half dozen, personally. There are
> >>also those I "know" through contact in usenet.
> >>
> >>
> >>>get your facts together, mister.
> >>
> >>I have done. How about you? How much collateral death
> >>do you cause?
> >
> >
> > Bottom line: who causes more environmental damage, meat eaters or
vegans?
>
> Why is that the "bottom line"?
>
> >
> > Answer that, nitwit.
>
> According to your fellow "vegan" loons, the answer
> would be neither; the farmers are the ones who cause
> the damage.
>
Ray
"JethroUK©" <re...@the.board> wrote in message
news:GKvJa.2185$yw5....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> Bearing in mind the *fact* that the live stock concerned were only ever
born
> end up in a hamburger
>
> Would vegans prefer these animals never have a life at all?
Ask David Harrison
JethroUK©
pssssst! who's david harrison ?
"Ray" <camco...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:DWzJa.2279$nG4...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
Jonathan Ball
> "..Ask David Harrison.."
>
> pssssst! who's david harrison ?
The one you're knowingly mimicking by advancing his
"getting to experience life" argument while using the
nickname "Jethro".
Now fuck off.
JethroUK©
know what you're talking about, *i* dont know what *you're* talking about
either hahahahaha (prolly no one else either)
if you cant be objective why bother posting - u still cant answer simple
question???? or has it blown you out the water in one single sentence lol -
i didn't think it was so difficult myself - well nuffin the average 20 year
old couldn't get their head round :o)
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3EF7124F...@whitehouse.not...
Dutch
> Bearing in mind the *fact* that the live stock concerned were only
ever born
> end up in a hamburger
Yes. So what?
> Would vegans prefer these animals never have a life at all?
Yes. So what?
JethroUK©
or no - it's not a test
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:vfef3te...@news.supernews.com...
> "JethroUKŠ" <re...@the.board> wrote
Graham Burnett
>
> Get a bicycle. Of course, then you'll just drink even
> more ale.
>
Already got one- I cycle to and from work every day, which is about 6 miles
daily... however in this hot weather the bike has a tendency to veer into
pub car parks on the way home....
Dutch
> So answer the question is all?
OK, I did.
> (only if you're a vegan of course)
Why must I be a vegan to answer a question?
just yes
> or no - it's not a test
What is the alleged significance of the question?
Please respond inline, top-posting is rude.
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:vfef3te...@news.supernews.com...
> > "JethroUK©" <re...@the.board> wrote
Immortalist
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> Immortalist wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> >
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>1. If I eat meat, I cause *more* harm to animals than if I don't
> >>>>
> >>>>If "vegans" really approached it this way, we would not
> >>>>observe the weird, obsessive Search for Micrograms. If
> >>>>they really approached it this way, they would not eat
> >>>>meat, and they wouldn't wear leather or wool, and they
> >>>>wouldn't *buy* honey and milk and eggs to eat. But
> >>>>they wouldn't OBSESS with ensuring that they extirpate
> >>>>the last few molecules of those things from their diet.
> >>>> They wouldn't, for example, as the stupid broad
> >>>>"Runny" did in alt.food.vegan, stop eating black olives
> >>>>because she had heard, unreliably, that the juice in
> >>>>which they are canned contains octopus ink.
> >>>>
> >>>>Sorry; this idea that "vegans" think they are causing
> >>>>*less* harm, rather than no harm, is inconsistent with
> >>>>the weird, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>How would one show how much harm is being done?
> >>
> >>Good question. Unfortunately, it's a question that
> >>"vegans" NEVER attempt to answer.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Maybe this is the crucial question that when addressed could move this
> > debate off the ground.
>
> You'll turn cyanotic if you hold your breath waiting
> for an answer. It has been posed repeatedly, and the
> "vegan" never even attempt to answer it.
>
Then you could just ask that question whenever the debate got boring since
the vegan will become silent?
> >
> >
> >>>Would this method ensure
> >>>that (some or no) harm is being done? How would a belief that *no* harm
> >>>is being done to animals because of a particular lifestyle, be
completely
> >>>justified and remove *all* chance for error?
> >>
> >>I think you're asking the wrong person.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Does this mean you are the wrong person to ask one about their strong
faith
> > in completely justified beliefs?
>
> Probably not. I suppose you could reasonably pose that
> question to anyone. It would be a complete change of
> topic in the thread, though.
>
"He who asserts, must defend!"
Actually it is not changing the subject if you ask how someone supports or
what evidence they can provide to back up their claim. It is merely a
response or request for the proof of such assertions someone made to you. It
is to the point not beside the point.
Immortalist
"JethroUK©" <re...@the.board> wrote in message
> Bearing in mind the *fact* that the live stock concerned were only ever
born
> end up in a hamburger
>
> Would vegans prefer these animals never have a life at all?
>
Fallacy: False Dilemma
Also Known as: Black & White Thinking.
Description of False Dilemma
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of
"reasoning":
Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be
false).
Claim Y is false.
Therefore claim X is true.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be
false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is
false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:
Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
It is not the case that 1+1=4.
Therefore 1+1=12.
In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this
line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:
Bill is dead or he is alive.
Bill is not dead.
Therefore Bill is alive.
Examples of False Dilemma
Senator Jill: "We'll have to cut education funding this year."
Senator Bill: "Why?"
Senator Jill: "Well, either we cut the social programs or we live with a
huge deficit and we can't live with the deficit."
Bill: "Jill and I both support having prayer in public schools."
Jill: "Hey, I never said that!"
Bill: "You're not an atheist are you Jill?"
"Look, you are going to have to make up your mind. Either you decide that
you can afford this stereo, or you decide you are going to do without music
for a while."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html
Immortalist
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
> [..]
>
> > > >>Sorry; this idea that "vegans" think they are causing
> > > >>*less* harm, rather than no harm, is inconsistent with
> > > >>the weird, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > How would one show how much harm is being done?
> > >
> > > Good question. Unfortunately, it's a question that
> > > "vegans" NEVER attempt to answer.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe this is the crucial question that when addressed could move this
> > debate off the ground.
>
>
But "Jonathan Ball" claims that "vegans" NEVER attempt to answer" the
question: [How would one show how much harm is being done?]
Therefore this debate has stalled.
> ARA/vegans believe, religiously, that it is *wrong* to use animals as
> commodities. The problem is, ARA/vegans *argue* (debate) based on the
false
> premise that such use is defacto *bad*. The confusion caused by this
> mixed-up approach is evident. The total inability to explain this
obsessive
> avoidance of micrograms is just one example. I know why vegans obsessively
> avoid micrograms, but I'll be damned if I'm going to tell you. You should
be
> able to get it yourself now.
>
Do vegans want to stop percieved wrong behavior at least as much as they can
or do they imagine that they can stop percieved wrong behavior completely
with no chance that they performed the wrong?
Please tell me so you will seem to be dammed; what is avoiding micrograms,
prey tell?
>
> [..]
>
>
Immortalist
Should they try to reduce the problem as much as they can or should they try
to remove the problem completely, the rights of others be dammed?
>
> snips...
>
>
Immortalist
> >
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
> > > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
> > >
> > >
> > > I do not eat meat;
> > >
> > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
> > >
> >
> > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
> >
> >
> > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals except when at work.
> >
> > LOL
> > ---------------------------
> >
> > 1. If I eat meat, I cause *more* harm to animals than if I don't
> False.
>
If I kill animals in many ways because of society and lifestyle, and I stop
eating animals I contribute less to animal death than I did when I ate meat
and killed animals in other ways. In this way if I quit eating meat I only
kill animals in those other ways because of my participation in society and
my lifestyle.
I say 3 - 2 = 1
You say 3 -2 is not equal to 0
>
> >
> > 2. I do not consciously eat meat though injesting -some- meat products,
> > without my knowledge, is occaisionally likely.
> ==============
> More than likely, plus your whole lifestyle is built on the bodies of
> animals you kill for nothing more than entertainment and selfishness.
>
Why should the quantifier "likely" be modified to "more than likely" when
both are contained within the set of likelihood. Sounds like an attempt to
change or propose my meaning.
This attempt sometime succeeds distracting from the premise "it is likely
the case that" making the premise appear not enough.
>
> >
> > 3. [Therefore]: I cause *less* harm to animals than those who regularly
> > consume animal meat and products.
> ===============
> False, again. No matter how many times you repeat it, it won't magically
> come true.
>
Can you show evidence for your belief that all people cause the same amount
of death and suffering all the time and eliminate any logically possible
counter-example showing a difference in degrees of harm by changes in
lifestyle?
If I have killed three rabbits a night for dinner and change to two rabbits
a night has this change produced any less suffering and death?
>
> >
> > 4. That I cause less harm to animals satisfies my own ethical standards
of
> > decency.
> ===============
> But you don't. You don't even reallytry to eliminate/reduce unnecesary
> animal death and suffering. You prove that with every inane post to
usenet
> to preach your hypocrisy.
>
What defines an attempt at causing less harm? I can change from eating 3
rabbits a night to 2 rabbits a night and keep producing death by other
lifestyle ways constant, and still have produced less harm than killing 3
rabbits a night. I make no claim to having had *eliminated all harm. Is this
what you are trying to make my words say?
>
> >
> > 5. I desire to cause as little suffering and death in animals as is
> > logically possible in my life.
> ==============
> You're falling far short of that, bucko. Actually, since you're here you
> prove that all you do is pay lip service to your religion.
>
I eat only 2 rabbits a night now and continue with other lifstyle ways that
I don't percieve as logically necessary for removal. You creating false
dilemmas and trying to cast everything in black and white when there are
shades of grey inbetween.
>
>
> >
> > 6. [Therefore]: in at least my case, being a vegetarian is the moral and
> > decent thing to do.
> =================
> You haven't shown that yet, killer.
>
You havn't supported you claim that I havn't shown that when I clearly have
shown that our lifstyle can alter the degree of harm we contribute to, by
eat 2 rabbits a night instead of three, while keeping lifestyle ways in a
control variable state.
>
> >
> > 7. That this is a moral and decent lifstyle, at least in my case, may be
> > applicable to others.
> ==================
> And eating meat can and is a moral and decent lifestyle too. And, it's
> applicable to everyone.
>
That a morally decent lifestyle can be considered applicable to others is
true like I intimate in what you responded to as one example along with
propositions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
>
> >
> > Therefore: That we can control the amount of harm and death we cause to
> > animals -and vegetarians cause less harm -and death than meat-eaters
> ================
> False, again, stupid.
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or
"against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author
of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy
involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making
the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character,
circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this
attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in
question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the
following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the
character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have
a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of
the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say
that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I
can't believe what you say."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
> You have never been able to prove this little tidbit
> of delusion. But give it a try, many have failed before you, maybe you'll
> get lucky somehow, eh killer?
>
If I kill 2 rabbits when I used to kill 3 rabbits a night and I keep other
aspects of my lifestyle the same, I cause less harm and death. It's not a
matter of luck or name calling which only make your argument obviously
weaker but more appealing to people treated roughly by their parents at
critical stages. It's a matter of mathematics; 2 rabbits is less than 3
rabbits.
>
> -and in
> > my case morals and standards of decency are promoted, other people *may*
> be
> > likewise moral if they reduce the amount of death and suffering their
> > behavior can contribute to animals.
Dutch
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:IvpJa.261029$3C2.7...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > >
> > > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
> > [..]
> >
> > > > >>Sorry; this idea that "vegans" think they are causing
> > > > >>*less* harm, rather than no harm, is inconsistent with
> > > > >>the weird, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > How would one show how much harm is being done?
> > > >
> > > > Good question. Unfortunately, it's a question that
> > > > "vegans" NEVER attempt to answer.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Maybe this is the crucial question that when addressed could move
this
> > > debate off the ground.
> >
> > This debate *is* well off the ground, at least the "anti" side is.
> >
>
> But "Jonathan Ball" claims that "vegans" NEVER attempt to answer" the
> question: [How would one show how much harm is being done?]
The proposition in question (seeing beginning of thread) is that vegans
begin by believing in the stated fallacy. I believe this not only to be
true, but that the fallacy remains in control of the vegan's thought
processes even after a vegan has presumably rejected it.
> Therefore this debate has stalled.
The debate has stalled because the answer to the question is
unacceptable to vegans, so they cannot form it in their minds.
> > ARA/vegans believe, religiously, that it is *wrong* to use animals
as
> > commodities. The problem is, ARA/vegans *argue* (debate) based on
the
> false
> > premise that such use is defacto *bad*. The confusion caused by this
> > mixed-up approach is evident. The total inability to explain this
> obsessive
> > avoidance of micrograms is just one example. I know why vegans
obsessively
> > avoid micrograms, but I'll be damned if I'm going to tell you. You
should
> be
> > able to get it yourself now.
> >
>
> Do vegans want to stop percieved wrong behavior at least as much as
they can
Veganism *defines* wrong behaviour for you. It is the consumption of
products containing animal parts. Vegans hope to fulfil this mandate.
This mandate is not synonymous or parallel with the principle of
eliminating harm to animals, it is ONE approach, an approach with a
large flaw that vegans doggedly avoid confronting because it contradicts
the vegan presumption that non-vegans ought to be morally obligated to
follow this approach..
> or do they imagine that they can stop percieved wrong behavior
completely
> with no chance that they performed the wrong?
Vegans do not perceive the consumption of plant-based foods as wrong
behaviour at all, in spite of the inherent and massive harm to animals
associated with it. This is another clear indicator of the persistence
of the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent in vegan mentalities.
> Please tell me so you will seem to be dammed; what is avoiding
micrograms,
> prey tell?
Refusing to eat caesar salads with anchovy dressing, or worcester sauce,
or vitamins in gel capsules, or olives in (supposedly) octopus oil,
etc.. This drive to achieve perfection in the avoidance of infinitesimal
amounts of animal products tells a story of a mind that believes that
their diet is that close to perfect with respect to causing harm to
animals.
Dutch
[..]
> If I have killed three rabbits a night for dinner and change to two
rabbits
> a night has this change produced any less suffering and death?
What did you substitute for the third rabbit? Pasta? What was the
environmental cost of that? What if I eshewed the pasta and substituted
one rabbit?
-snip-
Immortalist
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:vfehshq...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:IvpJa.261029$3C2.7...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > > "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > >
> > > > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
> > > [..]
> > >
> > > > > >>Sorry; this idea that "vegans" think they are causing
> > > > > >>*less* harm, rather than no harm, is inconsistent with
> > > > > >>the weird, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How would one show how much harm is being done?
> > > > >
> > > > > Good question. Unfortunately, it's a question that
> > > > > "vegans" NEVER attempt to answer.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Maybe this is the crucial question that when addressed could move
> this
> > > > debate off the ground.
> > >
> > > This debate *is* well off the ground, at least the "anti" side is.
> > >
> >
> > But "Jonathan Ball" claims that "vegans" NEVER attempt to answer" the
> > question: [How would one show how much harm is being done?]
>
> The proposition in question (seeing beginning of thread) is that vegans
> begin by believing in the stated fallacy. I believe this not only to be
> true, but that the fallacy remains in control of the vegan's thought
> processes even after a vegan has presumably rejected it.
>
Do they believe they can stop ALL harm as possible? If they deny the
antecedent are they not claiming that they can eliminate ALL harm instead of
some or most harm?
> > Therefore this debate has stalled.
>
> The debate has stalled because the answer to the question is
> unacceptable to vegans, so they cannot form it in their minds.
>
You mean they can't pick a multiple choice set; none, some, all? If the
debate is stalled is it because they cannot defend what they propose?
> > > ARA/vegans believe, religiously, that it is *wrong* to use animals
> as
> > > commodities. The problem is, ARA/vegans *argue* (debate) based on
> the
> > false
> > > premise that such use is defacto *bad*. The confusion caused by this
> > > mixed-up approach is evident. The total inability to explain this
> > obsessive
> > > avoidance of micrograms is just one example. I know why vegans
> obsessively
> > > avoid micrograms, but I'll be damned if I'm going to tell you. You
> should
> > be
> > > able to get it yourself now.
> > >
> >
> > Do vegans want to stop percieved wrong behavior at least as much as
> they can
>
> Veganism *defines* wrong behaviour for you. It is the consumption of
> products containing animal parts. Vegans hope to fulfil this mandate.
> This mandate is not synonymous or parallel with the principle of
> eliminating harm to animals, it is ONE approach, an approach with a
> large flaw that vegans doggedly avoid confronting because it contradicts
> the vegan presumption that non-vegans ought to be morally obligated to
> follow this approach..
>
Vaganism is a legal activity as is eating some kinds of meat.
> > or do they imagine that they can stop percieved wrong behavior
> completely
> > with no chance that they performed the wrong?
>
> Vegans do not perceive the consumption of plant-based foods as wrong
> behaviour at all, in spite of the inherent and massive harm to animals
> associated with it. This is another clear indicator of the persistence
> of the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent in vegan mentalities.
>
Is this plant based harm a result of a change from one state of affairs to
another or are you saying that there is no possible situation in nature
where eating plants and not meat could be moral?
> > Please tell me so you will seem to be dammed; what is avoiding
> micrograms,
> > prey tell?
>
> Refusing to eat caesar salads with anchovy dressing, or worcester sauce,
> or vitamins in gel capsules, or olives in (supposedly) octopus oil,
> etc.. This drive to achieve perfection in the avoidance of infinitesimal
> amounts of animal products tells a story of a mind that believes that
> their diet is that close to perfect with respect to causing harm to
> animals.
>
We all have our likes and dislikes and try to get others to like or dislike
them at times.
Our standards of perfectionism or level of striving towards a goal seems to
vary amoungst individuals. Some people try and live in very clean
accomodations whiles others live in less such, when does one or the other
become pathological and what kind of standard would create a demarcation
between normal and pathological behavior.
>
>
Immortalist
Yes Pasta, often when we seek to achieve our goals we must start with some
priorities and proceed and then double back and try and meet other
complications.
If once I am in the habit of using 2 rabbits instead of three I percieve
that I directly kill one less rabbit than before while understanding that my
contribution through remote causation may increase or decrease. Then I would
compare the colateral death produced by various plant food production and
try and reduce the *amount* of collateral death that I can influence by my
personal choices.
Personally I have no problem with all this collateral death since I believe
we are not really out of the jungle yet, we just designed a human zoo where
we jerk our meats behind bars while wild animals walk by the cages looking
at us.
I still can't find moral equivalence between growing food to sustain
unnatural population levels of humans and some of these nasty factory farm
practices that legislators sometime make laws about.
>
>
K D B
At first I thought it might be Ray. I don't guess it is unless he's
started talking to himself.
Kevin
JethroUK©
waaaaaah...did someone else just walk in the room?- you mean the ol "when
you gonna stop beating your wife?" type question - ermmmmmmm think you're
looking to deep - it's just a simple question of opinion - course it goes
without saying you cant answer it anywayz if you're not a vegan
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vfehiha...@corp.supernews.com...
rick etter
I see you dodged the question, again. Why is that? You, and every other
vegan here has failed to show how you do anything to 'reduce' the supposed
problem. It's quite easy to show meat-included diets that have far less
impact than your commercial supermart oriented 'veagn' diet. So, come on,
answer the question. make a go of it!
>
> >
> > snips...
> >
> >
>
>
rick etter
It's the vegan that makes the spurious claims of saving animals. A claim
that none of them have ever been able to back up.
>
>
JethroUK©
you dont have to be a vegan to answer *a* question - but you obviously do to
answer *this* question since i'm tryna recruit the opinion of a vegan - i
already got the opinion of a non-vegan - an that's me!
"...What is the alleged significance of the question?..."
pretty apparent i'd say - we may find out more if it ever gets answered -
hell, no we wont, i gone right off the idea - i prolly revisit the idea when
the shits died down a bit :o)
"...Please respond inline, top-posting is rude...."
sorry if you think it's rude, but it isn't - every heard of
'current-most-first' ? - it's been in use for decades as the most efficient
filing system available today & since the advent of computers we can now
apply it to text - it's clear & concise, but that's another thread - if you
want to wade through the history (and i certainly dont), i have left it
there, totally intact for you - is that fair?
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:vfeh9cn...@news.supernews.com...
Dutch
In essence, yes. The only harm on their radar screen at inception is the
harm to farmed animals, others are just not factored into the equation. Look
back honestly at your own progression of thought and tell me if it's not
accurate.
> If they deny the
> antecedent are they not claiming that they can eliminate ALL harm instead
of
> some or most harm?
The possibility of *other* harm, not just to the farmed animal, is not even
contemplated at first. That's when the fallacy is committed. After other
harm is realized there still remain cognitive and behavioral remnants of the
fallacy, such as the search for micrograms, and the belief that meat is
immoral.
> > > Therefore this debate has stalled.
> >
> > The debate has stalled because the answer to the question is
> > unacceptable to vegans, so they cannot form it in their minds.
> >
>
> You mean they can't pick a multiple choice set; none, some, all? If the
> debate is stalled is it because they cannot defend what they propose?
The defense does not match the behaviour.
> > > > ARA/vegans believe, religiously, that it is *wrong* to use animals
> > as
> > > > commodities. The problem is, ARA/vegans *argue* (debate) based on
> > the
> > > false
> > > > premise that such use is defacto *bad*. The confusion caused by this
> > > > mixed-up approach is evident. The total inability to explain this
> > > obsessive
> > > > avoidance of micrograms is just one example. I know why vegans
> > obsessively
> > > > avoid micrograms, but I'll be damned if I'm going to tell you. You
> > should
> > > be
> > > > able to get it yourself now.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Do vegans want to stop percieved wrong behavior at least as much as
> > they can
> >
> > Veganism *defines* wrong behaviour for you. It is the consumption of
> > products containing animal parts. Vegans hope to fulfil this mandate.
> > This mandate is not synonymous or parallel with the principle of
> > eliminating harm to animals, it is ONE approach, an approach with a
> > large flaw that vegans doggedly avoid confronting because it contradicts
> > the vegan presumption that non-vegans ought to be morally obligated to
> > follow this approach..
> >
>
> Vaganism is a legal activity as is eating some kinds of meat.
Non-responsive and a strawman. Veganism does not fulfil the promise implied
by the obsessive search for micrograms.
> > > or do they imagine that they can stop percieved wrong behavior
> > completely
> > > with no chance that they performed the wrong?
> >
> > Vegans do not perceive the consumption of plant-based foods as wrong
> > behaviour at all, in spite of the inherent and massive harm to animals
> > associated with it. This is another clear indicator of the persistence
> > of the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent in vegan mentalities.
> >
>
> Is this plant based harm a result of a change from one state of affairs to
> another or are you saying that there is no possible situation in nature
> where eating plants and not meat could be moral?
There is no defacto situation in nature where eating anything is immoral.
Immoral eating habits are defined by laws, rights, ecological imperatives
and cultural taboos.
> > > Please tell me so you will seem to be dammed; what is avoiding
> > micrograms,
> > > prey tell?
> >
> > Refusing to eat caesar salads with anchovy dressing, or worcester sauce,
> > or vitamins in gel capsules, or olives in (supposedly) octopus oil,
> > etc.. This drive to achieve perfection in the avoidance of infinitesimal
> > amounts of animal products tells a story of a mind that believes that
> > their diet is that close to perfect with respect to causing harm to
> > animals.
> >
>
> We all have our likes and dislikes and try to get others to like or
dislike
> them at times.
Argumentum ad Populum
> Our standards of perfectionism or level of striving towards a goal seems
to
> vary amoungst individuals.
So do our levels of tolerance. Vegans typically have little tolerance for
anyone who chooses a contradictory path to the vegan pattern.
> Some people try and live in very clean
> accomodations whiles others live in less such, when does one or the other
> become pathological and what kind of standard would create a demarcation
> between normal and pathological behavior.
That implies that veganism is somehow cleaner than omnivorism, another
subliminal message that vegans give off that mark them as the singular most
sanctimonious twits in existence.
rick etter
>
> "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:zfrJa.4114$Ly2.7...@cletus.bright.net...
> >
> > "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:vfbteei...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > > news:3EF4C63C...@whitehouse.not...
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
> > >
> > > I do not eat meat but work at a slaughter-house;
> > >
> > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals except when at work.
> > >
> > > LOL
> > > ---------------------------
> > >
> > > 1. If I eat meat, I cause *more* harm to animals than if I don't
> > ===============\\\
> > False.
> >
>
> If I kill animals in many ways because of society and lifestyle, and I
stop
> eating animals I contribute less to animal death than I did when I ate
meat
> and killed animals in other ways.
No, you did not automatically do this. the calories you substituted with
veggies, 100s of 1000s of calories that could be gotten from the death of
only one animal, had to be replced with your monocultured crops. Every
stage of production of which causes animal death and suffering. Again, you
make a claim that you cannot back up. It's the vegan ly and delusion game.
In this way if I quit eating meat I only
> kill animals in those other ways because of my participation in society
and
> my lifestyle.
================
And you have probably then made the change that now kills even more animals.
>
> I say 3 - 2 = 1
> You say 3 -2 is not equal to 0
=============
math is hard for you, isn't it?
>
> >
> > >
> > > 2. I do not consciously eat meat though injesting -some- meat
products,
> > > without my knowledge, is occaisionally likely.
> > ==============
> > More than likely, plus your whole lifestyle is built on the bodies of
> > animals you kill for nothing more than entertainment and selfishness.
> >
>
> Why should the quantifier "likely" be modified to "more than likely" when
> both are contained within the set of likelihood. Sounds like an attempt to
> change or propose my meaning.
===============
No, it's not. ou made the statement in terms that it is 'possible' you
might cause the death and suffering of animals. My comment was that it is
more than possible, it's fact.
>
> This attempt sometime succeeds distracting from the premise "it is likely
> the case that" making the premise appear not enough.
================
It's not enough. You do kill animals. You diet is built on the death and
suffering of more animals than many meat-included diets.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 3. [Therefore]: I cause *less* harm to animals than those who
regularly
> > > consume animal meat and products.
> > ===============
> > False, again. No matter how many times you repeat it, it won't
magically
> > come true.
> >
>
> Can you show evidence for your belief that all people cause the same
amount
> of death and suffering all the time and eliminate any logically possible
> counter-example showing a difference in degrees of harm by changes in
> lifestyle?
=================
I'm don't have to show for all people. All pople aren't in question here.
It's the vegan lys and delusions that are being pointed out. You have never
proven that just by eliminating meat from your diet you automatically cause
less animal death and suffering.
>
> If I have killed three rabbits a night for dinner and change to two
rabbits
> a night has this change produced any less suffering and death?
====================
math still is hard for you, eh killer?
>
> >
> > >
> > > 4. That I cause less harm to animals satisfies my own ethical
standards
> of
> > > decency.
> > ===============
> > But you don't. You don't even reallytry to eliminate/reduce unnecesary
> > animal death and suffering. You prove that with every inane post to
> usenet
> > to preach your hypocrisy.
> >
>
> What defines an attempt at causing less harm? I can change from eating 3
> rabbits a night to 2 rabbits a night and keep producing death by other
> lifestyle ways constant, and still have produced less harm than killing 3
> rabbits a night. I make no claim to having had *eliminated all harm. Is
this
> what you are trying to make my words say?
=================
Nope. Comprehension is problem for you too, eh? You claim to reduce your
impact on animals by eliminating meat. You have failed at even trying to
prove this point. Guess you never will even try, eh?
>
> >
> > >
> > > 5. I desire to cause as little suffering and death in animals as is
> > > logically possible in my life.
> > ==============
> > You're falling far short of that, bucko. Actually, since you're here
you
> > prove that all you do is pay lip service to your religion.
> >
>
> I eat only 2 rabbits a night now and continue with other lifstyle ways
that
> I don't percieve as logically necessary for removal. You creating false
> dilemmas and trying to cast everything in black and white when there are
> shades of grey inbetween.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 6. [Therefore]: in at least my case, being a vegetarian is the moral
and
> > > decent thing to do.
> > =================
> > You haven't shown that yet, killer.
> >
>
> You havn't supported you claim that I havn't shown that when I clearly
have
> shown that our lifstyle can alter the degree of harm we contribute to, by
> eat 2 rabbits a night instead of three, while keeping lifestyle ways in a
> control variable state.
==============
rabbits aren't your diet though are they? What's a matter, can't find a
veggie alternative to use? Why is that? maybe because you now realize that
your veggies come at a greater price than you expected?
>
> >
> > >
> > > 7. That this is a moral and decent lifstyle, at least in my case, may
be
> > > applicable to others.
> > ==================
> > And eating meat can and is a moral and decent lifestyle too. And, it's
> > applicable to everyone.
> >
>
> That a morally decent lifestyle can be considered applicable to others is
> true like I intimate in what you responded to as one example along with
> propositions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Therefore: That we can control the amount of harm and death we cause
to
> > > animals -and vegetarians cause less harm -and death than meat-eaters
> > ================
> > False, again, stupid.
>
snips of something you don't understand anyway.... typical dodge...
> > You have never been able to prove this little tidbit
> > of delusion. But give it a try, many have failed before you, maybe
you'll
> > get lucky somehow, eh killer?
> >
>
> If I kill 2 rabbits when I used to kill 3 rabbits a night and I keep other
> aspects of my lifestyle the same, I cause less harm and death. It's not a
> matter of luck or name calling which only make your argument obviously
> weaker but more appealing to people treated roughly by their parents at
> critical stages. It's a matter of mathematics; 2 rabbits is less than 3
> rabbits.
==================
You keep trying to use rabbits, yet you cannot find a vegan food to identify
with. Wonder why that is?
You blow your whole argument with this tripe anyway. Going from 3 to 2
rabbits is something you can prove. It doesn't mean you've killed fewer
animals overall, just fewer rabbits. The calories you replaced with other
foods could cause 10 times as many animal deaths. The problem with your
lys and delusions is that you cannot prove your reduction by switching to
veggies.
rick etter
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:vfemfrj...@news.supernews.com...
> > "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > [..]
> >
> > > If I have killed three rabbits a night for dinner and change to two
> > rabbits
> > > a night has this change produced any less suffering and death?
> >
> > What did you substitute for the third rabbit? Pasta? What was the
> > environmental cost of that? What if I eshewed the pasta and substituted
> > one rabbit?
> >
> > -snip-
>
> Yes Pasta, often when we seek to achieve our goals we must start with some
> priorities and proceed and then double back and try and meet other
> complications.
>
> If once I am in the habit of using 2 rabbits instead of three I percieve
> that I directly kill one less rabbit than before while understanding that
my
> contribution through remote causation may increase or decrease. Then I
would
> compare the colateral death produced by various plant food production and
> try and reduce the *amount* of collateral death that I can influence by my
> personal choices.
LOL tap tap tap tap... nice dance step, killer. Too bad it doesn't do
anything for the overall number of animals you then kill for your religion.
Graham Burnett
> the rest of your post, just forget it, its not worth it.
>
seems to be hit the nail on the head... geez get a life chaps...
Jonathan Ball
> I've had this nik since you were in nappies chump
No, kid.
> & just like *you* dont
> know what you're talking about, *i* dont know what *you're* talking about
> either hahahahaha (prolly no one else either)
>
> if you cant be objective why bother posting
I'm highly objective.
> - u still cant answer simple question????
Your question is fuckwitted.
Graham Burnett
> <Beach Run...@nospam.com> wrote
> > First, if you eat organic produce, which is MUCH healthier for your
> > heath and anti cancer fighting ingredients that illuminates much of the
> problem.
> >
> > Second, you a LOT few animals are hurt. go with Natural Vegan and
never
> turn
> > back.
> >
> > And, avoid genetically engineered like the prague!
> >
> > bob
>
> Exhibit "A" - The Lucid Vegan.
>
LOL! Whats wrong with Prague anyway, I've heard it's a very nice city this
time of year...
JethroUK©
You're highly objectionable - but 'objective' you certainly aint - all i
heard from you is the rantins of a spoiled kid who lost the game an bleats
like a lamb "i'm not playin if i cant win waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah"
so you run along home an let your mommi kiss it better hahaha - maybe in few
years she'll let you come n play with the big boys again
coz while you're 'searching' for micrograms of animal products i'll consider
the destination of prolly 50% of the animals on the planet (it's
livestock) - i'll spare you any questions and save it for the grown ups OK
(or a least someone over 21 :o)
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3EF7C747...@whitehouse.not...
Immortalist
>
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:vfehvgs...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> > news:ohrJa.4115$Ly2.7...@cletus.bright.net...
> > >
> > > "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:vfc5782...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > >
> > > snippage...
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How would one show how much harm is being done?
> > > > >
> > > > > Good question. Unfortunately, it's a question that
> > > > > "vegans" NEVER attempt to answer.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Maybe this is the crucial question that when addressed could move
this
> > > > debate off the ground.
> > > ==================
> > > Give it a go. It's been asked, repeatedly. No one has yet to prove
> their
> > > little lys and delusions.
> > >
> >
> > Should they try to reduce the problem as much as they can or should they
> try
> > to remove the problem completely, the rights of others be dammed?
> I see you dodged the question, again. Why is that? You, and every other
> vegan here has failed to show how you do anything to 'reduce' the supposed
> problem. It's quite easy to show meat-included diets that have far less
> impact than your commercial supermart oriented 'veagn' diet. So, come on,
> answer the question. make a go of it!
>
Can you show how the question was dodged?
? > > Good question. Unfortunately, it's a question that
? > > "vegans" NEVER attempt to answer.
When you say NEVER, do you mean all vegans you have observed so far, or all
vegans even the ones you never met, or that it will always be the case that
they NEVER will do so?
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > snips...
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Immortalist
"JethroUK©" <re...@the.board> wrote in message
> "...Fallacy: False Dilemma.."
>
> waaaaaah...did someone else just walk in the room?- you mean the ol "when
> you gonna stop beating your wife?" type question - ermmmmmmm think you're
> looking to deep - it's just a simple question of opinion - course it goes
> without saying you cant answer it anywayz if you're not a vegan
>
Someone crossposted this into alt.philosophy who are you? Do you propose a
standard of how "deep" one should look into affairs and arguments? A "false
dilemma" is different than a "complex question."
~~~~~~Description of False Dilemma
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of
"reasoning":
Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be
false).
Claim Y is false.
Therefore claim X is true.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be
false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is
false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html
A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded
question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it
is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating
your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking,
as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten
your wife, then the question is loaded.
Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two
direct answers:
"Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my
wife."
"No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating
my wife."
Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is,
therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one
which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement
that you deny. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is
not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the
question.
Some systems of parliamentary debate provide for "dividing the question",
that is, splitting a complex question up into two or more simple questions.
Such a move can be used to split the Example as follows:
"Have you ever beaten your wife?"
"If so, are you still doing so?"
In this way, 1 can be answered directly by "no", and then the conditional
question 2 does not arise.
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/loadques.html
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/index.html
Immortalist
When you say "none of them" do you mean all the ones you have met in the
past or all of them including one's you have never talked with?
Aren't Beef farmers concerned about markets, laws, and the health of their
herds? When would this become spurious on that side of the issue's spectrum
since the notion of spuriousness has been introduced but not deliniated?
>
> >
> >
>
>
Immortalist
Why do they choose only farm animals and not the treatment of all animal
behaviors and treatments?
When you say my own progression do you mean the Socratic method I used of
basic questions and the appearance of nuetrality?
> > If they deny the
> > antecedent are they not claiming that they can eliminate ALL harm
instead
> of
> > some or most harm?
>
> The possibility of *other* harm, not just to the farmed animal, is not
even
> contemplated at first. That's when the fallacy is committed. After other
> harm is realized there still remain cognitive and behavioral remnants of
the
> fallacy, such as the search for micrograms, and the belief that meat is
> immoral.
>
If it's raining, then the streets are wet.
It isn't raining.
Therefore, the streets aren't wet.
But there might be other reasons why the street could be wet such as a
person who hosed down the street or an blocked sewer.
Are you saying the vegan claims that the harm comes from farming only when
there are other ways that harm could result? How do these other harms negate
the harm produced by farming. Could these other harms negate the harm
produced by farming?
> > > > Therefore this debate has stalled.
> > >
> > > The debate has stalled because the answer to the question is
> > > unacceptable to vegans, so they cannot form it in their minds.
> > >
> >
> > You mean they can't pick a multiple choice set; none, some, all? If the
> > debate is stalled is it because they cannot defend what they propose?
>
> The defense does not match the behaviour.
>
Then you sustain your earlier belief that vegans attribute [all] harm to
farming and not just [some]?
When you said wrong I went to basic principles to test this notion. A straw
man is a mistake in argumentation where a seperate issue is made important
to distract from the thesis. I reasoned that if it is wrong and it is still
allowable by law it is up to the populace to each decide how it should be.
> > > > or do they imagine that they can stop percieved wrong behavior
> > > completely
> > > > with no chance that they performed the wrong?
> > >
> > > Vegans do not perceive the consumption of plant-based foods as wrong
> > > behaviour at all, in spite of the inherent and massive harm to animals
> > > associated with it. This is another clear indicator of the persistence
> > > of the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent in vegan mentalities.
> > >
> >
> > Is this plant based harm a result of a change from one state of affairs
to
> > another or are you saying that there is no possible situation in nature
> > where eating plants and not meat could be moral?
>
> There is no defacto situation in nature where eating anything is immoral.
> Immoral eating habits are defined by laws, rights, ecological imperatives
> and cultural taboos.
>
Well I hope you don't take this as a straw man but there is evidence that at
least some of our eating preferences are controlled by instinctual drives.
These drives are usually easily overriden by thinking and culturally aquired
habits.
Newborn infants choose most kinds of sugars over plain water and in this
descending order of preference: sucrose, fructose, lactose, and glucose.
They also discriminate among substances that are acid, salty, and bitter,
reacting by twisting their faces into the characteristic adult expressions
of distaste for each substance. This selectivity continues into childhood
and has important effects in the evolution of adult cuisines.
Promethean Fire - Reflections on the Origins of Mind
Charles J. Lumsdem - E.O. Wilson - 1983
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/
http://tinyurl.com/eg0d
This is meant to only -weaken- your assertion that there is [no] defacto
situation in nature where eating anything is immoral.
> > > > Please tell me so you will seem to be dammed; what is avoiding
> > > micrograms,
> > > > prey tell?
> > >
> > > Refusing to eat caesar salads with anchovy dressing, or worcester
sauce,
> > > or vitamins in gel capsules, or olives in (supposedly) octopus oil,
> > > etc.. This drive to achieve perfection in the avoidance of
infinitesimal
> > > amounts of animal products tells a story of a mind that believes that
> > > their diet is that close to perfect with respect to causing harm to
> > > animals.
> > >
> >
> > We all have our likes and dislikes and try to get others to like or
> dislike
> > them at times.
>
> Argumentum ad Populum
>
Idea[ i] is popular.
Therefore, [i] is correct.
-------------------------
Idea [i] is popular
Some ideas have no laws regulating them
If diet has no laws regulating which foods to choose popularity becomes
noticable but likes and dislikes are personal issues firstly. Whether a
person eats beef because of TV commercials or vegans eat fruit because of
the health food store circuit are not an argument for non-litigated
prescriptions.
> > Our standards of perfectionism or level of striving towards a goal seems
> to
> > vary amoungst individuals.
>
> So do our levels of tolerance. Vegans typically have little tolerance for
> anyone who chooses a contradictory path to the vegan pattern.
>
Shame on them.
> > Some people try and live in very clean
> > accomodations whiles others live in less such, when does one or the
other
> > become pathological and what kind of standard would create a demarcation
> > between normal and pathological behavior.
>
> That implies that veganism is somehow cleaner than omnivorism, another
> subliminal message that vegans give off that mark them as the singular
most
> sanctimonious twits in existence.
>
They may rank them but I only asked at what point along either extreme of
this spectrum things become pathological.
>
Immortalist
Doesn't it take much more produce to raise a cow than to feed many people?
So by your argument you should stop eating hamburgers because the bun kills
more cows?
I believe that we cause some harm either way we go about it because of the
artificialy high numbers of domesticated animals which would not occur
without human participation. It seems that you are arguing that we should
sustain these unnatural numbers.
>
>
> In this way if I quit eating meat I only
> > kill animals in those other ways because of my participation in society
> and
> > my lifestyle.
> ================
> And you have probably then made the change that now kills even more
animals.
>
True, if we quit drugs the dealers might get angry and kill more people?
>
> >
> > I say 3 - 2 = 1
> > You say 3 -2 is not equal to 0
> =============
> math is hard for you, isn't it?
>
Not really when it comes to hunting rabbits.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 2. I do not consciously eat meat though injesting -some- meat
> products,
> > > > without my knowledge, is occaisionally likely.
> > > ==============
> > > More than likely, plus your whole lifestyle is built on the bodies of
> > > animals you kill for nothing more than entertainment and selfishness.
> > >
> >
> > Why should the quantifier "likely" be modified to "more than likely"
when
> > both are contained within the set of likelihood. Sounds like an attempt
to
> > change or propose my meaning.
> ===============
> No, it's not. ou made the statement in terms that it is 'possible' you
> might cause the death and suffering of animals. My comment was that it is
> more than possible, it's fact.
>
Can you show these facts you claim?
>
> >
> > This attempt sometime succeeds distracting from the premise "it is
likely
> > the case that" making the premise appear not enough.
> ================
> It's not enough. You do kill animals. You diet is built on the death and
> suffering of more animals than many meat-included diets.
>
I eat meat though, whenever I feel like it, which isn't to often.
There is more death to grains when farm animals are raised on them. There is
less overall death from vegan diets.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 3. [Therefore]: I cause *less* harm to animals than those who
> regularly
> > > > consume animal meat and products.
> > > ===============
> > > False, again. No matter how many times you repeat it, it won't
> magically
> > > come true.
> > >
> >
> > Can you show evidence for your belief that all people cause the same
> amount
> > of death and suffering all the time and eliminate any logically possible
> > counter-example showing a difference in degrees of harm by changes in
> > lifestyle?
> =================
> I'm don't have to show for all people. All pople aren't in question here.
> It's the vegan lys and delusions that are being pointed out. You have
never
> proven that just by eliminating meat from your diet you automatically
cause
> less animal death and suffering.
>
It takes more grain to feed cows which people eat than to raise grain just
for people. Therefore there is more death from meat diets than vegan diets,
though I eat meat whenever I feel like eating it.
>
> >
> > If I have killed three rabbits a night for dinner and change to two
> rabbits
> > a night has this change produced any less suffering and death?
> ====================
> math still is hard for you, eh killer?
>
Some things in our current culture cannot be easily avoided so yes we are
killers. We have some control over the degree that we kill. If I shoot only
2 rabbits a night instead of 3 I kill less rabbits. Seems your not seeing
the math here unless there is something your trying to add without
mentioning.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 4. That I cause less harm to animals satisfies my own ethical
> standards
> > of
> > > > decency.
> > > ===============
> > > But you don't. You don't even reallytry to eliminate/reduce
unnecesary
> > > animal death and suffering. You prove that with every inane post to
> > usenet
> > > to preach your hypocrisy.
> > >
> >
> > What defines an attempt at causing less harm? I can change from eating 3
> > rabbits a night to 2 rabbits a night and keep producing death by other
> > lifestyle ways constant, and still have produced less harm than killing
3
> > rabbits a night. I make no claim to having had *eliminated all harm. Is
> this
> > what you are trying to make my words say?
> =================
> Nope. Comprehension is problem for you too, eh? You claim to reduce
your
> impact on animals by eliminating meat. You have failed at even trying to
> prove this point. Guess you never will even try, eh?
>
Say I killed and ate 3 rabbits a night for years and decide to loose weight
and change to killing only 2 a night and reduce my food intake. I kill less
meat.
Talking with you is like talking to a kid with your "waz a matter" emotional
appeals and requests. Oh well maybe I realize something? I do that every day
trying to learn and wonder about life.
Vegetarianism kills less organisms because we don't have to raise so many
organisms to feed other organisms.
Immortalist
Vegetarianism results in less death to organisms than meat eating. All the
weat killed to feed one cow could feed many people.
JethroUK©
I'm jethroUK & responding on alt.philosophy (+ xpost back wherehence it
came)
"....A "false dilemma" is different than a "complex question."
~~~~~~Description of False Dilemma.......dida dida dida..."
you can carve it up however you like ( omnivorous pun intended :o) - but by
your own definition (reams of description which i cant be arsed to read :o)
it's "deep" (by my definition, and *i* used the word)
Like i said you cant answer the question since you're not vegan (that's hear
say) - but just to qualify - it isn't a trick question - there is no more to
it than meets the eye - and since it's anchored rock-solidly in "fact" - you
would *have* to answer it in court! That's another fact OK! (your solicitor
says "objection...dida dida dida", the judge says "overruled, sit down, now
Yes or No?"
but like i've said in a previously reply - i'm not even interested in the
answer anymore - in fact, What was the question? dunno - just remember it
has lot more rellevance (to the consumption of animal products) than any
rantings about micrograms
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vfh3q1f...@corp.supernews.com...
rick etter
Well, for one, you didn't answer it stupid.
>
> ? > > Good question. Unfortunately, it's a question that
> ? > > "vegans" NEVER attempt to answer.
>
> When you say NEVER, do you mean all vegans you have observed so far, or
all
> vegans even the ones you never met, or that it will always be the case
that
> they NEVER will do so?
=======================
Nice deversion, again. I'm talking about the loud mouthed sanctimonious
hypocrites that claim to be vegan here on usenet. Obviously, since they are
here on usenet they are not really vegan, but they like to pretend.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > snips...
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>