Vegetarian Discussion: The Fallacy Of The Anti's

The Fallacy Of The Anti's
Posts: 53

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6   Next  (First | Last)

Larrylook
2005-09-02 23:11:11 EST
Here are some fallacies of the antivegetarians. I've pointed them out
before, but I thought they might bear repeating.

Say Mr. A inherits a Island A and decides to pave it with blacktop and allow
no life there. He's responsible for no deaths or very few. Mr. B inherits
a similar Island B and grows lush vegetaion there and a lovely haven for
wildlife. Lots of squirrels and voles will die on Island B yearly (this is
unfortunately how nature is - it's a fact of life), so the anti's want to
use the Stephen Davis theory that Mr. B creates more death and is more
unethical. However they don't calculate the f&f factor. That lots of
animals get to have fun and frolic on Island B. (animals experience the joys
of life). So Mr. B isn't an evildoer.

In the production of carrots and corn, I'm sure there may be an occasional
collateral death. But there's lots of fun and frolic too. I think the
anti's greatly exaggerate the CD's for their own benefit and this is
disingenuous. Farmers know there's no massive amount of mammals dying in
the harvesting of fields.

More importantly is the intellectual dishonesty of the anti's. The question
is, is it a bad idea to kill a chimp, a dolphin, or an elephant to satisfy
one's hunger, if killing these animals is unnecessary and other foodstuffs
would do. They run from this question like a little schoolgirl because it
scares them to death. In great fear they reach for their crutch
(obfuscation) and say "well its ok to kill the chimp because otherwise
there's all these collateral deaths". This might work on a beginner, but I
can see right through it. Why don't they just anwer the question with the
obviously correct answer. No it's not ok to kill a chimp if there's plenty
of soybearn around. They can't say that because then their whole house of
cards falls down and they have to accept that vegetarians might be doing a
good thing (compared to the average everyday meat eater - not fictitious
eater of the imaginary grass fed non-flatulant cow of Rick's).



B*@hotmail.com
2005-09-03 11:25:47 EST


Accurate and well stated!


Rudy Canoza
2005-09-03 13:41:27 EST
larrylook wrote:
> Here are some fallacies of the antivegetarians.

No, they aren't. They're your bullshit strawmen.


> I've pointed them out before,

They were bullshit then, and they're still bullshit.


> but I thought they might bear repeating.

Wrong. They're worse than worthless.


> Say Mr. A inherits a Island A and decides to pave it with blacktop and allow
> no life there. He's responsible for no deaths or very few.

Stupid fucking asshole: he's responsible for the
deaths of all the animals he kills when he destroys the
habitat.

You are far too stupid for this, larry, you fucking
cheeselog.

[snip the remainder; it's too painful to see larry
humiliate himself]

Rudy Canoza
2005-09-03 13:41:37 EST
b*k@hotmail.com wrote:

>
> Accurate and well stated!

Horseshit.

Pesco-vegan
2005-09-03 14:01:33 EST

larrylook wrote:

> Here are some fallacies of the antivegetarians. I've pointed them out
> before, but I thought they might bear repeating.
>
> Say Mr. A inherits a Island A and decides to pave it with blacktop and allow
> no life there. He's responsible for no deaths or very few. Mr. B inherits
> a similar Island B and grows lush vegetaion there and a lovely haven for
> wildlife. Lots of squirrels and voles will die on Island B yearly (this is
> unfortunately how nature is - it's a fact of life), so the anti's want to
> use the Stephen Davis theory that Mr. B creates more death and is more
> unethical. However they don't calculate the f&f factor. That lots of
> animals get to have fun and frolic on Island B. (animals experience the joys
> of life). So Mr. B isn't an evildoer.

An excellent point!

> In the production of carrots and corn, I'm sure there may be an occasional
> collateral death. But there's lots of fun and frolic too.

The f&f argument also works for compassionately reared farm animals so
it
seems useful to expand the argument a litte and compare the f&f factor
for wild land and farm land, and the amount of land that must be
cultivated
to feed vegans with the amount required to feed omnivores. Even so, I
don't think this argument excludes meat, provided it is carefully
selected.

> I think the
> anti's greatly exaggerate the CD's for their own benefit and this is
> disingenuous. Farmers know there's no massive amount of mammals dying in
> the harvesting of fields.
>
> More importantly is the intellectual dishonesty of the anti's. The question
> is, is it a bad idea to kill a chimp, a dolphin, or an elephant to satisfy
> one's hunger, if killing these animals is unnecessary and other foodstuffs
> would do. They run from this question like a little schoolgirl because it
> scares them to death. In great fear they reach for their crutch
> (obfuscation) and say "well its ok to kill the chimp because otherwise
> there's all these collateral deaths". This might work on a beginner, but I
> can see right through it. Why don't they just anwer the question with the
> obviously correct answer. No it's not ok to kill a chimp if there's plenty
> of soybearn around. They can't say that because then their whole house of
> cards falls down and they have to accept that vegetarians might be doing a
> good thing (compared to the average everyday meat eater - not fictitious
> eater of the imaginary grass fed non-flatulant cow of Rick's).


Dutch
2005-09-03 14:06:26 EST

"larrylook" <noemail@email.com> wrote
> Here are some fallacies of the antivegetarians. I've pointed them out
> before, but I thought they might bear repeating.

You're wrong, they don't.



B*@hotmail.com
2005-09-03 15:25:09 EST

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> banmilk@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Accurate and well stated!
>
> Horseshit.


Let's all sing "The Rudy Doody Foody Song"
Lyrics by Scented Nectar
Copyright 2005


There once was a jackass named Rudey.
In his pants he did drop a big doody.
It reeked and it stunk,
till it fell out, kerplunk.
He ate it cuz he thought it was foody..


Larrylook
2005-09-04 08:15:22 EST
> You're wrong, they don't.

I don't think your views are that dissimilar from mine. However,
where we differ is that I don't respect the person who goes to a restaurant,
orders the veal or whatever, and has not a care in the world what his order
means in terms of death and suffering or the environment. In fact, if you
pointed out to such a person that he made a bad choice, he would laugh at
you and say he's eating what's tastiest to him and has no interest
whatsoever in the animal(s) and no concern over eating ethically and doesn't
want to hear anything about the issue.
I would, however, not condemn or ridicule a meat eater, in fact I eat
fish and many family members I care for eat mammals (shudder!)
Also it disturbs Rick and Dutch if I think good thoughts about myself
or have pride in myself for chosing a more ethically sound way of eating.
They think such pride is abhorrent. However this pride is not the "I'm
better than everyone else" type of pride, but rather the type of pride
you'd have in trying/succeeding in raising kids who don't drink, drug,
gamble and womanize. Dutch wants me to order my meal and feel like a
hypocrite - but I woudn't enjoy my meal this way. I'd rather eat feeling
happy about myself.



Rudy Canoza
2005-09-04 13:23:07 EST
b*k@hotmail.com wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>banmilk@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Accurate and well stated!
>>
>>Horseshit.
>
>
>
> Let's all sing "The Rudy Doody Foody Song"

You juvenile, unserious goof.

Scented Nectar
2005-09-04 14:01:07 EST
"Rudy Canoza" <someguy@ph.con> wrote in message
news:%3GSe.6650$9i4.1778@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> banmilk@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> >>banmilk@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Accurate and well stated!
> >>
> >>Horseshit.
> >
> >
> >
> > Let's all sing "The Rudy Doody Foody Song"
>
> You juvenile, unserious goof.

Ah c'mon, admit it. You liked
being the center of attention
in that limerick.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron