Pax
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 12 |   |
Karma: 0
|
GO VEGETARIAN, PLEADS YANA GUPTA IN NEW AD - 2004/04/12 01:28
Go vegetarian, pleads Yana Gupta in new ad
Rediff On The Net
Thursday, January 29, 2004
Would you go vegetarian if Yana Gupta appeals to you submerged in crystal- clear water, surrounded by a school of exotic fish and wearing an alluring mermaid costume?
View picture at:
People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals thinks some people will and roped in the Czech-born model for their new advertisement, which is part of its campaign to promote vegetarianism.
It urges people to leave the fish in the sea to where they belong and to go vegetarian. It was shot by ace photographer Jatin Kampani, a release from PETA said. The tagline Try to
Relate to Who is on Your Plate goes on to explain that 'Fish are Friends, not Food'.
"There are so many delicious and nutritious vegetarian options to choose from these days - in every part of the world - that there's no need to kill fish or any other animal for food," says Yana Gupta, who is vegetarian and who also tries to avoid dairy products. "A vegetarian diet is good for your health, the animals, the environment and your taste buds," she adds.
According to PETA, fish feel pain and suffer and those who are caught for food are often impaled, thrown, crushed and mutilated - all while still live - and then left to die slow and painful deaths by suffocation.
"It is unthinkable that fish do not have pain receptors: they need them in order to survive," says microbiologist Professor Frank Hird.
In commercial fishing, along with the fish, unintentional victims such as dolphins, birds and turtles are captured in huge nets and dragged along the ocean floor for hours along with rocks and debris.
PETA website:
http://www.petaindia.org/
More at:
Visit the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine web site for excellent food recommendations:
http://www.pcrm.org
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Panchaang for 8 Maagh 5104, Thursday, January 29, 2004:
Shubhanu Nama Samvatsare Uttarayane Moksha Ritau Makar Mase Shukl Pakshe Guru Vasara Yuktayam
Bharani Nakshatr Shubh-Shukl Yog Bav-Balav Karan Ashtami-Navami Yam Tithau
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read, considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are not necessarily those of the poster.
Popular posts by Pax
SLAUGHTER OF THE LAMBS
Salon: Christians preach Bible-insp...
CRUSTACEANS WHICH CARRY A CROSS
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
yamar24
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 27 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:GO VEGETARIAN, PLEADS YANA GUPTA IN NEW AD - 2004/04/12 06:42
<..>
http://www.reflexology-research.com/updatedresearch.htm .
Suspect, ignoramus, you're talking to a people that respect holistic naturopathic treatments. http://tinyurl.com/2t6a5
What's brought on this outburst? Thought you wanted to be civil?
Popular posts by yamar24
'Trophy' Hunting Depletes Genes For...
Utah Detective Solves Infant Vegan ...
Peta's e-mail address
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
daen
User
Expert
| Posts: 108 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:GO VEGETARIAN, PLEADS YANA GUPTA IN NEW AD - 2004/04/13 06:07
Not necessarily. Given the fact that "vegans" as a group tend to be much younger, it is entirely possible, and indeed quite likely, that mean age is a factor in that study.
In *some* studies a correlation was noted by researchers; however, others have not found such a correlation even when considering the same testing ranges in which correlation was noted:
All the CIs included 1.0, indicating that there was no correlation between prostate cancer and serum concentrations of IGF-I. A second, separate analysis... with the use of conditional logistic regression analysis confirmed the lack of association in our data. We recalculated RR in our study with the use of the same quartiles of IGF-I as were used by Chan et al; the resulting RR values were slightly above 1.0, but all CIs included 1.0, and the lack of any association between IGF-I and prostate cancer remained.
http://www.marinurology.com/articles/cap/cap-pdf/igf1.pdf
Why don't your pseudoscience friends post THAT study on their websites?
Popular posts by daen
HIV and AIDS: brief definitions and...
Apology
bird flu and destruction of bird...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
daen
User
Expert
| Posts: 108 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:GO VEGETARIAN, PLEADS YANA GUPTA IN NEW AD - 2004/04/13 11:37
Can you give us real verifiable medical, scientific accounts or studies of people having 22 pounds of impacted feces in their intestines?
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/gastro.html
http://www.healthfactsandfears.com/high_priorities/scam/2003/colon022703.html
Ipse dixit.
Popular posts by daen
HIV and AIDS: brief definitions and...
Apology
bird flu and destruction of bird...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
yamar24
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 27 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:GO VEGETARIAN, PLEADS YANA GUPTA IN NEW AD - 2004/04/13 15:46
As you say, fat is a source of energy which may augment a plant-based diet.
It is however, not at all difficult to meet all nutritional and energy needs comfortably, without relying on animals. In fact it is better to not do so.*
Re; milk;
'A number of runs with different input parameters were performed and mature human milk was consistantly assigned to categories with fruits and vegetables. The best output data obtained are presented in Table C above.
To test that the network was performing reasonably, other animal milks were added to the input data, and the network created a milk category and correctly exclusively assigned all the milks to it. Finally water was removed from the original input data, which resulted in human milk being placed in a category with just coconut milk.
These results seem to support the suggestion that human milk and a variety of fruits have statistically similar nutrient proportions. This in no way indicates that they are a suitable replacement for each other or that any particular fruit is an ideal food on its own. These data could also support the hypothesis that commercial fruit is of similar nutritional value to the ancestral fruits that may have occured in our evolution, though we now know that wild fruits are generally richer in protein and fats, and in minerals.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030301131026/http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/origins.htm
* 'Plasma lipids and diet groups
The first article published about this study compared concentrations of total cholesterol and various lipoprotein fractions in 4 diet groups:
vegans, who never ate animal products; vegetarians, who never ate meat or fish but did eat dairy products, eggs, or both; fish eaters, who ate fish but no meat; and meat eaters (4). Both total- and LDL-cholesterol concentrations were significantly lower in vegans than in meat eaters, whereas vegetarians and fish eaters had similar, intermediate values.
HDL-cholesterol concentrations were highest in fish eaters but did not differ among the other diet groups. Mean cholesterol concentrations for vegans, vegetarians, fish eaters, and meat eaters, adjusted for age and sex, are shown in Table 1. On the basis of these results, it was predicted that the incidence of ischemic heart disease might be 24% lower in lifelong vegetarians and 57% lower in lifelong vegans than in meat eaters.
....
The most striking results from the analysis were the strong positive associations between increasing consumption of animal fats and ischemic heart disease mortality [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for the highest third of intake compared with the lowest third in subjects with no prior disease were 3.29 (1.50, 7.21) for total animal fat, 2.77 (1.25, 6.13)
for saturated animal fat, and 3.53 (1.57, 7.96) for dietary cholesterol;
P for trend: <0.01, <0.01, and <0.001, respectively]. In contrast, no protective effects were noted for dietary fiber, fish, or alcohol consumption.
Consumption of eggs and cheese were both positively associated with ischemic heart disease mortality in these subjects (P for trend, < 0.01 for both foods)
Popular posts by yamar24
'Trophy' Hunting Depletes Genes For...
Utah Detective Solves Infant Vegan ...
Peta's e-mail address
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
daen
User
Expert
| Posts: 108 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:GO VEGETARIAN, PLEADS YANA GUPTA IN NEW AD - 2004/04/13 23:51
More in what either of us writes than you, Lesley, Zakhar, and Ray combined.
<...>
Since it's coming from you, I don't believe it.
Q: How do you know what Nash is telling a lie?
A: His lips are moving.
Popular posts by daen
HIV and AIDS: brief definitions and...
Apology
bird flu and destruction of bird...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
dtm926
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 46 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:GO VEGETARIAN, PLEADS YANA GUPTA IN NEW AD - 2004/04/14 03:17
Even after all the years you've spent here bullshitting your way around, you still can't get that syllogism correctly laid out in its proper form, can you? It's been presented to you often enough, so why are you still having so much difficulty with it?
The following type of syllogism is valid:
1) If x, then y
2) x therefore
3) y
1) If I eat crops, then I cause CD
2) I eat crops therefore
3) I cause CD
This argument is valid but not sound.
The first premise is a conditional statement that requires a proper relationship between the antecedent (x) and the consequent (y) in order for it to be a true premise.
This relationship which is so important requires that the antecedent need only be a sufficient condition for the consequent to exist, but that the consequent must be a necessary condition for the antecedent to exist.
Though the eating of crops is a sufficient condition for collateral deaths to exist, it's certain that the existence of collateral deaths isn't a necessary condition to eat crops, so the argument falls to the ground. The premise commits a well-known fallacy commonly referred to as the slippery slope fallacy.
Slippery Slope Fallacy
Form:
If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,..., X, Y, eventually
Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either.
This type is based upon the claim that a controversial type of action will lead inevitably to 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".
Popular posts by dtm926
Rejecting Responsibility
Information
Canadian Baby Seal Hunt Continue...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Pax
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 12 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:GO VEGETARIAN, PLEADS YANA GUPTA IN NEW AD - 2004/04/14 04:26
It is an intelligent and rational decision to lead the healthy vegeteraian lifestyle.
Visit the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine web site for excellent food recommendations:
http://www.pcrm.org
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Popular posts by Pax
SLAUGHTER OF THE LAMBS
Salon: Christians preach Bible-insp...
CRUSTACEANS WHICH CARRY A CROSS
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
dtm926
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 46 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:GO VEGETARIAN, PLEADS YANA GUPTA IN NEW AD - 2004/04/14 08:14
Let's get one thing clear; I'm not there to teach you logic or explain how to evaluate arguments.
However, if you want to see an explanation why denying the antecedent commits a fallacy, then find one of my earlier explanations in Google archives.
Throughout this and other threads on the subject, you have dragged your feet and made no effort to learn what I've put in front of you at all. Your comprehension of what I write is appalling, and this is shown in yet another demonstration below where you've misinterpreted my example yet again.
Read on.
No, THAT is not what I've written. I've shown you what I've written in the clearest possible way just above that line, so what's the problem with your comprehension? Here it is once more;
1) If x (antecedent), then y (consequent)
2) x (affirms the antecedent)
therefore
3) y (affirms the consequent)
Now, look at it real hard and remember that that is what I've written. Get yourself a book and learn something of the subject, Dutch. You're wasting my time now.
Popular posts by dtm926
Rejecting Responsibility
Information
Canadian Baby Seal Hunt Continue...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
hoxhero17
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 57 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:GO VEGETARIAN, PLEADS YANA GUPTA IN NEW AD - 2004/04/14 10:22
That was a tongue in cheek comment, do you actually suppose anyone would take it that way?
Why are you manufacturing an irrelevant issue? I thought your point was that we should NOT do that.
My original wording did not state that the meat had to be eaten, or that it had to be "deliberately" killed. It was clear, succinct and unequivocal.
Meat (the commodity) causes animals to die.
Popular posts by hoxhero17
Dutch never made Fuckwit's argument...
Existence is not a benefit
True agenda of the anti's expose...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
hoxhero17
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 57 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:GO VEGETARIAN, PLEADS YANA GUPTA IN NEW AD - 2004/04/14 12:42
Goes directly to his credibility, and the fact that the critique is a basket of strawmen and red herrings certainly *is* relevant. Matheny is a nobody, a dropout, Davis is a respected environmental scientist.
If you are arguing from the standpoint of "dietary ethics" then "ethical vegetarianism" is just half-baked veganism, the basic implied fallacy is the same.
1) Meat causes animals to die
2) I don't eat meat, therefore
3) I don't cause animals to die
Disagree, we base our lives on rational guesses. We don't have statistics to know that walking across a slippery log over a raging river is dangerous but we know by experience, by using our reasoning, without knowing statistics, that it's very risky. You can't wait for statistics that will never come to decide what you believe.
If you read it you would not have made that statement. The pastured/ruminant model offers an alternative to veganism.
That's a red herring, it doesn't matter. There is a huge supply of grasslands on which to pasture ruminants in an environmentally friendly manner, without depleting the land. Intensive monoculture farming is, by it's nature, concentrated on relatively small, fertile (for a while) plots.
Mathey never clearly supports this comment. He has done no research, and has no "per capita" information.
This is one the strawmen, there is every reason to assume that the pastured/ruminant model does not cause undue suffering and death of animals compared to monoculture agriculture with all that entails.
I just might do that sometime, when I have nothing better to do, but virtually every point in that "critique" either misses the point completely or strays off onto some tangent that has little or no relevance. If you can't see that, then you are not reading it critically. The example above is just one. In another statement typifying his foggy thinking he says, "..he does not consider the number of animals who are prevented from existing under the two systems." What in the sam hill does that mean? Are we now supposed to consider animals who don't exist? How can an animal be prevented from existing if it doesn't exist? And if it does, then it wasn't prevented.
The guy is blowing smoke.
I'm pointing to a statement *YOU* made that makes me question your actual desire to reduce animal suffering.
You're the one who made the statement. If *you* can reasonably reduce animal suffering by eating some salmon instead of some rice, then *you* should do it, or else admit that animal suffering is not your primary motivation.
They don't, that was my point. You said "I'm more interested in actual numbers comparing realistic scenarios for a world with 5 billion people."
More interested than what, than what you personally can do?
I don't believe you are objective, otherwise why have you embraced willy-nilly "the critique", a very poorly constructed bunch of strawmen by a college dropout, and are dismissing out-of-hand Davis et al's pastured/ruminent studies?
Your approach is wrong because you are demonstrating a bias against solutions that involve animal *use*.
There's no such thing as "average optimal diet", every diet is different.
I already
Real vegans avoid meat and other animal products at all costs, to the point of going hungry or offending people if a small amount (milligrams) of animal product is in a dish. The behaviour screams out that they believe no animal products (i.e. meat) equals no animal deaths, the basic veg*n fallacy.
Yes, you have dismissed studies by a reputable scientist in favor of the ramblings of a disillusioned dropout.
What do you mean by "optimal"? Of course, a diet which may be classified as
"vegan" or "vegetarian" could very easily be superior to many other diets wrt animal harm. By the same taken, every diet can be improved, including those same vegetarian diets, even by adding some carefully selected meat or fish. You're pursuing a false dichotomy.
There are plenty of problems with a lot of meat products, there's no disputing that, but the topic in question is the advantages of a vegetarian diet, that's where a lot of denial exists.
Nobody has to prove a negative. Veg*ns make outrageous claims about meatless diets, THEY need to support them.
circumstances.
You just contradicted yourself.
you?
Not to the extent that I believe it's wrong.
I'm interested in watching people claim that their diets are least harm diets, and then watch them squirm when they find out they are blowing smoke.
concerned?
No.
Really? As little "AS POSSIBLE"? Are you quite certain you want to go with that? Don't you think that you could reduce it more by let's say, eliminating 90% of your consumption and travel, or by spending all your money and time on the problem? Don't you really mean reduce it as much as is reasonably feasible without too much inconvenience to yourself? Isn't that more honest?
That's exactly what I am doing, and what Davis has done. He compared the rule "thou shalt not consume animal products" against the pastured/ruminant model and found the rule to be inadequate.
"Largely vegetarian" is an oxymoron. A person who eats small quantities of meat is NOT a vegetarian.
Yes you have, but you're tap dancing. You say that in one paragraph, but you're contradicting it elsewhere.
That depends on the type of plant, I don't the exact ratio, but it's a fairly insignificant factor anyway. The vast majority of high-cellulose, high fiber food fed to livestock is not palatable for humans. If it were not fed to livestock it would simply waste.
Read Davis's studies again. Despite your protestations of being open-minded, you are as willfully blind as any ARA fanatic I have encountered.
bad...
That's your strawman, I have never stated anything resembling that.
I'm not going to get into the game of tossing back and forth different ways of arriving at a conclusion, the point is *at least* made that pastured animals is a *reasonable alternative* to vegetarian food production. By
Mathey's own admission, both cause a large amount of animal suffering and death. Another thing Matheny misses is that animal products are high quality nutrient dense compared to many plant alternatives. Since we all already admittedly make many "less-than-optimal" choice in our lives, consuming some meat is just another, like eating mass-produced rice, or eating too much of anything.
What does it matter if you feed 1 person or X people? Just multiply the results by x. If I make an improvement 'y', then x people make an improvement xy.
"Best"? No it isn't. Best is an absolute, and this is not about absolutes, as much as vegheads wish it were.
Show me why? WITH
Who do you think you are, are you out of your mind? I'm going to send this before I say something that will give you an excuse to whiff off.
Popular posts by hoxhero17
Dutch never made Fuckwit's argument...
Existence is not a benefit
True agenda of the anti's expose...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
hoxhero17
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 57 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:GO VEGETARIAN, PLEADS YANA GUPTA IN NEW AD - 2004/04/14 14:08
So what? Diderot never said the water was still on the field, he said it was muddy.
You seem to be more than willing to accept the self-serving comments of
Lundberg, who would like nothing more than to convince you that rice production, especially his, is bloodless.
Popular posts by hoxhero17
Dutch never made Fuckwit's argument...
Existence is not a benefit
True agenda of the anti's expose...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Megatron33
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 60 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:GO VEGETARIAN, PLEADS YANA GUPTA IN NEW AD - 2004/04/14 16:26
He's a vegan himself, so he has an obvious bias there. He may be less likely to remember violence by the vegans than by the meat eaters, which he sees as "more violent" anyway.
<snip the rest of the stuff from the same biased person's view>
-Rubystars
Popular posts by Megatron33
Enslaving Animals
Apology
Gas?
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
hoxhero17
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 57 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:GO VEGETARIAN, PLEADS YANA GUPTA IN NEW AD - 2004/04/14 22:02
You've got gall mentioning notation of snips.
so the reader knows what my
That was my example, what's your point?
"Meat causes animals to die" is not a categorical statement, it's another way of saying "If I eat meat, animals had to die."
You have no valid arguments, so you spend your time spinning away on red herrings and quibbles, that's why Jonathan killfiled you.
That was MY example of a catgorical statement, MORON!
You've
You're an idiot.
You must assume everyone who reads these posts is as stupid as you.
Some do, in various ways, but that's not the argument. The argument is that they never considered cds when formulating their ethical conclusions aboiut consuming animal products.
Red herring and false, the animal had to die anyway.
Popular posts by hoxhero17
Dutch never made Fuckwit's argument...
Existence is not a benefit
True agenda of the anti's expose...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
daen
User
Expert
| Posts: 108 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:GO VEGETARIAN, PLEADS YANA GUPTA IN NEW AD - 2004/04/15 00:58
...has little effect on total or free T or on E2.
Why would any healthy male *want* an increase in SHBG?
Yes. You list one study, the conclusion of which has had doubts cast upon it by other studies.
...We recalculated RR in our study with the use of the same quartiles of IGF-I as were used by *Chan et al*; the resulting RR values were slightly above 1.0, but all CIs included 1.0, and the LACK OF ANY ASSOCIATION BETWEEN IGF-I AND PROSTATE CANCER REMAINED.
If you read both parts of the link I provided, you would note that
*Chan*, in her response to the Schaefer study, notes the need for more study. Yet again you go much further than the author of a study ever does.
I know why they don't: they're activists, not scientists.
Popular posts by daen
HIV and AIDS: brief definitions and...
Apology
bird flu and destruction of bird...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
hoxhero17
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 57 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:GO VEGETARIAN, PLEADS YANA GUPTA IN NEW AD - 2004/04/15 03:56
They can't deny it *once confronted with it* and maintain any shred of credibility, but they can certainly fail to give it appropriate weight, and they certainly tap dance around the issue any way possible to avoid the inevitable conclusions.
Although some do, that was never the claim. They don't *consider* collateral deaths when assimilating into vegan thinking. They may *know about* them on some level, but fail to give the fact the weight it deserves.
I listen to what he says and draw valid conclusions.
Popular posts by hoxhero17
Dutch never made Fuckwit's argument...
Existence is not a benefit
True agenda of the anti's expose...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
daen
User
Expert
| Posts: 108 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:GO VEGETARIAN, PLEADS YANA GUPTA IN NEW AD - 2004/04/15 08:47
I did answer -- right after the question, lard ass:
Why should anyone take your notions about farming that have never been substantiated, much less peer-reviewed? At least Davis' work is empirical, you obese buck-passer. Not to mention the fact that he's a renowned agri-scientist; you're an unemployed, self-crippled ex-auto electrician with a GCE in woodwork. I think Davis has a bit more credibility on the issue than you do, fatso.
If the FORM of my reply bothers you, I'll edit it around so the answer part comes first and the question follows:
...Davis' work is empirical, you obese buck-passer. Not to mention the fact that he's a renowned agri-scientist; you're an unemployed, self-crippled ex-auto electrician with a GCE in woodwork. I think Davis has a bit more credibility on the issue than you do, fatso. Why should anyone take your notions about farming that have never been substantiated, much less peer-reviewed?
Happy now, fat fuck?
Popular posts by daen
HIV and AIDS: brief definitions and...
Apology
bird flu and destruction of bird...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
dtm926
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 46 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:GO VEGETARIAN, PLEADS YANA GUPTA IN NEW AD - 2004/04/15 10:52
How many times do you have to be told that your categorical syllogism isn't the "if, then" conditional syllogism used here before it finally sinks in?
It's THE flaw in your categorical syllogism which ruins your entire argument.
Popular posts by dtm926
Rejecting Responsibility
Information
Canadian Baby Seal Hunt Continue...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
dtm926
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 46 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:GO VEGETARIAN, PLEADS YANA GUPTA IN NEW AD - 2004/04/15 14:17
Then provide that evidence. A real fact is that you won't, and that's because there isn't any evidence in Google archives where vegans deny the fact that animals die during the production of their food. You know it, too, since we've been over this point before. You failed to show the evidence then and you will fail to show the evidence again. I guarantee it.
Your argument IS a straw man.
You have already admitted you read people's mind in another thread to this, so why lie?
[start "nobody"] [you] [end]
Why lie when it's so easy to make you regret it?
I don't "formulate their moral judgements", you fool. What on Earth are you talking about?
Popular posts by dtm926
Rejecting Responsibility
Information
Canadian Baby Seal Hunt Continue...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
dtm926
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 46 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:GO VEGETARIAN, PLEADS YANA GUPTA IN NEW AD - 2004/04/15 21:43
An analogy is wrtten in the form.
A is like B.
B has property P.
Therefore, A has property P.
(A) A website selling pesticides is like ( A website selling guns and poisons ( has the property (P), doesn't prove billions of people are being killed.
Therefore, (A) A website selling pesticides has the property (P), doesn't prove billions of animals are being killed.
I read it perfectly well enough to understand that it makes your exaggerated claims worthless.
They're your links to material that supposedly backs your exaggerated claims, but they've backfired on you because they concede their findings are just estimates.
You are asserting animals die in huge number yet expect me to prove otherwise. That is commonly known as shifting the burden of proof.
{The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion.
The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.]
Your three statements contradict each other and prove you are lying.
No, they cannot.
"I never said that the meat I eat causes no CDs."
Rick Etter 20-02-04
"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period.
Popular posts by dtm926
Rejecting Responsibility
Information
Canadian Baby Seal Hunt Continue...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
|
post new topic