Fallacy in Animal Rights and Vegan Discussions

One of my co-workers says she can't do veg, cuz she has a banana allergy. When I pointed out that you don't have to just eat bananas and can eat all sorts of other fruits, she said "Well I have allergies to all of those too". Ok how about vegetables? "Nope, I'm just allergic to eating veggies as well unless with some meat!"

Datanalysis
While there may be a condition known as carbohydrate intolerance (lactose intolerance being the most common version), congenital forms of this are extremely rare. It is the inability of the body to process carbohydrates well due to missing enzymes (supplying the enzmyes externally can resolve the dilemma). However, it is clear here that the co-worker is just making up excuses on the go.

Some protestors cornered a restaurant owner who sold foie gras in California back around 2000, pointing out how horribly the birds were treated. He agreed about the treatment and then just said "I don't share your compassion."

Datanalysis
Here we have a case of rationalization in the form of "you can be compassionate, but I do not have to be (because I am so special etc)". A better argument might have been to fabricate something along the special pleading lines of "The inhumane treatment of the birds provide my livelihood", but even that fails dismally since livelihood does not justify cruelty.

Life is about having fun. Eating just fruit and vegetables is way too serious and boring.

Datanalysis
This is a case of special pleading. The individual pleads that she will not have fun eating just fruits/vegetables, therefore she should not have to do so. By this reasoning, some could claim that they should not have to go to the bathroom, because doing so smells and is therefore not fun. Of course, if they would eat fruits and vegetables, instead of corpse parts, they might find that the experience is possibly not quite as unpleasant.

I don't want to be so healthy that I keep living on and on. Therefore, it is fine to eat things that make me less healthy.

Datanalysis
While the logic employed is impeccable, one wonders about the degree of sincerity. For instance, at what age does the individual consider to be 'long enough'? Will the individual terminate his/her own existence at that age? If so, why not live healthy and then self-terminate at the appointed time? The issue would seem to have nothing to do with being healthy and everything to do with consuming whatever one is tempted by.

The unfortunate thing about this study and the Harvard study is that they both relied on phone and face to face interviews in which they just asked people about what they ate. I find this type of study almost worthless since most people can't remember day to day what they ate let alone over a period of time.

Datanalysis
The above comment is in reference to Red Meat Consumption and Mortality which was not only conducted with great thoroughness, but also accounted for factoring out known contributors of disease. The criticism is similar to the one generated by The Meat Institute: /"A new study in today’s Archives of Internal Medicine tries to predict the future risk of death from cancer or cardiovascular disease by relying on notoriously unreliable self-reporting about what was eaten and obtuse methods to apply statistical analysis to the data."/ (AMI) who naturally have a vested interest in maligning the study, but seem to be having some difficulty in coming up with sensible arguments to that effect.

My spouse eats meat. I don't. It's just a personal choice we've made.

Datanalysis
Any action is essentially a personal choice. However, the fact that one has made a personal choice doesn't provide the justification of the action. For instance, killing your boss or restraining a child are also personal choices. However, to justify either requires more than just the obvious claim that these are personal choices. One may be able to justify the former because your boss was attempting to kill you (ie self-defense), while the latter may be justifiable in a situation where the child was trying to harm a sibling (ie defense of another), but neither uses the idea of personal choice as a rationale. Eating corpse supports the imprisonment, exploitation, abuse and murder of sentient beings and is not legitimized by the personal choice rationalization.

Denyer: Animals are incapable of demonstrating altruism.
Response: You are just unaware of the past 3 decades of cognitive ethology.
Denyer: You are completely correct about that! I don't like modern ethology much.
Response: That is indeed a pity! I believe there is a lot being lost then.
Denyer: I don't think so. I'm selective and modern ethology generally does not meet my requirements for science.

Datanalysis\\ There is considerable inconsistency in the responses. If the person is unaware of cognitive ethology, how can he claim to not like it. Also, whether his requirements for science are met is irrelevant since it is merely a personal attitude irrespective of the facts. What we are dealing with here is a faith-based individual, so it matters little to him what science and reality clearly demonstrate. This person will always resort to "I don't believe it". Of course, belief has nothing to do with any of this. The research evidence clearly shows animal sentience and real scientists accept it. This individual will likely stay on his flat earth until he falls off the edge.

I was explaining the benefits of eating vegetarian to my friend and a colleague sticks out his front teeth and starts taunting me with "You're a rabbit. You eat rabbit food."

Datanalysis
Evidently this colleague doesn't know much about vegetarian eating or comparative anatomy or he would not mistake a homo sapiens for a leporid.

Mai was involved with animal rescue and she had helped a lot of creatures, but when a neighbor found out he got irate and called her insane for trying to save these varmints.

Datanalysis
The neighbor doesn't provide any evidence to substantiate his claim that Mai is insane. Rescuing animals is not grounds for insanity. In fact, considering the Canadian Revenue Agency Charity Registration views rescuing animals to be a legitimate charitable activity and of societal benefit one might think that this neighbor could benefit himself from doing the same.

Sometimes an argument is punctuated with sarcastic comments. Here is a series of excerpts attempting to defend a particular PETA advertisement by making sarcastic remarks about the attitudes of those who are in opposition:

• yes sex is evil and nasty! appealing to sexual sentiments, and attempting to use humor! how Dare they! monsters!! it should have been the guy being beaten!!
  
• it so sexist! the woman should be repairing the walls dammed stereotypes, the woman shoulda had a strap on
  
• even your name is offensive to me… I don't know why… but it just is!!! ;)
  

Datanalysis
Sarcasm may appear to be clever, but it essentially amounts to saying "I disagree" in a rather unpleasant sort of way. Since it usually tends to be nothing more than a 'disguised' personal attack, sarcastic remarks tend not to contribute concrete or persuasive information. The intent is not to make a point, but to demoralize, abuse or injure the opponent. Resorting to such tactics often exposes an inability to formulate viable arguments (possibly because there may not be any). What is more unfortunate is that succumbing to such tactics (usually a result of inadequate self-discipline), demeans, degrades and on occasion even destroys what might have been considered a legitimate argument.

Three vegans attacked Lierre Keith (The Vegetarian Myth)by pieing her in the face during a talk she was doing. Abusive monsters like you show just how ******* you vegans really are. You should all be locked up - nevermind being allowed to speak in a forum!

Datanalysis
While it is quite correct to call such actions as abusive attacks, it is inappropriate to label the action as a 'vegan' one simply because it is thought that some vegans executed it. Furthermore, there is no rationality in insisting that anyone should be locked up or not permitted status on a forum due to the actions of three individuals.

Some people think that if they can discredit an opponent by calling the individual names, they have won the argument. Here is an example of such a situation.

Cretin: You wrote "It's not that you're trying to win an argument, it's that you're trying to discredit an opponent." Well that is absolutely retarded because those two intentions are essentially the same thing.

Civil: Well no they're not. Winning an argument requires that one uses proper reasoning that is logically valid as well as sound. Discrediting an opponent can be done without even producing an argument. Some people try to do it with various outbursts like:

• That is absolutely retarded
• stop defending your stupid comments
• you are not using the full capacity of your brain
• I can't take this stupidity
• you are either stupid or being stubborn

I think you get the general idea.

Datanalysis
These ad hominem fallacies don't actually add strength to any argument. They are an attempt to discredit the individual you are talking to by attributing various features to them. As with typical ad hominems the idea is primarily to abuse the opponent into submission.

Do me a favor and don't be a forum bully. I think you were completely rude … back off and don't be so ****** about it. Your tone was clearly not a friendly one so don't backpedal. I feel abused by you!

Datanalysis
This is sometimes a ploy to create a distraction and at other times an attempt to discredit an adversary. Note that the accusations likely have nothing to do with the topic being discussed. In these situations, the chances are that the person complaining just didn't like how the discussion was going. There was likely no bullying, but a fair bit of whining.

Sometimes individuals like to throw irrelevantly incriminating information into the mix. An example, is shown here in an articles relating to an injunction to stop deer slaughter in the Invermere community in BC, Canada where mention is made of the financial activities of one of the architects of the effort:

Explaining why he got involved in the issue, Mr. Suman said he and his wife, Monie, moved to the valley a year-and-a-half ago, and were instantly enamoured with the deer that live within the town. He acknowledged that he is the same Shane Suman who was recently found guilty, along with his wife, of insider trading by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and ordered to pay over $4 million dollars in fines and profits, but stated that the issues are completely unrelated, and he has nothing to hide in relation to the case.
Invermere ordered to put brakes on cull

Datanalysis
While Suman's financial activities did result in a guilty verdict against him, his past dealings have no relevance to his trying to stop the deer slaughter in Invermere. To bring up the matter may be an attempt to discredit his character and thereby sway opinion against his efforts, even though there is no connection between trying to help deer and the prior monetary misdealings.

DeerAdvocate: Hey Shishkabob! Good news for the deer! Even PETA is getting into this and asking people to write to Invermere to stop the killing.
Shishkabob: Oh, are they asking Invermere to send the deer to PETA's HQ so they can 'send' them to a better place, via needle?

Datanalysis
This is one of those PETA-hating attitudes some people have even though they may be in favor of animal protection. Since PETA endorses euthanization in certain situations, some people feel that that they have to malign everything the organization does. Even when PETA acts in alignment with their own cause, they feel they have to take a potshot at them. This sort of bigotted behavior is not conducive to unity within the ranks, but these people are usually more interested in sounding off immaturely than engaging in any meaningful action.

The hole in the vegan argument that meat is murder is this: more animals die to prepare and harvest crops.

Datanalysis
Factually, the above statement is simply incorrect because between 50-80% (varies with country and time period) of the grain harvested goes to fattening animals. Additionally, calculations show clearly that eating strict vegetarian kills far, far fewer animals than eating from the corpse industries: Number of Animals Killed to Produce One Million Calories in Eight Food Categories.

Of course, the accuser usually knows that he/she is spouting nonsense. The argument presented has little to do with fact and everything to do with pathetic bravado. It can be summed up as simply as "You kill some animals with your plant-diet, so you shouldn't complain if I kill far more with my corpse eating fetish." There is no really argument here beyond a fallacious whining.

A vegan diet is a simple to do. Avoiding animal products completely doesn't seem so. Do you have a right to attack others for eating animals when you continue to use them? Products such as rubber and tires involve the use of animal products, and that plastic shoes devastate the environment? Unless you ran away naked from the society, you are contributing to animal exploitation in some way.

Datanalysis
This is a typically simplistic case of "you too"! The idea behind this attack on vegan advocates is that they likely use some slaughterhouse by-product (eg stearic acid in rubber or plastic) and therefore are somehow barred from criticising those who eat animals or wear fur etc. It is a frequent effort by some people to deflect attention from their support of the imprisonment, exploitation, abuse and murder of animals.

One can run a line of defense such as in modern society it is impossible to be 100% vegan, but one can come pretty close. This is a reasonable answer which justifies one's actions while acknowledging certain short-comings. After all, it may be difficult to stop breathing to avoid killing thousands of microbes.

However, because we have a clear fallacy here of the lowly ad hominem family, the opportunity for attack is ever-present. The accusatory argument has no merit because:

1. The personal action of an individual does not change the morality of a situation. If robbing a bank is unethical, having a bank robber speak out against the act, does not miraculously alter the morality of the act. Harming sentient beings is unethical (except in select situations such as self-defense). So even an animal abuser is entitled to speak against animal abuse.
2. The fact that the individual who speaks out against animal abuse may engage in some sort of incidental action (often unknowingly) such as driving on tires which have been manufactured with some component derived from an animal, does not absolve those who regularly participate in various forms of animal abuse.

The above two realities negate the legitimacy of such immature, whiney onslaughts.

You're not vegan because you use car tires which are made from slaughterhouse by-products (stearic acid)! You're not vegan because your computer keyboard may have some sort of animal product! You're not vegan because the stickers on your organic bananas probably aren't vegan! You're not vegan because you may have stepped on an ant when you walked outside. You're not vegan because you kill microbes when you breathe!

Datanalysis
While technically it can be argued that nobody really is vegan as per above, the attack is rather flawed due to its confusion between an ideal and the manifestation of the same. Vegan is a spectrum with a minimum threshold such as not participating in the imprisonment, exploitation, abuse and murder of animals. Incidental anomalies that appear as a result of the manufacturing process and breathing hardly constitute a violation of that threshold. A particularly fine analysis is presented in this article: Nobody Is Vegan.

Animals should have to earn their living. After all, humans have to earn a living. So why shouldn't animals as well? There's nothing wrong about making a horse pull a carriage or a dog pulling a sled.

Datanalysis
There seem to be a couple of problems with this sort of analogus reasoning.

First, it is not true that all humans have to earn a living. Many don't work or can't work (eg children). They are often appropriately supported by family, friends or society.

Second, animals and some people work in their own way to 'earn their living'. Horses graze, some dogs hunt in packs and many humans gather and eat fruit. There is no reason to think that creatures who live in a way that is natural for them, necessarily need to fit into the modern society 9 to 5 schedules.

Third, hooking up a horse to a carriage or a dog to a sled is nothing short of exploitation. While there may be rare isolated situations where a symbiotic partnership is necessary (say someone who rescued a horse, but has no means of supporting his care, so the two of them go into business together), it is clear that the intent is almost exclusively to make money for the person at the expense of the animal.

Therefore, it is an unsound notion to suggest that animals should have to earn their living in a fashion as adopted by some humans.

The American Meat Institute says: A new study in today’s Archives of Internal Medicine tries to predict the future risk of death from cancer or cardiovascular disease by relying on notoriously unreliable self-reporting about what was eaten and obtuse methods to apply statistical analysis to the data. This imprecise approach is like relying on consumers’ personal characterization of their driving habits in prior years in determining their likelihood of having an accident that kills them in the future.

Datanalysis
The analogy forced between 'what was eaten' and "personal characterization of driving habits' is a meaningless one. The former is tangible and can be objectively established in a variety of ways. The latter is purely subjective and prone to whims of the ego. Therefore, the attempt has no validity.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) fielded a question about his opposition to animal rights and recently introduced legislation that would undermine local standards preventing animal torture. “It’s wrong to rate animals above human beings,” he told the questioner. To make his point, King argued that “there’s something wrong” for society to make it a “federal crime to watch animals fight” but “it’s not a federal crime to induce somebody to watch people fighting.”

Datanalysis
What is really wrong is not with society, but with King's reasoning. The analogy attempted between people fighting voluntarily (ie boxing) and animals being forced to fight (ie dog/cock fighting) is inappropriate. One could argue that there is something wrong with a society that induces people to watch any sort of fighting of any species, but it is an incorrect argument to suggest that it is wrong to punish people for going to fights of species A simply because you do not punish them for going to fights of species B.

Sometimes carnists call you out for being "emotional" about the plight of animal suffering and continues to attacks and trivialize your sympathetic sentiments. However, when you throw facts, clinical studies and data suggesting animal eating is bad, they resort to such classic rhetoric as "you shouldn't believe all you hear", "you are being too logical" and eventually "I'll believe you when you are a doctor".

Datanalysis
This is the classic case of appeal to authority reversed. While the corpse eater is able to not deal with facts, it is easy to accuse the opponent as being 'emotional' (see Appeal to Emotion). However, there is no where to run when the actual data appears, so backed against a wall, the plea is fallaciously made to 'lack' of authority. Obviously, this effort reveals only the desperation, because it makes little difference what the qualifications are of the individual who presents the demonstrated facts.

I can use the age card. I've been a passionate vegan for 25 years, which is probably about the time that you've been on earth. Vegan for 25 years baby! Did you hear that? Let me say it again! VEGAN FOR 25 YEARS!!! I'm proud of being a 25 year vegan!! Nothing wrong with that. What comes with 25 years of veganism that many of you don't have? A lot of wisdom from making a lot of mistakes with other vegans through the years.

Datanalysis Judging by the repetitive nature of the statement, one could surmise that what comes with 25 years of veganism, in this particular case, is senility rather than wisdom. Correctness is not proportional to age. An argument cannot be substantiated simply by the age or experience of the presenter even if he is a vegan. The validity of an argument rests on its logical form and the evidence presented for its substantiation and not on the posturing of the one who is making it.

It's unhealthy to worry so much about animals and the environment. It'll stress you out. Just live and be free! Don't get so involved! Don't worry! Be happy!

Datanalysis
While there is merit in not worrying and not getting stressed out, the above is nothing more than a rationalization for apathy. Interestingly enough, such rationalizations come from both those who oppress animals as well as those who presumably advocate the opposite. The latter though tend to do a balancing act on the fence when pressed. They don't want to confront the oppressors, but like to believe they are also not contributing to the oppression. One's own 'peace of mind' takes priority and therefore overrides any attempt at producing an effective argument.

Some people in Western society already view veganism as a kind of religion, cult, or extreme point of view, and therefore reject it. We should be very cautious about trying to associate veganism with religiousness and or religious rights.

Datanalysis
The concern that if veganism is viewed as a religion there will be bad consequences should not determine whether veganism is viewed as a religion. If veganism meets the appropriate criteria for being considered to be a religion, then it has a legitimate claim to be categorized as such. Gain or loss as a result of outlook, does not determine the validity of the outlook.

Rejecting honey as a vegan product hurts the vegan movement, therefore such a position on honey just doesn't make any sense. You're talking about some quasi-religious personal purity, rather than about stopping animal abuse. No wonder veganism can seem nonsensical to the average person.

Datanalysis
Since there is so much evidence clearly demonstrating that honey is not vegan and that bees are sentient animals (part one, part two), what is indeed nonsensical is to take the incorrect stand that honey is vegan based on concern of the dire consequences such a stance might bring. One doesn't stop animal abuse by fictious arguments where we take from Peter with the hopes of giving to Paul: it is illogical and unethical to condemn bees to servitude and death, simply because we have hopes of appearing more 'reasonable' to a public who will thereby miraculously refrain from supporting the slaughter of cows and chickens.

I get a lot of good stuff at this store! They have great prices! Fantastic service too and they are so convenient! Wow! They even have rare things I want which I probably can't get anywhere else. It's unfortunate that they sell some shoddy books like How To Make Millions Off Your Fighting Dogs and 35 Ways To Pack Meat Into Your Pig! Well, I am a vegan after all, so I can't approve of this stuff. Oh yeah and they sell corpse parts like beef jerky and some foie gras too. Disgusting! I don't approve of this stuff at all! Ok, so they also sell live animals and ship them to wherever. I don't like that either. Geez! But you have to understand that they do so many other good things, like give me excellent discounts and the more I buy, the better chances I have at winning their monthly jackpot! Think of all the good I can do with that money, eh? And all stores in the world must do something wrong, I'm sure, so why pick on this one? That's why I gotta buy from these folks. They're the best deal going anywhere! They are a miracle! Ya!!

Datanalysis
It would seem that the above individual is drowning in an overdose of self-indulgence. To justify an act simply because one stands to benefit from it is one of the most self-serving rationalizations that exist. The morality of an act is determined by its adherence to established criteria, which deal with questions such as:

• does the act produce any victims?
• is there any harm done indirectly as a result of the act?
• are there any intended casualities caused by the act?
• is the act even necessary to commit?

To support a commercial enterprise that is harmful to other lives and/or promotes harm towards other beings, for the sake of convenience (as opposed to basic need) is selfish and unethical.

How dare you put the rights of animals above those of humans?! Have you no sense of loyalty? You are a traitor to your own species!

Datanalysis
There is no rational basis for insisting that any member show loyalty to its species. Dogs will fight dogs to save a human. Horses often relate better to humans than to other horses. Cats can co-exist with with various creatures (even birds and mice) and still show animosity towards other cats. Humans, as well, will defend their animal companions or even wildlife against the onslaught of other humans.

The notion that we should give priority to our own species is absurd. If it were otherwise, we should support legislation which would cause all pet owners to be traitors to the human species because they have not turned in their animals to medical research to supposedly benefit other humans.

Furthermore, a natural application of this 'loyalty' to one's own kind, produces dangerous precedents, such as

• men who oppose sexism are traitors to all men: labelled pro-feminists
• whites who oppose racism are traitors to other whites: called nigger lovers
• hindus who supported religious tolerance were traitors to other hindus: Gandhi was murdered for holding such views

So you won't buy a ticket for the Shiners Circus because you don't like them using animals in the acts! What about thinking of the poor burn victims who are just children? Won't you find it in your heart to help these unfortunate children?

Datanalysis
The argument here is a non sequitur effort which tries to associate not getting a ticket to the Shiners Circus with not wanting to help children. Just because one doesn't support that circus doesn't mean that one is opposed to supporting children.

An appropriate clarification would be "I do have it in my heart to help children, but I have no intention of supporting your Shriners who utilize children as a front while abusing animals in order to draw in money so their members can wear silly hats and throw parties".

A remarkably healthy person goes to his doctor after several years and makes a very positive impression.

Doc: After going this long without having to go to the doctor I've got to ask, "What's your secret?"
RHP: Well, I'm a vegan and I…
Doc: What??? A vegan??? Why??? Don't you know how unhealthy that is??? … you won't be able to get enough protein … I'm being erious as a heart-attack! … You can't get enough iron in your diet … to start eating red meat 3 times a week or do massive supplements … You have to be careful or you may even have serious mental issues.

Datanalysis
The interesting aspect of the doctor's position is that there is not a single piece of factual evidence being presented. If RHP chose to pursue the matter, he could show decades of amassed evidence clearly demonstrating the beneficial health conferred by a vegan diet. However, doing so is not likely to cause this doctor to rethink his position since the intention is to frighten his client into submission. The doctor unfortunately also reflects the deliberate ignorance shown by the medical profession in that they are unwilling to even learn about proper nutrition.

Don't tell people about not eating meat, they won't like you.

Datanalysis
This is a rather poor rationalization that some people utilize in order to justify not taking action. The merit of whether an action is proper or not is not dependent upon whether one is liked. Furthermore, this attitude doesn't take into account these two possibilities:

• many people may like you because you stood up for values of compassion
• many people will not like the person who is telling you what not to do thereby that statement should not be made by its own logic

If only people that agree 100% with every aspect of vegan lifestyle are allowed on this forum, including only parents that feed their children 100% vegan foods and did not get them vaccinated, you'd end up with 100 people MAX.

Datanalysis
It is unclear as to how the number of 100 is calculated. The argument assumes that restrictive parameters will be a detriment to the forum the assumption being that more is better. However, restrictions often encourage more people to join a group simply because they do not want to deal with spam and nonsense. Furthermore, if the goal of the forum is to maintain the standard of veganism, then it makes sense to have it populated by vegans: quality over quantity.

Sometimes scare tactics can be used effectively on behalf of victims, especially when one has real power to wield. Here is an excerpt from an event in 2006 in which activist and business man Bruce Foerster 'persuaded' the Belize government, that it would not be in their interests to support Japan's slaughtering of whales:

As a business owner here in Belize I am ashamed that you would betray the world's few remaining whales by helping authorize their slaughter and should you indeed pursue this I will immediately sell my large resort and take all of my capital out of the country, compromising the 100 full time positions which this resort provides and the millions of dollars we invest annually into the local economy. I simply cannot tolerate such a destructive move on your part and will not live nor invest in a country which pretends to care for the environment but in reality cares only for the dirty money that they can earn by voting to destroy the relatively few whales that these butchers have not already painfully and mercilessly slaughtered.You are risking a huge economic backlash and a tourism boycott should you make the mistake of voting for the destruction of these rare and intelligent mammals!
The Power of One Can End the Killing of the Whales

Note that the idea of a boycott involves the application of the appeal to fear, however, it is not necessarily a logical fallacy. Here, Bruce substantiates his future actions giving reasons why whale slaughter is ethically immoral as well as environmentally absurd, then follows up with a statement of consequences. Bruce spoke and Belize listened!

I recognize that the mass killing of animals isn't pretty, but they are doing it for food.

Datanalysis
The implication is that somehow certain unfortunates would starve horribly to death if factory farms were shut down. Evidently, those who put forth such pitiful arguments haven't discovered vegetarianism yet despite its centuries old existence.

Anti-seal hunt advocates are vegetarians who have set their sights on struggling East Coast hunters rather than fighting the beef cartel, says a Liberal senator.

Sen. Céline Hervieux-Payette told The Huffington Post Canada that Liberals and Conservatives have been united in trying to prevent rogue Liberal Sen. Mac Harb from tabling a bill banning Canada's commercial seal hunt for several years because it is "disturbing to the whole scene."

"It is giving the vegetarians a big opportunity," Hervieux-Payette said.
(excerpt from Huffington Post Article)

Datanalysis
Apart from the complete inaccuracy of this remarkably absurd statement (most anti seal slaughter advocates are not vegetarians given that the campaign is so large and worldwide), one does have to wonder about the capacity for reasoning of Hervieux-Payette. If they really were vegetarians, then it would make sense that they would protest the beef cartel and not the seal slaughter because the vast majority of corpse eaters never eat seal flesh. So why would vegetarians come out in great numbers to protest something no one would eat in the first place? This would seem to be yet another effort to desperately draw pity for the "struggling East Coast hunters" who like to bash in the skulls of helpless baby seals.

We have the teeth to tear and chew and grind flesh therefore we should eat meat.

Datanalysis
Here we have one of the most blatant denials of reality. The argument is that nature provided humans with the proper physiology to eat corpse parts, so we should.

The first error is the fallacy itself. Simply because it appears nature provided something is no reason to argue that using it is the correct thing to do. For instance, gorillas have large canines, but are vegetarians. Nature also provided humans with an appendix, but it isn't used because it isn't necessary. Nature also provided humans with fists to injure each other, but most humans seem to realize that such usage of these gifts of nature may not be in the best interests of the parties concerned.

The second error is that humans really don't have the teeth to 'tear' with and the 'chewing and grinding' isn't done with corpse parts anyway since carnivores general swallow pieces of flesh without chewing or grinding. Some humans point to their canines with pride, yet don't seem to understand that these are actually rather small compared to those of a bear, dog or cat. However, human canines have proven their immense value at tearing cellophane after hunting down bargain slabs of meat in grocery stores.

A common implementation of this fallacy involved the "carnivores must eat meat" mantra which appears with equal enthusiasm in both veg and nonveg discussions.

Despite the healthy, documented existence of veg dogs and cats for more than 2 decades, some people insist that pets classified as carnivores must eat meat.

The argument usually develops something like this display of goal post moving:

Try 1: Dogs must eat meat to survive … ooops that's wrong because there are plenty of surviving dogs who do not eat any meat.

Try 2: Dogs must eat meat to thrive … ooops that's wrong too since it is regularly shown that veg dogs at the very least match their meat-fed counterparts as per clear eyes, great coats, energy, disposition and every other criteria (including longevity).

Try 3: Well it's not their optimal diet … ooops that can't be demonstrated either since we have surveys and studies showing veg dogs actually are less susceptible to meat induced diseases like infections, skin problems, arthritis, heart problems, weight issues, digestive difficulties, hypothyroidism, cancer.

Try 4: Not much left, so what can be done except to claim they should eat meat because they have big teeth …

Well obviously the "my what big teeth you have" hypothesis, while useful for Little Red Riding Hood, isn't particularly valid as an argument in light of the preponderance of evidence which goes beyond just the studies to the fact that mainstream pet food companies have a veg line simply because many dogs just can't handle meat based diets.

Now what is interesting to note is the form of the argument used by the mantra chanters:

If dogs eat meat, there are positive consequences (by the "my what big teeth you have" hypothesis). ∴ dogs should eat meat.

or in its wishful thinking form

I wish it to be true that eating meat is good for dogs (because I believe in the "my what big teeth you have" hypothesis). ∴ eating meat is good for them.

Utilization of this fallacy of course makes it possible to disregard all evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore, Americans just don’t support the killing. In a survey of Americans’ attitudes towards outdoor cats, over 80 percent responded that they believe it is more humane to leave a cat outside than to have her caught and killed.

Datanalysis
The above argument utilizes a specific statistic in order to assert its correctness. Even if an overwhelming majority support a concept, such support doesn't validite the concept. If ethics were simply a matter of voting, the state of moral judgment would be as precarious as the state of politics.

Eating meat is part of most people's nutrition regimen. They were taught this by their parents.

Datanalysis
In certain parts of the world, children are taught by their parents to do certain things. Most children grow up believing that what they have been taught is correct which is why most adults tend to follow common practices. Unfortunately, most adults do not necessarily contemplate whether the practices they follow are beneficial or even morally appropriate. Hence, a wrong action can be propagated over generations justified purely on the basis of parental tutelage.

Geez, people are dying of starvation all over the world and here's you with your 'fad' diet turning down food they would kill for. You should be ashamed…

I don't see why vegans are so ungrateful vegans should just shut up and eat the meat , they should be happy to have food at dinner …

Datanalysis
The statements above has no merit since neither even attempts to formulate any sort of an argument. Rather each is an effort to denigrate vegans simply because of their choice to not adhere to the standard corpse eating fare. The logical impact is equivalent to "You should be chastised because you stayed sober when the rest of us are sloshed out of our minds". In other words, the translation is simply, "You choose to be vegan and we don't like you because of that."

We have been killing animals for food since the discovery of fire. That's a long time! A lot of history supports these actions!

Datanalysis
History merely records what has happened. It does not justify what has happened. Humans have been killing each other even before the discovery of fire, but it seems some have at least managed to understand that there is something wrong with such actions. Many have evolved away from traditional barbarities to recognize that there really is something wrong with killing animals as well. As Leonardo da Vinci is believed to have said, "The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men."

You can't kill humans for food. That is against the law.
[animal abuse is] not [analogous to] owning slaves because even though humans were at one point able to buy and sell other humans, that is no longer lawful.

Datanalysis
Note that both of the above have the same form:
It is against the law to kill/buy/sell humans, because it is against the law.

Such a presentation has no merit logically since it does not actually say anything at all. However, it is thrown as a counter into arguments where humans are substituted for animals in situations of suffering, in the hopes that the absurdness of the fallacy will go unnoticed.

Are you animal rights fanatics still burning down legitimate animal production facilities or have you finally stopped this sort of illegal activity?

Datanalysis
The argument is setup with two separate questions each of which makes assumptions which are not verified. The first question implies that those who support animal rights are committing arson. While some activists do engage in arson, there is no grounds to assume and accuse one of arson simply because he/she is an animal rights activists. The second question assumes that the implication of the first is valid and asks if the activity has been terminated. However, since it has not been established that animal rights activists do engage in arson, the second question is inappropriate to ask.

"And then there is the kind of instantaneous healing that occurs with the first bites of animal food. In The Vegetarian Myth, Lierre says “I could feel every cell in my body - literally every cell - pulsing. And finally, finally being fed.” Tasha says “I had only eaten a small piece of cow flesh, and yet I felt totally full, but light and refreshed all at once.” Eating meat also instantly improved her heart rate!

Datanalysis
Since one actually has to digest the nutrients and have them find their way to those 'pulsing cells', the accounts above are physiologically not possible. Therefore, one must conclude that either Lierre and Tasha were being influenced by a strong desperation which manifested itself as a placebo effect or they were under the influence of drugs that animals are routinely subjected to or may be they did their own.

Everyone lives longer now than in the past so they must be doing things right like eating meat and taking medicines.

Datanalysis
First, the statement idea of everyone living longer these days is not correct. Longevity has much to do with sufficient, proper nutrition, hygiene and genetics. In the past, there were many who lived well past the average expectancy of modern times. In third world countries, the life expectancies are still quite low due to factors such as malnourishment and unclean living conditions.

The assertion that longer life spans are attributable to eating corpse parts and doing drugs, is a variation of questionable cause since the consequent is assumed from two cherry-picked antecedents without any rationale. One could also have made the claim that people live longer these days because of global warming or the increased levels of mercury in fish.

Dutch people are the tallest people in the world, and the amount of animal products they consume is enormous, much higher than any other country.

Datanalysis
First, though the Dutch are presently the tallest people in the world, they certainly don't consume a higher amount of animal products than any other country. A 1997 report shows that they ranked 7th. More importantly, to attribute one factor as the cause without proper controls is improper. One may as well argue that most Dutch are fair skinned and that is what causes their height. Nor is it correct to argue that diet is closely connected to physical features because it depends upon what features we are talking about (eg an animal based diet results in atheromas and osteoporosis, but not height except through hormones). We also have a case of misapplication of the general (diet is closely connected to some physical developments) to a specific (therefore, diet determines height).

You are on a boat with a baby and a puppy. The boat starts to sink. Which are you going to save?

Datanalysis
This is the classic false dilemma. The instigator has not only set the hypothetical environment and the players, (s)he has also established the rules in that you have to save either one or the other. The reality is that you'd be pretty foolish to go in a boat with a baby and a puppy without taking precautions for their safety in the first place. Furthermore, the situation overlooks the possibility of your saving both because you can utilize existing resources or saving neither because you can't swim. The intent of the effort of false dilemma is to force a kobiashi maru (no-win) where you appear to be either a traitor to your species or a traitor to your cause. It's a pathetic and stale effort, but it is still attempted by immature individuals.

If a baby and a kitten were about to be run over by a train, would you save the baby, save the kitty, or flip a coin to decide which one to save?

Datanalysis
This is essentially the same scenario with a choice selector mechanism attached. Note that the choices are still the same: save either the baby or the kitty. The only difference is to offer an additional value statement which amounts to "I do not really care whether I save the baby or the kitty".

Sometimes people erroneously think they have presented a new scenario via this value selector, but it should be emphasized that the choices are still the same. Merely the mechanism for making one has been augmented.

One could extend this mechanism ad absurdum by

• consult with a priest to help make the decision
• discuss the matter with the Libertarian Advocacy Group regarding rights of babies on train tracks
• ask for guidance from The International Society of Cat Right Lovers
• correspond with the Train Engineers Association

These efforts do not change the choices allowed anymore than the coin-toss, which is why the False Dilemma exists.

Boolean logic allows only four possibilities as far as who gets saved:

The scenario, despite introduction of any mechanisms ad absurdium, still permits only the middle two choices, disallowing the bottom and unfortunately the top items (both demonstrate with different results that no value preference is given to one party over the other). Having only the choices which necessitates a death, is what makes the scenario a False Dilemma.

I've got a mate I've known for 7 years now and he supposed to be into healthy eating. He is getting fatter, sicker and slower, but he won't go veg even though he knows I've been that way for a long time. He says "Yeah, I'm not so convinced man! I need you do be vegan longer than 11 years before I really commit".

Datanalysis
The above is a puzzling instance of the gambler fallacy in that the individual in question seems to want to anticipate failure of the veg diet at some point in the future despite the obvious long-term benefits already demonstrated. The underlying motivation likely has nothing to do with fear that the veg diet will fail. It is more plausible to assume that the person just wants to consume corpse products and is determined to find excuses, however absurd, for doing so.

Chimpanzees of one group have wars over territory with chimps of another group. Dogs, and many creatures, are capable of rape. Cats will kill their young if they show some defect. In effect:

1. Animals have been known to display bad behavior.
   
2. Bad behavior is in opposition to moral reasoning.
   
3. Therefore, all animals are incapable of moral reasoning.

Datanalysis
It is illogical to conclude that because some animals act viciously, hence immorally, all animals act immorally. The science of cognitive ethology over the past few decades clearly shows that many animals have a very clear sense of ethics as demonstrated by the works of Mark Bekoff, Jonathan Balcombe and Jeffrey Masson for instance.

Curiously, this line of reasoning is devastating for humans who have had (and continue to have) a far worse record of brutality and aggressiveness towards each other compared to any animal:

… the ultimate disobedience to this fantasy is the continuous predation by humans on other humans. War, famine, theft, rape, child abuse, and numerous varieties of discrimination based on race, gender, class, religious belief, appearance, language, age, height, economic status, …
The Common Sense Animal Rights Argument

The obvious conclusion by the prior reasoning is that:
All humans are incapable of moral reasoning.

It does appear evident though, that some humans seem to be incapable of logical reasoning.

Meat is one of the highest sources of protein! You need protein! So you need meat!

Datanalysis
This is a typical argument produced in favor of corpse eating. It is true that certain meat products have a high protein content. Furthermore, it is true that humans need to consume a certain amount of protein. However, those two antecedents, despite their correctness, does not lead to the consequent that one needs to eat meat in order to get protein. There are plenty of vegetarian protein sources. These are not only of higher quality from an assimilable point of view, they do not contain the various chemicals, toxins, hormones and other hazards corpse products invariably have. The argument is as absurd pragmatically as saying engine coolant has water; you need to drink water; therefore, you need to drink engine coolant.

If meat is so bad for you, why am I not sick?
If meat eating is so bad than why haven't I heard of it yet.
Whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stronger - so eat corpse parts!

Datanalysis
This is a common class of attitudes based on a restrictive, temporal sampling. Eating products from the corpse industries don't do immediate, visible damage any more than smoking does. Therefore, it is easy to claim that because one doesn't see any harm done, no harm is done. However, illnesses such as cancer, atherosclerosis, cardiovascular disease, ischemic strokes, osteoporosis do develop over a period of a couple of decades to the point where good health is not only hampered, but one's quality of life and even the life itself is jeopordized. Sometimes the first symptoms result in sudden death, so there is no one around to say "I'm not dead already"!

So while it is true that eating a little meat will not kill you, it will nevertheless 'kill' you a little bit each time.

These body builders can't be vegan! They are too muscular to be vegans! Ok if they are vegan and you aren't vegan, how come you don't look like them?

Datanalysis
Initially we have a denial of fact by the individual who seems unable to shake some bigoted idea of what vegans should look like. That is followed by the continued bias that all vegans must have the same physical appearance. The person seems to have lost touch with more than biological realities and is wandering in the realms of fantasy.

My grandfather smoked, drank and ate meat all the time! He lived to the ripe old age of 99. So you can't tell me that there's something wrong with doing what he did!

Datanalysis
This is a typical case of generalization based on inadequate sampling size with a bit of spectacularness thrown in! Such grandfathers are what are known statistically as 'outliers' (one in ten thousand live past 100 yrs in USA), anomalies from the vast majority of results which clearly show the hazards of such lifestyles. Most 'grandfathers' of this sort, don't live long enough to see their grand children grow up.

In these situations, it is unwise to have the exception formulate the rule.

Our ancestors all ate wild-meat based diet so we should too!

Datanalysis
Neanderthals left the planet quite some time ago. Even though some people try to act like 'neanderthals', their rude behavior really does not provide dietary affirmation. There is considerable evidence from anthropologist Robert Sussman that indicates early humans spent far more time being hunted than hunting. As a result, it is unlikely that most of them even had an opportunity to eat much meat. Of course, those that did, fell prey to the same diseases that eating corpse parts produce in modern times.

You vegans should realize that Hitler was a vegetarian! That means all you vegans are Hitlers!! So there!!!

Datanalysis
In actual fact, Hitler wasn't remotely close to being a vegetarian. However, from the logical perspective it wouldn't impact on anyone even if he were. If Hitler had a big nose, should everyone with large noses go for surgery? Since Hitler was a Catholic, should all Catholics be excommunicated? Hitler spoke German, but that still remains a common language in constant use. Furthermore, since Hitler wasn't a vegetarian, should this revelation mean that all those who do not follow the vegetarian diet, can now be considered Hitlers?

Obviously, this sort of 'bad company' argument has no legitimate place in rational discussion.

What is interesting though is that vegetarians can cite within their ranks, several historical figures (eg Gandhi, Einstein, Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, César Chávez), athletes (eg Scott Jurek, David Zabriskie, Brendan Brazier, Georges Laraque, Molly Cameron) and celebrities (eg Ellen DeGeneres, Michael Dorn, Bryan Adams, Heather Mills, Brian Greene, Alicia Silverstone). Doing so does not become a fallacy so long as one is not is not insisting that all vegetarians can be historically prominent, athletic, or achieve celebrity status, simply by being vegetarian.

So one minute coffee's good then it's bad. Then meat is bad, now it's good. Science studies contradict each other all the time, so since science hasn't figured it out yet so why should I care.

Datanalysis
While science studies do sometimes contradict each other, this fact does not make science illegitimate. There is overwhelming evidence spanning decades which show that corpse industry product consumption is detrimental to health. These studies are done independently and with very large sample sizes which range from the thousands and even into the millions. Often opposing studies which favor corpse consumption are financed by specific industries and utilize poor methodology. Even so, sometimes these latter studies demonstrate exactly the opposite of what their financier intended: that meat, milk, eggs are harmful to health. So there is nothing wrong with the science, though there definitely is much to be desired as far as the bought-and-paid-for 'scientists' who engage in such unscrupulous activities.

So we have a difference of opinion here. I think it is fine to kill animals for human use and you think it's not. We're obviously not going to resolve this, so let's just agree to disagree.

Datanalysis
This is a standard cop out when one does not want to deal with actual issues. The idea is to acknowledge the opponent's position as well as one's own. Then, regardless of examining the validity of either, to escape into the safety of diplomacy. It is a gesture by which one through a minor compromise (recognition of the opposing side), hopes to also acknowledge the validity of one's own, sort of an all inclusive version of showing up on middle ground with both viewpoints in tact. Unfortunately, acknowledging a disagreement has no bearing whatsoever on either position's correctness.

Yes I do eat meat and know that is bad for the animals. But I don't actually put them in those horrible factory farms like some people. I don't cause them agony when it's time to slaughter them. I also don't rob banks or bomb places like Iraq. I don't even park my car in handicapped spots! So why don't you go pick on some of those other people?

Datanalysis
If action A is morally unethical, it remains so regardless of whether actions B, C, D are also morally unethical. One cannot justify committing crime A because others commit crimes B, C, D. As a result, even the claim that B, C, D are worse than A, is insufficient to justify or excuse A. The introduction of B, C, D is merely an attempt to distract from A.

I don't see why you animal rights activists are so hung up on the orangutan sex trade. As bad as orangutan sex slavery is, not much is done about human sex slavery: 500,000 women are annually trafficked into Western Europe!

Datanalysis
There is no relevancy to this statement since the topic is about orangutans and not humans. Additionally, just because one protests orangutan abuse, doesn't mean that one automatically doesn't protest human abuse as seems to be implied.

A way to bring some relevancy to both issues though is to realize that oppressors are not speciesist. They will oppress anyone and everyone in order to make a buck or get what they want. As such, the fight for orangutan rights aligns well with the fight for human rights provided we focus not so much on the victim, but on the oppressor.

I seriously doubt if any country outside the USA or Europe has ever wondered aloud if it is ethical to eat meat. Given the multitude of crises facing the world at present, doesn't it seem a little bit silly to be a cape-wearing "crusader of the cows"? I can think of a lot more serious and relevant issues to be debated intelligently by the times.

Datanalysis
The ethics of eating corpse parts is not determined by the 'wonderings' of any country. Neither is it affected by all the other problems on the planet. If one is going to legitimize such irrelevancies one might as well argue that we shouldn't deal with any issue (eg child slavery) because some countries never think about the matter and/or there are so many other problems on the planet. The most 'serious and relevant' issue to be debated for the individual bringing the matter up is that he/she debate the seriousness and relevancy of his/her comment which is merely an effort to evade and distract from the issue at hand.

Limba the elephant gets along fabulously with her trainer. I'm making a little film about an elephant I knew and her keeper. I have a short trailer here. The bond between the 2 and the dedication of this elephant's keeper is obvious. You want to call this slavery? What would that make this dedicated keeper? A slave driver? If your answer is yes then we really have nothing more to discuss. http://youtu.be/-s_SPHt4M_M

Datanalysis
The fact that the elephant has a bond with the trainer (apparently anyway) doesn't alter the fact that Limba has been made into a performer through force (we somehow doubt she applied for the position submitting her resume of talents).

We also do not know if the video was 'canned' - after all, perhaps Limba was being made forcibly to perform as though she has a bond with the trainer. Or perhaps the trainer is the only high point in her life. So this bond is quite irrelevant to the issue which is that Limba is being exploited by her 'owners'.

Animal rights! That's ridiculousness! Next thing you know you would want pigs to vote in our elections and I will have to ask permission to the ants before I build a house! You probably won't be happy till we have a poinsetta for president!

Datanalysis
Considering the dubious record politicians have maintained, one might think that a poinsetta may actually be an improvement in the presidency. Nevertheless, the concerns about voting pigs and requiring land transferences from ants does not follow from granting animal rights which maintains that we give due consideration to the interests of other beings. Therefore, since a pig really has no interest in voting to elect human politicians and ants due to their marvellous adaptibility manage to make homes practically anywhere, concerns of such magnitudes are somewhat exaggerated.

If animals weren't used for food, couldn't the planet become overrun with those animals?

Datanalysis
This remarkable suggestion is still made in moderately intelligent company to rationalize corpse consumption. The idea of course is that humans must keep eating animals or they will over-populate the earth. Interestingly enough, no mention is made of the idea that it is humans who are breeding the animals in the first place. If people stopped eating animals, there would be no effort to breed them and therefore the planet would be perfectly safe from cattle, pig and chicken stampedes.

Note that though this item is placed as a slippery slope fallacy, it could just as easily have been a false dilemma if phrased as "eat animals or sacrifice the planet!" Obviously those are not the only choices available. Nor does the latter follow necessarily from the former.

Meat substitutes are highly processed, contain GMO soy and are a threat to the health of a vegetarian!

Datanalysis
While the argument presented is quite valid for the most part, the argument suggests that one must eat meat substitutes if one is a vegetarian. This is by no means the case, since no vegetarian ever needs to eat meat substitutes. Therefore, the health hazards of meat substitutes do not apply to vegetarians in general. The argument, concocted through ignorance and/or malice, has no relevance to vegetarians at all and hence, its denouement is irrelevant as an attack on vegetarian diets.

Vegan cult indeed has some downsides. The distrust towards vaccinations is one.

Datanalysis
The distrust towards vaccinations is not a vegan cult issue. There are plenty of corpse munchers who oppose vaccination and there are plenty of members of that vegan cult who insist vaccination is a good thing. Of course, 'vaccination' can be replaced with other items such as modern medicine, public education, science etc depending upon how absurd one wants to make the argument.

This is the mass killing of animals by certain humans and parallels the Nazi mass extermination of Jews. The animals are primarily domesticated animals on factory farms of various sorts that are imprisoned, exploited, abused and murdered. Animal Holocaust victims also include any animals and their populations that humans control and systematically destroy, such as on fur-farms, in laboratories as well as in the wild.

Datanalysis
Some humans try to justify this mass murder of animals using arguments ranging from "who cares they're just animals" to "we need to clean-up the place from these varmints". These are generally the same arguments utilized by those who kill off large populations of humans abitrarily using excuses such as "they're not like us" or "we need some serious ethnic cleansing around here". The rationalizations are the same, because the oppressor mentality is a consistent one.

No one is gonna stop killing animals until we find compassion for our own species.

Datanalysis
This is yet another attempt to segregate humans from the rest of the population of the planet. There is no evidence to show that humans who are compassionate to other humans don't want to kill animals. In fact, history has shown quite the opposite because humans who 'look out' for their own species do so by subjugating other species (animal exploitation for medical research, food, entertainment, clothing etc). In fact, it is even worse than that because segregation based on notions of supremacy have serious effects within the human species itself:

• racism (whites being compassionate about whites and doing so the expense of races of other colors),
• sexism (men being compassionate about men becoming misogynists),
• nationalism (american being compassionate about americans implanting a new world order)

Segregation becomes merely a vehicle to continue oppression through the supremacy syndrome.

Last year the province of British Columbia Canada decided to begin promoting the culling (slaughter) of wild deer, especially those living in and around populated areas.

These culls can now be decided by individual municipalities, and there are currently four places planning culls. Why? One mayor actually called deer "criminals". Can you imagine? Lots of people want a sanitized environment, with no animals or birds, or anything that might eat their plants.

Datanalysis
Human supremacy rears its ugly head for the most trivial things. These deer are being slaughtered because of pressure from The Poop and Flower Crowd. Expediency and the politics of convenience nurture brutal measures which wreak havoc on other lifeforms and eventually other humans as well.