Derek wrote:

[snip Dreck's own shit]



Very nice.

It's arrogant to compliment yourself in public, shitworm.

Dutch wrote:

snip

The position of vegans isn't "less animal deaths", it's "meat eaters are
immoral".

This unjustified sense of...guilt, inadequacy,whatever...is at the
root of the Antis' personal-attack style. Yes, some vegans will
claim meat-eaters are immoral, just as particularly nasty Antis
will claim that ALL vegans, or ethical vegetarians, are immoral.
But this is basically a strawman, because none of the major
AR writers, and certainly many of those who have been attacked
as immoral by the Antis ( myself included) do not claim meat-
EATERS are immoral _per se_. What AR has said is that the
practices surrounding meat production in our society, particularly
sport hunting and raising/slaughter of animals for sale as meat
are unethical. This is not a personal attack on the character of
meat eaters, or even meat purchasers, who are ignorant, unaware,
or unconvinced of the immorality of meat production. AR is at
its base a philosophical argument about a basic aspect of of our
society, as anti-slavery or argument for women rights was a
philosophical argument about a basic aspect of earlier societies.
It is not personal, or need not be personal. It is mainly here
on TPA/AAEV that the argument degenerates -- usually from the Anti
side first -- into personal attack.


We know, of course, why Dutch has a particular problem with this
concept.

snip

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:



Dutch wrote:

snip

The position of vegans isn't "less animal deaths", it's "meat eaters are
immoral".


This unjustified sense of...guilt, inadequacy,whatever...is at the
root of the Antis' personal-attack style.

Bad attempt at redirection. Your embrace of a weird,
marginalizing pseudo-philosophy is based on your guilt.
Guilt is what makes you embrace it;
life-extinguishing laziness is what makes you think it
is adequate to make you "more ethical".

"Derek" wrote in message ...

"Ipse dixit" wrote in message ...
"Dutch" wrote in message ...
"Ipse dixit" wrote

"They" would have a point if vegans were laying down the
poisons, but I can't see how buying produce from people
who do use pesticides contradicts that vegan's beliefs.
You're right, it's stupid.

Got tired of using the "Jane" nym eh Derek? You can shift your nym, you may
disguise your style for a while, you can change your news server, but the
same old lame arguments give you away.

Have you got something to say?

No. He has no valid cause to claim you are to blame
for the deaths caused by farmers during the production
of your veg. He simply wants to convince you you are
as bad as he is by insisting your purchase from farmers
shows an equal contempt for animal rights as a meatarian's.

I guessed that for myself almost straight away. I've been reading
the posts in alt.food.vegan (trolltown) for quite a while. I came
here looking for vegan recipes I can cope with making on my own
but most of what I've seen so far are a bit hard going and require loads
of preparation for a novice like me. It's a long story, but I'm going to
bore you to death with the short version anyway. :-) My girlfriend is
now someone else's girlfriend and I'm learning how to cook for myself.
For most men living on their own after years of being fed, making
adjustments like these isn't too much of a problem, but she got me into
vegan food as soon as we moved in together and there's no way I can
go back to eating meat now. The trouble is, i can't cook and don't know
what to look out for when I go to the shops. I ate something with egg in
it the other day. It's a case of 'can't cook-must learn to cook' .... quickly.

"Ipse dixit" wrote in message ...

"Derek" wrote in message ...

"Ipse dixit" wrote in message ...
"Dutch" wrote in message ...
"Ipse dixit" wrote

"They" would have a point if vegans were laying down the
poisons, but I can't see how buying produce from people
who do use pesticides contradicts that vegan's beliefs.
You're right, it's stupid.

Got tired of using the "Jane" nym eh Derek? You can shift your nym, you may
disguise your style for a while, you can change your news server, but the
same old lame arguments give you away.

Have you got something to say?

No. He has no valid cause to claim you are to blame
for the deaths caused by farmers during the production
of your veg. He simply wants to convince you you are
as bad as he is by insisting your purchase from farmers
shows an equal contempt for animal rights as a meatarian's.

I guessed that for myself almost straight away. I've been reading
the posts in alt.food.vegan (trolltown) for quite a while. I came
here looking for vegan recipes I can cope with making on my own
but most of what I've seen so far are a bit hard going and require loads
of preparation for a novice like me. It's a long story, but I'm going to
bore you to death with the short version anyway. :-) My girlfriend is
now someone else's girlfriend and I'm learning how to cook for myself.
For most men living on their own after years of being fed, making
adjustments like these isn't too much of a problem, but she got me into
vegan food as soon as we moved in together and there's no way I can
go back to eating meat now. The trouble is, i can't cook and don't know
what to look out for when I go to the shops. I ate something with egg in
it the other day. It's a case of 'can't cook-must learn to cook' .... quickly.

I know what you mean about the "being fed" part, because
like you, I'm fed everything I eat as well and wouldn't have
a clue where to start if suddenly left to cook for myself. I've
picked up a few things, but not enough to keep myself happy.
As for the eggs you ate a couple of days ago, I can beat that.
Up until about a year ago I was using Lea & Perrins Worcester
sauce in copious amounts on just about everything I ate during
a whole decade while I thought I was completely vegan.

"usual suspect" wrote in message ...
Dreck wrote:
...
No, they don't. They *claim*, self-servingly as
always, to care about them, but their behavior
indicates they do not care.

Their behaviour indicates they do care about collateral
deaths,

Nonsense. Their behavior is brazenly hypocritical, just as yours is you
old buck-passer. They give lip service to animal suffering and death,
but their actions only add to the ever-growing pile of dead animals.

That pile would be even greater if it weren't for the
care I take in what I eat.
"If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 2003-05-22

Anyone who cares about the rights of animals killed
collaterally during the production of food are morally
obliged to follow a strict vegan lifestyle, because it's
the best ethical solution in reducing them.
...
Anyone who cares about the rights of animals killed
collaterally during the production of food are morally
obliged to follow a strict vegan lifestyle, because it's
the best ethical solution in reducing them.

Ipse dixit and you're at odds with studies like Steven Davis'. Davis
concluded that a diet including grazing ruminants would cause fewer
deaths than your so-called "strict" vegan diet.

[Nettie Schwager, a member of the OSU Vegetarian Resource
Network (VRN) felt that Davis' numbers might be missing some
important animal deaths.

"I think that he is missing some of the fatalities due to Animal
Damage Control, due to destruction of habitat; it takes a lot more
land to raise cows (than grow crops). Another area which he
doesn't mention ... is we do a lot of medical research on animals.
If you eat a plant-based diet, you can prevent a lot of the diseases
that we are doing this animal research on," Schwager said.

Schwager feels as though the vegan model still presents the least
harm.

"The kindest thing (to animals) would be a vegan diet, the second
thing would be Steven Davis' proposal, and the absolute worst is
the current situation," Schwager said.

Dean Youngquist, a Botany major and member of the VRN pointed
out another possible way to reduce animal deaths.

"(Davis) didn't consider at all the possibility of redesigning the farming
implements or the farming methods in order to avoid killing the animals,"
Youngquist said.

Davis found very few numbers and little research about how many
animals die in the field to base his findings on, and he believes that more
research needs to be done on the subject to get increasingly accurate
numbers regarding the field animals.]
http://barometer.orst.edu/0102/02spr.../020415n2.html
Throw again, loser.

"Dutch" wrote in message ...
"Derek" wrote

"Bill" wrote

Rat & Swan wrote:
usual suspect wrote:

Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the
claims of CDs incredible. The burden of evidence is wanting on both
sides of the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a
vegan diet causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard
diet which is at issue. The burden is on vegans who make such claims,
since nearly everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the
course of agriculture.

Which, as ethical vegans have noted many times, is the issue. The
ethical vegetarians and vegans ARE the only ones who care about
such deaths as a matter of philosophical principle,

No, they don't. They *claim*, self-servingly as
always, to care about them, but their behavior
indicates they do not care.

Their behaviour indicates they do care about collateral
deaths,

It indicates that they think nothing about collateral deaths. To a man,
every new vegan to this forum is taken aback by this revelation.

Learning about the dangers to man and animals in
industy starts at school. Everyone understands that
animals are killed during the production of veg and
housing etc.

and it was you who decided this when writing,
"If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

If the cds caused in producing the food you eat has no moral consequence to
you, how does the cds caused in feeding animals have any?

They don't.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 2003-05-22

Anyone who cares about the rights of animals killed
collaterally during the production of food are morally
obliged to follow a strict vegan lifestyle, because it's
the best ethical solution in reducing them.

No it's not, that's the whole point. If one honestly considers cds as part
of the death toll associated with one's diet, then it's wrong to adhere to a
strict vegan diet when in some cases a serving of meat or fish might be a
better option.

If you want to look at extremes, the vegan diet has you
beat there too.

"Dutch" wrote in message ...
"Derek" wrote

Anyone who cares about the rights of animals killed
collaterally during the production of food are morally
obliged to follow a strict vegan lifestyle, because it's
the best ethical solution in reducing them.

Actually the reverse is true

No, it isn't.
"If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 2003-05-22

"usual suspect" wrote in message ...
Dreck wrote:
Animals continue to die because most vegans -- even self-heralded
"ethical" vegans -- refuse to grow their own food on a small enough
scale to prevent animal deaths.

That's not an honest explanation. They die because
farmers cut corners and prefer to use pesticides
instead of trying to improve their farming methods
and storage facilities. It's cheaper for them and less
labour intensive.

Next time you send your poor wife to the store, make sure she buys only
the most expensive of each available item to ensure farmers are making
the most money possible so maybe they can afford to stop cutting
corners, as you say.

My trade with farmers doesn't include a demand they
cause collateral deaths during the production of veg. My
trade is only for his produce and has no bearing upon
how he produces it. Veg production per se doesn't require
that animals be killed, and this is why I demand veg instead
of meat because my moral code does not allow me to
demand the slaughter of animals. My money cannot move
the farmer's hand to kill unless he wants to kill. Only he can
move it according to his traits. There is no causal link between
my trade with him and the method he uses to satisfy my demand.
It doesn't instruct him to farm one way or the other. Those
options are his, and he, being completely autonomous is
responsible for his actions. I blame him on the basis that he is
a morally responsible agent carrying obligations to endure the
consequences of his actions.

[According to Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has two
distinctive features. First, there is a control condition: the
action or trait must have its origin in the agent. That is, it
must be up to the agent whether to perform that action
or possess the trait -- it cannot be compelled externally]

That being so, my trade with the farmer cannot be viewed
as causal to the deaths he accumulates. It is up to him
whether to perform that action -- I cannot compel him
externally.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message ink.net...
Derek wrote:

[snip Dreck's own shit]



Very nice.

It's arrogant to compliment yourself in public, shitworm.

She nailed the lot of you in less than two weeks. What
a bunch of ******s.

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
C. James Strutz wrote:
No, you won't get anyone here to post links on that subject because
they
can't.

Are you familiar with any formal studies which actually counted the
number of animals snuffed out for *any* particular farm crop?

No.

One side in the debate accepts that animals die as a matter of course in
agriculture. The other side ("vegans") is making the historically novel
and fantastical claim that animals either don't die or that not as many
die because they don't eat meat. The former example deny the antecedent;
the latter have no objective proof. The burden lies with both the former
and the latter so long as they make the claim.

No, both sides are making claims that can't be backed up for lack of
information. Pinning the burden of proof on the other side is very
convenient.

I doubt it
since such deaths are considered normal, even acceptable, in the course
of agriculture. It's only become an issue in the last half century or so
with the advent of the animal rights movement and veganISM.

I agree that very little information is available on this subject.
That's
why I question why some people here attribute SO many more animal deaths
to
veg*nism.

Your concern about "SO many more" being attributed is appreciated, but a
moot point given certain alternatives like grass-fed livestock and game.
The counting game is not one chosen by the side you oppose, it's one
assumed when someone makes a moral claim about diet in the first place
(i.e., a vegan). So let the vegans count, but count fairly. Animals die
for the meat-centered diet; animals die for the vegan diet.

There are not just two sides he vegans and anti-vegans. The prevalent
anti-vegan side (at least in this ng) contends that vegans insist that their
lifestyle eliminates ALL incidental animal suffering and casualties. I
represent another side that vegans hope to MINIMIZE animal suffering and
casualties, thus the "counting game". Since the counting game cannot be
substantiated on either side, let's just give up the argument and have
peace.

I don't think the numbers can be substantiated either way. So why
do people so vehemently support a position that they can't back up?

You mean vegans? Vegans are the ones making the claims. Let them support
it or shut up.

I think you are attributing claims to vegans that they did not make. You
cannot make them support something they do not claim.

And why
do they evade, ridicule, and chastise when pressed to produce any sort
of
proof?

The sanctimonious claim that your diet causes no or less death and
suffering than someone else's DEMANDS you support it.

You keep turning the tables on vegans. I am talking about anti-vegan claims
here. Things like veg*n lifestyle results in more animal casualties than
eating meat.

The
professor named in the article to which you allude below did attempt to
do such a count in the course of mowing alfalfa; 50% of one species was
killed off during harvest.

Regrettable if true.

Have you any reason to question an esteemed professor at Oregon State?

Just the ones I stated previously.

My position has been thoroughly debunked? I don't think so. The
"messenger"
animalrights.net is dedicated to "debunking the animal rights movement".
Getting useful information from sites like that is akin to listening to
Rush
Limbaugh for unbiased political opinion. Furthermore, no information was
given who funded Professor Davis' work or how/where he collected data.
Credible information comes from independent and unbiased sources.

I'll remember that next time someone here cites PCRM, PETA, the
Chelsea's vegan motorcyclist club thing, etc.

Sure, that's fair.

What you failed to note
when reading the link before (when you first slammed it) is that
animalrights.net links back to primary sources.

Okay, but I'm still reluctant to accept it as credible for all the reasons I
stated previously.

Slight difference in context. I didn't mean to imply that claims of CDs
are
incredible. I question claims that there are more CDs involved in
vegetable
production than there are in meat production.

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that I don't think there's a
statistical difference.

I think you're wrong.

Even if there's a significant difference, the
facts still mitigate against a vegan diet being intrinsically moral or
ethical.

Why? Don't you think that fewer incidents of animal suffering and deaths
make it more ethical?

I don't think that anyone disputes that there are animal deaths and
suffering in the course of agriculture.

The "googlesux" person who started this tangent certainly took
exception, and many other veg-ns continue to make broad generalizations
about the morality of their diet in contrast to those who eat meat. I
encourage you to pay closer attention to posters like "googlesux" and
"exploratory" (tpa) who either don't comprehend the issue of CDs or
remain willfully ignorant of it.

There will always be some people who take an absolute moral stand. Don't
generalize a whole group based on the actions of a few.

The issue should be where there are fewer animal deaths and suffering.

Perhaps for those to whom it matters. Most people, including vegans,
make food purchases without consideration. Many, if not most, vegans
assume because it's marked "vegan" and has no objectionable ingredients
that it must be free of deaths and suffering. Most people genuinely do
not ca all they want is food that tastes good at the lowest possible
price.

I think that most veg*ns inherently care what's in their food and are
willing to pay higher prices (compared to non-veg*n foods). If you are
comparing two otherwise equivalent veg*n products then I agree that price
will be a stronger influence to consumers.

Again, no argument that there are animal casualties in agriculture. In
fact,
I tried (apparently in vain) to make the point that the cattle industry
is
supported in no small way by agriculture. Nobody seems to have
considered
that there are many, many CDs involved in food production for cattle. It
tilts the scale back towards the veg*n position.

Not an apples:apples argument. You're excluding valid, sustainable
alternatives like grass-fed. Most grains fed to cattle are the stuff
that wouldn't or can't be sold for human consumption anyway. Corn
(maize) fed to cattle isn't the kind you would buy at the supermarket;
it's not sweet at all and it doesn't taste very good. Cows will eat it,
though, and convert it and grasses into protein.

Okay, but I'm not talking about people eating field corn! You reuse the same
land to produce human consumable food. If you assume that the number of
incidental casualties will be the same regardless of what is planted then it
IS an apples:apples argument. As for truely grass-fed, I think it represents
a very small part of the total number of beef that is sold. Why are we
talking about something that is statistically insignificant?

I don't rely as much on foul language for emphasis as you or other
people
here, but I'll be under anyone's skin mercilessly if provoked to it.

Liar.

I have two issues with this. First, I know with certainty that I stated
fact. I can prove it but I will not here in the interest of time. Second, it
is unnecessary and rude to call someone a liar, particularly when you can't
back up your claim that I knowingly attempted to mislead. I did not. If we
were standing face to face you wouldn't call me a liar under the otherwise
similar circumstances. Don't cower behind the internet.

I'm
tired of trying to debate claims with in-your-face morons. If people
can't
back up claims with real information then let's just agree that we don't
know and go back to posting recipes.

Vegans cannot support their sanctimonious claims about morality or
ethics with respect to animal deaths and suffering. The buck stops there.

And you are the police that hold them to it?

clueless bluefooted Dreck wrote:
Animals continue to die because most vegans -- even self-heralded
"ethical" vegans -- refuse to grow their own food on a small enough
scale to prevent animal deaths.

That's not an honest explanation. They die because
farmers cut corners and prefer to use pesticides
instead of trying to improve their farming methods
and storage facilities. It's cheaper for them and less
labour intensive.

Next time you send your poor wife to the store, make sure she buys only
the most expensive of each available item to ensure farmers are making
the most money possible so maybe they can afford to stop cutting
corners, as you say.

My trade with farmers doesn't include a demand they
cause collateral deaths during the production of veg.

Your trade accepts the consequences of farmers' actions since you are a
very indiscriminate consumer. You seek out produce on the basis of price
rather than humane practices. Produce grown humanely is available from
farmers, and it's alternatively possible to grow your own humane
produce. You choose to ignore and avoid the more expensive (in money or
your personal time) humane alternatives. You're the reason the farmers
whose produce you purchase cut all those moral-ethical corners. Your
stance is meaningless in the face of what you do; you are a poseur, and
a rank hypocrite.

snip rest of your meager sophistry

C. James Strutz wrote:
One side in the debate accepts that animals die as a matter of course in
agriculture. The other side ("vegans") is making the historically novel
and fantastical claim that animals either don't die or that not as many
die because they don't eat meat. The former example deny the antecedent;
the latter have no objective proof. The burden lies with both the former
and the latter so long as they make the claim.

No, both sides are making claims that can't be backed up for lack of
information. Pinning the burden of proof on the other side is very
convenient.

You're still ignoring the fact that the deaths and suffering of animals
are abhorred by only *one* side. IOW, it's the vegans and ARAs who make
the sanctimonious claims about their practices, but those claims are
meaningless without proof. The fact remains that animals die for either
dietary choice.

Your concern about "SO many more" being attributed is appreciated, but a
moot point given certain alternatives like grass-fed livestock and game.
The counting game is not one chosen by the side you oppose, it's one
assumed when someone makes a moral claim about diet in the first place
(i.e., a vegan). So let the vegans count, but count fairly. Animals die
for the meat-centered diet; animals die for the vegan diet.

There are not just two sides he vegans and anti-vegans. The prevalent
anti-vegan side (at least in this ng) contends that vegans insist that their
lifestyle eliminates ALL incidental animal suffering and casualties. I
represent another side that vegans hope to MINIMIZE animal suffering and
casualties, thus the "counting game". Since the counting game cannot be
substantiated on either side, let's just give up the argument and have
peace.

I'll give up the argument for the sake of peace as soon as you or anyone
else can substantiate that any commercially-produced diet has no or
minimal casualties with respect to animals. Your accounting practices
remain suspect.

I don't think the numbers can be substantiated either way. So why
do people so vehemently support a position that they can't back up?

You mean vegans? Vegans are the ones making the claims. Let them support
it or shut up.

I think you are attributing claims to vegans that they did not make. You
cannot make them support something they do not claim.

No, go back and review the post from "googlesux." Review posts in other
threads by other posters like "exploratory." Review some of the claims
made by others in afv.

The sanctimonious claim that your diet causes no or less death and
suffering than someone else's DEMANDS you support it.

You keep turning the tables on vegans.

They're the ones making outrageous claims. The burden is theirs.

I am talking about anti-vegan claims
here. Things like veg*n lifestyle results in more animal casualties than
eating meat.

I find that claim to be more logically plausible than the 'vegan' claim
that a vegan diet results in less animal casualties.

Have you any reason to question an esteemed professor at Oregon State?

Just the ones I stated previously.

You didn't give reasons, you only spewed about it being from an anti-AR
site.

I'll remember that next time someone here cites PCRM, PETA, the
Chelsea's vegan motorcyclist club thing, etc.

Sure, that's fair.

Glad you agree.

What you failed to note
when reading the link before (when you first slammed it) is that
animalrights.net links back to primary sources.

Okay, but I'm still reluctant to accept it as credible for all the reasons I
stated previously.

That's your perogative. We have names for people who cling to their
'orthodoxy' in light of evidence against it. Those aren't nice names.

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that I don't think there's a
statistical difference.

I think you're wrong.

On what basis?

Even if there's a significant difference, the
facts still mitigate against a vegan diet being intrinsically moral or
ethical.

Why? Don't you think that fewer incidents of animal suffering and deaths
make it more ethical?

Is it more ethical to only beat a child once a week as opposed to once a
day? If something -- in this instance, animal causalties as a result of
agriculture -- is unethical, then it's unethical whether it happens once
or millions of times.

I don't think that anyone disputes that there are animal deaths and
suffering in the course of agriculture.

The "googlesux" person who started this tangent certainly took
exception, and many other veg-ns continue to make broad generalizations
about the morality of their diet in contrast to those who eat meat. I
encourage you to pay closer attention to posters like "googlesux" and
"exploratory" (tpa) who either don't comprehend the issue of CDs or
remain willfully ignorant of it.

There will always be some people who take an absolute moral stand. Don't
generalize a whole group based on the actions of a few.

See your previous comment about fewer incidents making something
ethical. You're part of the crowd discussing things in terms of morality
and ethics. The issue isn't just over absolutes, it's over the whole
concept of what is moral and ethical. That doesn't just pertain to CDs,
it goes to the whole nature of veganISM and AR.

The issue should be where there are fewer animal deaths and suffering.

Perhaps for those to whom it matters. Most people, including vegans,
make food purchases without consideration. Many, if not most, vegans
assume because it's marked "vegan" and has no objectionable ingredients
that it must be free of deaths and suffering. Most people genuinely do
not ca all they want is food that tastes good at the lowest possible
price.

I think that most veg*ns inherently care what's in their food and are
willing to pay higher prices (compared to non-veg*n foods). If you are
comparing two otherwise equivalent veg*n products then I agree that price
will be a stronger influence to consumers.

I disagree. Other than a reflexive scan of ingredient lists to ensure no
animal-derived ingredients are contained, most vegans are quite sloppy
when it comes to shopping.

Not an apples:apples argument. You're excluding valid, sustainable
alternatives like grass-fed. Most grains fed to cattle are the stuff
that wouldn't or can't be sold for human consumption anyway. Corn
(maize) fed to cattle isn't the kind you would buy at the supermarket;
it's not sweet at all and it doesn't taste very good. Cows will eat it,
though, and convert it and grasses into protein.

Okay, but I'm not talking about people eating field corn! You reuse the same
land to produce human consumable food. If you assume that the number of
incidental casualties will be the same regardless of what is planted then it
IS an apples:apples argument. As for truely grass-fed, I think it represents
a very small part of the total number of beef that is sold. Why are we
talking about something that is statistically insignificant?

Grass-fed is a growing market. It's also one of the sources of meat
which invalidates your thesis that a diet containing meat is going to
cause more suffering and death than a vegan diet.

I don't rely as much on foul language for emphasis as you or other
people
here, but I'll be under anyone's skin mercilessly if provoked to it.

Liar.

I have two issues with this. First, I know with certainty that I stated
fact. I can prove it but I will not here in the interest of time.

Take your time, Jim. You're as rude and vulgar as anyone else in afv.
You often don't even wait before lashing out; you seem to do so
impulsively -- not from provocation -- when you see posts from certain
users.

Second, it
is unnecessary and rude to call someone a liar, particularly when you can't
back up your claim that I knowingly attempted to mislead.

It was necessary to point out that you rely on foul language as anyone
else. You may think it's rude, but I think it's correct.

I did not. If we
were standing face to face you wouldn't call me a liar under the otherwise
similar circumstances.

Wanna bet?

Don't cower behind the internet.

I'm not cowering, C James.

I'm
tired of trying to debate claims with in-your-face morons. If people
can't
back up claims with real information then let's just agree that we don't
know and go back to posting recipes.

Vegans cannot support their sanctimonious claims about morality or
ethics with respect to animal deaths and suffering. The buck stops there.

And you are the police that hold them to it?

I'm interested enough in the truth to ask them to support their
moral-ethical statements or to cease making such outlandish claims. If
that bothers them, or you, tough shit.

"usual suspect" wrote in message news
clueless bluefooted Dreck wrote:
Animals continue to die because most vegans -- even self-heralded
"ethical" vegans -- refuse to grow their own food on a small enough
scale to prevent animal deaths.

That's not an honest explanation. They die because
farmers cut corners and prefer to use pesticides
instead of trying to improve their farming methods
and storage facilities. It's cheaper for them and less
labour intensive.

Next time you send your poor wife to the store, make sure she buys only
the most expensive of each available item to ensure farmers are making
the most money possible so maybe they can afford to stop cutting
corners, as you say.

My trade with farmers doesn't include a demand they
cause collateral deaths during the production of veg.

Your trade accepts the consequences of farmers' actions

Mine doesn't.

Derek wrote:
Animals continue to die because most vegans -- even self-heralded
"ethical" vegans -- refuse to grow their own food on a small enough
scale to prevent animal deaths.

That's not an honest explanation. They die because
farmers cut corners and prefer to use pesticides
instead of trying to improve their farming methods
and storage facilities. It's cheaper for them and less
labour intensive.

Next time you send your poor wife to the store, make sure she buys only
the most expensive of each available item to ensure farmers are making
the most money possible so maybe they can afford to stop cutting
corners, as you say.

My trade with farmers doesn't include a demand they
cause collateral deaths during the production of veg.

Your trade accepts the consequences of farmers' actions

Mine doesn't.

Yes, it does. restore

....You are a very indiscriminate consumer. You seek out produce on the
basis of price rather than humane practices. Produce grown humanely is
available from farmers, and it's alternatively possible to grow your own
humane produce. You choose to ignore and avoid the more expensive (in
money or your personal time) humane alternatives. You're the reason the
farmers whose produce you purchase cut all those moral-ethical corners.
Your stance is meaningless in the face of what you do; you are a poseur,
and a rank hypocrite.