Jonathan Ball wrote:
>> whatever, I find it quite odd that people who eat meat have the time to
>> criticize people who don't even though it has nothing to do with them.
>
> It has a lot to do with us. "veganism" is an aggressive movement that
> seeks ultimately to impose its values on those who disagree with "vegan"
> fanatics.

Yes, and this is the reason Robbins writes his books. It isn't enough to
point to the healthy benefits of adding whole grains, fruits, and
vegetables to one's diet. He instead vilifies industries that involve
livestock and presents disinformation that those industries are
responsible for hunger and nearly every societal ill. The solutions
offered are not moderate, but radical: elimination of meat and dairy
industries.

Gary's tolerance is baseless in the respect that he offers such a
radical source as evidence. He willfully ignores the problem of
collateral deaths in production of plant-based foods. He wants to change
the world, but he cannot even change himself.

>> The truth is, that if everyone ate vegetarian, there would be enough
>> food to feed the entire world.
>
> There already is more than enough food to feed the entire world, EVEN
> WITH the consumption of grain by livestock. You indicate that you are
> utterly ignorant of the economics of world hunger.

The problem of hunger is based on three main variables, which are best
summed up into one. The three main variables are war, famine, and
poverty; they are summed up by the problem of distribution. We can and
do drop food into Somalia, but most people there are unlikely to receive
very much, if any, because it's captured by warlords who use it to
increase their power bases. We can and do feed other regions hit by
drought, which only encourages them to remain in unproductive regions.
We can and do provide food to people of poor nations, whose governments
are usually corrupt and/or repressive (e.g., North Korea).

>> and if everyone used renewable energy
>> our planet would be inhabitable in 100 years.
>>
>> I didn't start this discussion.
>
> Yes, you did.
>
>> I don't go out of my way to tell people
>> they should or shouldn't do anything.
>
> It's implicit in "veganism". You feel you're doing something "more"
> ethical by not consuming Animal Parts, and it's quite natural to think
> that everyone else ought to do likewise. In fact, if you DIDN'T feel
> that everyone ought to do likewise, then it would be even further
> removed from being a legitimate ethical choice.
>
> It always amazes me that people are so indoctrinated into moral
> relativism that when they behave, or believe they are behaving,
> differently on ethical matters from others, they can pretend there is no
> implied criticism of those who don't believe and practice as they do.
> Thus, for example, people who proclaim themselves "personally" opposed
> to abortion, but out the other side of their mouths say they don't want
> to "impose their values" on those who want an abortion, are massive
> hypocrites. If it's wrong for them to extinguish the life of an unborn
> human fetus, then they MUST necessarily believe that it is wrong for
> everyone.
>
> You are LYING, again, if you say you don't want to tell others what to eat.

Very well put, Mr Ball. Gary's hypocrisy is pretty blatant.

>> You can eat all the meat you want.
>
> There's your lie again.

"If everyone ate vegetarian" kind of blows up his notion of tolerance.
So do his sources -- PETA and Robbins.

>> But don't litter this newsgroup with lies and point the finger at
>> people who are making personal decisions that have nothing to do with
>> yours.
>
> The "personal decisions" are based on lies and illogic.

All of which makes for a super-sized portion of self-delusion.