See James Strut wrote:

> "Useless Subject" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>C. James Putz wrote:
>
>
>>>>The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
>>>>Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
>>>>as much about animals as I do and then consume them.
>>>
>>>There are some people on this list who will call you names and tell you in
>>>the most vulgar language that you will contribute to more animal deaths
>>>as a vegetarian than as a non-vegetarian.
>>
>>How do you justify the deaths of animals, birds, and fish from the use
>>of heavy machinery, pesticides (even in organic farming), storage, and
>>transportation? The only thing that changes in a veg-n diet is that one
>>no longer EATS animal parts. That does nothing to change the fact that
>>animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields, pesticide use,
>>being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.
>
>
> There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop production
> for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent number of
> people directly.

That's wholly irrelevant, Putz, and you know it. We're
not talking about comparative virtue, asswipe, which is
what you're trying to do by introducing that irrelevany.

So-called "ethical vegetarians" cause an unacceptably
high number of collateral deaths in agriculture for
their claim to being "ethical" by virtue of not eating
meat to hold up. You may not legitimately invoke a
comparison with omnivores to try to get out from under
the crushing moral burden of the deaths you cause.

The point of introducing the fact of collateral animal
deaths in agriculture is to show that "vegans" are not
behaving according to any moral principle. By
defensively trying to make your pseudo-virtue stand out
by way of a vile comparison, you REALLY show that
"veganism" is free of any ethical principles.

You aren't even "vegan", asshole, so you REALLY have an
inconsistency problem.

>
>
>>>There are other people who argue
>>>strongly to the contrary.
>>
>>Yes, without any facts.
>
>
> I don't see any facts coming from you supporting your wild assertions. Just
> a lot of flaming rhetoric and abuse.

The facts and logic are in the heuristic of collateral
deaths.

>
>
>>>All you can hope to do is research the issues for
>>>yourself and make your own decisions. Think with your brain and your
>>>heart.
>
>>Your heart doesn't think, it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds.
>
>
> At least I have a heart...

No, not really. You have weepy, immature sentiment.

>
>
>>>>My problem
>>>>(which I hope is not unique) is this: I was raised in a "meat and
>>>>potatoes" family. Every meal, every day, had some form of meat, from
>>>>bacon in the morning to a roast etc. and night. Somehow the idea of a
>>>>meatless meal seems like no meal at all. For instance, I could eat
>>>>salad to the point of bursting but when I get up from the table I
>>>>wonder, when are we having the real dinner? I have tried Garden
>>>>Burgers and the like and, while the flavor was acceptable if not good,
>>>>the texture obviously is not at all close to a hamburger. It is
>>>>possible, I suppose, that the tactile part of eating meat plays a
>>>>part. Is there any choice between continuing to eat meat and never
>>>>really enjoying a meal again? If there isn't, I will probably choose
>>>>to pass on enjoying food but I'd rather there was a choice. Can
>>>>someone suggest a cookbook that may benefit someone such as myself?
>>>>Is it simply becoming used to meatless meals and how long does that
>>>>take? My thanks for any guidance you may provide.
>>>
>>>One of the benefits of vegetarian lifestyle is discovering that meals
>
> don't
>
>>>need a central focus. I think that always having same
>
> meatotato:vegetable
>
>>>theme for every meal stifles most kitchen creativity.
>>
>>You have no creativity. None. Remember?
>
>
> I have a lot of creativity.

Hardly.