"Jonathan Bald" > wrote in message
k.net...

> See James Strut wrote:
>
> > "Useless Subject" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > 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.

Oh no, it's not irrelevant. You want to make everyone believe that vegans
contribute to collateral animal deaths without them realizing that the
cattle industry is responsible for most of it, you lying sack of shit.

> 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.

I can and I did.

> 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.

Very weak, you can do better than that.

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

Not at all. It doesn't take a vegan to show that your argument is incomplete
at best.

> > 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.

You have no facts.