See James Strut wrote:

> "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.

Yes, asshole, it is wholly irrelevant. And you know
why, unless you're too stupid to read what I wrote.
Let's see...

> 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

No, shitworm. "vegans" DO contribute to massive
collateral animal deaths, with or without a cattle
industry. "vegans" pretend they don't cause animal
death via their diets, and they DO.

The deaths they cause go completely unpunished, and are
unnecessary to the production of food to eat. The only
distinction is that no one eats these dead animals.

>
>
>>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.

No, it was illegitimate. You cannot establish your
virtue by making a comparison or contrast to others.

That you think you made a legitimate comparison shows
what a worthless shitbag you are, an absolutely vile shit.

>
>
>>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.

It is killing you, Putz, you wholly unethical lying
shitbag.

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

Very much so, shitworm. You are mostly vegetarian, but
you cannot coherently explain why you draw the line
where you do. You are even more incoherent when it
comes to ethics than are "vegans".


>>>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.

We have the massive, crushing fact of collateral animal
deaths in agriculture, which you ACKNOWLEDGE.

You are morally incoherent, which is a bad thing to be
for one who claims to be behaving "more" ethically than
others.