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

Do you see me disputing that? NO! It's the cattle industry that's
responsible for most collateral deaths, not vegans. Vegans contribute to
negligible collateral deaths in comparison. That's what you don't want
people here to know.

> 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.

Unpunished? So you're here to punish vegans?

> >>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.

You're argument is incomplete and incoherent. You can't contain the damage
inherent in the truth, can you?

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

Glad to know I'm getting under you skin.

> >>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.

More damage control...

> >>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".

You're trying to change the subject...more damage control. I am vegetarian
but not vegan. You are wrong, as usual (heh, no pun intended).

> >>>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.

Then produce the facts that back up your assertions. Do it now or everybody
will see you're the lying jerk that I know you are.

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

Hardly.