See James Strut wrote:

> "Jonathan Bald" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>See James Strut wrote:
>>
>>

>>>>>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?

Yes: below, when you lie and whine that I have no "facts".

> NO! It's the cattle industry that's
> responsible for most collateral deaths, not vegans.

The raw number isn't important, ASSHOLE.

> Vegans contribute to
> negligible collateral deaths in comparison.

The comparison is invalid, ASSHOLE. It's still a very
big number and there are very big problems with it:

1. The number is large.
2. "vegans", sanctimonious assholes, don't care to know
how big it is.
3. The deaths could be avoided.
4. There are no consequences for the deaths.
5. "vegans" do NOTHING, not a ****ING THING, to
try to stop causing the deaths.

>
>
>>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?

No. Wrongful deaths should be punished.

There are no consequences for the collateral animal
deaths in agriculture, and "vegans" are integral to
their occurrence.

>
>
>>>>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.

It is neither, and you know it, jimmy. You're sweating.

You are attempting to establish "vegan" virtue - in
your case, it's only semi-"vegan", and that is *also*
incoherent - by comparing the numbers.

Look at it this way, jimmy, you stinking little
shitworm. In fact, you've already seen this, so you're
just playing stupid. If you are married but **** your
co-worker (who isn't your wife) three times a month,
and your shitbag married brother ****s his co-worker
(also not his wife) 20 times a month, you are not
"more" virtuous than he merely because you **** your
co-worker fewer times than your shitbag brother ****s
his co-worker.

Got it now, jimmy, you ****ing hypocritical shitworm?

>
>
>>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.

You aren't. I'm toying with you.

>
>
>>>>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...

Nope.

>
>
>>>>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.

Nope. The subject is the appalling moral incoherence
of so-called "ethical vegetarians", and you are one.
That you are vegetarian to some ill-defined extent due
to supposed "ethical" considerations, yet don't take it
all the way, is EXTRA incoherence on your part.

> I am vegetarian but not vegan.

Yes, I said that, shitworm. You can't explain
coherently why you AREN'T "vegan". To the extent you
are an ethical vegetarian at all, you share fully in
the moral incoherence of "vegans"; to the terrible
extent you aren't a full-fledged "vegan", you are MORE
incoherent than they are.

>
>>>>>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.

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

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

Very much so, jimmy. You are disgustingly incoherent
on ethics, and you are a stinking hypocrite and liar.