See James Strut wrote:
> "Jonathan Bald" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>See James Strut wrote:
>
>
>>>NO! It's the cattle industry that's
>>>responsible for most collateral deaths, not vegans.
>>
>>The raw number isn't important, ASSHOLE.
>
>
> It is important for people to keep it in perspective.

No, ASSHOLE, it isn't important at all. The only
importance of collateral animal deaths in fruit and
vegetable agriculture is to show that "vegans" ignore
them, which invalidates their position.

>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> How large?
>
>
>>2. "vegans", sanctimonious assholes, don't care to know
>> how big it is.
>
>
> I care to know. Tell me.

You do not care, lying asshole. That's why you haven't
ever attempted to determine it.

>
>
>>3. The deaths could be avoided.
>
>
> NOt all of them, not practically.

The deaths and injuries could be brought down to the
same level of accidental human deaths and injury in
agriculture, if anyone cared to do it. No one cares,
including "vegans". Lying, sanctimonious "vegans" will
greedily consume fresh produce that whose production
and distribution caused massive animal death and
suffering, because they don't care.

>
>
>>4. There are no consequences for the deaths.
>
>
> There are no consequences for slaughter of cattle for food. What do you
> think the consequences should be?

Those who consume beef don't believe the deaths of
cattle are wrong. "vegans" *claim* to believe that the
deliberate or negligently accidental death of animals
is wrong, but of course they're lying, because they
benefit from such death in the form of low prices, and
they take no steps to avoid it.

>
>
>>5. "vegans" do NOTHING, not a ****ING THING, to
>> try to stop causing the deaths.
>
>
> And what are you doing to stop the slaughter of cattle? Answer: NOTHING, you
> could care less.

Because I don't believe killing animals for food is
wrong. Neither do you, apparently, as you are not "vegan".

> Yet you condemn vegetarians and vegans for incidental
> deaths from agriculture.

Because they DO claim to be opposed to unnecessary
killing of animals. They are hypocrites.

>
>
>>>Unpunished? So you're here to punish vegans?
>>
>>No. Wrongful deaths should be punished.
>
>
> How would you propose to punish the slaughter houses then?

I don't: killing cattle isn't wrong.

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

Why do you keep getting so badly confused, asshole
jimmy? I don't believe the deaths of cattle are wrong.
"vegans" do, which is why they don't eat beef;
"vegans" also MUST believe that the negligently
accidental death of animals in the course of producing
fruit and vegetables is wrong, but they don't avoid
eating the foods whose production caused the death.

That's a massive inconsistency that demonstrates
"vegans" aren't really following moral principles.

>
>
>>>>>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 have NEVER produced any facts.

You acknowledge the massive, crushing fact of
collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Too late for
you to back out now, ASSHOLE.

>
>
>>Very much so, jimmy. You are disgustingly incoherent
>>on ethics, and you are a stinking hypocrite and liar.
>
>
> Funny, that's my impression of you.

No, it isn't. You haven't caught me in any
inconsistency, and I haven't lied.

You can't explain anything about your bogus moral pose.