C. James Putz wrote:
>>How do you justify the deaths of animals, birds, and fish from the use
>>of heavy machinery, pesticides (even in organic farming), storage, and
>>transportation? The only thing that changes in a veg-n diet is that one
>>no longer EATS animal parts. That does nothing to change the fact that
>>animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields, pesticide use,
>>being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.
>
> 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.

Answer the question, moron. The question was, How do you justify the
suffering and deaths of all kinds of animals in the production of veg-n
food as well as meat? If you consider a veg-n diet to be of a higher
moral or ethical dimension than a meat-based diet, it should matter to
you that your diet is qualitatively and quantitatively responsible for
pain, suffering, and death, just like any other diet.

>>>There are other people who argue
>>>strongly to the contrary.
>>
>>Yes, without any facts.
>
> I don't see any facts coming from you supporting your wild assertions. Just
> a lot of flaming rhetoric and abuse.

No flames, no abuse, no wild assertions.

http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html

>>>All you can hope to do is research the issues for
>>>yourself and make your own decisions. Think with your brain and your
> heart.
>
>>Your heart doesn't think, it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds.
>
> At least I have a heart...

Your mamby-pamby notions are not a matter of having a "heart." It's the
result of not growing up.

>>You have no creativity. None. Remember?
>
> I have a lot of creativity.

See your stupidly conceived cookbook thread.

>>>Getting past that
>>>limitation opens up lots of new possibilities for combinations of
>>>vegetables, legumes, grains and fruits that make cooking and dining much
>>>more interesting.
>>
>>It's not a limitation if you're creative.
>
> You don't read well, do you?

I read, and comprehend, quite well. You still lack creativity.

>>>Getting to that point may take some time depending on how
>>>far entrenched you are in the meat focused lifestyle.
>>
>>You've been vegetarian for a long time and you still struggle.
>
> I don't struggle at all, except with the likes of you.

Everyone has a cross to bear. I'm glad I fulfill such a role in your
worthless life.

>>>Until then, there are
>>>lots of meat and dairy substitute products on the market with widely
> varying
>>>facsimiles to the real thing. The key thing to remember is that they are
> not
>>>meat, so don't expect them to taste exactly like meat.
>>
>>What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look,
>>taste, and/or feel like something you *won't* eat? Hypocrite!
>
> Conscience, something you wouldn't know about.

So it's okay that animals die in the production of your soy burgers, and
it's okay that your soy burger smells, tastes, and feels just like a
real dead ground cow burger. The fact remains that you haven't lost your
appetite for the real thing, which is why you seek out substitutes. Your
conscience is phony.

>>Vegetarian Times sucks.
>
> Even you are entitled to your own opinon.

I mark its most significant decline with the direction taken by the new
editor last year. I prefer substance over style; perhaps this difference
between us explains your support for the magazine's new direction.