View Single Post
  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian

C. James Strutz wrote:

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

>
>
> Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal casualties
> in products they buy and use. The idea is to minimize animal casualties
> through the choices they make.


They do not do that, ASSHOLE. They do not "minimize"
anything. To begin with, most don't even KNOW about
collateral deaths, and they aren't trying to learn.

The rate of accidental death and injury for animals
would have to be comparable to the rate for human death
and injury, and we both know it isn't.

> Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc.
> because it contributes less to animal casualties.


It doesn't do a ****ING THING to eliminate or even
reduce the animal casualties brought about by fruit and
vegetable cultivation, ASSHOLE.

> The cattle industry is
> responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties than
> vegan's collective contribution.


Irrelevant, ASSHOLE. "Vegans" are not minimizing, and
they ONLY are claiming to be "virtuous" by means of an
invalid comparison. The correct comparison is not
"vegans" to meat eaters, ASSHOLE. The correct
comparison is animal deaths caused by "vegans" to human
deaths caused by "vegans" in the course of obtaining
food. The number of the former is vastly higher than
the latter, and we all know it.

> You don't want vegans to know that because
> it discredits your wild accusations.


I don't care if they know about it or not, ASSHOLE. It
is irrelevant to the examination of "vegans'" bogus
ethical pose.