On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:56:36 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>Julie wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:02:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Curtain Cider wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 07:09:59 -0000, "Jim Webster"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Buxqi" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> On Mar 3, 3:53 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>>>>> livestock.
>>>>> Yes. A vegan diet will generally have a smaller ecological
>>>>> footprint than a meat based one.
>>>>>
>>>>> but this is irrelevent if the person eating the diet has a huge ecological
>>>>> footprint because they fly regularly or drive a big car
>>>>>
>>>>> You have to look at the overal efficiency of the person, not merely one
>>>>> aspect of their lives
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim Webster
>>>> That's a stupid answer, you need do no such thing. Quite a silly one
>>>> too given your position within the CLA, no doubt that would be the
>>>> party line and if that's the best they can come up with then they are
>>>> really struggling.
>>>>
>>>> The discussion is about getting rid of the hugely damaging livestock
>>>> industry and swapping over to the much more efficient
>>> Not so. You, too, misuse "efficient". You just don't
>>> know the correct meaning of the word.
>>
>> The meaning is clear and simple,
>
>The meaning escapes you entirely.

great argument!

>>>> and planet
>>>> friendly vegetarian diet. What car or other habits people have is
>>>> irrelevant, although veggies will also usually be very conscientious
>>>> in other areas of their lives.
>>> No, they're not. What an absurd claim.
>>
>> Fact.
>
>Not a fact.

great argument!

>
>> Most of us veggies care enough about sentient beings not to eat
>> or abuse them.
>
>No, you don't care about them at all. That's why you
>commission their deaths in the course of farming fruits
>and vegetables. All you care about is the disposition
>of the corpses. Animals chopped to bits to produce the
>vegetables and fruits you eat, and left to rot in
>fields, are just fine with you. For some reason,
>you're put off by people eating animals. But your
>inconsistency is grotesque, and noted.

That old straw dog fallacy you always resort to when you lose the
plot! I thought we were discussing the benefits of arable over
livestock?

<snip the village idiot>