Julie wrote:
> 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!

It works. You *don't* know what the word really means.
That's why you fall for this cheap sleazy "vegan"
word trickery.


>>>>> 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!

It works. You claim something as fact that isn't fact,
without support for it, and I tell you.

It is *not* a fact that "vegans" are conscientious in
other areas of their lives; probably quite the
opposite, since "veganism" is nothing more than self
flattery.

>
>>> 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

No such fallacy.