"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Putz wrote:

> They only abhor the idea of the above when pronouncing their
> self-righteousness. Their consumption of agricultural products which do
> not avoid such casualties makes them hypocrites and demagogues.

Read carefully: you're way over the top with your notion that vegans think
they are morally superior, or that they think that a vegan lifestyle will
eliminate all animal suffering and deaths. And this coming from a vegan,
sheesh! You need to rethink a lot of things.

> It depends on what kind of animal and under what conditions. I'm not
> under the delusion that my diet -- which is far stricter as far as the
> presence of animal-derived ingredients than YOURS -- is free of animal
> suffering or death.

I didn't realize that we were in competition in diet strictness. I guess you
"win" then. Good for you!

> Eating and living as people want is fine and well. Remember, though,
> this discussion has its origin in certain ethical pronouncements by you
> and others. The entire continuum of such pronouncements is unfounded.
> Why do you set yourself up as more righteous than others simply because
> they eat meat?

I have never set myself up as being any more righteous than anyone else.

> Is it getting through your thick forehead?

> I guess it's *not* getting through your thick forehead.

You're getting frustrated by your failure to convince anybody here of
anything.

> The meat from one large deer or a grass-fed deer will feed
> a family many meals; reduce the animal deaths even further if that
> family grows their own vegetables.

I don't know about Texas, but in Pennsylvania there is a short hunting
season during which you can shoot a limited number of deer. It surely
wouldn't be enough to feed a family for a year. What do you propose that
people eat for the rest of the year if vegetables are immoral?

> If you have bonafide knowledge to refute something, you should offer it;
> you shouldn't continue offering your tired dogma when it's not based on
> verifiable fact.

You have no more verifiable facts than I do. Yet you persist in coming off
as some know-all, be-all intellect with all the answers. You are even more
righteous and sanctimonious than than the vegans you accuse of the same. You
are a hypocrite without equal.

> I'll be as nasty as I can be if you don't support your flimsy premise
> with something more substantial than you've already offered.

Nastiness is one of the mechanisms you resort to to put emphasis on your
flimsy arguments, particularly when you can't convince anybody with your
righteousness, exaggerations, inventions, shifting positions, evasions,
"anecdotal experiences", and biased information that you try to pass off as
legitimate proof.

> No, it does invalidate your beliefs since you suggest that a veg-n diet
> in and of itself minimizes animal casualties. The very existence of
> exceptions to your rule -- grass-fed beef, bison, game, fish, etc. --
> invalidates the extreme notion that meat must be avoided to be humane,
> moral, ethical, sustainable.

Avoiding meat contributes to the betterment of the world in other ways
beyond morality.

> I've tried reasoning with you, and I believe I've been quite civil about
> it. I haven't made insinuations about your motives; now you seek to make
> some about mine. Address the issues, Jim, and save your dislike of me
> for other threads.

I don't dislike you. You have been fairly civil with me lately until this
post, and I appreciate that. I too have tried to be civil with you. But you
escalate to name calling and insults when you can't get your way. Just what
do you think it will accomplish other than giving you some twisted sense of
self-gratification? Grow up.

> What can you bring to
> the table other than your "sense"?

> I've substantiated my position. Have you substantiated your own, or are
> you still shooting from the hip with your "sense" of how things are?

> I haven't quite done that. I'm waiting, though, for someone to offer
> more than a "sense" of what makes them more moral or ethical than
> someone else.

Boy, you really picked up on my "sense" of things, didn't you? Does it make
you feel good to beat me over the head with it? You can play emphasis games
all you want, but in the end your argument has no more substance than anyone
else's.

I'm out of this thread...