C. James Strutz 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.

http://www.johnkinsella.org/conversations/vegan.html
http://www.veganforlife.org/ethics.htm
http://www.vegan.com/vegandownload.php
http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/letters/dynamic.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/letters/crueltyfree.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/letters/vegan_life.htm
http://www.veganoutreach.org/advocac...yofethics.html
http://www.veganvalues.org/veganism_religion.htm

I didn't even look at PETA, PCRM, or any of the other better-known
sites. They, too, make a lot of statements about the moral and ethical
superiority of a vegan diet and lifestyle. They also allege, as a couple
of the quotes I offered (but you snipped), a vegan diet is free of
cruelty and animal suffering. Shame on you for failing to note their
remarks, and even more shame for continuing to say that vegans don't
make claims of moral superiority. *That* is why I mentioned something
about clinging to your orthodoxy, holding fast to your disputable dogma,
in light of proof to the contrary.

> And this coming from a vegan,
> sheesh! You need to rethink a lot of things.

Such as?

>>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!

The point I made wasn't about a competition, it was about which of us
harbors delusions about our diet vis a vis animal casualties.

>>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.

You claimed that a diet which you allege "minimizes" animal casualties
is more ethical than a diet containing meat.

>>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.

No, I'm not frustrated; I also think my points have been sufficient to
convince *reasonable* persons.

>>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?

How many meals, at a reasonable serving size of a quarter pound, can you
get from a deer which dresses at 100 pounds? I see 400 meals per deer.
Pennsylvania allows one antlered and one unantlered deer per archery
season. That's 800 meals if you use both tags. Add more if you also hunt
with muzzleloader and/or rifle. If that's not enough, hunt other game as
well. How much meat do you need?

>>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.

Wait, what verifiable facts did you offer?

> 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.

Address the issues at hand, not your hatred of me.

>>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.

I see. My information is "biased" but your (lack of) information is
"objective." Nastiness is a matter of style, not substance. I've given
as much substance -- if not more -- than you have in this discussion.
I've also refrained from engaging in a nasty style despite your attempts
to turn the debate away from CDs to what you think of me.

>>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.

Please explain and justify this sentiment.

>>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.

Again, the issue at hand isn't me. It's CDs. Stick to the issue.

>>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?

It was obvious that you're playing without much more than your feelings
about things even before you mentioned your "sense."

> Does it make you feel good to beat me over the head with it?

I feel very good but it has nothing to do with you. Get some facts that
we can discuss and debate. Your "sense" can be fodder for discussion,
but your feelings aren't germane to the discussion.

> You can play emphasis games all you want, but in the end
> your argument has no more substance than anyone else's.

It has more than yours.

> I'm out of this thread...

Wuss.