"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>
> > You will not accept such a premise that
> > both sides are even
>
> This is a first; you now saying that both sides are even.
=================
Nope. People have said it before, loser.


>
> > because deep down inside you continue to cling to
> > the false notion that no animals die since you don't eat their flesh.
> > You are wrong.
>
> I never said that. In fact, I've been saying the opposite all along.
Haven't
> you been listening?
=======================
You'd like to think so though. And your whole premise is actually based on
that.


>
> > In terms of morality and ethics, both are on the same level since both
> > diets result in a similar number of animal casualties.
>
> Oh, now it's a "similar number of animal casualties". Remember "sticking
> your neck out" to say that less animals would die as a result of a meat
> based diet? You are a moving target.
======================
No, you're tha one not reading. There are meats that would cause less than
some veggies. There are some veggies that would cause less than some meats.
That's always been stated.


>
> > All your moral
> > posturing does is make you a hypocrite: you claim to loathe animal
> > suffering and death, yet you continue to benefit from farming practices
> > which cause the same.
>
> My position has always been that it's morally better to minimize animal
> suffering and death than to do nothing at all. I believe that avoiding
meat
> accomplishes that end to some degree.
========================
Nope. That isn't you position at all. if it were you'd investigate the
possibility of substituting some of your veggies with certain meats. You
won't because all your
position really is is a simple rule, for a simple mind.



>
> > The very fact that your claims are still hung up on a counting game
> > *PROVES* that your position is neither moral nor ethical.
>
> We can't beat AIDS yet, but don't you think it would be better if we could
> prevent just one more person from dying from it? How about another one?
How
> about 10 more, or 100 more, or 1000 more? Why don't you ask someone who is
> dying from AIDS about whether numbers matter?
======================
Analogies are really hard for you, aren'y they? better quit trying, killer.


>
> > > A vegetarian lifestyle is a
> > > personal endeavor for me and I don't get in anybody's face about it.
> >
> > Seriously, why is your diet a "lifestyle"?
>
> Seriously? Is that to imply that everything else in this discussion is not
> serious? If we are talking about only diet then my choice of words was
bad.
> The vegetarian thing, to me, is part of a larger issue that includes
ecology
> and environmental issues. It is more of a lifestyle in that regard.
========================
And again, you fail at your stated goal. Mono-culture crop production
destroys eco-systems, fool.



>
> > > I think that meat consumption contributes to poor health in many
people,
> >
> > All meat consumption or over-consumption? How "many" people? Please
> > support this with citations (preferably not from PETA or PCRM type
> > activist sites).
>
> Why should I have to prove this to you, who claims to be vegan for health
> purposes?
====================
Because you made the ignorant claim, fool. vegans can be just as sick.
besides, you really can't live without meat, or a suppliment to take it's
place. Of course, you could just never wash your hands after going to the
bathroom, then you'd get b12 like you need.


You have a lot of explaining to do if you are questioning me about
> this.
======================
Nope. You made the claim, fool.


>
> > > is an inefficient use of fresh water and land for the production of
> food,
> >
> > How inefficient?
>
> Sorry, I don't have a percentage for you.
=================
Because you can't. There is none. You can raise meat animals just fine
without any massive inputs of energy/resources, unlike all your crops,
hypocrite
..

>
> > > and contributes to various forms of pollution.
> >
> > So does crop agriculture, from tilling to irrigation to
> > pesticide/herbicide use to harvest to processing to transportation.
>
> Yes, I know all of this. A vegetarian based diet reduces pollution since
the
> need for produce is reduced.
=======================
ROTFLMAO You really believe that nonsemse? Let's see. I'll eat only
veggies, replacing the 100s of 1000s of calories I get now from meat.
Since I'm now only eating veggies, The farmers will have to grow less
veggies to feed me? Where do you think those 100s of 1000s of calories are
going to come from, you ignorant dolt? Manna from heaven? No massiv crops
need be grown for raising cattle. Ever hear of grass? You know, that stuff
that k\just seems to grow all on it's own? You really are one ignorant
fool, killer.




Remember we talked about more produce is grown
> to support the cattle industry?
===========================
No, that's not the point. The meat I eat is not part of that 'industry'.
And that portion of he market is growing. *You* have nothing to do with it.
It is meat eaters that is providing an alternative for meat producers to
raise their animals naturally.



Ah yes, that's your cue to come back with
> grass-fed beef and hunting for food. BTW, have you heard of Chronic
Wasting
> Disease in the deer population?
==========================
Have you heard how ignorant you are yet? Those are choices that are far
better than the diet you rant about right now. But then, killing animals
unnecessarily isn't really what you are concerned about. You prove that
each time you post your ignorant spew to usenet, hypocrite.



>
> > > I just think it's a better way of life.
> >
> > That's a nice sentiment of your "sense," but it's not an ethical
> assessment.
>
> But it's MY assessment. I never said it was absolutely ethical.
>
> > If the issue is morality and ethics, you don't have much going for you.
> > If an omnivorous diet is inherently immoral or unethical because it
> > causes animal death, then your diet is equally immoral or unethical
> > because yours causes animal death as well. You're caught up in the old
> > counting game: Gacy versus Dahmer, beating once a week versus once a
> > day. IOW, you'd rather count the apples than compare them to each other.
>
> ??? One compares the numbers of apples by.....counting them.
================
Which you have failed to do. ou make claims, yet you cannot, and willnot
back them up, killer.



>
> > > I really am out of here for now. It's a beautiful day here and I'm
> aching to
> > > be outside.
> >
> > You'll be back, and you'll continue to try to defend your untenable,
> > unsupported, and unsupportable assertions. I'll be ready to hit you over
> > the head with your "sense" again, too.
>
> Are you amused yet?
================
Yes, you ignorance is totally fascinating.


>
>