usual suspect wrote:

> C. James Wuss wrote:
>
>>> You will not accept such a premise that
>>> both sides are even
>>
>>
>> This is a first; you now saying that both sides are even.
>
>
> No, that's a hypothetical construction for your benefit.

You'll learn soon enough, you can't do that with
dishonest ideologues like "aras"/"vegans". If you
hypothesize something, they consider that to be your
position. That ****ing shitworm Dreck Nash does that
all the time, and is doing it now, over this
chocolate/child slavery non-issue.

>
>>> 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?
>
>
> Yes, I've listened. More like read. Anyway, you continue to play the
> counting game since the original vegan issue, that animals don't die, is
> proven false. The counting game remains insignificant because you're
> using it to fall back to a position which only slightly alters the
> original vegan issue. You rely on (a) ignorance or (b) a very flimsy
> notion of ethics to come out on top.

Exactly right. Instead of examining what is wrong with
the whole "vegan" endeavor, they frantically try to
salvage some scrap of their flimsy moral pedestal by
inventing the fallback position. Of course, the
fallback position is even more shabby than the original
one. It has the same logical flaws, and then some
additional practical ones, mainly, that they haven't
counted, and don't intend to count.

The whole dirty exercise on their part is the most
obvious sophistry, with all the intellectual negatives
that has always connoted.

>
>>> 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.
>
>
> We're talking millions of animals. Percentage-wise, it's going to be close.
>
>>> 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.
>
>
> You're not minimizing anything. You also cannot document any decline in
> animal casualties from your diet. Your belief is axiomatic; it's formed
> of dogma and your "sense," not from any reasonable evidence.

It's also formed by a dirty, unhealthy, hate-based wish
to try to exalt himself over others.

>
>>> 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?
>
>
> Are we again comparing human lives to animal lives? Does your concern
> for finding cures for dread diseases like AIDS mean that you support
> animal testing and research?
>
>>>> 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?
>
>
> Seriously as in it's hard for me to take what you say about "lifestyles"
> with a straight face.

People who understand that substance is more important
than style lead lives; "vegans" and other morally
confused people who elevate style over substance lead
"lifestyles".

It's hard to imagine a more pejorative word than
"lifestyle", when what ought to be the topic is "life".
"vegans" are obsessed with "lifestyle".

>
>> If we are talking about only diet then my choice of words was bad.
>
>
> Well, which is it then: diet or lifestyle?
>
>> 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.
>
>
> So are your left-wing environmental beliefs also a "lifestyle" or just
> part of your left-wing package?
>
>>>> 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? You have a lot of explaining to do if you are questioning me
>> about
>> this.
>
>
> You're making unspecific claims. I've never said meat cannot be part of
> a healthy diet, but I do accept that overconsumption of ANY food can
> lead to health problems.
>
>>>> 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.
>
>
> How about finding one to back up at least one of your allegations?

It would be a waste of time. He's talking ONLY about
some weird notion of resource efficiency that doesn't
take VALUE into account, and in which he doesn't
believe, anyway. There are quite obviously elements of
his "lifestyle" that are less "efficient" in terms of
resource utilization than others.

There is no moral reason, in terms of resource
allocation, that grain should NOT be fed to cattle, any
more than there is a moral reason that there shouldn't
be expensive cars in addition to cheap cars, or cars at
all instead of bicycles.

The whole resource inefficiency things is a canard,
anyway. "vegans" don't *really* give a shit about
resource use efficiency. It's just another
termite-eaten club they grasp to try to "win".

>
>>>> 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. Remember we talked about more produce is
>> grown
>> to support the cattle industry? 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?
>
>
> Yes, and research on CWD and other TSEs continues. One of the underlying
> factors of CWD is copper deficiency; this is believed to possibly be the
> reason why outbreaks of CWD have been extremely localized.
>
> http://espn.go.com/outdoors/general/...s/1498383.html
>
>>>> 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.
>
>
> Your position has nothing to do with ethics.

Exactly right. It's about "lifestyle", a component of
which is a need to try to portray himself as "more
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.
>
>
> Are you actually counting or still relying on your "sense"?
>
>>>> 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?
>
>
> Increasingly so with every post. Muhahaha!
>