Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>> 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.

Dreck is one of the most extreme cases of a dishonest ideologue I've
ever encountered -- even to the point of being a caricature.

<...>
>>> 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.

What's most ironic is his qualification in his last sentence -- "to some
degree." It really begs the question, To *what* degree? That takes us
back to the questions about beating and molesting children, Gacy vs
Dahmer, etc. He simply has no moral compass, only his feeling about
what's right on his flimsy sliding scale. It's his article of faith, and
an unreasoned, unprincipled one at that.

<...>
>> 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".

Yes, and I'm finding that's true whether the "alternative lifestyle" is
of a sexual ("***") or a dietary/political nature. And obsession is the
definitely the operative word in groups with a "lifestyle."

>>>> 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.

I considered this earlier when I responded to the guy who wants to bulk
up using soy. One of the links I provided him compared bioavailability
of soy protein to dairy protein. The article mentioned that the lowest
grade dairy protein was still more bioavailible than the highest yield
soy protein. Efficiency in and of itself can make matters penny wise and
pound foolish.

> 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".

My point in asking him to substantiate his claim of inefficiency was to
show that it's a canard. It sounds reasonable to him -- like his "sense"
about everything else -- so he says it off the cuff. Remember, we've
already dealt with Dreck's and pearl's feed:beef nonsense. I don't think
CJS would make such an ass out of himself with math like those two did,
but it would be funny if he'd try.

<...>
>> 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".

At least to "some degree." Hehe.

<snip>