usual suspect wrote:
> 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.

Exactly the same as WankHar. See-jimmy and WankHare are much alike on several points:

- both "largely" vegetarian for (supposedly) ethical reasons
- neither one is "vegan"
- neither one can say why he isn't "vegan"

> It's his article of faith, and
> an unreasoned, unprincipled one at that.

Just like the rest of 'em.

>
> <...>
>
>>> 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>
>