Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> ipse dixit wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:14:10 -0700, Rat & Swan >
>> wrote:
>
>
>>> ipse dixit wrote:
>
>
>>> <snip>
>
>
>>>>>>>> Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.
>
>
>>> There is absolutely no question that this is true -- every single
>>> (ethical)vegan does so.
>
>
>>> Antis may argue either that the vegan is deluded in his means to
>>> achieve this, or that he is deliberately hypocritical, but that
>>> is something entirely different -- and, of course, highly debatable.
>
>
>>> However, there is no honest way to dispute that vegans ADVOCATE
>>> what ipse says they do.
>
>
>>> <snip>
>
>
>>>>>> No one believes all animal and human
>>>>>> life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.
>
>
>>> This is also true -- or, to avoid a claim of mindreading on the
>>> pro-AR side, no one I have ever read has claimed that all
>>> human and animal life can be protected 100 per cent.
>
>
>> Anthracosis has ruined the lives of thousands, yet no one in their
>> right mind would conclude that coal buyers are showing a contempt for
>> the rights of those suffering and dying from it.
>
>
> Then none of the Antis who use the CD argument are in their
> right minds, because that is exactly the argument they use
> to claim ARAs are showing contempt for the rights of animals
> killed in veggie production.

It's not the same argument at all. It's a totally
specious comparison, as has been explained to you
dozens of times. It is a measure of your dishonesty
that you pretend not to see the massive, indisputable
moral distinction.