ipse Dreck wrote:
>>>>>Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
>>>>>include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.
>>>>
>>>>No, they do not.
>>>
>>>Yes, they do.
>>
>>No, they don't.
>
> Now would be a good time to substantiate your
> claim with some evidence instead of the usual
> hot air and bluster.

I told you where you could find the information. Did you look? No.
You're a lazy asshole.

Here's one gem:
Often new vegans just replace their old animal-based foods with
cruelty-free versions and analogs.
http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/dietofvegans.htm

I admit that probably sounds pretty noble on the surface to a
bluefooted, self-crippled greasemonkey with a GCE in woodwork. It
doesn't stand the test of scrutiny, though, when one considers all the
animals harmed and killed in the production, transportation, processing,
and storage of wheat and soy crops for the "cruelty-free" versions and
analogs. There's no such thing as "cruelty-free." Such substitutes for
meat are just free of *animal parts*.

A person living off analogs is responsible for "cruelty" to more
animals. Many animals die for analogs; only one dies for a steak, and
there's plenty more meat remaining for many meals beyond that. Professor
Stephen Davis' research has shown that the diet causing the least harm
to animals is one consisting of grazed (grass-fed) ruminants. Vegan
activists like Matt Ball agree with him:
...[i]t is clear that someone who hunts for their meat, or buys
exclusively grazed organic meat also causes significantly less
suffering.
http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/20020715.html

http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html

>>>No one believes all animal and human
>>>life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.
>>
>>Go review the vegan activist websites, read their literature.
>
> I have

....not.

> , and it doesn't substantiate the claim being
> made in that everyone believes all animal and
> human life can expect 100% protection in industry
> and agriculture.

Then why do they keep calling fake meat (analogs) made from soy and
wheat -- crops which cause many animal deaths and casualties -- "cruelty
free"? They're either willfully ignorant or willfully deceptive. Which
do you think it is?

>>>You don't get to redefine veganism, Jonathan.
>>
>>He's not redefining it

<restore>
he's being honest about it -- something one shouldn't expect a vegan
activist to be.
<end restore>

> He's trying to

No, he's doing it and succeeding.

> , but failing miserably.

Then why are you making your unethical snips to take stuff out of
context, Dreck? BTW, it's been over two weeks and you've still failed to
address the following:

I wrote:

>>> How do you propose protecting the lamb's inalienable
>>> rights from the lion's desire to eat him?
>>

[you wrote:]
>> Rights can only be held against other moral agents,
>> and you already knew that.
>

[I wrote:]
> Then the term "animal rights" is oxymoronic.

[Then you went silent, even after about five requests for a reply.]

Checkmate!