On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:49:51 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>>>>"ipse dixit" 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
>
And how does that statement not "advocate a responsible,
compassionate lifestyle that does not include the intentional
killing of animals for sustenance." as you claimed? It ruins
your claim.

[snip ad hominem]
>
>>>>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"?

What does that little outburst have to do with
what I wrote above it in refutation to your claim?
You're arguing that if I went to vegan web sites
I will find evidence in opposition to my claim
where "No one believes all animal and human
life can be protected 100% in industry and
agriculture." I have been to them, and your
claim hasn't been substantiated by what I found.

>Checkmate!

Huh.