"Purple" > wrote in message
om...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Purple" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > wrote in message
> > >. ..
> > > > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 02:33:12 -0500, "Allyb" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Karla, the flaw I see in your reasoning is that to satisfy the
demand
> > for
> > > > >meat and dairy in this country, it's not possible to raise enough
> > animals on
> > > > >grass.
> > > >
> > > > That's not what is being discussed, which I feel sure you are
aware
> > of.
> > > > What is being discussed is why tofu involves more animal deaths than
> > > > grass raised beef does, and why rice milk involves more animal
deaths
> > > > than grass raised cow milk does. (Rice milk also involves more
deaths
> > > > than soy milk, which involves more deaths than grass raised cow
milk...
> > > > are you unable to understand why?)
> > > > But since you brought it up, we have no reason to believe that
this
> > > > country could be fed if no farm animals were raised at all, which is
> > what
> > > > "ARAs" want. Animal products go into fertilizers and many other
things
> > > > that humans--including veg*ns--make much use of:
> > >
> > > [snip extensive list of products]
> > >
> > > There are vegan alternatives for many, perhaps all of the items you
list.
> > ================
> > LOL And you really think they are made without the death and suffering
of
> > animals? What a hoot!
>
> No but the claim that veganism requires it's followers to avoid, eg
toothpaste
> is verifiably false.
==================
Then you lied, because there is no truely vegan alternative to any of those
products when mass produced for a consumer-driven convenience-oriented
society. That the end product may not *contain* animal bits does not mean
that many animals did not die to produce it. Veganism isn't just about not
eating animals, it's suppose to be about not killing them. Of course that's
a false premise for any vegan here on usenet though.