FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

Purple wrote:

> wrote in message >. ..
>
>>On 1 Jan 2004 10:59:49 -0800, (Purple) wrote:
>>
>>
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.
>
>
> [snip list again to save bandwidth]
>
>
>>Please tell us which of the items used in the production of food,
>>that you can find vegan alternatives for.
>
>
> Most of the items you list aren't even used in the production of food.

You moron: "veganism" is about more than food. The
stupid rule of "veganism" is: don't consume animal
products. That means *any* animal products, in
anything. That means no leather shoes or clothing, no
wool clothing, no honey, no animal anything. It even
covers not consuming cosmetic products that were
*tested* on animals but don't contain animal parts.

The point of that list is, many things "vegans" consume
DO contain animal parts, and/or were tested on animals.
"vegans" can't even get close to following their
rule; they follow a few limited, purely symbolic bits
of it.