oh brother wrote:

> Jonathan Ball > wrote in
> hlink.net:
>
>
>><much silliness snipped>
>>
>>>>>No it isn't.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it is.
>>>
>>>
>>>No it isn't.
>>
>>Yes, it is. "veganism" is founded on hatred.
>>
>
> <more silliness snipped>
>
> Hmm... Let's see, I am vegan because I hate having high blood pressure.
> No animal products in my diet, no blood pressure meds -> 110/70
> Meat and/or cheese, WITH blood pressure meds -> 155/110
> Yup, must be hatred.
>
> And, btw, although there are collateral deaths in the production of non-
> animal based foods, the number of collateral deaths involved in the
> production of animal based foods is magnitudes higher, due to the simple
> fact that it takes significantly more agricultural resources (farmland,
> etc.) to support animals that feed people than it takes agricultural
> resources to feed people directly.

This, of course, is false. As a lot of meat is
currently produced, more agricultural resources are
used. There is, of course, no requirement that meat be
produced in that way. In particular, there is no
requirement that YOU consume meat that is produced in
that way. You could eat grass-fed beef, wild game, and
wild line- or net-caught fish, and in so doing, you
could collaterally kill fewer animals than you do at
present with your strictly vegetarian diet.

The fundamental flaw with "veganism" as an ethical
response to a perceived ethical problem is manifold:

- no persuasive elaboration of a *real* ethical problem
requiring a response
- doesn't solve the alleged problem, even in terms of a
personal response to it, let alone societally -->
"vegans"
continue to cause animal death
- is predicated on an invalid *comparative* morality