rick etter wrote:
> "oh brother" > wrote in message
> . 32...
>
>>Jonathan Ball > wrote in
rthlink.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,
>
> ================
> really, you have a cite for that little tidbit, or are you just barfing the
> same old vegan propaganda?

I'm willing to grant that it's true, as far as the food
most people actually eat. Most people who eat meat eat
commercially produced beef, chicken, pork, lamb, and so
on, and it is true that the same amount of calories
obtained from the meat of those animals could be
obtained from just a fraction of the vegetable material
that is fed to the animals.

However, it is beside the point, or rather the points.
The first point is, as you note below, if he wants to
consume a "least harm" diet, he isn't obliged to look
only at commercially produced meat if he is willing to
look at meat at all; there is game and also "boutique"
meat, such as grass-fed beef.

Second, even if he insists on eschewing (rather than
chewing, heh heh) meat, it is INADEQUATE to meet the
ethical requirement that "vegans" impose on themselves.
That requirement is either strong - no animal deaths
caused by "lifestyle" - or possibly weak - "minimizing"
or "reducing" animal deaths. If it is strong, then all
"vegans" fail. If the requirement is weak, then they
*still* fail, because there is no coherent stopping
rule: EVERY "vegan" could "reduce" or "minimize" still
further, but none does.

>
>
>
>> 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.
>
> =================
> Yep, just spewing the same old propaganda. Where then, if meat is
> automatically causing more animal death and suffering, does eating game fall
> on your scale?
>
>
>>...back to lurking I go...
>
> =================
> You should, at least until you gather some real facts...
>
>
>