"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> SeeJames has been playing this bitchy game for a while.
> This excerpt goes back to January 2003.
>
>
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in
> message
> > ...
> >
> >>"C. James Strutz" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Jonnnnnnny,
> >> >
> >> > You claim that, in the absence of consuming meat
> >> > products, vegetarians and
> >> > vegans are responsible for more animal deaths
> >>
> >>More than whom, Jimmy? You are lying. I didn't
> >>compare "vegans" to
> >>omnivores.
> >
> >
> > No, but I am.
>
> You implicitly claimed I was. You lied.
>
> And I don't care that you are. The comparison is
> irrelevant to the issue at hand: "vegans" are not
> "minimizing" animal deaths. Stick to the issue, Jimmy.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/33g9d

Jon, et. al.,

Okay, so you are not comparing the number of collateral deaths resulting
from herbivores versus omnivores (hence not participating in the "numbers
game"). You condemn vegans for ignoring the fact that there are collateral
animal deaths resulting from the production of the vegetable food they eat.
You point out that it is an ethical dilemma; ignoring it necessarily makes
them immoral and dishonest. You are particularly disturbed with overly
zealous vegans.

I think I understand your position well. By your rigid definition that makes
me immoral and dishonest since there is a component of me as a vegetarian
that is sympathetic to animals. I'll remind you that is not the only, nor
the most significant, component. You also know that I am not vegan and I am
not zealous.

You well know that we don't share the same viewpoints on several issues. I
contend that it's not possible to live in today's world without animal lives
being sacrificed for our conveniences, including food. I understand your
argument that it is possible to eat without sacrificing animal lives, but I
have a job and bills to pay and other aspects of my life that preclude me
from doing so. I buy most of my food in grocery stores like most people
(including you, I presume). I understand all the consequences.

In today's world, the so called "numbers game" is legitimate in a larger
context that transcends just food. There are many things people can do to
minimize animal deaths and suffering. I do believe that abstaining from
consumming animal products serves that purpose to some extent. It's
impossible to substantiate that belief with any kind of hard data. It's my
belief and I'll stand by it - I don't have to prove it to anyone. So don't
ask.

I really don't give a flying f*** whether you condemn me as unethical or
immoral. You don't have to live with it - I do. Although I have my issues to
work on, I am at peace with my ethics and morality - at least most of the
time. :^) I am a respectable person and wish to be treated as such.

FWIW...
Jim