"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
> > Nice strawman. Nobody here is talking about insects, except you. But,
if
> > you would like to include them in the total body count for your diet, be
> my
>
> Insects do count as vegans do not use honey because of exploitation of the
> bees, but note that collateral damage by _normal human activity_ does not
> prevent one from being vegan and thus trying to eliminate needless
killing.
========================
there is no 'need' to consume mono-cultured crops. yet vegans depend on
them, and then claim that meat eaters are 'murderers'.


>
> > Yet you don't do that. You don't even try, killer. That's the point.
>
> Not eating meat is an example. You can opt in or out of that. If you avoid
> meat you avoid a lot of death, exploitation and suffering.
=======================
And replace it with even more "death, exploitation and suffering." Why is
it ok to kill 10, 100, 1000 other animals and leave them to rot just to keep
from killing one cow and eating it?


It absolutely is
> not necessary for all vegans to go back to being wild living humans to be
> vegan. Some are choosing this path, others prefer to remain within the
> Meatrix and try and do what they can to push it in a new direction.
====================
LOL You guys are so good at made up words, aren't you? The point is that
vegans don't even pick and choose among the foods they do eat which ones
cause more/less death and suffering. They automatically assume that not
eating meat means they are automatically 'doing better'. It's a false
premise.


>
> > Nope. I use the real definition as is was made-up by watson.
>
> You have arrived at your own highly idealistic definition of veganism that
> no one else regcognises.
==================
No, I'm using the one that is the real definition. that vegans today have
had to twist it to fit their wanton disregard for their killing says more
about your supposed ethics than anything else.

Veganism says nothing about avoiding industrial
> capitalism, that is an option one can logically add though, but some do
not.
==============
Then they are not vegan. Anyone here on usenet is not a real vegan either.


>
> > LOL Now those are reliable sources, I'm sure...</sarcasm> Are you
really
> > that stupid? tell me how game meats are environmentally worse than
your
> > mono-cultured crops? You really are loony-toons.
>
> It makes no difference how or where the meat is raised, it will still not
> feed as many people as an equivalent area of land turned over to plant
food
> production.
========================
Strawman, stupid. There is no shortage of food. Besides, you premise is
false. There are lands that are not siuitable for crop production, but will
support animals.
Some lands will support crops if enough water and chemicals are added, but
how does that fit your vegan definition, fool? You really haven't thought
this out much beyond your brainwashing, hae you?


In the UK, before agriculture, the hunter gatherers required
> 200km square to support only 30 humans. Sadly if we reverted to that
system
> we would need to exterminate millions of humans - maybe they could eat
each
> other? But seriously, no one is going to opt for that solution, but that
is
> exactly what you are implying in your irrational meatarian agenda.
===============
Again, we are not talking about what 'everyone' needs to do. Just the very
tiny subset of loons that make the claim* that they care, yet all they do is
focus on what they think others are doing, and ignore their own bloody
footprints.

>
> I see as with "usual suspect" and Rick Etter, you have no more credibility
> than you do civility.
======================
ROTFLMAO And you have no more brains than Ron, the brain-banned loon..

Where's your credibility fool? You haven't posted anything to back up some
of your stupid remarks.


>
> John C
>
>