On 4/8/2012 9:50 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 8, 5:21 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/8/2012 1:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 7, 6:02 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2012 1:32 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 7, 12:18 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/6/2012 12:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> [steaming load snipped]
>>
>>>>>> Why do all "vegans" spend a huge amount of time searching for micrograms
>>>>>> of animal bits to get out of their diet, and no time whatever trying to
>>>>>> determine what the lowest-harm fruits and vegetables are?
>>
>>>>> Not all vegans do that.
>>
>>>> *ALL* "vegans" do it. Stop bullshitting.
>>
>>>> *NO* "vegan" tries to find the least-harm fruit and vegetable produce;
>>>> *all* engage in a continual, silly, absurd effort to get micrograms of
>>>> animal parts out of their diets and "lifestyles".
>>
>>> How did you come by evidence for this
>>
>> "vegans" present it to me.
>>
>
> You think you can come to some kind of valid conclusion about "all
> vegans" on the basis of the vegans you have met on usenet?
Certainly. "veganism" is obviously a monolithic religious belief held
to by a very small number of adherents. Those who post here are
perfectly representative.
>>>>>> Why would any rational person take such absurd satisfaction in learning
>>>>>> about the minute part of an anchovy that's in a bottle of Worcestershire
>>>>>> sauce and thus stop buying one bottle a year, versus finding some grain
>>>>>> to substitute for a known lethal product like rice?
>>
>>>>> No rational person who was aware of the harm associated with rice
>>>>> would do that, obviously.
>>
>>>> Most "vegans" eat rice. http://tinyurl.com/cx9fedr
>>
>> You're ****ed.
>
> I don't really see why that would be.
Yes, you do.