Dutch > wrote in message
...
>
> "nemo" > wrote
> >
> > Dutch > wrote
> > > "nemo" > wrote
> > > >
> > > > ***and the huge wast involved. 1000 gallons of water and 100lbs of
veg
> > > > protein to produce 1lb of steak.***
> > >
> > > Could Vegetarianism Prevent World Hunger?
> > >
> >
>
http://www.animalrights.net/faq/topi...ld_hunger.html
> > >
> >
> > They were saying that when I first became a Veggie - in 1961!
>
> It was likely as true then as it is today.
>
> > The feedstuffs-in : meat-out ratio was an argument we often used to
use
> > when confronted by those who rejected the compassion arguments - usually
> > because they thought that by saying they didn't give a toss about
animals'
> > suffering they appeared big strong and tough! Still quite a few of those
> > types still about, I see. )
>
> Ad hominem fallacy.

Oy! What a poseur - using Latin already!!)

Nonce Equitur. (Pervert on a horse!)
>
> > The stupid answer we got from the idiots was that it'd be impossible to
> > transport the cereals out to where the starving people are. The fact
that
> > even in those days, a huge amount of the cereals used in animal feed was
> > already transported to the UK from America completely passed them by.
>
> You still haven't refuted the article. There are millions of people
starving
> at this very moment while the world continues to have a large net surplus
of
> grains and produce. The problem of hunger is largely economic and
political,
> it has nothing to do with western vegetarianism.
>
> > And the more clever gits used to trot out the Second Class Protein
> argument.
> > If you get your portien fron a good variety of grains, nuts and legumes
> you
> > get all the Amino Acids you need. There's only one Amino Acid that's
> unique
> > to one particular vegetable - and it's in walnuts - so that's no
problem.
>
> Strawman fallacy, we're not discussing the relative nutritional merits of
> diets.
>
> > In those days there was a famine in India made worse by idiot aid
agencies
> > having them feed the grains and pulses etc. that they ate themselves to
> > chickens which no one would eat anyway, and only getting something like
a
> 10
> > : 1 return in protein.
> >
> > They also supplied tractors and put all the farm workers out of work!
>
> Your position seems largely based on sentimentality and fond memories of
> imagined rhetorical triumphs over non-vegans 40 years ago. It hardly cuts
> the mustard right now.
>
Oh, yes it does!

If you think Veganism is rubbish - go elsewhere, and cut the formal language
crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the least
authoritative - it just sounds daft!