"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:31:09 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>>"Reynard" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:10:29 GMT, wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
>>>>>>and death that results from their own food production.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>>>
>>>> Grass raised animal products contribute to less wildlife
>>>> deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock
>>>> than soy or rice products. ·
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
>>> deaths like any other beef.
>>>
>>> [The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
>>> is administered by the U.S. Department of
>>> Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
>>> Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
>>> biggest and most controversial activities is killing
>>> coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
>>> western livestock.
>>============================
>>Well then fool. It's then proper to say that ALL veggies, even hand
>>grown,
>>window box ones are doused with massive amounts of chemicals and sprays.
>
> Non sequitur. You cannot conclude that, because grass fed
> beef accumulates collateral deaths, then ALL vegetable
> products accumulate them. Your conclusion doesn't logically
> follow from your premise.
=====================
It's your logic that is off, killer. Your make the staement that all
grass-fed beef involves killing coyotes/predators, when that is not true.
By your (il)logic then, because some veggies are doused with chemicals from
seed to store, then all veggies are doused with chemicals from seed to
store. Or even better, let's use the millions of birds killed by ADC to
protect veggie crops. Because birds are killed to protect some crops, then
all crops kill birds for protection.