John Coleman wrote:
> > Such an argument, which I now call "Objecting to the 1001st Death,"
relies
> > ENTIRELY on moral relativism. It avoids personal culpability for
one's
> > actions and ultimately becomes a diversion from the issue vegans
and ARAs
> > raise about animal cruelty.
>
> I'm not sure who wrote this nonsense, I have already pointed out the
> fallacies.

No, you haven't. First, you haven't identified any. Second, this
thread just started, and Mr. Suspect only posted the material for the
first time 3 days ago, and you've never responded to it before.

Stop lying.

>
> 1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of
animals in
> veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans
or not,
> then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop
such
> practices

What "need", you idiot?

>
> 2) veganism isn't a numbers game,

It shouldn't be, but virtually ALL "vegans" try to convert it into one,
once they realize they CANNOT win on principle (because they HAVE no
principle behind their weird belief.)

> it is about making choices that seek to reduce _animal exploitation_,

What does "reduce" mean, dummy? You just ACKNOWLEDGED that this is a
numbers game. Nice work.

> and vegans acknowledge that collateral deaths
> are a part of all human activities, we simply seek to avoid such
where it is
> _practical and possible_ - it is both practical and possible NOT to
eat
> meat, or reduce meat intake, however humans have to eat plant foods
to be
> healthy, and furthermore, increasing meat consumption further
precipitates
> an environmental catastrophy

What a giant, steaming load of crap.

"vegans" DO NOT truly acknowledge collateral deaths. To the extent
they engage in a false acknowledgment of it, they do what you just did:

1) try to turn the issue into a numbers game
2) WEAKLY rationalize their UTTER INACTION when confronted with the
slaughter in which they are deeply morally complicit
3) try to blame someone else


> 3) pasture ranging cattle do not tiptoe through the meadows, they
trample
> other creatures

prove it

> and ingest them by the thousand in every mouth of grass,

What silly hyperbole!

> they compete with other herbivores and produce clouds of methane, and
90% of
> the plant energy they ingest doesn't go to the table

That last bit is laughably irrelevant.


> 4) vegans advocate veganic agriculture,

No, they don't. They CLAIM to do so, but when it comes to putting
their money where their fat yaps are, they don't come through.

> free of any pesticides and dangerous
> machinery - a veganic food supply would cause minimal collateral
death, and
> is free of animal exploitation - the same cannot be said for meat

There is nothing stopping "vegans" from eating only "veganic" (stupid
tautology) food. Why don't they do it? Oh, right, I almost forgot: a
loathsome passivity, and a non-stop inclination to pass the buck and
point fingers to excuse their own monstrous moral failure.

>
> 5) all of the above points are factual,

No, they are not; they are your hot-air opinion, nothing more.

> whereas there is no factual basis
> for the claim that eating beef lowers total numbers of animal deaths

There is indeed a theoretical basis for it, and it almost certainly is
true for some people who eat grass-fed beef.

>
> 6) "moral relativism" is a nonsense concept

No, it isn't. It's just terribly inconvenient for YOU.

> - I would rather live with
> people who want less suffering and explotation, even if that only
amounted
> to 1 death less, that 1 life is all that animal has, and even if no
animals
> were saved, it would still be a worthy ambition

You would rather live with a lot of other sanctimonious hypocrites,
like yourself, who jerk one another off while mumbling faux-pious
platitudes.

>
> If enough people were vegans,

As said earlier, there's nothing stopping "vegans" from growing their
own "veganic" (gag) food right now; nothing, that is, except their own
****ing laziness and moral turpitude.


> then that would in turn create sufficient
> market to produce veganic food.

ONCE AGAIN, we see the classic "vegan" tendency to blame others for
their own monstrous moral failure. The reason you cheerfully go along
with the slaughter of animals in the course of the production of the
food you eat is because others won't become willfully stupid along with
you, right? Your total abdication of responsibility is sickening.

> All arguments that point to there being
> avoidable animal suffering and exploitation _strengthen the vegan
argument_.

No, they don't; not when the animal suffering and exploitation is
something YOU cause, when you needn't do it.

> They do not weaken it, as suggested by this thread and others
similar.

They certainly do.

You, sir, are an animal rights passivist!