"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > 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
>>
>> Perhaps so, however the fact remains that "veganism" as expressed in the
>> real world does NOT deal with this issue, therefore the moral conclusions
>> based on "veganism" are fundamentally flawed.
>
> It does, it asks people to go vegan, so can farmers! It promotes veganic
> farming. If others fail to take up these ideas, that is their fault, not
> veganisms.
=================
Yet vegan provide no incentive to change to this practice of farming. All
they have is a mouth that runs off about what others are doing. Pretending
that there is some mythical ideal out there 'somewhere' doesn't do anything
to improve your diet right here, right now. It's only a strawman used to
pretend that you care.


>
>> > 2) veganism isn't a numbers game,
>>
>> "Objecting to the 1001st Death" is simply an expression, it does not
> intend
>> to reflect a specific number of deaths.
>
> It absolutely implies a numbers game, yet it provides no credible or
> authoitative numerical facts.
=====================
yet they have been provided. Always snipped out by the likes of you....


>
>> I agree it's about that, but to be valid it must also address the issue
>> of
>> animal_death in an honest and forthright manner, which translates to an
>> acknowledgement that reducing _animal exploitation_ is not necessarily
>> synonymous with reducing _animal deaths_.
>
> This is not a point. Reducing animal exploitation is also not synonymous
> with increasing animal death. Veganism is based on the idea of compassion
> for animals irrespective of the scenario, diet is only 1 facet.
================
1 facet that you cannot even reduce you impact on yourself, because you
dogmatically follow your simple rule for your simple mind! what a hoot!


>
>> This is the big loophole in "veganism", _practical and possible_ are
>> flexible terms, therefore if a "vegan" decides that it is not practical
>> to
>> always purchase animal-friendly produce, or indeed if it's not practical
> or
>> possible to even discover what those are, than as long as he obeys the
> basic
>> rule of non-consumption of animal *products, he can declare himself
> morally
>> upright. This is the real fallacy in all this, the "vegan's" belief that
>> being "vegan" is necessary and sufficient to be a morally upright person.
>
> Veganism starts with not eating animal products as a basic, and it does
> indeed leave much to ones own judgement. I do not regard this as a flaw.
> Veganism is inclusive and tries not to be too dogmatic.
====================
ROTFLMAO It's the very definition os such as practiced here on usenet!


>
>> It is also practical and possible NOT to eat rice, a crop notorious for
>> being high in collateral animal deaths.
>
> Sure, vegans can choose not to eat rice if they want to and still be
> vegans.
> However collateral death is acknowledged as unavoidable in all human
> activity. Where possible it should be reduced.
=====================
And you have been shown that it is possible, and reasonable to reduce your
bloody footprints by including the right kind of meats. But then, since all
you have is a simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat,' you have to
focus only on what you think others are doing.


It is hard to establish
> numbers, hence the lack of rules.
>
>> That may have the outcome of increasing animal deaths, depending on the
>> sources of the meat and the plant food used to replace it.
>
> where are the numbers?
==================
Always snipped out, un-noted of course. Why is that? Numbers have been
posted many, many times showing the massive deaths that occur in crop
production. Why do you continue to ignore tham, and focus only on what
others eat, hypocrite?


>
>> Humans do not need to eat anything close to the amount of food of any
>> type
>> that most of us do, so anyone who eats more than that minimal amount is
>> guilty of the exact same sin as you accuse meat-eaters of.
>
> I agree, over eating is unvegan. No one is accused of any "sin" in
> veganism.
>
>> Eliminating it altogether courts all forms of disasters as well.
>
> How?
>
>> 90% of the plant energy they ingest would be unavailable to humans any
> other
>> way.
>
> Plant trees. Much pastureland used to be forest.
=================
Before that most was cropland. The forests were not origninally cut down
for ranches stupid. The early settlers cleared land for crops and lumber.
There was no market for large scale meat operations, dolt. Families
typically had what animals they needed to work the land and provide for
their own food.

>
>> It is completely unsubstantiated that "veganic" farming would be a
> workable
>> solution to feeding the human population.
>
> There is no reason it would not work for most.
==================
It's still machine intensive you ignorant dolt.


>
>> That's a strawman, certain animal products can easily be shown to cause
>> fewer animal deaths than certain plant based products.
>> http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm
>
> Exceptions mislead!
====================
No, they prove the nonsense of veganism. vegans keep claiming that all
vegan diets are better than any meat-included diet. The whole house of
cards comes tumbling down arond your feet, killer.


>
>> animal products <full stop> If I offer a vegan a moose steak that is
>> known
>> to have caused 1/1000th of an animal death in place of a
> rice/soy/carrot/pea
>> concoction that has caused some unknown amount of death, he would never
>> choose the moose.
>
> This is hypothetical, no such numbers exist.
=====================
What a load of BS. What number do you want? There is 1, the moose, fool!
He provides thousands of meals! Prove that your tofu substitute meats
cause less than 1, fool. Come on, show your claims! Soy processing into
tofu is an intensive process, despite your continued claims. massive inputs
from the petro-chemical industry are required from seeding to putting the
fake crap on your plate! Destruction and animal deaths around the world,
not just where you eat the final product. You are seriously terminally
ignorant if you wish to dispute that.


>
>> It has never been established that the death toll in agriculture is
>> avoidable.
>
> I agree, agriculture should be abandoned as much as it can. Where we can
> we
> should plant trees and grow fruit and nuts, and grow veg that is picked
> carefully by hand. Through most of time there was no agriculture.
========================
You'd be destroying the natural habitat of an area. Very few areas are
natural fruit and nut trees, killer.


>
>> In fact the whole idea of veganism is pie-in-the-sky twaddle.
>
> It is quiet practical and achievable with commendable results. We can put
> men on the moon, build cities and easily have more compassion for other
> beings.
======================
If it's so easy, why are you here, contributing to unnecessary animal death
and suffering for nothing more than your entertainment?


>
> John
>
>
>
>