"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> <...>
> > No, we weren't talking about what you and I can do
> > individually. Where did you get that? No goalposts
> > were moved by me. You just don't like it when I
> > insist we keep the comparison of apples to apples.
>
> First, you're not comparing apples to apples. You originally didn't
> distinguish between good and bad forms of food production within
either
> vegan diets or meat diets. You balked when asked to discuss the merits
> of sustainable, CD-reduced meat production. You've slothfully
continued
> to compare your over-generalized vegan standard, which is not based on
> reality, to grain-fed beef production.

Slothfully?? Do you use one of those random insult generators?
We'll never agree on the 'numbers game'.

> Second, you started out with the over-generalized thesis that "vegan
is
> good and meat is bad" and then sleazily started adding stuff about
> "veganic" produce to the discussion. It's an afterthought of yours,
not
> your original position. You moved the goalposts so you could compare
> apples to oranges.

Sleazily?? It's you who wants to compare apples to oranges.

> What's really disgusting is that you've set something as a standard
that
> you don't even support in your own life. Your produce is NOT grown
that
> way, nor are the rice, Yves highly-processed soy fake meat, or other
> ingredients called for in your own recipes.

The page with my own favourite recipes are vegetarian, only some
are vegan. I'm in transition, gradually becoming vegan, but I'll
probably leave that page up for others who are vegetarian and/or
in transition to being vegan.

> You've misled others into believing the information I provided
supports
> your claim. It doesn't. I provided information about foods some vegans
> are likely to consume and recommend, such as protein derivatives from
> wheat (seitan) and soy (TVP) and shown that the finished product
> requires tremendous resources and that the yield is nowhere near a 1:1
> ratio. More like 10:1 with respect to seitan and 6-8:1 for soy.

Vegan processed foods can be compared to how much milk it
takes to make a small amount of cheese. So we're even now.

> Your claim that "vegan" correlates in a 1:1 feed-finished product
ratio
> is entirely unsupported. It's also debunked by the fact that many
vegan
> products are processed and wasteful of the very resources you claim
you
> want to protect or that could be better used to feed people (which is
a
> another issue altogether: most of what's fed to livestock is
unsuitable
> for human consumption).

Veganically, plant stuff unsuitable for humans, goes back
to the earth, feeding future plantings.

> You grossly misrepresented what I posted and suggested that it
supported
> your claims. You did so because you're either incompetent or a liar.
>
> <...>
> > The processing of foods ups the ratio, but for both
> > sides, so that's evened up.
>
> Ipse dixit. Even if it's true, you're left with your earlier
> over-generalization that the production of meat is wasteful. Now
you're
> admitting that the same is true of non-meat foods. You're still
> comparing apples and oranges. We've offered non-wasteful, sustainable
> meat alternatives for you to consider: grass-fed beef, bison, and
other
> grazed animals. Those animals turn grass and other forage into
protein.
> Their meat, contrary to another of your earlier over-generalizations,
is
> very nutritious and rivals oily cold-water fish in terms of being
"heart
> healthy."

Eating meat is never nutritious unless it's an alternative to
starving. You also have to watch out nowadays with wild
deer and elks catching Chronic Wasting Disease. That's
an infective prion protein disease just like Mad Cow. It's
currently unknown whether humans can catch it.

> > Organic (=usually veganic)
>
> The two are not synonymous because the overwhelming majority of
organic
> production uses machines, pesticides, and a variety of other protocols
> which result in animal injury and death. The "veganic" option is very,
> very small scale -- such as that you would employ on your own land.
> You've already admitted you don't grow your own food. I have some news
> for ya, Toots: Yves' products and Lundberg rice is NOT "veganic."

No, and neither are your hotdogs or liver pate. Ideally
it would be great if everything was veganic but it's not
yet. And meat production uses more land (grass or
other fodder) than vegan food production. Your grass
fed meat can never be veganic of course, the final
product being dead body parts.

> You really shouldn't use "veganic" as your standard, particularly when
> your own diet is not even close.

I'll personally settle for as close as I can realistically can.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.