"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
8<
> The fallacy is ALL YOURS. Your claim is that eating vegan is "always"
> better, that is clearly not true. When you say "always", YOU are comparing
> apples to oranges.

I never made such a claim. I have little doubt that some hunter gatherer
societies cause less animal suffering than vegans like me. However, being an
HG isn't realistic in the UK. Furthermore, gathering rather than hunting
would still cause net less deaths I believe.

> > But you may well be right that perhaps a packet of buscuits causes more
> > total deaths than say a piece of pasture fed beef - but you have not
> > proven
> > this yet.
>
> There is no need to "prove it", I believe, based on evidence *you have
seen*
> that it is a reasonable conclusion, and *you* cannot disprove it. YOU are
> claiming my reasonably held belief is wrong, with no evidence.

Without at least some kind of numbers how can you reach any kind of
reasonable conclusions?

> > You have no real numbers for such comparisons.
>
> How does one count the number of birds/year killed by insecticides in
orange
> groves?

....by non vegans

> Allowing an animal to graze causes less cds than ploughing, seeding,
> spraying and harvesting.

how did you work that out?

> > And we can also state
> > factually that veganic growing is possible.
>
> It's also possible in the perfect world to raise animals totally without
> stress or suffering. But we don't live in an ideal world John, none of us.
> "Vegans" are perpetrating a self-comforting fraud by believing so.

Being vegan is not idealistic. One simply looks at things in ones lifestyle
one has easy control over that are the result of animal exploitation and
choose not to buy or promote them as best as we can. This is both simple and
doable.

John