"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
> 8<
>> >> The numbers, when calculated properly will always
>> >> show eating vegan is better.
>> >
>> > agreed
>>
>> False, numbers will *sometimes* show eating "vegan" is better, not
>> always.
>> "Vegans" "always" like to speak in absolutes.
>
> There are no real numbers. However, eating up the food chain will
> accumulate
> animal deaths and resource use with increasingly lower food returns.
=======================
False. Again you use absolutes when it it far too easy to show where you
are wrong, killer.


I
> accept that food processing, and other technical aspects of certain plant
> food production may be exceptions. However, comparisons of such should be
> on
> a like for like basis. Vegans are not blasting the Innuit (and such) for
> their hunting, we are primarily interested in modern farming practices.
=======================
Farming practices that you depend on, and pretend don't kill millions upon
millions of animals and leave them to rot.


>
>> Women's liberation is not comparable to "veganism".
>
> womens liberation, veganism = animal liberation
>
> veganism is not recognised by any authority as a religion
=====================
But it still a religion.

>
>> >> > There is no such word as "veganic".
>> >>
>> >> There should be. It's a great word. Someone here used
>> >> it a few days ago.
>> >
>> > There is such a word
> http://www.free-definition.com/Veganic-gardening.html
>>
>> If people use words they eventually become recognized, that doesn't mean
>> they have any real significance.
>
> irrelivant
>
> John
>
>