"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
> 8<
> > >> False, numbers will *sometimes* show eating "vegan" is better, not
> > >> always.
> > >> "Vegans" "always" like to speak in absolutes.
> > >
> > > There are no real numbers.
> >
> > Yet vegans act as if there were.
>
> We know for certain that animals are exploited in farming to produc
eanimal
> products. We do not know much about cds. We are compelled to act on the
> certain data and do what we can with the rest.

Drawing conclusions without data is dangerous. In reality you (vegans) are
compelled to follow the rule that consuming animal products is wrong because
of "exploitation", a political principle irrationally extended to animals.
Logic or data from that point forward is immaterial.

> > Utter nonsense, I hear this argument from vegans all the time, and it so
> > typifies their skewed mindset. Food in the world isn't divided into
teams,
> > the vegans and the non-vegans, where you send your "A team" against
ours.
> > To be an objective measure all available food must be compared on a
level
> > playing field, "Veganic" against Organic" against "Free range" against
> > "Factory Farmed", rice against beef, against tofu, it's all food.
>
> compare veganic to any animal farming

You did it again. Compare ALL foods against each other on a level playing
field, including plant foods against plant foods, and commerically produced
plant foods against meat products.

> > > Vegans are not blasting the Innuit (and such) for
> > > their hunting, we are primarily interested in modern farming
practices.
> >
> > No you aren't, that's a croc. Vegans whinge about hunting and fishing as
> > loudly as they do about commercial farming.
>
> yes, these are seen as cruel as well, bt I think you will find most
> literature and time is dedicated to slanging animal farming

Because they comprise 99% of the animals used, not because they are seen as
less moral.
>
> > > womens liberation, veganism = animal liberation
> >
> > Semantics, what about vegetable liberation? Things don't make sense just
> > because you want them to.
>
> animal liberation makes sense - it simply means not exploiting animals,
not
> using them

Plant liberation makes sense too, on a semantic level.

> > > veganism is not recognised by any authority as a religion
> >
> > It isn't a religion, it just has religious aspects to it.
>
> define religion, then catagories some philosophies as religious or not
> religious based on the definition _ I already posted a link discussing
this
> issue, and veganism is no more religious than womens liberation

Women's liberation had a religious fervor to it 100 years ago, but we have
learned that women are nothing less than just people. Now it's a mainstream
idea.

Animal liberation has an inherent characteristic that will never allow it to
reach this level, animals are not human, animals are ubiquitous, we can
never do anything without harming them. The very stuff of life is organisms.

> > > irrelivant
> >
> > Very "relivent". The English language incorporates any commonly used
word,
> > this does not validate the word or mean it refers to something real or
> > credible.
>
> Irrelivent because veganic agriculture is real, is done and doable.

It's not a credible alternative.