"John Deere" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dutch wrote:
>> "John Deere" > wrote
>>
>> [..]
>> >> In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
>> >> "veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
>> >> they don't really believe their absolute claim that
>> >> killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
>> >> effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
>> >> see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.
>> >
>> > You are putting forth a very contrived logical position.
>>
>> What is contrived about counting the deaths of animals killed in the
>> production of food? That is essentially the vegan complaint against
>> meat-eaters
>
> One is direct killing, one is incidental killing.
==================
And all the animals are still dead. We happen to eat the ones we kill, you
just leave the ones you kill to rot. Quite a compassion thing you got going
there.
Besides, many of the animals kill3d for your veggies are targetted
deliberately for killing. They are in no way accidental.

>
> Moreover, the original argument is biased nonsense, because
> it assumes cattle are raised on water and air.
>
> In fact, every single animal-based meal is derived
> from hundreds of "vegan" meals fed to the animal,
======================
Really? You must eat very very cheaply then, huh? Afterall, alll you have
to do is go out in your yard and start grazing. How many 'vegans' do you
know that like you, eat grass as their entire diet. Now, if they do, I'd be
the first to wish them well in their humaneness and compassion for animals.
Of course, like you, they all eat veggies from mono-culture crops. Crops
that are plowed, seeded, sprayed, harvested, processed, stored and
transported around the world just for your selfish variety.

so
> whatever a vegan does, it's multiplied by several
> hundred for a non-vegan.
================
Nope. try dividing and you'd be alot closer for many meat-included diets.


>
> But the point which you had trouble getting,
> is all about "intentions". Think about it
> a bit, and it might get clear.
==============
Obviously thinking isn't something you do much of, is it?


>
>> > It's possible that every time I drive north in the night, the
>> > light from my headlights ultimately ends up proving
>> > fatal to certain life-forms on an alien planet.
>> > That does not make me a killer.
>>
>> Talk about contrived logical positions!
>
> Well, you are certainly getting a bit of it. This was an
> example, to show how contrived the original poster's position.
> You are absolutely right about it, it's a very
> contrived logical position. Good job, now just do
> a little more thinking, and the rest might make sense too.
================
Analogies are realy hard for you, aren't they? There is no comparision to
your delusions and the direct and deliberate killing done to keep your
veggies clean and cheap. That you are willing to ignore the facts says all
we need to know about how deeply the religion has hold of you.

>