"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>
> > That's false, ANY *typical* vegan diet that relies on commercial
> product
> > could be improved by substituting some carefully selected meat.
>
> See? There you go, wanting to compare the worst of
> the vegans to the best of the meats. Come back when
> you want to compare other combos too.

The operative principle of veganism, as you know, is the removal of animal
products from one's diet and lifestyle. My statement above proves that this
rule is flawed.

> > > If we
> > > compare ALL combinations, vegans win
> > > with less cds.
> >
> > Vegans don't win anything, the valid comparison is amongst foods, not
> > people.
>
> Aren't we playing the cds numbers game? If so,
> the vegan team wins. Go team!

Foods, products are the issue, not teams.

> > Right, fancy that! Depending on the source of the food, sometimes
> plant
> > foods are better, sometimes not. That's all I have been saying all
> along.
> > The narrow vegan agenda of simply removing animal products and
> claiming some
> > kind of moral victory is hollow.
>
> That SIMPLE act actually does something.
> It lowers cds. That is a good enough reason
> for a person to feel morally good about themselves.

If the vegan removes fresh salmon from her diet, cds are not lowered.

> > > they are a limited resource.
> >
> > There is enough of them that anyone who wants them now could obtain
> them.
> >
> > > All meateaters can't choose to go that
> > > route because demand would exceed supply.
> >
> > Everyone doesn't need to do anything, it only needs to be shown that a
> diet
> > that includes meat can improve upon a typical vegan diet in order to
> > establish the flaw in the narrow, dogmatic vegan idea of 'no
> consumption of
> > animal products'.
>
> If you feel that not consuming animal products
> is a 'flaw' of veganism, boy, do you ever have
> your work cut out for you!!

The flaw is in the moral conclusion, not the consumption.

> > I've been saying it all along. Veganism is fundamentally flawed in
> it's idea
> > that one's diet/lifestyle is made more moral and ethical by the
> progressive
> > removal of animal products from it. If one accepts the notion that
> there is
> > a direct link between a person's morality and the amount of harm to
> animals
> > one causes with their lifestyle then the rule of veganism is too
> narrow, too
>
> Yeah, you think vegans should starve themselves
> in protest against commercial produce.

No, I think vegans ought to be frank and honest about the death toll behind
commercial produce and stop posturing.

> > non-inclusive. Your typical urban vegan, and I've been one, is beat
> hands
> > down by a small self-sufficient farmer, I've been one of them too. The
> vegan
>
> Gee, just a moment ago, I was reading you claim
> that no one can feed themselves for a winter on
> what they grow.

I also raised eggs, milk, butter, pork, chicken and beef on that farm. That
was enough to make my family self-sufficient.