In article .net>,
"rick" > wrote:

> As promoted here by usenet vegans it is only about following a
> simple rule for simple minds, eat no meat. Their delusions are
> that only by not eating meat that they cause no, fewer, less
> deaths of animals.

"Usenet vegans??" So, being a vegan and this being my first post on usenet,
that lumps me in with these people you know so well, right?

> Hardlt practical though, is it? If one wanted to contribute to
> less death, and still remain the consumer oriented person they
> are now, then the real choice is to choose meats that cause less
> death and suffering. Growing any significant amounts o your own
> food would seriously cut into your consumerism.

Oh, dear. Wouldn't that be horrific? I guess you don't know these usenet
vegans as well as you seem to think. The ones I know are less
consumeristic. Life must be so awful for them!

> > Who says people have to be completely absolutist about every
> > thing they
> > think might do some good? Many pacifists agree with American
> > involvement in
> > WWII. The name of the site, lessmeat.com, kinda indicates that
> > it is not
> > about absolutism, no?

Couldn't really answer this, right?

> > Vegetarianism is simply a non-action, not a basic ethical
> > principle of life.
> =================
> But veganism is. Notice the words Dutch used, vegans... That
> is ALL about an ethical way of life. Diet being no more, and no
> less important than any othe aspect of you life.

There you go again, attacking straw men. I posted the original post in this
thread, and I said nothing about absolutism, and neither does the website I
mentioned. You are arguing with some third party not participating in this
thread.

> > And on another note, if everyone were to stop eating meat,
> > fewer animals
> > would die (including all the animals killed feeding those meat
> > animals).
> ================
> You have proof of that of course...

It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce grain. More than half
of America's crop production is fed to livestock.

> If
> > all six billion of us were to eat free-range or hunted meat,
> > there would be
> > no wild game, all the ranges would be irreversibly compromised,
> > and all
> > life on Earth would probably be in trouble.
> ======================
> LOL As opposed to the environmental damage from mono-culture
> crop production?

Who's advocating mono-culture crop production? Not me! Not the website!
Only you, setting up your straw man.

Mono-culture crop production feeds most livestock.

> Which of those is a better
> > lifestyle to advocate to others?
> =====================
> Eating the proper meats. You realize that all beef cows in the
> US are already pasture fed for most of their lives, and even then
> not all of them go to feedlots don't you?

Do you realize that most U.S. (mono-crop) agriculture goes to livestock?

> Besides that, plants do not provide the b12 that you need.

Oh, I guess I'm dead then, right? Or is it that ten cents a day I spend on
super-duper, vegetarian vitamin supplements?

And no, those vegetarian supplements are not vegan. Do I need to remind you
again that nobody except you is arguing for absolutism?