"Sprang" > wrote in message
...
> 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?
======================
Nice to know that you're that easy to get to troll. Talk like
duck.... quack quack...



>
>> 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!
> =======================
ROTLMAO What a hoot!!! You're here on usenet, so I KNOW you
spend no time growing ANY of your own food in any amount that
makes a diference. Thanks fo proving it, again...



>> > 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?
> =====================
Yes, I did fool. The title has no meaning to what the site is
about. Or, maybe you haven't really read it?


>> > 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.
======================
Yes, the site you posted does. It's all about eating NO meat,
not less. I you'd read the actually site, and not the title you
might understand that.


>
>> > 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.
======================
ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right?


>
>> 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.
======================
Yes, you are, and yes the site does. It promotes easy convenient
veggies and NO meat. No other way to get that food other than
mono-cultue crops, fool.


>
> Mono-culture crop production feeds most livestock.
=================
You have proof again of this claim too, right killer?


>
>> 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?
==================
WHere's you proof of that claim fool? Saying it over and over
doesn't make it so.


>
>> 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?
=====================
WHich cause animals to die, and environemnetal damage, killer.
Tell me again how killing those animals and leaving them to rot
is better than eating one animal once in awhile. Can you do that
hypocrite?


>
> And no, those vegetarian supplements are not vegan. Do I need
> to remind you
> again that nobody except you is arguing for absolutism?
===============
The site you posted does. Try reading it, fool.