usual suspect wrote:
> If you think killing one animal for food is wrong,

i do. That's why i'm a vegan.

> why do you so non-chalantly turn an eye to the THOUSANDS
> of dead animals for your "vegan" food

Examples please - instead of these wild-eyed and hollow accusations.

> SO LONG AS THOSE ANIMALS AREN'T TO SATISFY WHAT YOU CALL
> "THE SAME URGENT NEED" TO EAT?

That sentence fragment does not make any sense, but at least i'm not
eating the flesh of a dead animal for my next meal. That's the
difference.

> your diet causes animals to die.

Again, examples please.

> In reality, how the **** are you more ethical than he?

i never mentioned ethics, but i'm glad you did. My diet is more
compassionate than yours is and hence vegans are more ethical than you.
Trust me.

> They are morbid exercises.

Eating brown rice and other grains is a morbid exercise? Do you realize
what you are trying to say here? Maybe you could tell me which is the
more morbid of the two, eating a bowl of brown rice or eating a banana
for desert.

> Pussy.
> Face it, clown,
> cut through your bullshit.
> Wasteful pig.

Such grammar. Such idiocy. i do find it hard to take you seriously.
*sigh*

i supposed you missed these statements made by Sprang which strike at
the heart of the matter.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e=source&hl=en

> The idea of collateral deaths in agriculture is not fluff,
> it's a dagger in the heart of radical veganism.

It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce grain.

More than half of America's crop production is fed to livestock.

Mono-culture crop production feeds most livestock.