> wrote
> 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.

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm

HOW MANY ANIMALS OF THE FIELD WOULD DIE IF A VEGAN DIET WERE ADOPTED?

Animals living in and around agricultural fields are killed during field
activities and the greater the number of field activities, the greater the
number of field animals that die. A partial list of animals of the field in
the USA include opossum, rock dove, house sparrow, European starling, black
rat, Norway rat, house mouse, Chukar, gray partridge, ring-necked pheasant,
wild turkey, cottontail rabbit, gray-tailed vole, and numerous species of
amphibians (Edge, 2000). In addition, Edge (2000) says, "production of most
crops requires multiple field operations that may include plowing, disking,
harrowing, planting, cultivating, applying herbicides and pesticides as well
as harvesting." These practices have negative effects on the populations of
the animals living in the fields. For example, just one operation, the
"mowing of alfalfa caused a 50% decline in gray-tailed vole population"
(Edge, 2000). Although these examples represent crop production systems in
the USA, the concept is also valid for intensive crop production in any
country. Other studies have also examined the effect of agricultural
tillage practices on field animal populations (Johnson et al., 1991; Pollard
and Helton, 1970; Tew, Macdonald and Rands, 1992).


>
>> 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.

Exactly right. The primary difference is that you do not have animal parts
on your plate, but the commercial agriculture that supports you kills lots.

In other words, the difference is one of "appearance" rather than substance.

>> your diet causes animals to die.
>
> Again, examples please.

See above.

>> 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.

You have not even attempted to measure the deaths
associated with your diet, and you certainly do not
know the content of his. I wonder how you arrived
at such a sweeping conclusion?

> Trust me.

My father told me never to trust a man who says that.

>
>> 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.

That's a tough call, rice and banana production are both
extremely high in collateral animal death.

>> Pussy.
>> Face it, clown,
>> cut through your bullshit.
>> Wasteful pig.
>
> Such grammar. Such idiocy. i do find it hard to take you seriously.
> *sigh*

You are incapable of taking anything seriously.

> 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

There's nothing there that strikes the matter anywhere.

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

How true.

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

Grain is cheap and plentiful.

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

Nobody else is buying it.

> Mono-culture crop production feeds most livestock.

A lot of meat is produced in ways that causes far
less death and suffering than the shrink-wrapped
and imported crap you buy at The Piggly Wiggly.

You are spouting half-baked rhetoric you read somewhere.