"Rubin" > wrote in message
news:CFoue.94776$xm3.45171@attbi_s21...
>
snippage...



>>
>
> OK, think of it this way. The ONLY way to even come close to
> causing, or contributing to, animal deaths is this: To live
> in the wilds somewhere, no fire (possible forest fire), no
> electronics, liqueur, cigarettes, bug spray, ad infinitum. The
> only thing you could eat would be some leaves, nuts, berries
> etc., but not too much, animals compete for those same
> resources. Maybe you could eat carrion, if you really wanted
> to.
>
> Obviously, that is not feasible, as well as being pretty damn
> silly. So your choice becomes: an industry that kills 1000s
> of animals per acre to feed the minority, or an industry that
> kills dozens (tops) per acre for the majority?
>
> Now, you next main problem with the "suffering", vegan side or
> meat eater side. You have no way to prove that all, or even a
> majority, of livestock, suffer at all. By the same token, meat
> eaters use figures skewed or spun to make their side look
> better. Terms like "up to" and "as many as". No problem at
> all, the choice is an individuals to make. Preaching only
> makes people dig their heels in.
>
> You must admit crop production causes death and suffering, as
> any meat eater will tell you some animals suffer because of
> their decisions. There is no way to avoid it, from either
> side.
>
> I have no problem with the "health vegan",
=====================
Problem is, there really is no 'health' vegan. Veganism is NOT a
diet. It is a philosophy, a way of life.
Diet plays no more or less a part than any other aspect of your
life.





that uses the diet for supposed
> health benefits, they usually aren't preachy. It is the
> hippie vegans that act like Jahova Witnesses and try to convert
> you using half the facts, and half of those wrong, that make my
> ass pucker.
>
>