Phil Odox wrote:
>>>>>> <cut>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Savory made from nuts
>>>>>>>> Breadcrumbs wheat and rye.
>>>>>>>> Tastes as good, nutritious too
>>>>>>>> And nothing has to die!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a correct statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Guess again, you prancing poof. Plenty of animals DO die as a
>>>>>>> result of the farming, transportation, and storage practices
>>>>>>> associated with grains. Many of the deaths are intentional (i.e.,
>>>>>>> pesticides). Others aren't intentional (e.g., flooding during
>>>>>>> irrigation, burning fields, predation when croplands are
>>>>>>> harvested, slicing and dicing during planting and harvest, etc.).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That maybe so, but the it doesn't take anything away from
>>>>>> nemo's correct statement; nothing *has* to die to provide
>>>>>> vegetarians with food.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> well, you mean nothing with a face has to die.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Has to die" is meaningless sophistry when you know damn well that
>>>> animals DO die in the normal course of commercial-scale agriculture.
>>>>
>>> They might,
>>
>>
>>
>> They do die in the NORMAL course of commercial-scale agriculture.
>
> That may be so,

It is so.

> occasionally,

Wrong. NORMALLY. ROUTINELY.

>> Yoursophistry, as noble as you may think it is to prate incessantly about
>> not harming animals, is specious and meaningless since it's
>> fantasy-based rather than reality-based.
>
> I've grown tons of the stuff

Liar, and yet again you've failed to address the fact that
commercially-grown wheat and rye causes harm to animals -- from combines
(squashing, slicing, dicing, etc.), irrigation (drowning), clearing
fields at harvest (predation), burning (farmers often burn fields
following harvest), pesticides (fields, storage facilities), pollution
from equipment (diesel exhaust is toxic), etc. But you have your Utopian
fantasies about "what could be" rather than "what is." Keep avoiding
reality, putz. It wouldn't suit you.