wide-eyed Utopian zealot Phil Odox wrote:
>>> Your shame has made you incapable of being honest
>>> concerning vegetarian diets,
>>
>> You're the one who's being dishonest
>
> There's nothing dishonest

Yes, there is.

> <cut without reading>

Heh! Here it is again, if you ever grow a pair:
What goes unaccounted for in Regan's vegan conclusion, according
to Davis, is the number of animals who are inadvertently killed
during crop production and harvest.

"Vegan diets are not bloodless diets," Davis said. "Millions of
animals die every year to provide products used in vegan diets."

"Over the years that I have been studying animal rights
theories, I have never found anyone who has considered the
deaths of - or, the 'harm' to - animals of the field," Davis
said. "This, it seems to me, is a serious omission."

Consequently, Davis asks what is the morally relevant difference
between the field mouse and the cow that makes it okay to kill
one but not the other so that humans may eat.

Few studies document the losses of rabbits, mice, pheasants,
snakes and other field animals in planting and harvesting crops.
Said one researcher: "Because most of these animals have been
seen as expendable, or not seen at all, few scientific studies
have been done measuring agriculture's effects on their
populations."

Davis has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of
field animals are very high. One study documented that a single
operation, mowing alfalfa, caused a 50 percent reduction in the
gray-tailed vole population. Mortality rates increase with every
pass of the tractor to plow, plant, and harvest. Additions of
herbicides and pesticides cause additional harm to animals of
the field....

Davis proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production,
which would replace all poultry, pig and lamb production with
beef and dairy products. According to his calculations, such a
model would result in the deaths of 300 million fewer animals
annually (counting both field animals and cattle) than would a
total vegan model. This difference, according to Davis, is
mainly the result of fewer field animals killed in pasture and
forage production than in the growing and harvest of grain,
beans, and corn.

Applying the Least Harm Principle, Davis argues that people may
be morally obliged to consume a diet based on plants and grazing
ruminants in order to cause the least harm to animals.
http://www.scienceblog.com/community.../20024572.html

You also need to respond to what I wrote:
The more commercially-grown food you consume, the greater the
number of animals injured, poisoned, or killed for your diet.
That pile of dead and wounded animals, if you had the guts to
even start to count through it, is the evidence that a
vegetarian diet is a meaningless gesture if the criterion for
not harming animals actually means NOT HARMING ANIMALS.

If you consider harm to animals to be a moral issue, your virtue
isn't based on your pipedreams about mythical production that
doesn't harm animals, but on your actual consumption and how
that consumption affects animals. You get some reprieve to the
extent that you grow some of your own food. But since you likely
consume foods that are grown on a commercial scale (e.g., grains
and legumes) and stored (where health codes REQUIRE proactive
pest control), you DO kill animals through your consumption.
That makes you no better than someone who eats meat by your own
criterion.

You're a poseur. Don't be offended or feel alone. You're neither the
first nor the last. The question is whether you'll be honest enough
about it to do something about it or if you'll continue spouting off
your delusional platitudes.