C. James Strutz wrote:
> "rick" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message
groups.com...
>>rick wrote:
>>
>>>"RobDar" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>a very interesting stance...I cannot say that I am well enough
>>>>educated on the topic to comment intelligently...but believe me,
>>>>I am going to look into this!
>>>
>>>
>>>Here's a few sites to start your research..
>>
>>That's a pretty impressive list! How did you come up with all of them?
>>==============================
>>Just from my various research on the subject. I did just go through the
>>list to verify links and found several links no longer work, so I will
>>have to rebuild it.
>>
>>The numbers are amazing given the fact that nobody is really researching
>>the total problem. many of these are just results of specific occurances,
>>and no industry-wide research seems to be done. But then, there really
>>has been no cry for that research. The farmers have no incentive to do it,
>>the petro-chemical industry has no incentive to do it, and the Gob has no
>>real incentive to do it. The only that should care, vegan/AR loons, and
>>demand these studies are strangly quite on the issue. Of course, it would
>>blow their house of cards down and destroy their simple rule for their
>>simple minds.
>
>
> Your simple mind has forgotten that the problem is not one restricted to
> veg*ns.

Since people who eat meat fully accept the fact animals die, the
"problem" exists only for vegans who claim
1. "no animals die" in the course of producing their food;
2. "animals don't have to die" in food production; or
3. "fewer animals die" -- as though ethics is a counting game.

The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering or
death. It's on those who oppose people consuming meat and who make
categorical statements of their own moral superiority. When faced with
the facts, they ultimately make the same argument you did and claim a
virtue relative to the actions of others. They're not more ethical
because others are ethically "worse" than they are (at least according
to their capricious standard); they fail their own ethics test when they
measure themselves by their own standard.