"C. James Strutz" > wrote
>
> "Dutch" > wrote
>>
>> "Pinnochio Mojo" > wrote
>>> Dutch the friendly ng troll wrote:
>>>
>>>> Of course not. Vegans in general are oblivious to the extent of the
>>>> death
>>>> toll, so are most non-vegans
>>>
>>> How would you go about "proving" this rather sloppy assertion? The fact
>>> is you cannot. Therefore your remarks are irrelevant at best.
>>
>> James has acknowledged that vegans live in ignorance of the issue, that
>> much is already settled.
>
> No, I have not acknowledged that, and just because I suggested it doesn't
> mean that the matter is settled.

The fact is, almost every consumer lives in ignorance of the issue of
collateral deaths in agriculture. You were being candid and honest when you
acknowledged it. And I don't attack vegans for their ignorance, I attack
vegans who are given this information then refuse to use it. I attack
"veganism" for exploiting this ignorance, in feeding off the normal desire
for righteous living.

>>>> Just read the denial in the comments of "mojo".
>>>
>>> Examples please. But the fact remains that i am not in denial, though i
>>> doubt that the same could be said about you. i choose to confront you
>>> and others of your ilk choose to ignore. Still you provide only
>>> nonsensical bias in the form of severely warped refutations.
>>
>> I see you know how to string words into sentences, next learn to say
>> something.
>
> This from the guy who tries to put things "succinctly"....

My explanation was succinct. "it creates an unfair and unrealistic
moral dichotomy between consumers and non-consumers of animal
products. This moral deceit is inherent in veganism, therefore veganism
per se must be rejected."

Veganism is devious, it depends on the false premise that animals are not
killed routined and systematically by every form of agriculture. If it did
not use this false premise, vegans could not logically support the sense of
moral superiority they believe they deserve.