"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:24:31 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:11:55 GMT, "rick" >
>>> wrote:
>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:35:25 GMT, "rick" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
>>>>>>news:8j95q1p10h6mvbok0t0bsefcmptdevaifj@4ax. com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's no perfect solution to this problem of the
>>>>>>> collateral
>>>>>>> deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is
>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>> foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his
>>>>>>> advantage
>>>>>>> when he's run out of valid arguments.
>>>>>>====================
>>>>>>LOL It's the vegan that has no valid argument fool.
>>>>>>You've
>>>>>>yet to EVER prove your claims that your deit is better.
>>>>>>I have easily shown that there are diets that are better
>>>>>>than
>>>>>>many vegan diets, and yours in particular, killer.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and fruits.
>>>>=====================
>>>>You don't do that do you, fool!
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, your grass fed beef or hunted meat cannot best
>>> forging for wild vegetables and fruits. Whether I forage or
>>> not
>>> is irrelevant.
>>===========================
>>LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong
>
> No, I've shown that I'm right by offering a better solution
> than the grass fed beef or hunted meat you offer: foraging
> for wild vegetables and fruits. You'll do best to include
> that solution when offering the least harm diet, but being
> the meat pusher that you are you'll probably ignore it and
> continue offering your CD-laden grass fed beef instead.
===================================
No, you've proven again your own hypocricy fool. You do not and
will not try this so-called option.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>>>You cannot claim that grass-fed beef isn't an option
>>>
>>> Grass fed beef isn't a viable option because those animals
>>> accrue collateral deaths like any other steer in the feedlot
>>> from the crops they are fed.
>>=============================
>>No fool, they do not.
>
> Evidence from U.S.D.A. shows that grass fed beef can be
> and is fed grains at the feedlot like any other steer, and
> still
> qualify as grass fed beef.
==========================
No fool, they do not. Try again...

"...How are Cattle Raised?
All cattle start out eating grass; three-fourths of them are
"finished" (grown to maturity) in feedlots where they are fed
specially formulated feed based on corn or other grains...."
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets...able/index.asp

too bad you're still too stupid to play, killer...


>
>>> While the meat pushers on these vegetarian and animal-
>>> related forums try to convince vegans that grass fed
>>> beef is that: grass fed, and therefore has a much lesser
>>> association with the collateral deaths caused by farmers
>>> growing animal feeds, they neglect to mention that
>>> grass fed beef is also fed grains at the feedlot just like
>>> any other steer,
>>=============================
>>Still willfully ignorant, eh killer?
>
> The evidence is indisputable and from U.S.D.A. You
> have no reason to dispute it, and it stands until you do.
==========================
LOL See above fool.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>they are not sent to feed-lots, despite your continued lys,
>>hypocrite
>
> I've shown that they are, despite your denials. Read on and
> see that they are, just below this line.
======================
I've read your lys before, fool. They are still lys.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>> and therefore has a larger association
>>> with collateral deaths than they would like to admit.
>>>
>>> Meat-labeling guidelines are all over the place, allowing
>>> producers to make whatever claims they want to with
>>> impunity, so U.S.D.A. has "proposed minimum
>>> requirements for livestock and meat industry production/
>>> marketing claims, when adopted, will become the United
>>> States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing
>>> Claims." They are as follows;
>>=====================
>>You've been show the idiocy of your claims
>
> No, I haven't. My claims are backed by evidence from
> U.S.D.A. and accompanying notes from disgruntled
> farmers. There's no getting away from the fact that
> the grass fed beef you offer as an option to regular
> beef is bogus, because both animals are finished on
> grains at the feedlot. It's not an alternative to regular
> steers at all if both are fed grains at the feedlot, as
> shown by U.S.D.A.
==========================
no fool, they are not backed up by the USDA. I just posted proof
of your idiocy...
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.

>
>>> [SUMMARY: These proposed minimum requirements
>>> for livestock and meat industry production/marketing
>>> claims, when adopted, will become the United States
>>> Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims.
>>> .....
>>> Grass Fed Claims--Background: This claim refers
>>> to the feeding regimen for livestock raised on grass,
>>> green or range pasture, or forage throughout their
>>> life cycle, with only limited supplemental grain
>>> feeding allowed. Since it is necessary to assure the
>>> animal's well being at all times, limited supplementation
>>> is allowed during adverse environmental conditions.
>>> Grass feeding usually results in products containing
>>> lower levels of external and internal fat (including
>>> marbling) than grain-fed livestock products.
>>>
>>> Claim and Standard:
>>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
>>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
>>> source throughout the animal's life cycle.
>>>
>>> Dated: December 20, 2002.
>>> A.J. Yates,
>>> Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
>>> [FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]
>>>
>>> BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt
>>>
>>> These "proposed minimum requirements mean that
>>> grass fed beef can in fact be fed up to 80% grains for
>>> 60 days in a feedlot, just like any other steer, and still
>>> qualify as grass fed beef.
>>>
>>> Comments from disgruntled grass fed beef producers
>>> bear this out and reveal the lie behind grass fed beef;
>>>
>>> [Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
>>> most commented upon topic in this docket. We
>>> will not belabor all the points of concern which
>>> are addressed but will focus on the areas of
>>> concern to our cooperative of growers. While
>>> Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
>>> IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
>>> NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
>>> you need to define both as what they ARE since
>>> that is what is motivating the consumer.
>>>
>>> While the intent of this language would suggest
>>> that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
>>> especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
>>> not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
>>> 80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
>>> the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
>>> animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
>>> 70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
>>> fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
>>> these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
>>> consumer expectations as is borne out in the
>>> website comments.]
>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> Dear Mr. Carpenter,
>>> The proposed definition of the claim ?grass fed,? as it
>>> may appear on future USDA approved beef labels, is
>>> meaningless in the context of the current United States
>>> cattle market and would violate consumer trust if put
>>> into effect.
>>>
>>> The huge majority of all beef cattle in the United States
>>> are ?finished? on a grain-based ration in a commercial
>>> feed lot. Even so, virtually all American cattle spend
>>> 80% or more of their lives on pasture eating grasses,
>>> legumes and naturally occurring seeds (grain). Calling
>>> these animals ?grass fed,? as proposed in the new label
>>> claim definition, ignores the fact that in most cases their
>>> whole diet for the last few months of their lives contains
>>> no grass at all. Calling these animals ?grass fed?
>>> therefore
>>> becomes meaningless since virtually all cattle are grass fed
>>> as in the proposed definition.
>>>
>>> However, for the last decade, a small, but growing number
>>> of producers, including ourselves, have been marketing
>>> cattle finished exclusively on pasture and hay without the
>>> use of unnatural levels of grain-based seeds. This grass-
>>> finished beef has been marketed as ?grassfed? or ?grass-
>>> fed?, and these terms have come to be recognized by
>>> millions of consumers. The enormous publicity over the
>>> last year for grassfed meats (following on best-selling
>>> books such as The Omega Diet and Fast Food Nation)
>>> has reinforced the perception that ?grass fed? is
>>> synonymous with grass-finished and, by extension, that no
>>> supplemental grain has been provided to the animals.
>>>
>>> So, I feel that to call an animal that has received as much
>>> as 20% of its total nutrition in a grain feeding finishing
>>> program ?grass fed? could be misleading and confusing
>>> to the consumer. Grain finishing of ruminants is an
>>> artificial
>>> feeding practice born of our unique circumstances here in
>>> the United States. Grass feeding is the basis for ruminant
>>> health consistent with the genetic structure and nutritional
>>> requirements of the animals. The claim ?grass fed? as used
>>> on a USDA-approved label should mean that a grassfed
>>> animal has received no grain other than that which is
>>> naturally
>>> occurring on pasture or in hay feeds.
>>>
>>> I am glad that the USDA is attempting to bring some order
>>> to the grassfed meat discussion, but I join those voices that
>>> have been raised calling for a larger forum in which to
>>> discuss
>>> the definition of the grassfed claim as well as other new
>>> claims.
>>> I ask that the March 31, 2003, deadline for public comment
>>> be extended indefinitely to give all citizens, most
>>> particularly
>>> those who have been building the grassfed meats market, our
>>> customers, and those who support our efforts, the opportunity
>>> to have our perspective thoroughly considered.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your serious consideration of my comments.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Ernest Phinney
>>> General Manager
>>> Western Grasslands Beef]
>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc102.txt
>>>
>>> Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what it's name
>>> implies, and has just as much an association with
>>> the collateral deaths found in crop production as
>>> any other steer in the feedlot.
>>========================
>>Nope.
>
> Your denial at this point in spite of all that evidence I've
> provided is absurd, though fully expected.
====================
You've provided nothing, killer. Well, to be honest, you have
provided the same lys over and over. they are still lys though,
hypocrite...
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>>>> Grass fed beef and hunted meat will always include the
>>>>> death of an animal or animals. The vegan will always beat
>>>>> the flesh eater where deaths are concerned, so you can
>>>>> take your CD laden grass fed beef and shove it, Rick.
>>>>======================
>>>>ROTFLMAO
>>>
>>> What a silly response.
>>=======================
>>Because of a silly claim that you have continued to fail at
>>proving
>
> I've supported it by offering a better option to your best:
> foraging
> for wild vegetables and fruits. Better, best, bested - how's
> that for
> a declension? You lose, Etter.
===============================
LOL No you haven't fool. Try again, and give a viable
real-world alternative, like I have. I admitted that fairy tale
lives can be better, but they don't apply to the way YOU eat,
hypocrite...



>
>>>>>>>He argues;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Critic)
>>>>>>> Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
>>>>>>> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food;
>>>>>>> animals still die for their food during crop production.
>>>>>>=========================
>>>>>>By the millions upon millions, and in mnany cases far more
>>>>>>than
>>>>>>for some meat-inckuded diets. Therefore, your argument is
>>>>>>bogus, again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rather, you've just committed the same fallacy: the perfect
>>>>> solution fallacy. Thanks for that demonstration.
>>>>========================
>>>>No, I did not
>>>
>>> You're arguing that the vegan's solution to the deaths
>>> associated
>>> with man's diet should be rejected because animal deaths
>>> would
>>> still exist after veganism is implemented, and that, dummy,
>>> is
>>> using the perfect solution fallacy: a false dilemma.
>>==========================
>>No fool, I am not.
>
> Yes, twerp: you are.
> ============================
Nope, you lose, again...


>>>>>>> This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
>>>>>>> assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are
>>>>>>> killed for their food in the practical World,
>>>>>>===========================
>>>>>>Nice stretch
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't even bring yourself to concede that a vegan can
>>>>> eat a single meal without killing animals,
>>>>================================
>>>>No fool, I never claimed that at all.
>>>
>>> Then, do you accept the fact that a vegan can eat a meal
>>> without any association of collateral deaths involved?
>>=======================
>>Not as practiced by you and every other vegan here on usenet
>
> Then you are indeed posing a false dilemma known as the
> perfect solution fallacy.
>
> The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
> when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
> and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
> of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
> Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
> would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
> Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of
> a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
> imagine.
============================
LOL Reposting your stupidity only confirms your stupidity, fool.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
> Examples:
> (critic)
> This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will
> still be
> able to get through!
> (Rejoinder)
> Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, but
> would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would stop?
> (critic)
> These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work.
> People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.
> (Rejoinder)
> It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the amount
> by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving
> enough to make the policy worthwhile?
> (Critic)
> Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car
> wrecks.
> (Rejoinder)
> It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but
> isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to make
> seat belts worthwhile?
>
> It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit
> any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not
> work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may
> be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when
> a specific example of a solution's failing is described in eye-
> catching detail and base rates are ignored (see availability
> heuristic).
> The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy
>
>>>>> so when arguing
>>>>> that the vegan's solution to the problem of animal deaths
>>>>> surrounding diet should be rejected because animal deaths
>>>>> still exist after veganism is implemented, you commit the
>>>>> perfect solution fallacy.
>>>>========================
>>>>No
>>>
>>> Absolutely yes. Other examples include;
>>=====================
>>No
>
> Yes, dummy, despite your futile whining to the contrary, you
> are posing a false dilemma whether you accept that charge
> or not.
=============================
No fool, you just can't comprehend anything you read.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>>>>>> (Rejoinder)
>>>>>>> Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
>>>>>>> aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by
>>>>>>> vegans,
>>>>>>===========================
>>>>>>Yes, they are.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. I don't request that collateral deaths occur, I don't
>>>>> condone
>>>>> them, and nor do I intentionally cause them. You don't get
>>>>> to
>>>>> say what others condone.
>>>>======================
>>>>Your pal Aristotle has already told you, in english, that you
>>>>are
>>>>complicit, hypocrite.
>>>
>>> Rather, his theory on moral responsibility shows that the
>>> farmer is blameworthy for the deaths he voluntarily
>>> causes, and that he cannot escape that blame by claiming
>>> he is compelled externally by the vegan to cause those
>>> deaths.
>>> ======================================
>>No
>
> Yes. Read on.
=========================
Again, I have read your idiocy. Your problem is that Aristotke
ahs already told you, in english, that you are complicit. You
keep posting the proof of your complicity and then pretend that
it doesn't apply.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>> [ Aristotle (384-323 BCE) seems to have been the first
>>> to construct explicitly a theory of moral responsibility.
>>> .....
>>> The remainder of Aristotle's discussion is devoted to
>>> spelling out the conditions under which it is appropriate
>>> to hold a moral agent blameworthy or praiseworthy for
>>> some particular action or trait. His general proposal is
>>> that one is an apt candidate for praise or blame if and
>>> only if the action and/or disposition is voluntary.
>>>
>>> According to Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has
>>> two distinctive features. First, there is a control
>>> condition:
>>> the action or trait must have its origin in the agent. That
>>> is, it must be up to the agent whether to perform that action
>>> or possess the trait -- it cannot be compelled externally.
>>> Second, Aristotle proposes an epistemic condition: the agent
>>> must be aware of what it is she is doing or bringing about.]
>>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entr*ies/m...ponsibility/#2
>
> There you are.
> ==========================
Yes, there you are. You are complicit. You are not compelled to
buy the food you know causes death and suffering, you CHOOSE to
buy it. It is YOUR actions that make you complicit.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>>>>>>> and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill
>>>>>>> animals intentionally for food.
>>>>>>==========================
>>>>>>false. You know the animals are there
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I don't.
>>>>=====================
>>>>Then you are willfully and terminally ignorant.
>>>
>>> Then, in light of YOUR fact that all vegan foods accrue
>>> animal deaths, to reject veganism on the basis that animal
>>> deaths will still occur after its implementation you invoke
>>> the perfect solution fallacy once again. Nice going, Rick;
>>> you're the perfect demonstration for showing this fallacy
>>> to its maximum effect.
>>=============================
>>Nope.
>
> Absolutely yes, despite your empty denials. Your collateral
> deaths argument against the vegan poses a false dilemma
> and is correctly rejected on that basis. You've been wasting
> your time on this issue for years, so I doubt you'll allow
> yourself to accept the facts when shown to you, being you.
===========================
LOL This from the willfully ignorant that doesn't know reality
when it's in your face! What a hoot!
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.




>
>>>>>> the farmer knows the animals are there
>>>>>
>>>>> That's correct. He causes them.
>>>>=====================
>>>>And you reward him, killer.
>>>
>>> No, I don't, no matter how many times you repeat that
>>> unsupported claim.
>>> =================================
>>It's completel supported and proven
>
> No, you don't get to say what I reward others for, and you
> don't get to rest your argument on such a wild assumption
> without looking completely desperate and stupid.
=========================
ROTFLMAO I'm not the one proving my contentions fool! You are
proving who you reward by YOUR actions, not because I say so,
killer. You really are this stupid, aren't you?
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.




>
>>>>>> and you REWARD him for their deaths
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I don't reward him for anything but the crops he
>>>>> produces.
>>>>> I certainly don't reward him for the deaths he causes. Do
>>>>> you
>>>>> reward taxi drivers for the deaths they cause while going
>>>>> about
>>>>> their work, or our servicemen for the collateral deaths
>>>>> they
>>>>> cause while making a grab for Saddam's oil? You're
>>>>> laughable.
>>>
>>> Did you get that: you're laughable.
>>=====================
>>No fool
>
> Then I'll repeat it. You're laughable. No one rewards taxi
> drivers
> for the deaths they cause when ordering a cab, and no one
> rewards our servicemen for the collateral human deaths they
> cause while making a grab for Saddam's oil. Likewise, no one
> rewards farmers for the collateral deaths they cause while
> producing veg.
=======================
Yes, fool, they are rewarded for those actions. Since you seem
to like punishment as rewards. See dave...
No such actions take place for even the deliberate deaths oif
animals for your food. In fact, you even contionue to PAY for
those deaths!
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>>>>>> Furthermore, the crops grown to feed
>>>>>>> farmed animals far outweigh those grown ourselves,
>>>>>>==========================
>>>>>>Strawman, killer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. In fact, of the total domestic consumption of
>>>>> cereal
>>>>> grains 72% are used to feed livestock, 11% are for direct
>>>>> human
>>>>> consumption, and the remaining 17% are used by the food
>>>>> industry
>>>>> to produce different food products and alcoholic beverages.
>>>>> Therefore, almost 90% of the cereal grains are consumed
>>>>> indirectly
>>>>> by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans and oil
>>>>> seeds.
>>>>> A large fraction of soybeans is used for feeding livestock,
>>>>> either
>>>>> directly or in the form of by-products (bean meal) of soy
>>>>> oil
>>>>> production, and in the food industry to produce soy oil for
>>>>> human
>>>>> consumption.
>>>>> http://dieoff.org/page55.htm
>>>>=======================
>>>>ROTFLMAO Propaganda sites!!
>>>
>>> No, by David Pimentel - Cornell University and Mario
>>> Giampietro
>>> Isiituto Nazionale dell; Nutrizione, Rome. Also, to show that
>>> the
>>> information I've given isn't from "propaganda sites", like
>>> you
>>> presume,
>>> the paragraph starts off with, "For instance, according to
>>> FAO
>>> (199lc)
>>> the cereal grains consumed directly per capita are just a
>>> small
>>> fraction
>>> of the total per capita cereal grains consumption (directly
>>> and
>>> indirectly)
>>> in the United States. In fact, of the total domestic
>>> consumption of cereal
>>> grains 72% are used to feed livestock ...." Bad dodge, Rick.
>>> ==============================
>>No fool.
>
> Yes, twerp, despite your denials. The information I've provided
> above isn't from propaganda sites, like you presume, and even
> when shown this you still deny it. You're hopelessly lost in
> denial.
==================================
Nope, the denial is all yopurs fool. You continue to deny the
world of the proof that veganism automatically is better. You
keep saying it, but always seem to be short on proof.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>>>>>The fact remains that there is NO need to feed
>>>>>>crops to animals for you to eat meat.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact remains that they ARE fed crops, and that the
>>>>> crops
>>>>> required take up 72% of the total domestic consumption of
>>>>> cereal grains. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans and
>>>>> soy
>>>>> oil.
>>>>=======================
>>>>Ther fact remains that YOU do not gather wild veggies
>>>
>>> I can do if I wanted to beat your grass fed beef and hunted
>>> meat,
>>> and that's something you ought to include when offering a
>>> least-
>>> harm diet if you weren't the meat pusher that you are.
>>=========================================
>>LOL You couldn't do that form of gathering if you wanted to
>
> Then once again you fall for the same fallacy by posing a
> false dilemma.
========================
nope. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>>>>>> and they also cause collateral deaths proportionally, as
>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>> fishing our oceans for other sources of meat, known as
>>>>>>> by-
>>>>>>> catch. So while the vegan abstains from farmed meat and
>>>>>>> fish he in fact reduces those collateral deaths from what
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> would be if he were to eat those meats.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A harsh critic of veganism even declared;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "This counting game will ALWAYS work against
>>>>>>> meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
>>>>>>> mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
>>>>>>> because so much of agriculture is simply to feed
>>>>>>> the livestock. There would be far less agriculture
>>>>>>> in general if everyone were vegetarian."
>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 4th May 03
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
>>>>>>> lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
>>>>>>> have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
>>>>>>> grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
>>>>>>> eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
>>>>>>> deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
>>>>>>> CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
>>>>>>> feed for the animals you eat."
>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball 22nd May 03
>>>>>
>>>>> I see you have no comment in response to Jonathan's
>>>>> statements. Like he says, "If you insist on playing the
>>>>> counting game, you'll lose." He's right, you've lost.
>>>>====================
>>>>your argument is bogus, again.
>>>
>>> Non sequitur and therefore a dodge. Why don't you criticise
>>> Jon for those comments if you don't agree with them, Rick?
>>============================================
>>Because the focus is on your idiocy fool.
>
> I agree entirely with every word Jon has written in those
> quotes,
> yet you're only willing to criticise vegans when they write the
> same thing. Thanks for demonstrating your hypocrisy so clearly
> for us all today.
=================================
LOL My discussion is with you, fool. But thanks again for
proving that you cannot address the issue of YOUR lack of proof
for your ignorant claims.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.