On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:16:51 -0500, Doug Jones > wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:30:48 +0000, Derek >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>That's your opinion, and I don't agree with it.
>>>
>>>Ok, here's a real example for you. Simple one, easy to prove. No
>>>"indirect", no "accidental" or anything else. I pick up a pound of
>>>organically grown brocolli. At the same time, I pick up a one-pound
>>>lobster. I eat the lobster, you eat the brocolli. Which one of us
>>>has just killed more animals *directly*? Hint - you have.
>>
>>How can that BE when YOU kill and eat the lobster? All I've
>>done is eat the broccoli.
>
>You've also killed and eaten several dozen thrips. They're small
>insects which are always found in broccoli, and even more so in my
>nice organically grown example. I chose this specifically because I
>have only killed *one* animal, an arthropod, you've killed an order of
>magnitude more, also arthropods, in one meal. Tsk.

Every veg*n I've encountered has proven that he/she doesn't
ever want it to be understood that some types of animal products
involve fewer animal deaths than some types of vegetable products.
It always reminds me of a quote I heard someplace and I don't recall
who said it or what it was about, but it applies to these poor veg*ns
and their horrible cognitive dissonance, and goes something like:
'Well I hope it isn't true, but if it is I hope it doesn't become widely known.'

>Most of your other "arguments" fall apart as well under scrutiny.

That sounds right. Try asking an "ARA" which rights they
would provide for which animals. There could be none for
domestic animals which would no longer exist of course, but
what about wildlife? "ARAs" contribute to wildlife deaths by
their use of roads, buildings, paper and wood products,
electricity, food, products which have been mined etc just
as everyone else does, so *which* animals do they expect
us to be fooled into thinking they want to provide with *which*
rights???