On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:25:37 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Glorfindel" > wrote
>> Dutch wrote:
>>
>>>>>Having said that, she will not entertain any comparison of diets wrt to
>>>>>animal harm wherein the non-vegan diet wins, vegans won't do that, it
>>>>>goes against their nature.
>>
>> Glorfindel wrote:
>>
>>>>No, it goes against the qualification I introduced that when the
>>>>parameters are equal, the vegan or scavenger/gatherer diet, will
>>>>always cause fewer deaths, less suffering, or less violation of
>>>>animals' rights than a diet including hunted or farmed meat.
>>>>This is true.
>>
>>> This is not some sport where good players are only matched against
>>> players of comparable strength,
>>
>> But if the comparison is to be meaningful, we must discuss on that
>> basis.
>
>On the contrary, for it to be meaningful we must NOT impose arbitrary rules
>when comparing foods.

Rubbish; you're the first to complain if a vegan dares
to compare their least-harm vegan diet to an omni diet
without some sort of rule. Right at the top of this post
you criticise Glorfindel because, allegedly, according to
you;

"she will not entertain any comparison of diets wrt to
animal harm wherein the non-vegan diet wins, vegans
won't do that, it goes against their nature."

But now you're claiming there are no rules for comparing
them. Make up your mind.

>There ARE no *rules* about comparing or choosing foods
>in day to day life

According to you there are, or you wouldn't be criticising
vegans for allegedly failing to "entertain any comparison of
diets wrt to animal harm wherein the non-vegan diet wins"
If "There ARE no *rules* about comparing or choosing foods
in day to day life", what the Hell are you complaining about?