Dutch wrote:

> "Glorfindel" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

>>>it would force the vegan to
>>>either admit that some meats might have a lesser impact than some plant
>>>foods,

>>We've all agreed to this already, several steps back in the discussion.

> Show me.

Google is your friend....

>>What I'm saying is that you have to consider similar foods within the
>>same kind of category to get a real, meaningful comparison.

> Why is such a comparison real or meaningful? Why would anyone use such a
> method of categorization when choosing foods?

Because there is no point in considering foods in *different*
categories if you are trying to determine whether plant or
killed animal foods *you can get* cause less harm/violation of rights.

> If you
>>consider factory-farmed animals vs agribusiness monocrop plants, the
>>plants come out better; if you consider hand-gathered wild plants vs
>>hunted local game, the plants come out better; if you consider small
>>local organic gardens vs small local flocks and herds, the plants again
>>come out better.


> The only reason I can think of that anyone would compare foods in such a
> fashion would be to create the false impression that some meat does *not*
> have a lesser impact than some plant foods, as that paragraph tends to do.
> There is no other reason to do it.


There is every reason to do it, if one is dealing with people in the
real world. People don't all have access to all kinds of foods.
They have to choose from what they can find and afford, so you have to
compare within categories they can use.

If one is a poor person in the inner city with no car, one's only
*practical* source of food is going to be corner mom-and-pop convenience
stories, cheap fast-food restaurants, and big chain mega-supermarkets
(and perhaps small ethnic stores in some cities). So we compare
factory-farmed animal foods vs agribusiness plant foods. Even if
grass-fed niche-market meat is available, poor city people aren't going
to be able to afford it. They're going to have to choose peanut butter
vs factory-farmed eggs, or chicken, or canned/frozen commercial products.

If one lives in the country, or can visit wilderness areas, one will
have access to hunted meat and gathered plants, so we can compare
the harm involved in those foods. These are either rich sport hunters
and gourmet gatherers, or poor but rural subsistence hunter/gatherers.

If one is relatively wealthy in the city or suburbs, one can choose
niche-market meats, like "free-range" chicken or imported grass-fed
beef, or small-scale organic vegetables from local farmers' markets
or hothouses.

It may work to try to convince one of the people in the last two
categories to buy or hunt less-harmful meats, but they can *also*
buy or gather less-harmful plants, and if they are looking for
the *lowest*-impact foods, the plants are the way they will go.
It's a matter of education and putting out the information on the
sources of agribusiness veggies and factory-farmed animal products.

It's useless to tell a poor inner-city person to buy local grass-fed
beef instead of peanut butter. They simply can't do it.