"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
>
> You are the one determined not to see any option other than the
> one
> you prefer.
======================
It is you that has decided blinders are best for your options,
killer.
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> The point is that most people *could* reduce their current
>> impact with non-vegan choices.
>
> Absolutely -- but most people could *also* reduce their current
> impact with vegan or vegetarian or gathered/scavenged
> choices --
> and that those choices would be less harmful than the
> equivalent killed-animal choices.
>
>> Saying that we must not compare the worst of vegan foods to
>> the best of non-vegan foods
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Go right ahead. Just compare the best of vegan foods with the
> worst of non-vegan foods as well. It is very possible to
> create a vegan diet which beats (non-scavenged) animal-based
> diets in health, price, and amount of harm caused.
>
> But you ignore that option.
==========================
It is you that is ignoring the options that most people take.
I'm talking about what lazy, conveninece-oriented usenet vegans
*could* do since all they do now is buy their food at the
mega-box grocery store. There are plenty of stores that now
carry free-range, grass-fed, hormone-free meats. Instead of
making those choices, you continue, like all phoney usenet
vegans, to purchase your imported fruits and veggies without
regard to their origin or cost in animal deaths. Afterall, you
have your simple rule for your simple mind, eh hypocrite? Never
once have you even considered which foods you now buy cause the
least/most amount of death and suffering to animals, and make
your choices accordingly. Instaed, like I said, you follow only
what your simple mind tells you, killer.


>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>