"Dutch" > wrote in message news:tlQvi.56655$rX4.46600@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:zZevi.49527$_d2.22383@pd7urf3no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Ap3vi.49007$rX4.40510@pd7urf2no...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >>>>>>> Explain.
> >>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> >>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> >>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
> >>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> >>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
> >>>> All consumption increases footprint.
> >>> Your baseline being a human population of zero, eh.
> >> No baseline, all consumption increases footprint, incrementally.
> >
> > From what? Non-consumption. That is, no humans.
>
> From any point you wish. If you consume 1200 calories a day and then
> raise that to 1500, your footprint increases.

That's *increased consumption*. You wrote: *all consumption*.

> >>> As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
> >>>
> >>> 'Our Ecological Footprint: Definition
> >>> ..
> >>> "The Ecological Footprint is a measure of the 'load' imposed
> >>> by a given population on nature. It represents the land area
> >>> necessary to sustain current levels of resource consumption
> >>> and waste discharge by that population."
> >>> ..'
> >>> http://www.sustaindane.org/main/EF1.htm
>
> >> All consumption increases footprint, incrementally.
> >
> > Nonsense,
>
> No, it's a fact.

Nonsense.

> >and substituting 'foods' derived from animals
> > with plant foods *decreases* one's ecological footprint.
>
> Yes, in most cases, but it's not a decrease I am prepared to sponsor. I
> do other things.

So, pushed into a corner, you finally concede. Good show.

> >>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
> >>>> No food is "necessary".
> >>> Show us. .
> >> Concede the point, the notion that we should stop consuming any
> >> particular food due to it being "unnecessary" is nonsense.
> >
> > I am talking about broad categories - animal and vegetable
> > , you dense lump of mineral. And "the notion" is not that
> > 'foods' derived from animals should stop being consumed
> > *due to* them being unnecessary, but due to the numerous
> > extremely harmful consequences caused by consumption.
>
> There are extremely harmful consequences to all forms of agriculture.

False.

> Let's work on them together.

"it's not a decrease I am prepared to sponsor".

> >>>>> Consuming those 'foods' causes an unnecessary increase in one's
> >>>>> ecological footprint.
> >>>> That cream custard causes an unnecessary increase in footprint.
> >>> For once you got something right. It's made with cows milk.
> >> It would be unnecessary if it were made with dandelion milk. No food is
> >> necessary.
> >
> > Food is necessary. Some 'foods' require far more resources to
> > produce than others. Happily, those 'foods' are unnecessary..
>
> Those are resources that people are willing and able to support.

Those are the resources that humans have taken over for an
unhealthy, unnatural and cruel diet - from the rest of nature.

> > <.... ten billion light years later ....>
> >
> >>>> now stfu
> >>> I don't think
> >> You think, just not rationally.
> >
> > Projection.
>
> Not projection, the notion of "Animal Rights" makes absolutely no sense,
> and no lame equivocations please.

Projection.

> And you dishonestly snipped my reply, again.
>
> You presumptuous control-freak, my posts contain exactly the content I
> choose. If you want links and other pasted crap in your posts nobody is
> stopping you.

You presumptuous control-freak, snipping to avoid addressing
evidence and valid points that has blown all your snivelling crap
to Timbuktu and beyond, just to carry on here with endless BS.