"Dutch" > wrote in message news:AvRwi.61229$_d2.26043@pd7urf3no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:JvHwi.59690$_d2.11645@pd7urf3no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "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*.
> >> All consumption entails an increase in one's footprint. If you consume
> >> an apple or a bowl of rice your footprint on that day increases by that
> >> amount.
> >
> > On *that* day? As opposed to an orange and potatoes another day?
> >
> > Well, thanks for the laughs anyway, ditch. Quite the contortionist.
> >
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >> 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.
> >> You changed the wording of your statement to one that was supportable.
> >
> > Huh? What on Earth are you babbling on about now?
> >
> >> Consuming plant foods *increases* one's footprint as does all
> >> consumption,
> >
> > Compared to what?!?
>
> Compared to what it would be if you did NOT consume that food.

Eating another food instead, or not consuming food? (No humans).

> >> however, if you make a change from a food that entails more
> >> calories to produce, your average footprint will decrease *from what it
> >> was*.
> >
> > More calories to produce? How many calories do tomatoes need?
>
> You tell me.

I've no idea what you're on about, so why don't just go ahead..

> >> It still increases incrementally on a daily basis based on the
> >> amount of consumption.
> >
> > From what? No consumption. That is, no humans. As said..
>
> You're not listening.

I'm listening. You're not thinking.

> >>>>>>>>> '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.
> >> Truth you hate.
> >
> > Truth *you* hate.
>
> Polly want a cracker?

Your claim is false.

> >>>> Let's work on them together.
> >>> "it's not a decrease I am prepared to sponsor".
> >> I sponsor other measures. Are you only interested in one?
> >
> > Am I "only" interested in freeing up vast expanses of land for
> > a healthy environment - soil, water, habitat, etc. and wildlife?
> > I'm interested in a non-violent world, where life is respected.
> > I'm interested in a healthy human population and abundance.
>
> You're interested in grandiose pontification.

Nonsense.

> > Your 'measures': lip-service to so-called "animal-welfare".
>
> Your 'measures': lip-service to so-called "animal rights".

More nonsense.

> >>>>>>>>> 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.
> >> All consumption comes from "the rest of nature".
> >
> > Resources needed for our consumption can be vastly reduced, and
> > what we farm can be farmed sustainably and in harmony with nature.
>
> Sustainability and animal farming are not mutually exclusive. Both of
> those ideals are far from the reality of today's world though.

Tell us 'again' how your 'responsible farmer' measures loss of topsoil.

> >>>>> <.... 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
> >> Your repetitive crap is my prerogative.
> >
> > You presumptuous control-freak, snipping
>
> is a poster's prerogative. If you want your favorite animal rights
> articles in your posts then put them in.

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.