From the abstract of Steven Davis's groundbreaking paper:

Based on his theory of animal rights, Regan
concludes that humans are morally obligated to
consume a vegetarian or vegan diet. When it was
pointed out to him that even a vegan diet results in
the loss of many animals of the field, he said that
while that may be true, we are still obligated to
consume a vegetarian / vegan diet ***because in
total it would cause the least harm to animals***
(Least Harm Principle, or LHP) as compared to
current agriculture. [emphasis added]

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> From the abstract of Steven Davis's groundbreaking paper:
>
> Based on his theory of animal rights, Regan
> concludes that humans are morally obligated to
> consume a vegetarian or vegan diet. When it was
> pointed out to him that even a vegan diet results in
> the loss of many animals of the field, he said that
> while that may be true, we are still obligated to
> consume a vegetarian / vegan diet ***because in
> total it would cause the least harm to animals***
> (Least Harm Principle, or LHP) as compared to
> current agriculture. [emphasis added]

> http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm

Thanks for providing the answer to your side's argument by
including Gaverick Matheny's rebuttal of Davis in the very
document you linked. I've bookmarked it for future reference.
As Matheny noted, none of the ethical systems mentioned consider
death the same as harm, so even if (which is not so) more animals
were killed, more _harm_ would be produced by an omnivorous diet
(and so, more injustice under Regan's system of ethics).

Rat

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> > From the abstract of Steven Davis's groundbreaking paper:
> >
> > Based on his theory of animal rights, Regan
> > concludes that humans are morally obligated to
> > consume a vegetarian or vegan diet. When it was
> > pointed out to him that even a vegan diet results in
> > the loss of many animals of the field, he said that
> > while that may be true, we are still obligated to
> > consume a vegetarian / vegan diet ***because in
> > total it would cause the least harm to animals***
> > (Least Harm Principle, or LHP) as compared to
> > current agriculture. [emphasis added]
>
> > http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm
>
> Thanks for providing the answer to your side's argument by
> including Gaverick Matheny's rebuttal of Davis in the very
> document you linked. I've bookmarked it for future reference.
> As Matheny noted, none of the ethical systems mentioned consider
> death the same as harm, so even if (which is not so) more animals
> were killed, more _harm_ would be produced by an omnivorous diet
> (and so, more injustice under Regan's system of ethics).
======================
Nope. You lose, again, killer. You cannot explain away an omnivorous diet
that includes game as the meat source using you new dietary exclusion rules.
It's still just a simple rule for a simple mind, hypocrite. To
atomatically claim you diey is better, while excluding other choices just
says yhat your religious dogma has taken hold, not any reasoning power.

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> > From the abstract of Steven Davis's groundbreaking paper:
> >
> > Based on his theory of animal rights, Regan
> > concludes that humans are morally obligated to
> > consume a vegetarian or vegan diet. When it was
> > pointed out to him that even a vegan diet results in
> > the loss of many animals of the field, he said that
> > while that may be true, we are still obligated to
> > consume a vegetarian / vegan diet ***because in
> > total it would cause the least harm to animals***
> > (Least Harm Principle, or LHP) as compared to
> > current agriculture. [emphasis added]
>
> > http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm
>
> Thanks for providing the answer to your side's argument by
> including Gaverick Matheny's rebuttal of Davis in the very
> document you linked. I've bookmarked it for future reference.

Note how those on "our side" are not reluctant to acknowledge critical
counter-arguments.

> As Matheny noted, none of the ethical systems mentioned consider
> death the same as harm, so even if (which is not so) more animals
> were killed, more _harm_ would be produced by an omnivorous diet
> (and so, more injustice under Regan's system of ethics).

What a convoluted tap dance that was. Death is death, and harm is harm.
Clearly the vegan option does not win hands down on either count.

Dutch wrote:

> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message

<snip>

>>>http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm

>>Thanks for providing the answer to your side's argument by
>>including Gaverick Matheny's rebuttal of Davis in the very
>>document you linked. I've bookmarked it for future reference.

> Note how those on "our side" are not reluctant to acknowledge critical
> counter-arguments.

Nor is "our" side -- else why would Regan co-author a book with one
of his major critics?

>>As Matheny noted, none of the ethical systems mentioned consider
>>death the same as harm, so even if (which is not so) more animals
>>were killed, more _harm_ would be produced by an omnivorous diet
>>(and so, more injustice under Regan's system of ethics).

> What a convoluted tap dance that was.

No, not a "tap dance"

Death is death, and harm is harm.

Yes, and as Matheny, and I, and innumerable other people, have pointed
out, a miserable life may be MORE unjust/harmful than death in and
of itself -- which is the argument for euthanasia, and one of the
main arguments against factory farming.

> Clearly the vegan option does not win hands down on either count.

Clearly, the omnivorous option does not either -- in spite of your
and jonnie's wildly exaggerated claims.

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> From the abstract of Steven Davis's groundbreaking paper:
>>
>> Based on his theory of animal rights, Regan
>> concludes that humans are morally obligated to
>> consume a vegetarian or vegan diet. When it was
>> pointed out to him that even a vegan diet results in
>> the loss of many animals of the field, he said that
>> while that may be true, we are still obligated to
>> consume a vegetarian / vegan diet ***because in
>> total it would cause the least harm to animals***
>> (Least Harm Principle, or LHP) as compared to
>> current agriculture. [emphasis added]
>
>
>> http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm
>
>
> Thanks for providing the answer to your side's argument by
> including Gaverick Matheny's rebuttal of Davis in the very
> document you linked. I've bookmarked it for future reference.

Good for you. It's shit. I'll tear it apart when you
attempt to use it.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> From the abstract of Steven Davis's groundbreaking paper:
>>
>> Based on his theory of animal rights, Regan
>> concludes that humans are morally obligated to
>> consume a vegetarian or vegan diet. When it was
>> pointed out to him that even a vegan diet results in
>> the loss of many animals of the field, he said that
>> while that may be true, we are still obligated to
>> consume a vegetarian / vegan diet ***because in
>> total it would cause the least harm to animals***
>> (Least Harm Principle, or LHP) as compared to
>> current agriculture. [emphasis added]
>
>
>> http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm
>
>
> Thanks for providing the answer to your side's argument by
> including Gaverick Matheny's rebuttal of Davis in the very
> document you linked.

I'm sure you'll be delighted to read his 100%
utilitarian defense of "St." Tom's and your position.

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
> > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> >>>http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm
>
> >>Thanks for providing the answer to your side's argument by
> >>including Gaverick Matheny's rebuttal of Davis in the very
> >>document you linked. I've bookmarked it for future reference.
>
> > Note how those on "our side" are not reluctant to acknowledge critical
> > counter-arguments.
>
> Nor is "our" side -- else why would Regan co-author a book with one
> of his major critics?
>
> >>As Matheny noted, none of the ethical systems mentioned consider
> >>death the same as harm, so even if (which is not so) more animals
> >>were killed, more _harm_ would be produced by an omnivorous diet
> >>(and so, more injustice under Regan's system of ethics).
>
> > What a convoluted tap dance that was.
>
> No, not a "tap dance"
>
> Death is death, and harm is harm.
>
> Yes, and as Matheny, and I, and innumerable other people, have pointed
> out, a miserable life may be MORE unjust/harmful than death in and
> of itself
==================
And what miserable life would that be, besides you own of course? You know
perfectly well that there are meat-included diets that animals are treated
no different than those you kill for veggies, except that the ones killed
for meat have a far more humane death than the ones you slice, dice, shred
and poison. Why is it your 'ethics' automatically ignore the options that
do better at *all* parts of the diet excuses you give for your diet?
Dishonesty? Delusion? Ignorance? Your choice, killer.


=-- which is the argument for euthanasia, and one of the
> main arguments against factory farming.
>
> > Clearly the vegan option does not win hands down on either count.
>
> Clearly, the omnivorous option does not either -- in spite of your
> and jonnie's wildly exaggerated claims.
==================
None of us has claimed that 'any' omnivorous diet is. The fact remains that
there are options in a omnivourous diet that do beat your killing fields,
hands down.

>
> Rat
>

"Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
> > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> >>>http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm
>
> >>Thanks for providing the answer to your side's argument by
> >>including Gaverick Matheny's rebuttal of Davis in the very
> >>document you linked. I've bookmarked it for future reference.
>
> > Note how those on "our side" are not reluctant to acknowledge critical
> > counter-arguments.
>
> Nor is "our" side -- else why would Regan co-author a book with one
> of his major critics?

Money. Look for such objective behaviour on any AR or vegan website. Happy
hunting, they will be virtually non-existent.


> >>As Matheny noted, none of the ethical systems mentioned consider
> >>death the same as harm, so even if (which is not so) more animals
> >>were killed, more _harm_ would be produced by an omnivorous diet
> >>(and so, more injustice under Regan's system of ethics).
>
> > What a convoluted tap dance that was.
>
> No, not a "tap dance"

Yes, a tap dance, a very poor one. The whole thrust of the article is that
opting to include pastured or hunted meat in one's diet may be superior
**wrt_harm_caused** to every vegan diet except one based on very carefully
hand-grown produce. Therefore if more harm equals more injustice under
Regan's system of ethics then he must advocate that diet.

> Death is death, and harm is harm.
>
> Yes, and as Matheny, and I, and innumerable other people, have pointed
> out, a miserable life may be MORE unjust/harmful than death in and
> of itself -- which is the argument for euthanasia, and one of the
> main arguments against factory farming.

That's all well and good, but you're tap dancing again, the article doesn't
mention factory farming, it's all about pastured and wild. Nobody argues
that in today's society factory farmed meat causes less harm than factory
farmed vegetables.

> > Clearly the vegan option does not win hands down on either count.
>
> Clearly, the omnivorous option does not either -- in spite of your
> and jonnie's wildly exaggerated claims.

Rattie, rattie, *neither* diet, as narrowly defined, wins this contest hands
down. That is the WHOLE point, vegans insist on concluding fallaciously that
a vegan diet *does* result in less harm, categorically, even in the face of
strong arguments to the contrary, just as you did above.

You appear to believe that one animal kept in captivity for slaughter
amounts to more harm than any number of animals killed collaterally. That's
not a "least harm" philosophy, unless you have discovered some objective
means of measuring the harm to an animal kept in captivity and weighing it
against the harm done by animal deaths by poison or harvesting.

Dutch wrote:

<snip>

>>>Note how those on "our side" are not reluctant to acknowledge critical
>>>counter-arguments.

>>Nor is "our" side -- else why would Regan co-author a book with one
>>of his major critics?

> Money.

While Cohen wrote out of a pure and selfless desire to do good, no
doubt. (sarcasm) Your hatred has completely destroyed your objectivity.

<snip>


>>>>As Matheny noted, none of the ethical systems mentioned consider
>>>>death the same as harm, so even if (which is not so) more animals
>>>>were killed, more _harm_ would be produced by an omnivorous diet
>>>>(and so, more injustice under Regan's system of ethics).

>>>What a convoluted tap dance that was.

>>No, not a "tap dance"

> Yes, a tap dance, a very poor one. The whole thrust of the article is that
> opting to include pastured or hunted meat in one's diet may be superior
> **wrt_harm_caused** to every vegan diet except one based on very carefully
> hand-grown produce.

You misrepresent the article. Try rereading it and be more honest about
what it actually says.

<snip>

Therefore if more harm equals more injustice under
> Regan's system of ethics then he must advocate that diet.

>> Death is death, and harm is harm.

>>Yes, and as Matheny, and I, and innumerable other people, have pointed
>>out, a miserable life may be MORE unjust/harmful than death in and
>>of itself -- which is the argument for euthanasia, and one of the
>>main arguments against factory farming.

> That's all well and good, but you're tap dancing again, the article doesn't
> mention factory farming,

It certainly does.

> it's all about pastured and wild. Nobody argues
> that in today's society factory farmed meat causes less harm than factory
> farmed vegetables.

That's simply a lie. I argue so, Matheny argues so, and so do most of
the AR writers. That's the point of Matheny's article: that the harm
caused over the life-time of domestic "food" animals is a worse harm (or
greater injustice) than the single act of killing involved in a field
or grain elevator death for a similar wild animal. I absolutely agree
this is so.

>>>Clearly the vegan option does not win hands down on either count.

>>Clearly, the omnivorous option does not either -- in spite of your
>>and jonnie's wildly exaggerated claims.

> Rattie, rattie, *neither* diet, as narrowly defined, wins this contest hands
> down. That is the WHOLE point, vegans insist on concluding fallaciously that
> a vegan diet *does* result in less harm, categorically, even in the face of
> strong arguments to the contrary, just as you did above.

I believe it does.

> You appear to believe that one animal kept in captivity for slaughter
> amounts to more harm than any number of animals killed collaterally.

More injustice; yes, certainly.

> That's
> not a "least harm" philosophy, unless you have discovered some objective
> means of measuring the harm to an animal kept in captivity and weighing it
> against the harm done by animal deaths by poison or harvesting.

Such objective measurement is available to anyone.

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Note how those on "our side" are not reluctant to acknowledge critical
>>>> counter-arguments.
>
>
>>> Nor is "our" side -- else why would Regan co-author a book with one
>>> of his major critics?
>
>
>> Money.
>
>
> While Cohen wrote out of a pure and selfless desire to do good, no
> doubt.

That's true. Working at a good university (U of
Mich.), he didn't need the money. Being a whore at an
academic backwater, Regan did.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Dutch wrote:

>>>> What a convoluted tap dance that was.
>
>
>>> No, not a "tap dance"
>
>
>> Yes, a tap dance, a very poor one. The whole thrust of the article is
>> that
>> opting to include pastured or hunted meat in one's diet may be superior
>> **wrt_harm_caused** to every vegan diet except one based on very
>> carefully
>> hand-grown produce.
>
>
> You misrepresent the article. Try rereading it and be more honest about
> what it actually says.

Try reading it for comprehension JUST ONCE. Be sure to
comment on the 100% utilitarian story it tells, heh heh
heh.


[...]

>
>> You appear to believe that one animal kept in captivity for slaughter
>> amounts to more harm than any number of animals killed collaterally.
>
>
> More injustice; yes, certainly.
>
>> That's
>> not a "least harm" philosophy, unless you have discovered some objective
>> means of measuring the harm to an animal kept in captivity and
>> weighing it
>> against the harm done by animal deaths by poison or harvesting.
>
>
> Such objective measurement is available to anyone.

Bullshit. It's purely your subjective, dishonest,
polemical sophist's opinion.

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>>Note how those on "our side" are not reluctant to acknowledge critical
> >>>counter-arguments.
>
> >>Nor is "our" side -- else why would Regan co-author a book with one
> >>of his major critics?
>
> > Money.
>
> While Cohen wrote out of a pure and selfless desire to do good, no
> doubt. (sarcasm)

Why would I think that? He was probably in it for the money too.

> Your hatred has completely destroyed your objectivity.

Those were your words, not mine, so my objectivity is not relevant. Also, I
don't hate anyone. I do dislike certain ways of thinking though. I dislike
them because they're harmful to the people who think that way and because
they make good people do really stupid things.

You for instance, you're probably quite intelligent, but you can't think
straight because you're caught up in this vegan mindset.

> <snip>
>
>
> >>>>As Matheny noted, none of the ethical systems mentioned consider
> >>>>death the same as harm, so even if (which is not so) more animals
> >>>>were killed, more _harm_ would be produced by an omnivorous diet
> >>>>(and so, more injustice under Regan's system of ethics).
>
> >>>What a convoluted tap dance that was.
>
> >>No, not a "tap dance"
>
> > Yes, a tap dance, a very poor one. The whole thrust of the article is
that
> > opting to include pastured or hunted meat in one's diet may be superior
> > **wrt_harm_caused** to every vegan diet except one based on very
carefully
> > hand-grown produce.
>
> You misrepresent the article. Try rereading it and be more honest about
> what it actually says.

Are you talking about the Matheny strawman or the Davis article?

> <snip>
>
> Therefore if more harm equals more injustice under
> > Regan's system of ethics then he must advocate that diet.
>
> >> Death is death, and harm is harm.
>
> >>Yes, and as Matheny, and I, and innumerable other people, have pointed
> >>out, a miserable life may be MORE unjust/harmful than death in and
> >>of itself -- which is the argument for euthanasia, and one of the
> >>main arguments against factory farming.
>
> > That's all well and good, but you're tap dancing again, the article
doesn't
> > mention factory farming,
>
> It certainly does.

Do tell, care to point it out? As far as I can see the article is
recommending the "pastured/ruminant" alternative, not factory farming.

I'm talking about the Davis article, not the rebuttal. If the rebuttal
addresses factory farming then it's a strawman argument, Davis' article has
nothing do to with factory farming.

> > it's all about pastured and wild. Nobody argues
> > that in today's society factory farmed meat causes less harm than
factory
> > farmed vegetables.
>
> That's simply a lie.

No kidding... <?>

> I argue so, Matheny argues so, and so do most of
> the AR writers.

You're not paying attention, read my sentence above again, slowly.

> That's the point of Matheny's article: that the harm
> caused over the life-time of domestic "food" animals is a worse harm (or
> greater injustice) than the single act of killing involved in a field
> or grain elevator death for a similar wild animal. I absolutely agree
> this is so.

The Davis article is about the "pastured/ruminent model", not factory
farming. Matheny is pummeling a strawman, so are you.

> >>>Clearly the vegan option does not win hands down on either count.
>
> >>Clearly, the omnivorous option does not either -- in spite of your
> >>and jonnie's wildly exaggerated claims.
>
> > Rattie, rattie, *neither* diet, as narrowly defined, wins this contest
hands
> > down. That is the WHOLE point, vegans insist on concluding fallaciously
that
> > a vegan diet *does* result in less harm, categorically, even in the face
of
> > strong arguments to the contrary, just as you did above.
>
> I believe it does.

Based on blind dogmatism. Did you even read the web page? Here it is again
http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm

Large amounts of food can be obtained by *one death*, no cultivation, no
harvesting, no spraying, no decimation of indigenous wildlife.

> > You appear to believe that one animal kept in captivity for slaughter
> > amounts to more harm than any number of animals killed collaterally.
>
> More injustice; yes, certainly.

What about pastured animals who's lives closely reflect the lives of wild
animals?

That's what the article is about, read it.

> > That's
> > not a "least harm" philosophy, unless you have discovered some objective
> > means of measuring the harm to an animal kept in captivity and weighing
it
> > against the harm done by animal deaths by poison or harvesting.
>
> Such objective measurement is available to anyone.

OK, I'll bite, where?

It doesn't matter anyway, the article is not about confinement farming,
please read it before commenting further.

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:54:50 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>Large amounts of food can be obtained by *one death*, no cultivation, no
>harvesting, no spraying, no decimation of indigenous wildlife.
>
And larger amounts of food can be obtained
without causing any deaths at all, such as crops
gown under glass, so stop lying and trying to
push meat onto people as the least-harm diet
when it clearly isn't, pusher.

"ipse dixit" > wrote

> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:54:50 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >Large amounts of food can be obtained by *one death*, no cultivation, no
> >harvesting, no spraying, no decimation of indigenous wildlife.
> >
> And larger amounts of food can be obtained
> without causing any deaths at all, such as crops
> gown under glass, so stop lying and trying to
> push meat onto people as the least-harm diet
> when it clearly isn't, pusher.

Vegans are not just pushing a diet of greenhouse grown food, they push any
and all sorts of vegetables, grains and fruit, regardless of how they're
grown, and do so using the most lurid and hateful rhetoric they can muster.
The pastured/ruminant model as described on that page represents a viable
dietary alternative that would drastically reduce the amount of animal
deaths compared to current agribusiness monoculture farming, or even organic
farming.

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:56:48 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"ipse dixit" > wrote
>
>> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:54:50 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >
>> >Large amounts of food can be obtained by *one death*, no cultivation, no
>> >harvesting, no spraying, no decimation of indigenous wildlife.
>> >
>> And larger amounts of food can be obtained
>> without causing any deaths at all, such as crops
>> gown under glass, so stop lying and trying to
>> push meat onto people as the least-harm diet
>> when it clearly isn't, pusher.
>
>Vegans are not just pushing a diet of greenhouse grown food, they push any
>and all sorts of vegetables, grains and fruit, regardless of how they're
>grown,

Straw man. Vegans do not promote veg regardless
of how it's grown. You'll need to support that claim.

>and do so using the most lurid and hateful rhetoric they can muster.

You are trying but failing to divert attention away
from the point in that you are pushing meat onto
vegans as THE least-harm diet while knowing
a better vegetarian alternative is to eat crops
grown under glass or foraging. You're a pusher
peddling a lie to coerce ethical people into taking
a product they don't want or think ethical. Do you
understand what I'm getting at yet, pusher?

"ipse dixit" > wrote
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:56:48 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >"ipse dixit" > wrote
> >
> >> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:54:50 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Large amounts of food can be obtained by *one death*, no cultivation,
no
> >> >harvesting, no spraying, no decimation of indigenous wildlife.
> >> >
> >> And larger amounts of food can be obtained
> >> without causing any deaths at all, such as crops
> >> gown under glass, so stop lying and trying to
> >> push meat onto people as the least-harm diet
> >> when it clearly isn't, pusher.
> >
> >Vegans are not just pushing a diet of greenhouse grown food, they push
any
> >and all sorts of vegetables, grains and fruit, regardless of how they're
> >grown,
>
> Straw man. Vegans do not promote veg regardless
> of how it's grown. You'll need to support that claim.

You're promoting disinformation now. Vegans promote the idea that
organically grown and local produce is the best, so do most omnivores.
Nonetheless they push the idea that vegetable based food is *categorically*
better than *any* meat wrt to animal death. Here's vegetarianism in a
nutshell from one of the leading vegetarian websites-
http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/nutshell.htm
They are pushing a vegetarian diet regardless of the source.


> >and do so using the most lurid and hateful rhetoric they can muster.
>
> You are trying but failing to divert attention away
> from the point

I'm not here to reinforce YOUR attempts at distraction. Vegan/ARA's use of
lurid rhetoric is indicative of their corrupt mindset.

in that you are pushing meat onto
> vegans as THE least-harm diet

Meat is not a diet, it's a class of food. A diet *containing* pastured meat
would easily trump a diet containing an equivalent amount of agribusiness
plant foods. Here, read the article
http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm.

> while knowing
> a better vegetarian alternative is to eat crops
> grown under glass or foraging.

I have no objection to people eating hothouse veggies, I buy them myself,
but it's rather unrealistic to imply that all veggies, not to mention the
world's fruit and grains could be grown this way.

The point of the Davis article is that "pastured/ruminent model" offers an
alternative to the factory farmed vegetables that many people eat, and which
vegans *assume falsely* automatically cause less animal death than any meat
product.


You're a pusher
> peddling a lie to coerce ethical people into taking
> a product they don't want or think ethical.

Why would anyone buy something they don't want? I wouldn't.

> Do you understand what I'm getting at yet, pusher?

Yes, I read you like a cheap paperback, you're attempting to distract from
the Davis et al findings regarding the advantages of the pastured/ruminant
model by resorting to schoolyard name-calling, that's nothing new for you.

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:18:58 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"ipse dixit" > wrote
>> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:56:48 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"ipse dixit" > wrote
>> >> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:54:50 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Large amounts of food can be obtained by *one
>> >> >death*, no cultivation, no harvesting, no spraying,
>> >> >no decimation of indigenous wildlife.
>> >> >
>> >> And larger amounts of food can be obtained
>> >> without causing any deaths at all, such as crops
>> >> gown under glass, so stop lying and trying to
>> >> push meat onto people as the least-harm diet
>> >> when it clearly isn't, pusher.
>> >
>> >Vegans are not just pushing a diet of greenhouse
>> >grown food, they push any and all sorts of vegetables,
>> >grains and fruit, regardless of how they're grown,
>>
>> Straw man. Vegans do not promote veg regardless
>> of how it's grown. You'll need to support that claim.
>
>You're promoting disinformation now. Vegans promote the idea that
>organically grown and local produce is the best, so do most omnivores.

You haven't supported you claim. In fact you've
just contradicted it. You initially stated, "vegans
push any and all sorts of vegetables" etc., but now
you're stating, "Vegans promote the idea that
organically grown and local produce is the best..."
Make up your dull mind.
>
>> >and do so using the most lurid and hateful rhetoric they can muster.
>>
>> You are trying but failing to divert attention away
>> from the point
>
>I'm not here to reinforce YOUR attempts at distraction.

It's your distraction away from the fact that you
are pushing a product onto people as the least-
harm diet that I'm bringing attention to. You
know it isn't the least-harm diet yet you continue
to promote it as such in the hope you'll persuade
people into buying it. You're a pusher, just like
any other pusher in the street pushing harmful
substances onto kids and telling them it'll be good
for them, and that it's entirely alright to take it.
Like them, you peddle your product by lying to
your target victim, pusher.

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:18:58 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"ipse dixit" > wrote
> >> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:56:48 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >"ipse dixit" > wrote
> >> >> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:54:50 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Large amounts of food can be obtained by *one
> >> >> >death*, no cultivation, no harvesting, no spraying,
> >> >> >no decimation of indigenous wildlife.
> >> >> >
> >> >> And larger amounts of food can be obtained
> >> >> without causing any deaths at all, such as crops
> >> >> gown under glass, so stop lying and trying to
> >> >> push meat onto people as the least-harm diet
> >> >> when it clearly isn't, pusher.
> >> >
> >> >Vegans are not just pushing a diet of greenhouse
> >> >grown food, they push any and all sorts of vegetables,
> >> >grains and fruit, regardless of how they're grown,
> >>
> >> Straw man. Vegans do not promote veg regardless
> >> of how it's grown. You'll need to support that claim.
> >
> >You're promoting disinformation now. Vegans promote the idea that
> >organically grown and local produce is the best, so do most omnivores.
>
> You haven't supported you claim. In fact you've
> just contradicted it. You initially stated, "vegans
> push any and all sorts of vegetables" etc., but now
> you're stating, "Vegans promote the idea that
> organically grown and local produce is the best..."
> Make up your dull mind.

You're just waaay to stupid for this..