"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> > My news server didn't post your last message in the "Mayonnaise" thread.
> > Unfortunately, I don't have the password for my other news server with
me,
> > hence the new thread. It's drifted far away from mayonnaise anyway...
>
> Your fault.

Oh, I didn't realize we were assigning fault.

> > Usual Suspect wrote:
>
> Not to be picky, but I don't capitalize.

Why not?

> >>You're still asking me to dig up the question about WHY you
> >>disagree with my opinion about how vegans are ethical poseurs.
> >
> > Forgive me, I lost track of which questions you were accusing me of not
> > answering in your circle of writings.
>
> Stop blaming me. You refused to answer questions.

No, I didn't.

> >>What SPECIFICALLY is wrong with that assessment given the
> >>fact that vegans do little or nothing -- MOSTLY NOTHING --
> >>about collateral deaths and casualties from agriculture?
> >
> > First of all, most vegans outside of this newsgroup probably have never
> > considered the idea of collateral deaths resulting from agriculture.
>
> Most vegans IN this ng haven't considered it, either.

How could they possibly miss it with all the ranting that goes on here?!

> > You
> > can't expect that they will do something about which they are ignorant.
Most
> > vegans in this category are disgusted with the notion of eating animal
> > flesh.
>
> But have no qualms about killing animals for some rice and beans.

I guess you missed my point about them not associating rice and beans with
collateral animal deaths.

> Comparatively speaking, vegans are poseurs and inefficient. They choose
> foods causing many animal deaths so they can eat food without any animal
> parts, yet they shun and detest the many meals off just one animal death
> (comparing traditional vegan fare with grazed ruminants). Turn it all
> upside down and they'd show a lot more compassion: eat the one animal
> and spare the thousands that are so senselessly slaughtered for seitan
> and tofu and other fake meats.

"Grazed ruminants" don't equal just one animal death. And don't tell me
about grass-fed or wild game. We've been all over that.

> > Second, you and Jon Ball and the like (herein collectively referred to
as
> > "you") are so offensive with your assertions and accusations that you
put
> > people on the defensive. You practice exactly what you claim to loathe
in
> > so-called AR vegans - in your face righteousness (spelled
> > h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e).
>
> I make no claims of righteousness, especially with respect to my diet.
> Nor does Jon. See my discussions with Karen (aka Rat) and others about
> Christ's and St Paul's admonitions about not judging others on the basis
> of diet and that food doesn't defile us.

Maybe I should have used words like 'emphatic' or 'zealous' instead of
righteous. Somehow they just don't seem strong enough. Maybe
'vituperative'...

> > Third, collateral deaths result from many other aspects of our existence
> > than agriculture. It is impossible to eliminate all collateral deaths
that
> > we are directly or indirectly responsible for. So it becomes the
"numbers
> > game" that you so vehemently reject - to MINIMZE the number of
collateral
> > deaths and animal suffering. Despite that you reject the "numbers game",
you
> > claim to win it anyway! :^)
>
> I don't even play the numbers game. It isn't about ethics at all.

Less animal deaths is better than more animal deaths.

> My judgment above is correct, and even after all your bloviations, you
> seem to concur -- though you will never come right out and say it --
> that vegans are ethical poseurs.

I'm willing to give them way more benefit of doubt.

> >>You wear pastels? Do you like musicals?
> >
> > Are you generalizing that effeminate men (they're probably all liberals
> > anyway, right?)
>
> You are liberal.

What makes you think so?

> > wear pastels and like musicals, or are you fantasizing about
> > me?
>
> Why on earth would I fantasize about you?

You tell me. You're the one who brought up pastels, musicals, and effeminate
men.

> > You disassembled what I wrote, conveniently removing all the context.
Put it
> > back together and go back and read it. BTW, don't be so quick to exclude
> > your self from having a bad attitude....
>
> I'm not the snippy one, I'm getting a good chuckle.

Glad you're so amused.

> > I did answer the question over and over. I even carefully pointed out
your
> > circular questioning. You just don't like my answer. I haven't eaten at
BK,
> > McDonalds, etc. for at least 20 years. I didn't think their food is
healthy
> > or good then, and I don't see any reason to think it's any different now
> > despite their introduction of the veggie Whopper. I also haven't eaten
fries
> > or milkshakes in years.
>
> Why didn't you just say so from the beginning?

Sigh, I did...