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.

Who caused the thread to swerve "far away from mayonnaise"? You did.

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

My prerogative.

>>>>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.

Yes, you did. Mr Ball has generously pasted in several questions you
didn't answer.

>>>>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?!

It isn't whether they've missed it, it's what they've not done with such
information. They continue making categorical statements of moral
superiority despite the evidence against them.

>>>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.

Their willful ignorance is their own fault.

>>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.

Care to support this claim?

> And don't tell me
> about grass-fed or wild game. We've been all over that.

Then maybe you need a refresher: grazed ruminants are grass-fed and wild
game.

>>>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'...

Snippy versus nasty redux.

>>>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.

Which diet causes less deaths and suffering? According to Professor
Davis, a diet of grazed ruminants and vegetables will cause less harm to
animals than a vegan diet of grains and legumes. His research may not be
perfect, but it does rely on observation of real agriculture -- not the
Ivory Grocerystore mentality of vegan zealots who assume that the lack
of meat in their diet is automatically virtuous -- and is relevant to
the subject at hand. The number of animals killed and injured in the
production of grains and legumes for one family is much greater than the
one grass-fed cow or grazed deer that can feed an entire family for
months. If your paradigm in the counting game is fewer deaths and
casualties, you should refrain from grains and legumes and consider
eating grazed ruminants.

>>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.

On what basis?

>>>>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?

Your reflexive and unexplained (even after being asked 20 times)
opposition to my reasonable opinions leads me to believe you're of an
immature political bent; to me, that means you're most likely liberal. I
also recall you've admitted to being a little bit left of center before.

>>>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.

Only in context of your "snippiness."

>>>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.

So am I. Laughter is the best medicine.

>>>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...

No, you didn't.