Goon wrote:

>>There is a huge logical problem with being vegetarian
>>for the pseudo-ethical reason you have given, and I'm
>>asking questions to get you to acknowledge the problem,
>>and then to see and acknowledge seeing that your
>>dietary response does not address the problem.
>>
>>You've now compounded your ethical problems by lying,
>>being snippy, being evasive, and lying some more.
>>
>>Why are you even responding, SeeJames, if your
>>responses are only going to serve to illustrate that
>>you are lying and being evasive?
>
>
> I'll be glad to offer the information you are so desperately trying to
> pry from James.
>
> Let's start with the facts:

Are these facts? What's your source?

> The population in the US alone is in excess of 270,000,000. Worldwide,
> 38,000 children die of starvation each day.

According to whom?

> If we were to do away with
> the meat industry, the US alone would free up enough grains and soy to
> feed 1,300,000,000 people.

Ipse dixit. Two things wrong with your suggestion. First, most of the
grain and soy fed to livestock are unfit for human consumption. Second,
we alreay have enough grain and soy to feed the world. The problem isn't
on the agriculture side, it's the political side. You need to figure out
how to break down the political barriers so food can be distributed, not
how to kill humans *and* animals.

> That's more than the entire population of
> the US - in fact for the same output of resources, we could feed the
> population of this country alone nearly four times over.

Ipse dixit.

> But here is your pedestal of sorts:

Huh?!

>>>>>>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.
>
>
> And granted I can't dispute that.

No shit, Sherlock.

> No matter how we live we're going to
> inadvetantly have an effect of some sort on our surroundings.

Thanks for your honesty.

> Agriculture is no exception even when meat production is not included.
> What blows my mind is that you seem to think that the amount of damage
> done by a human who consumes only plant matter equals even half that
> which is done by the meat industry alone.

You're comparing apples and oranges. A diet of grazed ruminants doesn't
require grain production, so collateral deaths are minimized. Add
locally-grown or home-grown vegetables and you minimize animal
casualties even further.

<snip BS list from Robbins>

> So laid out in these simplistic terms (and don't worry I won't leave
> you hanging to draw these conclusions for yourself) if this entire
> country were to switch to a plant-based diet it would not only
> significantly cut down the damage to both the land, the waterways, and
> the environment as a whole, but farming of plant matter could easily
> be cut to nearly half what it is now if it were limited to plants
> considered edible by humans.

That's only if we assume that all land is equal. One reason most of the
grains and soy we grow are categorized as "unfit for human consumption"
is because of the land quality. How much do you really understand about
agriculture anyway?

> I'll reiterate a point that Strutz made: There's a certain point where
> it comes down to numbers. None of us can, at this point in time
> certainly, live a cruelty-free existance.

I appreciate your honesty. Have you tried to get PETA to stop making
such claims on their websites?

<snip rest of boring prattle>