Jonathan Ball > wrote in message ink.net>...
>
> The bullshit you squeeze out below has nothing to do
> with what I was asking of James. You're an idiot.

Amount of bullshit you squeeze out that pollutes the usenet per year:
3.4 metric tons.

Sorry, I can't compare to those stats Jonny.

But really, idiot? Couldn't you have come up with something more
colorful? After all, you seem to have blown quite a few brain cells on
this post....

> Sorry; not facts. Not even close to facts. You
> exhibit the typical appalling ignorance of world hunger
> that most "vegans" do. I'm not surprised

I'm perfectly aware that veganism won't solve world hunger. I regret
leaving you to draw your own moronic conclusions here. The point was
inefficiency. Next time I'll try to spell it out more clearly for
those lacking in the logical skills that might fall into the category
of common sense, as I tend to forget it's far less common than the
term might suggest.

> First, the grain fed to livestock is generally not
> considered edible by humans. Cattle, the biggest
> consumers, are fed something called "dent" corn.

Who says? I'm eating a big bowl of "dent" corn and soymilk right now!
(Mmmm, yummy!)

> You
> wouldn't eat it, ever. It's true that the resources
> used to produce the feed grain would be freed up, but
> that's different from what you wrote.

Apparently you must have expended your daily allotment of brain cells
by the time you reached the end of my post. Why am I not surprised?

> What you wrote
> is false, period.

Hmmm... uhm, no. But opinions are indeed like assholes. Continue to
dwell in your fantasy world if it suits you.


> Second, there is more than enough "surplus" human
> edible vegetable material availabe in the developed
> world, mainly the European Union and North America, to
> feed the "starving" of the world right now. The food
> isn't going to them. Why not? The answer has nothing
> whatever to do with grain being fed to livestock in the
> U.S. Feeding grain to meat animals in the U.S. is not
> "causing" starvataion in the world in any way whatever.

See above answer about inefficiency. Look up the definition of
inefficiency if you must, but try not to let that small mind of yours
interfere with interpretation of words again. K? It's truly annoying
to have to repeat myself countless times, ya know?

> > And granted I can't dispute that.
>
> Then you're finished. Well, I see you're going to try
> to explain it away; I suppose civility demands I read
> it, but I know I'm not going to learn anything.

Well, there's your confessional at least... Not only were you unable
to learn, you also seemed unable to use reasoning in an intelligent
capacity, and hell - you didn't even read it all, or I'd not be here
repeating myself.

> > No matter how we live we're going to
> > inadvetantly have an effect of some sort on our surroundings.
> > 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.
>
> A meat consumer need not eat any commercially produced
> meat. Remember what it is we're addressing; you seem
> to have forgotten. We're addressing the "vegan's"
> ****witted belief that excluding meat from his diet,
> all by itself, is *necessarily* going to mean he's
> doing more to reduce animal death and suffering than
> ANYONE who consumes a meat-included diet.

Sorry, I know plenty of deer/duck hunters - things of that sort. I
live in the South, after all - I'm surrounded by them. None of them
have a diet that primarily consists of wild "game". If indeed there
are still people who do this, I've not met them, and it is,
nonetheless entirely irrelevant to my point, not that I'm surprised
you'd choose to stray from the subject at hand.

> Remember: we're not playing a counting game. The
> "vegan" says he's (in order of the lies they tell):
>
> a. not causing any animal death and suffering;
> b. "minimizing" animal death and suffering;
> c. "reducing" animal death and suffering.

Didn't realize all vegans were males, but whatever - your ignorance is
boundless. Again, not surprised.
I never claimed to "not cause any animal death and suffering." In
fact, I try to avoid it. But call me a liar if it boosts your moral
standing. *shrug*

> Each claim is weaker than the one that precedes it, and
> all are false.

Yea, you keep saying that. A little like a broken record aren't you?

> >
> > Consider this:
> >
> > - Percentage of corn grown in United States eaten by human beings: 20
> > - Percentage of corn grown in United States eaten by livestock: 80
>
> Not the same corn.

Oh really? I'd never have guessed!


> > - Percentage of soy grown in United States eaten by livestock: 90
>
> So?

Wait, weren't you going to say that's *different* soy than what humans
eat? Maybe the livestock only eat "dent" soy. Or "bump" soy or
something like that right?

> > - Percentage of oats grown in United States eaten by livestock: 95
>
> So?

Here you go again, on and on like a broken record...

> > - Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90
>
> It isn't wasted. It's an input used to produce an
> output that people want to buy and consume.

Yea, more meat to create more big fat-ass Americans so they can go on
Dr. Phil and say "Oh shit, how'd I end up weighing 700lbs?"

> > - Percentage of carbohydrate wasted by cycling grain through
> > livestock: 99
>
> Same.

Round and round we go...

> > - Percentage of dietary fiber wasted by cycling grain through
> > livestock: 100
>
> Same.

Where the broken record stops, nobody knows....

> > - Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on 1 acre of land: 20,000
>
> Irrelevant. There's plenty of land to grow potatoes in
> addition to the grain fed to livestock. Why aren't
> potatoes being grown and shipped to starving people
> today, presumably for free?

Poor people don't like potatoes.

> [snip remaining meaningless and irrelevant
> "statistics", many of which are bogus, but leave:]

Yea, you do that... wouldn't want to have to say "So?" about 500,000
times over... then that would be rather repetitive.

> > - The driving force behind the destruction of the tropical
> > rainforests: American meat habit
>
> Bullshit. Do some real research. All you've done is
> read some bullshit off a webpage, which copied it from
> another webpage, which copied it... It's all crap
> spewed by ignorant activists, and it's all shit.

Actually I cited my source at the bottom of my post - that was about
the time you were struck with that huge brain fart, remember?

> > - Amount of meat imported annually by U.S. from Costa Rica, El
> > Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and Panama: 200,000,000
> > pounds
>
> You're a ****ing liar.

Well when you put ****ing in front of liar, it does seem awfully
convincing...

> Look at the official charts, up
> through 2002:
> http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/cattle/Trade.htm.
> Look at the chart "U.S. beef imports", about halfway
> down the page. A precise number isn't given, but it is
> perfectly obvious that the amount of beef imported from
> Central America doesn't amount even to 100 million
> pounds. Meanwhile, beef imports from Australia and
> Canada *each* are over 1 BILLION pounds, and another
> 600 million from New Zealand.

Wait, I thought we were ****ed at Canada because you know - they have
that scary Mad Cow disease, and well - things like that don't happen
to us fat-ass Americans, right?


> Furthermore, NO fresh beef is imported from Central
> America, as foot-and-mouth disease is rampant.

Possible, perhaps because of rampant disease jumping from country to
country my facts are a bit outdated.

> Now look at the similar chart for pork, at
> http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Hogs/trade.htm. In
> 2001, the latest year for which data are available,
> "all others", which would include Central America,
> didn't even amount to 50 million pounds of imports.

So?

> Now look at the page for poultry, at
> http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Poultry/trade.htm.
> Again, the last year for which data are available is
> 2001. We see that the U.S. imported negligible amounts
> of poultry meat: 14 million pounds of broiler chicken
> products, and about 1 million pounds of turkey
> products, almost all of the latter from Canada.

So?

> This is what's wrong with this forum. A lying
> cocksucker like you can spew out completely bogus
> "data", and it takes a responsible, honest person like
> me 20-30 minutes to dig up the facts to refute your
> bullshit.

When did you do this? My cats dig up more turds in their litter box
than you have facts on this newsgroup. Dig on, brother.

> In a fair world, you'd have to pay me
> something for correcting your bullshit.

Yeah, life's pretty unfair eh? Well, at least in this unfair world we
can preceed every other word with "****ing" and that counts for
something.

> I don't
> suppose an apology for lying will be forthcoming, either.

Nah, but I'll FedEx you some cat turds if you like.


> > - Amount of meat eaten by average person in Costa Rica, El Salvador,
> > - Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and Panama:
> > - Less than the average American housecat
>
> Bullshit. You're a liar.
>
> [snip additional inflammatory bullshit]

Is this the part where you were sitting on the john... cause uh, I
really don't need to know about you snipping your inflamed excrement.


> > So laid out in these simplistic terms
>
> Laid out in these simplistic, SIMPLE-MINDED terms, we
> see that you are a polemical liar.

And that you have inflamed bowels. No wonder you're so testy. Did I
say Seroquel? I meant Gas-X.

> > (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.
> >
> > I'll reiterate a point that Strutz made: There's a certain point where
> > it comes down to numbers.
>
> No, it emphatically does not. Not when we're
> considering the bullshit ethical claims of "vegans",
> which are predicated on a complete ABSENCE of any numbers.
>
> > None of us can, at this point in time
> > certainly, live a cruelty-free existance.
>
> Any *given* person at this point in time can clearly
> and even relatively easily do much, much better than he
> is. Only "vegans" are under any burden to do so,
> because they alone have made stupid, false claims about
> "minimizing" and so on.
>
> > In fact, I'm highly
> > skeptical of the idea that such a thing would ever be possible. Still
> > skepticism is my nature
>
> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Didn't you mean blah blah blah? You're beginning to bore me....

> After that credulous posting
> of extremist bullshit above?!
>
> > and as much as possible I attempt to hope we
> > will come as close as is possible.
>
> You aren't even trying.

ZZZZzzzzZZZZzzzzZZZZzzzZZZZ

> [...]

Go snip another turd. I'm sure you'll feel much better. And no, a
reply post doesn't count.