The ordinary idiot bumbles about and manages to spew forth:

> Are these facts? What's your source?

Perhaps you should read the entire post before replying, no?

> > 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?

Hello? Anybody in there? Refer to to bludering question #1.

> > 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.

Uhm, no shit. Did you have a point, cause uhm, much like your
brainless buddy, you seemed to have missed mine entirely.

ordinary idiot----> : > ) * whoosh* <----- point being made by
the goon

> > 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's confusing you? Pedestal? I believe you could find the
definition in Merriam Webster, you know....

< snipped prior goon talk, and worn-out cliched response from ordinary
idiot>

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

You're welcome. I love to be thanked for stating the obvious.

> > 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>

Perhaps reading "BS list from Robbins" would have given you insight
into why grazed ruminants can be as damaging to the environment as
grain-fed. Oh, wait, but that would have made your point empty right.
Better to just call it BS and be done with it.


> > 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?

Considering that the majority of the food I ate growing up came from
the family farm - plenty. Down the street they grow feed corn - the
land hardly varies from that which we grow the family vegetables on.

> > 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?

Honesty when it suits you. The rest is just:

> <snip rest of boring prattle>

to an ordinary idiot. Or so I'm told.