On May 15, 8:36*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> On 5/14/2010 3:30 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > [phony efficiency bullshit snipped]
>
> It still isn't the claim. **Even* if meat were produced at the lowest
> possible environmental impact, and all environmental costs were captured
> in the price paid by the consumer, you "vegan" ****wits would still say
> people shouldn't consume it. *Your opposition is not principally or even
> significantly based on any environmental concern.
>

It may well be in some cases. You refuse to tell me which vegans you
actually want to engage with. Vegans are a diverse bunch, you know.

Probably most vegans would continue to oppose meat production on
animal-welfare grounds, yes, because the animal-welfare argument is an
additional argument which most vegans think carries some weight as
well. What of it? You said you wanted to address some kind of
"inefficiency" argument. It doesn't look as though you did a very good
job of correctly characterising your opponent's position in your OP.
You haven't produced any evidence that your OP addresses any argument
that anyone actually makes. Which was my point in replying to you. Bit
strange, really, how a man who has supposedly done postgraduate work
can't get this.