On May 19, 6:07*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> On 5/18/2010 12:46 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 12:40 am, "Fred C. >
> > wrote:
> >> On 5/18/2010 2:18 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On May 18, 8:13 am, > * *wrote:
> >>>> On May 17, 9:51 pm, > * *wrote:
>
> >>>>> It takes a smaller amount of land to feed the human population on a
> >>>>> plant-based diet than on an animal-based diet. What I said was
> >>>>> obvious, thank you.
>
> >>>> While your claim might be theoretically correct, it ignores the fact
> >>>> that all land is not arable and some non-arable land can be used for
> >>>> grazing.
>
> >>> I doubt that that would affect the final outcome.
>
> >> It certainly does.
>
> > Do you have some data to back that up?
>
> Shove it, rupie - you know there is non-arable land used for grazing.

We're talking about the proposition "It takes a smaller amount of land
to feed the human population on a plant-based diet than on an animal-
based diet", nincompoop. You have done nothing to cast doubt on that,
because you can't.