Dutch wrote:
> Can you eat grass, silage, waste and by-products? Every pound of meat

> produced from those plentiful sources is food that would be
unavailable
> otherwise. That food would likely be replaced by commercially
produced,
> inferior tofu/rice/vegetable substitutes causing the deaths of yet
more
> animals.

But you didn't address the point -- any effects of vegan meals
are multiplied hundreds of times in meat meals.

> > so
> > whatever a vegan does, it's multiplied by several
> > hundred for a non-vegan.
>
> If I catch one salmon I can replace the protein content of a large
amount of
> commercially produced alternative such as tofu burgers, which
resulted in an
> unknown but considerable amount of animal harm.

But you are actively killing the salmon.

> OK, my intention is to nourish myself, the vegan's intention is to
nourish
> himself. What am I missing?

You are missing the obvious (of course) difference -- your intention is
to
nourish yourself even if you have to kill, the vegan's intention
is to get nourished with a preference for avoiding killing.

> It fails to address the original poster's points in any way.
>
> > You are absolutely right about it, it's a very
> > contrived logical position.
>
> Then you should stick to substance instead of inventing fantasies
about
> aliens.

Ok, maybe this was too hard. Try this -- according to chaos theory,
a butterfly's wing-flap in Peking could cause a hurricane in US.

So potentially, a little old grandmother sneezing in Kansas could
cause a Tsunami in Asia.

Now if you were to hold the grandmother culpable in the same
way that a mass murderer is culpable, I would have to say

a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or
b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason.

In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent
of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation.