"John Deere" > wrote

> 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.

Not so in the case of pastured animals or hunted meat, fish and fowl. That
argument only applies to livestock raised on planted, harvested feed. Also,
you only assert this "multiplied hundreds of times" estimate, you have never
and will never attempt to support it.

>> > 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.

Or a fisherman may have done it for me... your point is?

>> 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.

The vegan's "preference for avoiding killing" is a fantasy. If vegans truly
had such a preference they would not eagerly patronize commerical
agriculture with it's large scale mechanized operations and use of
herbicides and pesticides, all of which results in countless animal deaths.
Don't bother mentioning "organic" either, because organic farming also uses
poisons and machinery.

>> 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.

Your demand for cheap, convenient food *directly* subsidizes farmers who
produce it in ways that harms animals, which makes you THE driving force in
the commerce of industialized agriculture.. No butterflies, no grandmothers
in Kansas, just vegans eagerly supporting the killing of animals in rice
paddies, grain fields, orchards, and vegetable fields.

Why do you think it is wrong to kill an animal then eat the
dead body, yet you place no moral weight on killing an animal then letting
it rot in a field.

> 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.

Thank you very much again for making my points..

a) vegans can only argue with absurdities, and

b) vegans snip hard questions without responding