"John Deere" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> 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.
==================
Nope. Again you have it backwards. Ir is far to easy to show meat-included
diets that are better than your vegan diet, killer.


>
>> > 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.
==================
As you are activly killing mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians for
your clean, cheap veggies...


>
>> 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.
=================
Yet you fail miserably at it, hypocrite. You prove with each inane post
that avoiding unnecessesary animal deaths is no concern to you, killer.


>
>> 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.
====================
Logic doesn't come easy for you, does it? Must be the diet....

>