Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>I have no way of knowing what farmers do what.
>>
>>Stop feigning ignorance and innocence. You know they intentionally
>>poison them and less intentionally run over and flood them.
>
> I don't know which do this, if they really do.

Bullshit. You know that most farmers don't employ the tactics of the
Lundbergs to clear the fields of migratory birds (but not rodents,
amphibians, etc.). You know that the use of pesticides kills a variety
of non-targeted species. You know that storage facilities like granaries
and warehouses pro-actively employ pest control measures in accordance
with health agency requirements.

> Given that
> I have no choice other than to starve, what do you
> suppose that I do.

You have three different options. Put your money where your big mouth is
and actually garden in a manner consistent with your dubious
"principles." Recommend legitimate, widely-available products which
minimize CDs; those include certain kinds of meat, but NOT mechanically
planted or harvested produce. Or, best of all, you can stop making false
claims, moral and otherwise, about food choices.

>>>You are trying
>>>to put an 'absoluteness' on the whole thing,
>>
>>That's what VEGANS do. You claim it's wrong to kill animals, and when
>>shown that your diet causes more animals to be killed, you say it's
>>wrong to eat them.
>
> Never mind other vegans and what you think of them.
> Don't use the word absolute thrown in.

You said killing animals is wrong. You left yourself an out of
self-defense. I want you to explain why it's wrong for me to eat part of
one dead tuna but not wrong for you to consume produce grown with many
dead fish (fish emulsion, fish meal, not to mention all the other dead
animal parts used in *organic* crop production or CDs resulting from the
same).

>>>when in
>>>fact you know full well that I am content with the death
>>>reductions I have made
>>
>>You haven't reduced animal deaths through your consumption. You're
>>engaging in a perverse tautology in which you say something is wrong
>>but that you're not responsible.
>
> I'm doing the best I can for both my health

Bullshit. First, you willfully inhale toxins to get a buzz off marijuana
-- not good for your health, especially for your lungs. Smokers have a
far greater incidence of cancer of the lungs, larynx, pharynx,
esophagus, mouth, colon and breast than non-smokers. Marijuana contains
more tar than cigarettes. Marijuana is also inhaled very deeply and the
smoke is held in the lungs for a long time. Marijuana is smoked all the
way to the end where tar content is the highest. Many of the
cancer-causing substances in tobacco are also found in marijuana. It
also affects your central nervous system in an adverse manner. There are
few if any positive effects of marijuana use.

Second, you fail to distinguish between good and bad plant-based foods,
a la your boneheaded defense of eating hemp seeds and recommending
higher intake of omega-6 FAs despite information that lipids from other
plant sources provide enough and that one should focus on omega-3 FAs
intake to maintain a proper, healthier ratio. You make poor
generalizations about meat, saying ALL meat is bad despite the evidence
presented that the meat of game, grass-fed ruminants, and fish is very
healthful, high in omega-3 FAs, and LOW in saturated fats.

Finally, you've failed at every instance to note that nutritional
experts qualify their support for vegetarian diets because you parrot
only the activist websites rather than experts.
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and
Dietitians of Canada that *APPROPRIATELY PLANNED* vegetarian
diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health
benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.
[my emphasis]
http://www.eatright.org/Public/Gover...s/92_17084.cfm

> and the animals.

You've already been shown many times that you're not doing a damn thing
to benefit animals, particularly since your diet is based on imported
tropical foods and highly processed protein isolates from mechanically
harvested products like soy and wheat (e.g., Yves phony sausage) that's
shipped all the way across your country. You'd take a positive step if
you'd just consume local produce, much less grow your own produce, but
you've refused to take any positive steps and instead choose to repeat
your lie that you're making a difference.

>>>(knowing that it's currently
>>>impossible to do better).
>>
>>Only because you're the classically clueless urbanite. You've been
>>told how it's possible to cause much fewer animal deaths, but you object
>>when some of the options include eating certain kinds of meat; you've also
>>suggested -- LAMELY -- that only wealthy landowners can afford to grow
>>crops "veganically."
>
> Only someone with very few braincells would suggest to a
> vegetarian or vegan that they eat meat.

Nobody ever said they had to eat meat. Their unwillingness to admit that
a diet containing certain kinds of no- or low-CD meat is better for
animals in the aggregate, though, shows that they're dogmatic,
inflexible hypocrites whose agenda ("don't eat animal parts") matters
more than pragmatic attempts to minimize harm to animals.

> The id is not acceptable.

But ALL the CDs are? What kind of philosophy is that?

> If they did though, then how would they reduce the cds in all
> the other foods they eat?

Per Professor Davis' thesis, they would consume locally grown produce
and grazed ruminants. That would minimize harm to animals which occurs
in the course of grain and legume production, transportation, and
storage. That's the great irony -- you're rejecting the deaths of
animals people eat and recommending instead they consume crops which
have the highest CD rates.

>>>I have
>>>seen no indications that foreign grown foods cause
>>>more deaths than local ones, by the way.
>>
>>Additional storage and transportation, for starters. Rick also gave
>>you links to articles about how environmentally damaging banana and
>>plantain crops are in Central America. Environmental damage from monocropped
>>bananas and plantains means harm to animals through decreased habitat,
>>pollution, etc.
>
> That's barely different than crops grown here.

Ipse dixit, and what a pathetic little shit you are for bitching about
one kind of local production and then participating in it on a more
global scale.

>>>>>>In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
>>>>>>out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
>>>>>>is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
>>>>>>in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
>>>>>>she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
>>>>>>death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
>>>>>>believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
>>>>>>revealing:
>>>
>>>You're the one putting absolute in there. I do indeed
>>>believe that killing animals is wrong
>>
>>Wrong? Isn't that an absolute?
>
> No. If it was, I would have said absolutely wrong.

Is it wrong to eat animals? If so, why?