Pesco-vegan wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> > > > Fish are animals, no matter how you want to rationalize it away.
> > >
> > > Your point being?
> >
> > You aren't a "vegan" if you eat them,
>
> I don't claim to be a vegan.

You have "vegan" as part of your inane posting ID, and you clearly with
to capture some of what you falsely imagine to be the ethical cachet of
"veganism".


>
> >*and* your attempt to rationalize
> > why you eat them is crap.
>
> Whatever.

Yeah, "whatever". People who say that are unimaginative. They're also
defeated, but they don't have the graciousness to make a more
forthright concession.



> > > > > Other considerations: Consumption of fish is recommended by
> > > > > nutrition experts who don't have a vegetarian agenda.
> > > >
> > > > So is the consumption of limited amounts of lean meat, and dairy
> > > > products. But they aren't vegetarian, and sure as hell aren't "vegan".
> > >
> > > Lean meat is often presented as having a place in a healthy balanced
> > > diet
> >
> > It has one.
> >
> >
> > > and some sources advise against red meat without noting
> > > exceptions.
> >
> > They're wrong.
>
> If you say so.

I'm not the only one.


> > > It is not generally specifically recommended in the same way that
> > > fish is. Dairy products are rather controversial, recommended by some,
> > > frowned upon by others.
> >
> > *None* of them are "vegan", including fish.
>
> Oh, aren't you a clever boy.

Aren't you the snide, deflated little bit of nothing.


> > > > > In general it takes more land and more energy to grow meat
> > > > > than it does to grow vegetables.
> > > >
> > > > That's an utterly irrelevant point.
> > >
> > > It is a standard argument used by vegetarians
> >
> > It is utterly irrelevant.
>
> No it isn't.

Yes, it is. It is completely irrelevant.


> > > and it is hard
> > > to argue against the idea that more efficient use of the
> > > planet's limited resources is desirable.
> >
> > It's a total misrepresentation of what "efficiency" is. There is
> > NOTHING "inefficient" about using land and other resources to produce
> > meat.
>
> Check out this comparison for usable protein yields per acre
> from different foods. Soybeans 356, Rice 261, Corn 211, Other
> legumes 192, Wheat 138, Milk 82, Eggs 78, Meat (all types 45)
> ,Beef 20. Consider what % of the calories in each of these
> foods is protein and the comparison becomes even less favourable
> to the animal foods. My source is a leaflet published by CIWF.
> The source they quote is: USDA; FAO/WHO/UNICEF Protein Advisory
> Group.

It's meaningless. It has NOTHING to do with economic efficiency, and
that's the only kind of efficiency that matters.


> > > > > This argument is widely
> > > > > used to justify vegetarian diets but doesn't apply to fish.
> > > >
> > > > Of course it applies to fish, you dummy.
> > >
> > > Is it possible to have a conversation on this newsgroup
> > > without insults being thrown around like confetti?
> >
> > Stop saying absolutely and unequivocally silly and stupid things, and
> > then check to see if it's possible.
>
> So you won't be uncivil if I agree with you? How kind;-)

No guarantees.


>
> > > > Most fish are "farm raised".
> > >
> > > Not the fish I eat!
> >
> > Baloney. If you ever eat salmon or catfish, you're most likely eating
> > farm-raised fish.
>
> In my country, labelling regulations require that the origin of fish,
> including whether they were wild or farmed must be stated. I have never
> eaten catfish. Wild Salmon is easy enough to come by.

If you eat it, you're contributing to the depletion of wild salmon
stocks by overfishing.