On 5/18/2010 12:46 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On May 19, 12:40 am, "Fred C. >
> wrote:
>> On 5/18/2010 2:18 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On May 18, 8:13 am, > wrote:
>>>> On May 17, 9:51 pm, > wrote:
>>
>>>>> It takes a smaller amount of land to feed the human population on a
>>>>> plant-based diet than on an animal-based diet. What I said was
>>>>> obvious, thank you.
>>
>>>> While your claim might be theoretically correct, it ignores the fact
>>>> that all land is not arable and some non-arable land can be used for
>>>> grazing.
>>
>>> I doubt that that would affect the final outcome.
>>
>> It certainly does.
>
> Do you have some data to back that up?

Shove it, rupie - you know there is non-arable land used for grazing.

On May 19, 6:07*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> On 5/18/2010 12:46 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 12:40 am, "Fred C. >
> > wrote:
> >> On 5/18/2010 2:18 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On May 18, 8:13 am, > * *wrote:
> >>>> On May 17, 9:51 pm, > * *wrote:
>
> >>>>> It takes a smaller amount of land to feed the human population on a
> >>>>> plant-based diet than on an animal-based diet. What I said was
> >>>>> obvious, thank you.
>
> >>>> While your claim might be theoretically correct, it ignores the fact
> >>>> that all land is not arable and some non-arable land can be used for
> >>>> grazing.
>
> >>> I doubt that that would affect the final outcome.
>
> >> It certainly does.
>
> > Do you have some data to back that up?
>
> Shove it, rupie - you know there is non-arable land used for grazing.

We're talking about the proposition "It takes a smaller amount of land
to feed the human population on a plant-based diet than on an animal-
based diet", nincompoop. You have done nothing to cast doubt on that,
because you can't.

"Rupert" > wrote
We're talking about the proposition "It takes a smaller amount of land
to feed the human population on a plant-based diet than on an animal-
based diet", nincompoop. You have done nothing to cast doubt on that,
because you can't.
---------->

The proposition is misleading, all forms of land use are not equal. Grazing
can be done with no harm to the environment at all, in fact it is a benefit,
while the cultivation of grain, for example, is very hard on the
environment, so the amount of land is not the only issue.

On 5/23/2010 11:54 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On May 19, 6:07 am, "Fred C. >
> wrote:
>> On 5/18/2010 12:46 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 19, 12:40 am, "Fred C. >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 5/18/2010 2:18 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On May 18, 8:13 am, > wrote:
>>>>>> On May 17, 9:51 pm, > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> It takes a smaller amount of land to feed the human population on a
>>>>>>> plant-based diet than on an animal-based diet. What I said was
>>>>>>> obvious, thank you.
>>
>>>>>> While your claim might be theoretically correct, it ignores the fact
>>>>>> that all land is not arable and some non-arable land can be used for
>>>>>> grazing.
>>
>>>>> I doubt that that would affect the final outcome.
>>
>>>> It certainly does.
>>
>>> Do you have some data to back that up?
>>
>> Shove it, rupie - you know there is non-arable land used for grazing.
>
> We're talking about the proposition "It takes a smaller amount of land
> to feed the human population on a plant-based diet than on an animal-
> based diet"

We're not, ****wit.