This statement is invalid:: Why do you "through in" arguments about environmenal issues? What have you done for the nature? You want to bread crops all over in order to feed the starving. Isn't that to destroy both animal life and the nature? We don't have much wilderness left. Now suddenly is human life valued more than animals, but not then it comes to food. That's double "standards".
Eating crops requires much less land than eating meat. Even if raising animals for meat required no space at all, you would still need to produce 10 kilograms of grain for every one kilogram of meat you wanted. Add in the acreage for beef farming (as one example) and there is no way you can possibly argue that eating meat is less environmentally destructive than eating crop-based foods. If we turned every meat farm into a renewable timber plantation, we would have far more food than we need to eat, as well as a very large supply of wood (removing the 'need' to cut old growth forests).
As for your claim that you words are being twisted: MDG has misinterpreted some of your statements, but no more than you have misinterpreted his. This does not mean he is twisting your words.
And if you're going to attack his debating style, take a glance at your own. MDG posts an argument, you post some claims, some references, and then spend the bulk of your post in a petty personal attack on him. This looks bad.
: Thank you again LEJ for your "message"!
Can I ask why you feel the need to put "message" in inverted commas? Are you questioning the fact that it is a message? I don't see what this achieves.
--jude.
None.
