"Jonathan Ball" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ink.net...
Rico X. Partay wrote:

"Bob Peterson" wrote in message
...


Diet for a Small Planet is hardly evidence
of anything other than left wing kookiness.
If you want to trust your life to something
that nutty then do so, otherwise have some
animal products in your diet.



When you use adjectives like "left wing" in a technical
discussion about nutrition you tend to show you have an adgenda
that has nothing to do with the merits of the argument, and you
thereby lower the credibility of anything useful you may have to
say.

To paraphrase Al Franken, arguing about whether a diet is
"left wing" or "right wing" is like arguing whether al-Qaeda uses
too much vinegar in its salad dressing. It may be true, but it's
completely beside the point.

Hope this helps.

It only helped to show that you aren't very astute, and
you're probably too contaminated by notions of
political correctness ever to learn.

"Diet for a Small Planet" IS INDEED an expression of
leftist political thinking. So is "veganism". If
someone tells me he's "vegan", I know EVERYTHING about
his politics; there's nothing concealed.
Sorry, maybe I'm living in the wrong country for this but all the vegans
*I* know vote either right (CDU) or just very slightly left from the
center (SPD). None of them would even consider the PDS or any other
leftwing party.
For me your statement is a typical I-don't-like-it-so-it-must-be-commy-stuff
generalisation.
As for "diet for a small planet", that's about defeating world hunger by reducing
food chain related losses. Not much leftwing stuff there except maybe that
hunger is bad. (Before you start to argue: I happily eat meat but I'm willing
to reduce that if someone convince me that it really helps. Right now it just
means that the meat price goes down and someone else in my city eats more
meat.)

Greetings!
Volker