5ce42776
XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, misc.rural
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 04:03:58 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:
>Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
>products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
>it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
>feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
>exception,
In some case it is, but you can't accept that much so you can't even get to
the starting line. IF you're ever able to be honest enough to admit that
sometimes it is, then what?
>but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
>the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
>soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
>one serving of grass-fed beef.
So far it looks like about a hundred if we DON'T figure byproducts into the
count. If we do figure byproducts into the count then the number for servings
of
food goes way down and the estimate of hundreds becomes again overly generous
on
my part, since if we include items made with byproducts the soy would propably
jump to thousands or millions of times more. Try it for not only however many
servings of beef, but also now include however many items made from the 600
pounds of leather, and whatever other byproduct made items you want to account
for. How about just doing it for the entire thousand pounds of animal material
and however manty items...food...leather...animal food...fertilizer...... If
you
want to go at it that way, but I still suggest we stick with human grade food
items only and not even pet food. Remember it's you eliminationists who want to
include the byproduct stuff too, not me. But since you do, then you need to go
ahead and do it. Go:
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
