35611181   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, alt   
   food.vegan.science   
      
   On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 23:50:46 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Mar 8, 10:22 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:18:44 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >On Mar 6, 11:55 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:01:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   >> >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> >On Mar 5, 8:22 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:35:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   >> >> >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >On 2 Mrz., 16:43, Goo wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> Forget about Fuckwit's lack of hard evidence.  You have to make a   
   wholly   
   >> >> >> >> implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent   
   servings   
   >> >> >> >> of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >I never said anything about rice.   
   >>   
   >> >> >>     We were discussing soy because I am overly generous, just as I   
   also was with   
   >> >> >> the estimate of 5 deaths related to a type of animal that is often   
   likely to   
   >> >> >> produce none.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about   
   >> >> >> >calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.   
   >>   
   >> >> >>     Rice would necessarily involve even more than soy. If you figure   
   up the   
   >> >> >> difference between grass raised milk and rice milk the difference   
   would be even   
   >> >> >> more huge in favor of the cow milk. HUGE!!!   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >>  Now   
   >> >> >> >> I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't   
   >> >> >> >> believe, because I know:  you do not believe that the rice causes   
   fewer   
   >> >> >> >> CDs than the beef.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no   
   >> >> >> >evidence one way or the other.   
   >>   
   >> >> >>     In some cases soy causes more and in some beef causes more. Can   
   you get that   
   >> >> >> far along with it, doctor?   
   >>   
   >> >> >If that is the case, then it seems unlikely that, as you claimed, one   
   >> >> >serving of soy product is likely to involve hundreds of times as many   
   >> >> >death as a calorically equivalent serving of grass-fed beef. So you   
   >> >> >should stop making that claim.   
   >>   
   >> >>     You haven't thought this through enough to make such a claim, since   
   you're   
   >> >> only now--IF you finally are now--beginning to accept the fact that beef   
   >> >> sometimes involves less.   
   >>   
   >> >I don't have any way of knowing, do I?   
   >>   
   >>     It's easy to figure that sometimes beef causes fewer and sometimes soy   
   does,   
   >> depending on the conditions. It's a safe enough bet that there are grass   
   raised   
   >> cattle who kill little or no other animals, and also that there are   
   situations   
   >> in which soy production results in many deaths. About the only time soy   
   does not   
   >> involve many deaths is when there are not many animals in the area because   
   >> they've been killed off in the past.   
   >>   
   >> >You refuse to give *any* estimate at all for the death rate associated   
   >> >with one serving of tofu.   
   >>   
   >>     So do you.   
   >   
   >Yes, but I'm not making any claims which would require such an   
   >estimate to back them up.   
      
       You're being critical of mine, which is close enough that you need to come   
   up with an estimate of your own. You're afraid to confess to yourself that   
   there   
   are any though, which is why you're very afraid to make any sort of estimate.   
      
   >> >If you do not have any idea of any range   
   >> >into which the number falls, then you're not in a position to make any   
   >> >comparisons.   
   >>   
   >>     Neither are you. That being the case it doesn't make sense for you to   
   have   
   >> made your extreme dietary choice (veg*nism) based on something you don't   
   know   
   >> anything about.   
   >> . . .   
   >>   
   >   
   >Modern animal farming causes a lot of suffering. Also, most animal   
   >food products require more crop production,   
      
       If you don't like that then it's reason for you TO buy grass raised   
   products, not a reason not to.   
   . . .   
   >I am not in a position to know what difference it would make if I   
   >replaced some of the tofu in my diet with 100% grass-fed beef (and I   
   >think it would take a bit of effort to make sure it really was 100%   
   >grass-fed beef all year round) and I have never claimed to be in a   
   >position to know. You, on the other hand, have claimed to be in a   
   >position to know, but it looks like you actually aren't, so you should   
   >stop making the claim.   
      
       I'm in a position to know that some beef involves less deaths than some soy   
   products, and just by doing that I have surpassed you by a LONG way regarding   
   this particular issue. You still have not been able to even get to the starting   
   line. Throughout your entire life you STILL haven't gotten to the starting line   
   yet, and even if you eventually do that still doesn't mean you'll be able to   
   move on. To get "to" the starting line you would have to acknowledge the fact   
   to   
   yourself that sometimes beef involves fewer deaths than soy. To move on from   
   that point would involve considering particular examples of when it does and   
   when it does not.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)