77d2653d   
   XPost: alt.creative+cooking, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.food.cooking   
   From: rupertmccallum@yahoo.com   
      
   On 1 Nov., 16:55, dh@. wrote:   
   > On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 01:16:15 -0700 (PDT), Rupert    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > >On 29 Okt., 23:07, dh@. wrote:   
   > >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:44:53 -0700 (PDT), Rupert    
   > >> wrote:   
   > >> >On Oct 24, 9:50 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   > >> >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:19:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert    
   > >> >> wrote:   
   > >> >> >On Oct 24, 12:32 am, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   > >> >> >> Probably what would be best would be to learn what percentage of   
   which type   
   > >> >> >> animals are killed by growing soy. Then by cows eating grass. Even   
   though it   
   > >> >> >> seems obvious the number would be much lower for the cattle, you   
   could never   
   > >> >> >> learn to appreciate it or probably even accept it. It would   
   probably be another   
   > >> >> >> one of those things your brain can only interpret as "nonsense".   
   >   
   > >> >> >You've got to take into account the death of the cow when it is   
   > >> >> >slaughtered as well.   
   >   
   > >> >> With the cow its life and death both need to be considered, while with   
   the   
   > >> >> CDs only their deaths since they weren't raised deliberately to be   
   killed for   
   > >> >> human food production. And remember that even you have once in a while   
   felt the   
   > >> >> lives of some grass raised cattle might be "good".   
   >   
   > >> >Your original remark was "It [seitan] almost certainly involves more   
   > >> >animal deaths than grass raised beef". This remark was unfounded.   
   >   
   > >> It could only be untrue if there are no wildlife to speak of in the soy   
   > >> fields.   
   >   
   > >That`s false.   
   >   
   >     You're being dishonest again. How do you suggest that we could try to   
   > pretend the number of animals in the fields has nothing to do with it?   
   >   
      
   Obviously I didn't say any such thing.   
      
   > >We have done a comparative analysis of the death toll   
   > >caused by soy products and beef elsewhere in this thread.   
   >   
   >     Nothing worthwhile if at all. Do one now if you want. Good luck.   
      
   If you look at Gaverick Matheny's article "Least Harm", you see that   
   it requires slightly less than 0.001 deaths to produce the daily   
   requirement of protein from soy products. On the other hand, if we   
   assume that one quarter of a pound of beef gives you the daily   
   requirement of protein from beef, then by your own estimate that   
   requires 0.0005 deaths from slaughter alone, and you also need to take   
   into account the fact that the farmer needs to kill predators to   
   protect the cattle.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)