77d2653d
XPost: alt.creative+cooking, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.food.cooking
On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:04:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:
>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.
Anyone who doesn't understand that that depends VERY MUCH on how much
wildlife is in the area doesn't have any clue about the subject at all.
>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.
For one thing it would depend on whether or not there are any predators
that
are killed to protect a particular group of animals. For another the deaths of
any predators would need to be averaged out amoung all the animals that don't
get killed by that particular predator, including wildlife. That means that
killing the predator results in LESS DEATHS overall, not more, so it also means
LESS DEATHS because of the cattle, not more. You so far still have no argument
and it appears you're at a dead end. For some reason it seems to be too bad for
you but grass raised beef still comes up less deaths than soy, and a lot less
than rice. It's too bad you hate that, because you would be a better person if
you could appreciate it since it's the way it is. Maybe Goo will help you keep
denying it to yourself though....or maybe he already has through email....
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
