84b44346   
   XPost: alt.creative+cooking, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.food.cooking   
      
   On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:15:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Nov 5, 9:54 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   >So there is variation, so in order to make decisions about what to eat   
   >you go by the average. So we go with our best guess as to what the   
   >average is. You haven't offered any better estimate.   
      
       On average cattle eating grass kill less than farm machines and chemicals   
   do. Also on average wildlife thrives much better in grazing areas than it does   
   in crop fields. Then there's the part you especially can't appreciate or even   
   acknowledge, which is that grazing areas provide good lives for billions of   
   livestock animals. In contrast to that crop fields do not. So right there we   
   see   
   three ways livestock raising is better than crop farming for wildlife and   
   livestock, yet you can't appreciate any and possibly can't even comprehend any.   
   And IF you can, I doubt you could acknowledge it.   
      
   >> >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....   
   >   
   >It may very well be that grass-raised beef involves fewer deaths than   
   >soy or rice products; my mind has always been perfectly open on that   
   >issue,   
      
       Uh huh.   
      
   >I've simply been pointing out that it's a complex question, and   
   >also the difference is not by a factor of hundreds as you repeatedly   
   >claim.   
      
       Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's not. The only times it would not be would   
   be   
   when the wildlife has already been killed off in the area and there's no longer   
   any living to kill in the crop fields.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)