fab56029   
   84b44346   
   XPost: alt.creative+cooking, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.food.cooking   
   From: bunghole-jonnie@lycos.com   
      
   On Nov 6, 5:15 am, 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 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, 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.   
      
      
   I'm thinking there should be some photographic evidence of all these   
   collateral deaths but so far no one has come up with any.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)