4aac62c6
XPost: alt.creative+cooking, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.food.cooking
From: rupertmccallum@yahoo.com
On 6 Nov., 18:11, dh@. wrote:
> 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 <
upertmccal...@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >> >> 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.
>
It may or may not be. I don't really think I'm in a position to know.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >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.
What's your evidence for that claim?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
