4aac62c6   
   XPost: alt.creative+cooking, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.food.cooking   
      
   On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:37:20 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   wrote:   
      
   >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    
   rupertmccal...@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.   
      
       You don't want to know about situations like that because they work against   
   what you want to believe, which in part is that they don't exist. They do exist   
   though.   
      
   >> >> >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?   
      
       Their absence when they're absent for one since it means they've all been   
   killed off. But when the fields are beside other areas where wildlife can   
   survive then new animals can move into the crop fields after others have been   
   killed off by machinery and chemicals and loss of habitat after harvest. Cows   
   don't do that stuff to wildlife in their pastures. If you could advance to an   
   AW   
   position you would be in a position to appreciate things like that, rather than   
   being in an eliminationist position so you not only can't appreciate things   
   like   
   that but have to try to deny them to yourself. It seems there are a few ways   
   you   
   could become a better person if you moved on from the misnomer.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)