ca69d839   
   XPost: alt.creative+cooking, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.food.cooking   
      
   On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:27:15 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Nov 13, 10:51 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >> 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    
   rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>   
   >> >> >> >> >> 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.   
   >>   
   >> >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.   
   >>   
   >   
   >That is false.   
      
       Yes they do.   
      
   >I would like to be in a position to know how the harm   
   >caused by the production of grass-fed beef and the harm caused by the   
   >production of soy products compare, and I have no reason to prefer the   
   >outcome to be one way or the other, but I think that it is a complex   
   >issue and I don't think I am in a position to know. I don't think that   
   >the evidence you have offered about the matter gives conclusive   
   >grounds for making a decision, one would need to do more to make sure   
   >that one had taken into account all the relevant factors. I am quite   
   >open to investigating the matter further.   
      
       Then do it. My prediction of course is that you can't, but it would be fun   
   to see you try.   
      
   >One thing that we can definitely say is false is the assertion which   
   >you still repeatedly make that soy products are likely to cause more   
   >deaths than grass-fed beef by a factor of hundreds.   
      
       I feel certain that in some cases it is hundreds, and in some it's probably   
   thousands. There may even be times when the soy causes less, but not nearly as   
   frequently imo.   
      
   >This assertion has   
   >been shown to be false but you still keep making it over and over   
   >again.   
      
       You could never show it to be false, but I challenge you to try. Go:   
      
   >> >> >> >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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)