On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:16:25 -0400, LordSnooty
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:21:59 GMT, swamp
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:20:23 GMT, frlpwr wrote:

Jon wrote:

(snip)

"vegans", or so-called
"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.

Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?

The above should go like this:

If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

As long as we're shooting for accuracy, it should be:

If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat, therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer
and die,

Very good.

and make this point because it helps me ignore the death and
suffering my own diet causes.

What death and suffering?

That caused by your very existence.

you have scientific, peer reviewed data that
a particular company, farm, product is a direct cause of wildlife
deaths?

The peer-reviewed study you suggest is about as necessary as one
showing starvation will cause starvation.

if so, show them and we can analyze your proof. Nothing allows
us to ignore any deaths of animals or humans.

But you do so every day. "Lordsnooty." my...

Demonizing others is less painful than accepting my own role in life
and death.

I'll respond to the following rant point by point:

You demonize yourselves...

Who is "yourselves," and I predict you'll misuse the word "demonize"
even after you check a reference.

and simply cannot stand the fact

Since when have you dealt w/ facts?

there actually are some nice, caring people out there, who do things for the
benefits of others and nothing else

That's rare among ar/evs. Can you name one?

, even so, since when has feeling
good about oneself been a crime?

When it requires hurting others.

Snip it there, KISS.

Doubt you'll like where I'll let you put it. Refer to the my... above.

'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

I'm not looking to win, but your record's worse than the Cubs',

--swamp

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 04:53:32 GMT, swamp
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:16:25 -0400, LordSnooty
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:21:59 GMT, swamp
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:20:23 GMT, frlpwr wrote:

Jon wrote:

(snip)

"vegans", or so-called
"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.

Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?

The above should go like this:

If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

As long as we're shooting for accuracy, it should be:

If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat, therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer
and die,

Very good.

and make this point because it helps me ignore the death and
suffering my own diet causes.

What death and suffering?

That caused by your very existence.

Yes Dick Etter! RU related?

you have scientific, peer reviewed data that
a particular company, farm, product is a direct cause of wildlife
deaths?

The peer-reviewed study you suggest is about as necessary as one
showing starvation will cause starvation.

Yes Dick Etter! RU related 2 each other?

if so, show them and we can analyze your proof. Nothing allows
us to ignore any deaths of animals or humans.

But you do so every day. "Lordsnooty." my...

I do believe we have our first Dick Eatter sock puppet gentlemen.

Demonizing others is less painful than accepting my own role in life
and death.

I'll respond to the following rant point by point:

You demonize yourselves...

Who is "yourselves," and I predict you'll misuse the word "demonize"
even after you check a reference.

The world of "normal" sane people.

and simply cannot stand the fact

Since when have you dealt w/ facts?

It is hard, considering you never give any.

there actually are some nice, caring people out there, who do things for the
benefits of others and nothing else

That's rare among ar/evs. Can you name one?

Lord Snooty.

, even so, since when has feeling
good about oneself been a crime?

When it requires hurting others.

Sometimes retards and deviants need to be made to do what's best for
them, which is why you are angry, it's a pride thing, but you have
nothing to feel proud about in reality.

Snip it there, KISS.

Doubt you'll like where I'll let you put it. Refer to the my... above.

I never go backwards.

'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

I'm not looking to win, but your record's worse than the Cubs',

Swamp, how apt.








'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

"Steve Dufour" wrote in message
m...
hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is
get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years
supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering.

Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least
suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'.

Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce.
.

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Steve Dufour" wrote in message
m...
hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is
get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years
supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering.

Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least
suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'.

Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce.
.
=====================
how often you going to spew this nonsense? Organic does not mean
cruelty-free, killer. Just like your inane posts to usenet, hypocrite.

"LordSnooty" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 04:53:32 GMT, swamp
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:16:25 -0400, LordSnooty
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:21:59 GMT, swamp
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:20:23 GMT, frlpwr wrote:

Jon wrote:

(snip)

"vegans", or so-called
"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.

Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?

The above should go like this:

If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

As long as we're shooting for accuracy, it should be:

If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat, therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer
and die,

Very good.

and make this point because it helps me ignore the death and
suffering my own diet causes.

What death and suffering?

That caused by your very existence.

Yes Dick Etter! RU related?

you have scientific, peer reviewed data that
a particular company, farm, product is a direct cause of wildlife
deaths?

The peer-reviewed study you suggest is about as necessary as one
showing starvation will cause starvation.

Yes Dick Etter! RU related 2 each other?

if so, show them and we can analyze your proof. Nothing allows
us to ignore any deaths of animals or humans.

But you do so every day. "Lordsnooty." my...

I do believe we have our first Dick Eatter sock puppet gentlemen.

Demonizing others is less painful than accepting my own role in life
and death.

I'll respond to the following rant point by point:

You demonize yourselves...

Who is "yourselves," and I predict you'll misuse the word "demonize"
even after you check a reference.

The world of "normal" sane people.
================
That sure leaves you and your family out of the loop, doesn't it killer?



and simply cannot stand the fact

Since when have you dealt w/ facts?

It is hard, considering you never give any.
=================
They've been given many times loser. You continue to ignore them so that
you can continue to kill animals willy-nilly. You just must like all the
killing you do, eh hypocrite?



there actually are some nice, caring people out there, who do things for
the
benefits of others and nothing else

That's rare among ar/evs. Can you name one?

Lord Snooty.
================
You aren't even vegan, you ignorant fool. You prove that with every
ignorant post you make to usenet, killer.



, even so, since when has feeling
good about oneself been a crime?

When it requires hurting others.

Sometimes retards and deviants need to be made to do what's best for
them, which is why you are angry, it's a pride thing, but you have
nothing to feel proud about in reality.
Snip it there, KISS.

Doubt you'll like where I'll let you put it. Refer to the my... above.

I never go backwards.

'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

I'm not looking to win, but your record's worse than the Cubs',

Swamp, how apt.








'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

"rick etter" wrote in message ...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Steve Dufour" wrote in message
m...
hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is
get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years
supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering.

Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least
suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'.

Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce.
.
=====================
how often you going to spew this nonsense? Organic does not mean
cruelty-free, killer. Just like your inane posts to usenet, hypocrite.

How often you going to spew this nonsense, killer?

"swamp" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:16:25 -0400, LordSnooty
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:21:59 GMT, swamp
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:20:23 GMT, frlpwr wrote:

Jon wrote:

(snip)

"vegans", or so-called
"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.

Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?

The above should go like this:

If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

As long as we're shooting for accuracy, it should be:

If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat, therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer
and die,

Very good.

and make this point because it helps me ignore the death and
suffering my own diet causes.

What death and suffering?

That caused by your very existence.

you have scientific, peer reviewed data that
a particular company, farm, product is a direct cause of wildlife
deaths?

The peer-reviewed study you suggest is about as necessary as one
showing starvation will cause starvation.

That's a false analogy, since one event (starving) will always cause
the same condition (starvation), but the same can't be said for the
other half of your analogy where one event (eating vegetables)
will always cause the same condition (collateral deaths). Before
showing you the fallacy in your argument over collateral deaths,
look again at the first premise in Jonathan Ball's syllogism at the
start of this thread.

"If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die."

This proposition is false, since the event (If I eat meat) always
assumes a necessary condition (I cause animals to suffer and die).

A necessary condition for an event is something which is
absolutely required to exist or happen if the event is to occur.
Ergo; causing suffering and death to animals is absolutely
required to exist or must happen if I am to eat meat.

A sufficient condition for an event, on the other hand, does
not have to exist for the event to occur, but if it exists, then
the event will occur. Ergo; causing animals to suffer and die
isn't absolutely required to exist or happen, since meat can
be sourced from animals which no one has caused to suffer
or die, but if it does suffer and die from natural causes or
accident, then I am still able to eat meat.

A more formal way for saying that one thing, p, is a sufficient
condition for some other thing, q, would be to say "if p then q,"
which is a standard hypothetical proposition. Confusing
necessary and sufficient conditions is one way to understand
how some of the rules of inference with hypothetical propositions
can be violated. The fallacy of affirming the consequent, for
example, makes the assumption that a sufficient condition is also
a necessary condition.
http://atheism.about.com/library/glo..._necessary.htm

Another example of affirming the consequent is shown in your
proposition, "If I eat vegetables, collateral deaths will occur."

This proposition is false; since the event (If I eat vegetables)
always assumes a necessary condition (collateral deaths will
occur).
Ergo; collateral deaths are absolutely required to exist or
must happen if I am to eat vegetables.

For the sufficient condition; collateral deaths aren't absolutely
required to exist or happen, but if they do exist, then I am still
able to eat vegetables. The fallacy of affirming the consequent,
for this example makes the same assumption as the last in that
a sufficient condition is also a necessary condition.
snip

Chelsea Gint wrote:
hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is
get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years
supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering.

Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least
suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'.

Oh, feel the love. Misanthrope.

Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce.
.

Hunting is eco-friendly. Have you seen how much destruction uncontrolled
ruminant populations can do to an ecosystem, much less when they start
to starve?

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:44:25 +0100, "Jane" wrote:


"swamp" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:16:25 -0400, LordSnooty
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:21:59 GMT, swamp
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:20:23 GMT, frlpwr wrote:

Jon wrote:

(snip)

"vegans", or so-called
"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.

Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?

The above should go like this:

If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

As long as we're shooting for accuracy, it should be:

If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat, therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer
and die,

Very good.

and make this point because it helps me ignore the death and
suffering my own diet causes.

What death and suffering?

That caused by your very existence.

you have scientific, peer reviewed data that
a particular company, farm, product is a direct cause of wildlife
deaths?

The peer-reviewed study you suggest is about as necessary as one
showing starvation will cause starvation.

That's a false analogy, since one event (starving) will always cause
the same condition (starvation), but the same can't be said for the
other half of your analogy where one event (eating vegetables)
will always cause the same condition (collateral deaths). Before
showing you the fallacy in your argument over collateral deaths,
look again at the first premise in Jonathan Ball's syllogism at the
start of this thread.

"If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die."

This proposition is false, since the event (If I eat meat) always
assumes a necessary condition (I cause animals to suffer and die).

A necessary condition for an event is something which is
absolutely required to exist or happen if the event is to occur.
Ergo; causing suffering and death to animals is absolutely
required to exist or must happen if I am to eat meat.

A sufficient condition for an event, on the other hand, does
not have to exist for the event to occur, but if it exists, then
the event will occur. Ergo; causing animals to suffer and die
isn't absolutely required to exist or happen, since meat can
be sourced from animals which no one has caused to suffer
or die, but if it does suffer and die from natural causes or
accident, then I am still able to eat meat.

A more formal way for saying that one thing, p, is a sufficient
condition for some other thing, q, would be to say "if p then q,"
which is a standard hypothetical proposition. Confusing
necessary and sufficient conditions is one way to understand
how some of the rules of inference with hypothetical propositions
can be violated. The fallacy of affirming the consequent, for
example, makes the assumption that a sufficient condition is also
a necessary condition.
http://atheism.about.com/library/glo..._necessary.htm

Another example of affirming the consequent is shown in your
proposition, "If I eat vegetables, collateral deaths will occur."

This proposition is false; since the event (If I eat vegetables)
always assumes a necessary condition (collateral deaths will
occur).
Ergo; collateral deaths are absolutely required to exist or
must happen if I am to eat vegetables.

For the sufficient condition; collateral deaths aren't absolutely
required to exist or happen, but if they do exist, then I am still
able to eat vegetables. The fallacy of affirming the consequent,
for this example makes the same assumption as the last in that
a sufficient condition is also a necessary condition.
snip

Lol, well that's certainly putting it straight, be gentle on them,
they have barely left building block, word associations yet.







'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:45:02 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Chelsea Gint wrote:
hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is
get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years
supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering.

Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least
suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'.

Oh, feel the love. Misanthrope.

It's a good statement, I see no reason for it to happen.

Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce.
.

Hunting is eco-friendly.

Hunting is an abuse of wildlife, usually by lard arse, unemployed
deviants, who also subject their families to the same abuse.

Have you seen how much destruction uncontrolled
ruminant populations can do to an ecosystem, much less when they start
to starve?

Hunting does not control wildlife populations, aside from keeping them
artificially high to provide amusement for bullies.







'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

LardShit wrote:
hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is
get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years
supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering.

Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least
suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'.

Oh, feel the love. Misanthrope.

It's a good statement, I see no reason for it to happen.

Your base hatred of your fellow man is also well known.

Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce.
.

Hunting is eco-friendly.

Hunting is an abuse of wildlife, usually by lard arse, unemployed
deviants, who also subject their families to the same abuse.

Oh, so you hunt?

Have you seen how much destruction uncontrolled
ruminant populations can do to an ecosystem, much less when they start
to starve?

Hunting does not control wildlife populations, aside from keeping them
artificially high to provide amusement for bullies.

You've never supported such claims with facts.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:54:55 GMT, usual suspect who is actually NoNuts
J Ball wrote:

LardShit wrote:
hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is
get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years
supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering.

Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least
suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'.

Oh, feel the love. Misanthrope.

It's a good statement, I see no reason for it to happen.

Your base hatred of your fellow man is also well known.

You think it unfair I don't like deviants who are proud of the
suffering they cause to animals and humans? tough.

Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce.
.

Hunting is eco-friendly.

Hunting is an abuse of wildlife, usually by lard arse, unemployed
deviants, who also subject their families to the same abuse.

Oh, so you hunt?

Only deviants.

Have you seen how much destruction uncontrolled
ruminant populations can do to an ecosystem, much less when they start
to starve?

Hunting does not control wildlife populations, aside from keeping them
artificially high to provide amusement for bullies.

You've never supported such claims with facts.

I don't need to, anyone who has ever studied dynamics of wildlife
controls know the score, hunters know it very well.








'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

"Useless Subject" wrote in message
...

C. James Strutz wrote:
Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal
casualties
in products they buy and use.

They wouldn't make outlandish moral claims if they knew and accepted
that.

I agree that most vegans don't think beyond steak=animal. I also agree that
there are other animal casualties involved in vegetable production. But
vegetable production is also a significant component of livestock
production. The issue should be how to minimize animal casualties since they
cannot be practically eliminated.

Let's compare two cases (normalizing to one "steer unit"). Case 1: how many
total animal casualties may be attributed to the steer being slaughtered for
food? Case 2: how many total animal casualties are incurred during the same
period of time for people eating only vegetable produce?

Let's list the ways that lives are lost in Case 1.
- the steer's life
- animal casualties to production of food for the steer
- animal casualties to transporting the steer and food for the steer
- incidental animals casualties

Same for Case 2:
- animal casualties to production of food for people
- animal casualties to transporting food for people
- incidental animal casualties

I contend that the steer is a relatively inefficient converter of grain to
meat (losses from conversion of food to calories, excretion, etc.) in terms
of volume. More people could be fed from the grain a steer eats in it's
lifetime than the steer's meat would feed. Converting the steer's meat to an
equivalent amount of grain, it's easy to see that more grain must be
produced in Case 1 than in Case 2. Therefore, there are proportionally more
animal casualties in Case 1 than in Case 2.

Many veg-ns are shocked and stunned to learn their diet does
*nothing* to eliminate animal suffering and death.

I believe that veg-n diet does reduce animal deaths.

The idea is to minimize animal casualties
through the choices they make.

No, the idea is to assume a moralistic posture and make judgmental
assessments of the dietary choices of others. If each and every animal
has a soul or some amount of sentience, how many voles, rats, mice,
birds, fish, deer, rabbits, skunks, etc., does it take to consider the
balance tilted toward harm? IOW, how many animal casualties do you
justify before meat consumption is morally acceptable?

That's a question that people have to answer for themselves. The issue that
you have with some vegans is that they don't respect other people's
individuality.

If the goal is minimization, they needn't go to the extreme of veganism.
Plenty of humane alternatives are available which would allow them to
have their steak and eat it, too. Those alternatives include hunting,
grass-fed beef, and home-grown livestock.

Well, there is still the matter of the life of the steer. Grass-fed beef is
a better alternative than grain-fed beef.

You must get over your confusion about the minimization issue. The
solution offered is radical, and has very little, if any, bearing on
markets that could be affected were more moderate steps taken.

I'm not confused about minimization. I think you are too anal in your
anti-vegan stance. And it's quite odd that coming from a vegan.

Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc.
because it contributes less to animal casualties.

Please justify your claim that veganism contributes less to animal
casualties.

See above.

The cattle industry is
responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties
than
vegan's collective contribution.

Strawman since cattle ranching in and of itself needn't rely on grain
for feed.

The vast majority of cattle ranching does rely on grain for feed.

You don't want vegans to know that because
it discredits your wild accusations.

You're the one engaging in deceit.

I think my points are quite valid.

"Jonathan Bald" wrote in message
nk.net...

Irrelevant, ASSHOLE. "Vegans" are not minimizing, and
they ONLY are claiming to be "virtuous" by means of an
invalid comparison. The correct comparison is not
"vegans" to meat eaters, ASSHOLE. The correct
comparison is animal deaths caused by "vegans" to human
deaths caused by "vegans" in the course of obtaining
food. The number of the former is vastly higher than
the latter, and we all know it.

You are incoherent. Get help.

C. James Putz wrote:
They wouldn't make outlandish moral claims if they knew and accepted
that.

I agree that most vegans don't think beyond steak=animal.

You should have stopped right here. This is the main issue.

I also agree that
there are other animal casualties involved in vegetable production. But
vegetable production is also a significant component of livestock
production.

Not entirely accurate. The market for grass-fed livestock is growing.

The issue should be how to minimize animal casualties since they
cannot be practically eliminated.

That would be a fine issue, but vegan activists aren't concerned with
minimization. The vegan "solution" is radical and based on the flawed
notion that not eating meat means no animals die.

Let's compare two cases (normalizing to one "steer unit"). Case 1: how many
total animal casualties may be attributed to the steer being slaughtered for
food? Case 2: how many total animal casualties are incurred during the same
period of time for people eating only vegetable produce?

Let's list the ways that lives are lost in Case 1.
- the steer's life
- animal casualties to production of food for the steer

Grass-fed animals -- wild game, cattle, lamb, etc. -- do not have
collateral deaths, aside from insects they step upon. Would you count those?

- animal casualties to transporting the steer and food for the steer
- incidental animals casualties

Your argument is valid only if we consider grain-fed animals.
Alternatives exist which do away with your second point.

Same for Case 2:
- animal casualties to production of food for people
- animal casualties to transporting food for people
- incidental animal casualties

I contend that the steer is a relatively inefficient converter of grain to
meat (losses from conversion of food to calories, excretion, etc.) in terms
of volume.

What about grass-fed beef? What about grass-fed lamb? What about game?
These are all valid alternatives.

More people could be fed from the grain a steer eats in it's
lifetime than the steer's meat would feed.

How many people could be fed from the grasses consumed by a deer,
buffalo, or cow?

Converting the steer's meat to an
equivalent amount of grain, it's easy to see that more grain must be
produced in Case 1 than in Case 2. Therefore, there are proportionally more
animal casualties in Case 1 than in Case 2.

I think most people would remain undisturbed by such details.

Many veg-ns are shocked and stunned to learn their diet does
*nothing* to eliminate animal suffering and death.

I believe that veg-n diet does reduce animal deaths.

Only marginally.

The idea is to minimize animal casualties
through the choices they make.

No, the idea is to assume a moralistic posture and make judgmental
assessments of the dietary choices of others. If each and every animal
has a soul or some amount of sentience, how many voles, rats, mice,
birds, fish, deer, rabbits, skunks, etc., does it take to consider the
balance tilted toward harm? IOW, how many animal casualties do you
justify before meat consumption is morally acceptable?

That's a question that people have to answer for themselves. The issue that
you have with some vegans is that they don't respect other people's
individuality.

Especially when based upon a flawed moralism.

If the goal is minimization, they needn't go to the extreme of veganism.
Plenty of humane alternatives are available which would allow them to
have their steak and eat it, too. Those alternatives include hunting,
grass-fed beef, and home-grown livestock.

Well, there is still the matter of the life of the steer. Grass-fed beef is
a better alternative than grain-fed beef.

What's so special about the life of a steer?

You must get over your confusion about the minimization issue. The
solution offered is radical, and has very little, if any, bearing on
markets that could be affected were more moderate steps taken.

I'm not confused about minimization. I think you are too anal in your
anti-vegan stance. And it's quite odd that coming from a vegan.

Address the issue rather than express your contempt for me. The solution
you offer is extreme on one end and doesn't even fix the problem on the
other. If people want to eat meat, encourage them to eat stuff that's
humanely raised and sustainable. Encourage them to hunt, get back to nature.

...
The cattle industry is
responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties
than
vegan's collective contribution.

Strawman since cattle ranching in and of itself needn't rely on grain
for feed.

The vast majority of cattle ranching does rely on grain for feed.

That can be changed if the market demands, and the market is starting to
push in that direction.

...