"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

I showed no contempt for you in this post aside from referring to you as
"Useless Subject" above. I answered you carefully in the same tone in which
you asked me to explain myself. My use of the word 'anal' wasn't meant to be
insulting in any way. It was simply the best word I could use to explain how
I feel about your position on this issue. Having meaningful dialogue with
you is much more constructive than slinging mud at each other.

I am out of this thread for now. I will be away from computers for the
weekend. I'll be hunting mushrooms, not deer!

>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.
>
> <...>
>