"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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.
=============
No, it is not. No crops are grown for the beef I buy and eat. No crops
are grown for the game I eat.
You've now lost on that count, because now I can easily replace 100s of
1000s of calories with the deaths of just a couple of animals,
from that many calories of factory-farmed, mono culture crop foods. Where
is the benefit in fewer/less/no animal deaths and suffering by eating all my
calories in veggies?



The issue should be how to minimize animal casualties since they
> cannot be practically eliminated.
==================
By including meat. that should be obvious to even the most brain-dead
vegan. It seems to go right over all their heads though.
Why is that? Because they have only simple rules to live by. Simple rules
for simple minds. Meat bad, veggie good. regardless
of the circumstances.


>
> 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?
=====================
1

Case 2: how many total animal casualties are incurred during the same
> period of time for people eating only vegetable produce?
====================
100s, 1000s? None of you *compassionate* vegan types really care to find
out.



>
> 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
=================
none needed. grass grows just fine. without any extra inputs. Cows, being
what they are, well, cows, can convert that grass into human edible protein
without any intervention from us at all. There also is no need for hormanes
or routine anti-biotics for growing cows. Again, grass does just fine.
Now, how often to you eat grass?


> - animal casualties to transporting the steer and food for the steer
================
none needed. Cows are grown right here, slaughtered right here, and eaten
right here. Again, there is no need for transporting grass as it grows just
fine all by itself.

> - incidental animals casualties
=================
Which would be what? Those run over by plows, harvesters, sprayers? Don't
think so, none needed. Those that are poisoned to protect the storage
silos? Don't think so.


>
> Same for Case 2:
> - animal casualties to production of food for people
==================
100s, 1,000s, 1,000,000s? How many you want?

> - animal casualties to transporting food for people
=======================
Don't forget processing too. Changing your soy into tofu meat substitutes
is a process intensive operation requiring lots of power.


> - incidental animal casualties
=================
millions poisoned deliberatly, millions poisoned by pesticides, how many
killed in the production of the petro-chemical industry that provides all
the fuels, power, poisons needed to put your *eco* veggies on your plate.


>
> 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.
=====================
Really? You contend this do you? How good are you at converting grass to
protein? I contend that you are very inefficient at this, to the extreme of
non-existant.
What resources need to go into growing grass? millions of pounds of
ferts/pesticides? Don't think so. millions of gallons of fuel? Millions
of kilowatts? Nope, don't think so. what's left? Oh yaeh, it does use up
a lot of precious sunlight that you could be using to tan with, right?



More people could be fed from the grain a steer eats in it's
> lifetime than the steer's meat would feed.
==========================
Really? How much grass you figure it takes to keep you alive? Besides,
your background implication that the world is starving because some people
eat meat is just another vegan delusional ly.



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.
==================
Really? You must have missed math class those days thay did addition, eh?



Therefore, there are proportionally more
> animal casualties in Case 1 than in Case 2.
======================
Wrong. your stupidity knows no bounds, does it killer?


>
> > 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.
=====================
I believe you're wrong, and you';ve yet to prove that you are right.


>
> > > 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.
======================
Um... How much better? care to redo your above *calculations*?


>
> > 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.
==================
You didn't show any such thing...


>
> > > 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.
======================
And you do nothing to make any changes in that production.
meat eaters, on the other hand, are making changes. You can look for
grass-fed, free range meats anywhere now. Your following simple rules
eliminates any part you could have in making these changes come about.
Stopping eating meat is just a blip, not even regeristing. Even if somehow
you managed to make a dent in the meat demand, all you would accomplish is
the greater 'suffering' that you claim factory-farmed animals now endure.
Producers aren't just going to throw up their hands and quit, they're going
to put even more animals into the same system designed for fewer to make up
the loses by producing even cheaper. We provide an alternative, a
lucrative, and more eco-friendly alternative. Try thinking with what ever
part of your brain isn't fried for a change.

>
> > > 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.
================
No, they are not. They are the same old diatribes without any thought.


Now, go have that nice blood-drenched dinner, hypocrite.

>
>