<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:56:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:27:56 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> See if you and some students can calculate how many more
>>>>> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
>>>>> if humans did not.
>>>>
>>>>Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,
>>>
>>> Close enough would be close enough.
>>
>>No,
>
> Yes, it sure would.
>
>>impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, one
>>tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the food
>>resource support for 100,000 field mice,
>
> Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer?

Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares.

>
>>but who knows? The good thing is
>>that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never
>>exist,
>>I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to care
>>about them is UTILITY.
>
> As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by
> your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals
> themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which
> practices are and are not cruel TO THEM.

That's a lie and a diversion, selfishness is not an issue. I don't care if
cattle are born or if the natural resources are left to support wildlife
like mice, or any combination of the two, except inasmuch as I want the
small amount of organic beef I occasionally consume. Causing cattle to be
born to consume grass and grain and water is not *good* or *better* in any
objective sense, apart from our desire to use those animals to produce meat
and other products. You're wasting your breath with this fool's argument.
The only allies you have are a couple of AR clods who share a common foe.