<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:54:58 -0800, "Dutch" lied:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 02:41:47 +0000 (UTC), Jahbulon
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Dutch" > wrote in news >>>>
>>>>> Why don't you do some research and report back
>>>>> to the group instead of tossing out questions
>>>>> and hoping others will do the work for you?
>>>>
>>>>I don't know where to start. My only experience is non-leather belts
>>>>that
>>>>seem to break within about a week, and shoes that don't last as long as
>>>>those made of leather.
>>>
>>> You're almost certainly contributing to more cds every time you buy
>>> those
>>> things than you would be if you bought leather, unless those things
>>> don't
>>> involve any cds at all as leather doesn't.
>>
>>That's a lie.
>
> You're lying. You can't say every death associated with the animal is
> also
> associated with every single product and part of product that results in
> the
> animal having lived and died.

You can and you must.

For example if a grass raised steer was
> responsible for 12 significant deaths of other animals like rodents and
> reptiles, which is probably extremely high

You don't have the slightest idea if it's high or not.

, and the animal was raised for beef,
> then the 12 deaths are split amoung however many servings of beef resulted
> from
> butchering. That being the case those deaths can't ALSO be AGAIN counted
> for the
> by-products which the animal was not specifically raised for. Not for
> leather,
> not for fertilizer, not for pet food...

Every product derived from the animal shares in the resultant death toll.
Why would pet food and leather be exempt?