On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:10:15 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

><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.

How do you think cows kill?

>, 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?

Because it was only raised for food.