On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
> >>> "veganism" is not a reliable means
>
> >> * *· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> >> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> >> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
> >> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
> >> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
> >> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
> >> in order to be successful:
>
> >> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
> >> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
> >> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
> >> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
> >> gelatin capsules, *adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
> >> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
> >> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
>
> >> * * *The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
> >> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
> >> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
> >> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
> >> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
> >> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
> >> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
> >> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
> >> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
> >> being vegan.
> >> * * *From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> >> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> >> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> >> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> >> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> >> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> >> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> >> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> >> derived from grass raised animals.
>
> > You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
> > for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
> > for it you are unable to provide any.
>
> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
> strong logical case to be made. *What do you think the number of deaths
> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? *How many deaths can
> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
> paddy?
>

I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.

> Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the
> products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice,
> refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus
> solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product -
> that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the
> primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer.
>
> There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you
> have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. *There
> can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer
> animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself.
>
> Forget about ****wit's lack of hard evidence. *You have to make a wholly
> implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
> of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.

I never said anything about rice.

But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.

> *Now
> I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
> believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
> CDs than the beef.

No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
evidence one way or the other.

(I assume you're talking about fully grass-fed beef, by the way, the
cattle are put out to pasture the whole year round. Yes?)

In any case I never said anything about rice. I was talking about
tofu.

> *You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't
> believe it.

I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have
sufficient information.

Suppose I wanted to go about buying some beef which had a smaller CD
count per serving than a typical calorically equivalent serving of
rice. How exactly would you suggest I go about doing that, given that
I live in the European Union at the moment? How would I be sure that
the beef was not partially grain-fed?