On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > 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.

But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible
and seems to make sense, can't you? Oh, wait - maybe not.


>> 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.

**** off.


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

You ought to have. If you don't, you're trying not to have any idea.


>> 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.

No, that's false. You do not lack any belief one way or another. We
know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
agriculture kills animals. You have *some* sense as to what might be a
plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.


>
> (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?)

Obviously.


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

Fine.


>> 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.

That's false. You have information on what might be plausible numbers.