On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:39:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:

>On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 23:50:46 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>wrote:
>
>>On Mar 8, 10:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:18:44 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Mar 6, 11:55*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:01:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>>> >> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >On Mar 5, 8:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>> >> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:35:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> >On 2 Mrz., 16:43, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> >> 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.
>>>
>>> >> >> * * We were discussing soy because I am overly generous, just as I also was with
>>> >> >> the estimate of 5 deaths related to a type of animal that is often likely to
>>> >> >> produce none.
>>>
>>> >> >> >But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
>>> >> >> >calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.
>>>
>>> >> >> * * Rice would necessarily involve even more than soy. If you figure up the
>>> >> >> difference between grass raised milk and rice milk the difference would be even
>>> >> >> more huge in favor of the cow milk. HUGE!!!
>>>
>>> >> >> >> *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.
>>>
>>> >> >> * * In some cases soy causes more and in some beef causes more. Can you get that
>>> >> >> far along with it, doctor?
>>>
>>> >> >If that is the case, then it seems unlikely that, as you claimed, one
>>> >> >serving of soy product is likely to involve hundreds of times as many
>>> >> >death as a calorically equivalent serving of grass-fed beef. So you
>>> >> >should stop making that claim.
>>>
>>> >> * * You haven't thought this through enough to make such a claim, since you're
>>> >> only now--IF you finally are now--beginning to accept the fact that beef
>>> >> sometimes involves less.
>>>
>>> >I don't have any way of knowing, do I?
>>>
>>> * * It's easy to figure that sometimes beef causes fewer and sometimes soy does,
>>> depending on the conditions. It's a safe enough bet that there are grass raised
>>> cattle who kill little or no other animals, and also that there are situations
>>> in which soy production results in many deaths. About the only time soy does not
>>> involve many deaths is when there are not many animals in the area because
>>> they've been killed off in the past.
>>>
>>> >You refuse to give *any* estimate at all for the death rate associated
>>> >with one serving of tofu.
>>>
>>> * * So do you.
>>
>>Yes, but I'm not making any claims which would require such an
>>estimate to back them up.
>
> You're being critical of mine, which is close enough that you need to come
>up with an estimate of your own. You're afraid to confess to yourself that there
>are any though, which is why you're very afraid to make any sort of estimate.

It appears I was correct about that.

>>> >If you do not have any idea of any range
>>> >into which the number falls, then you're not in a position to make any
>>> >comparisons.
>>>
>>> * * Neither are you. That being the case it doesn't make sense for you to have
>>> made your extreme dietary choice (veg*nism) based on something you don't know
>>> anything about.
>>> . . .
>>>
>>
>>Modern animal farming causes a lot of suffering. Also, most animal
>>food products require more crop production,
>
> If you don't like that then it's reason for you TO buy grass raised
>products, not a reason not to.
>. . .
>>I am not in a position to know what difference it would make if I
>>replaced some of the tofu in my diet with 100% grass-fed beef (and I
>>think it would take a bit of effort to make sure it really was 100%
>>grass-fed beef all year round) and I have never claimed to be in a
>>position to know. You, on the other hand, have claimed to be in a
>>position to know, but it looks like you actually aren't, so you should
>>stop making the claim.
>
> I'm in a position to know that some beef involves less deaths than some soy
>products, and just by doing that I have surpassed you by a LONG way regarding
>this particular issue. You still have not been able to even get to the starting
>line. Throughout your entire life you STILL haven't gotten to the starting line
>yet, and even if you eventually do that still doesn't mean you'll be able to
>move on. To get "to" the starting line you would have to acknowledge the fact to
>yourself that sometimes beef involves fewer deaths than soy. To move on from
>that point would involve considering particular examples of when it does and
>when it does not.

Try to get to the starting line. It will be uncomfortable for you, but will
make you a better person if you can ever get there.