On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On 16 Okt., 18:38, dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:06:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>> >On Oct 11, 10:55 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:42:06 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 10, 9:58 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:24:24 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >On Oct 9, 8:06 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 09:37:18 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888 >
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Oct 8, 9:01 am, Rupert > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Oct 8, 5:45 pm, spamtrap1888 > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > On Oct 8, 4:50 am, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > On Sep 21, 8:00 am, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > > On 9/20/2012 3:04 PM, Just.Some.guy wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > Check this out Its great
>> >> >> >> >> > > > >http://youtu.be/1LIyVBWaE_A
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > > It's shit. It's unpalatable shit.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > How would you be in a position to know?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > > Why are "vegans" continually trying to make stuff look like and taste
>> >> >> >> >> > > > like meat? *Extremely* suspicious.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > Why?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > Why do you think they call vegan meat Satan?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> I didn't realize they did call it that.
>>
>> >> >> >> >They changed the spelling to throw people off the track.:
>>
>> >> >> >> >http://www.vrg.org/recipes/vjseitan.htm
>>
>> >> >> >> It almost certainly involves more animal deaths than grass raised beef, and
>> >> >> >> in some cases grain fed beef. Not as bad as rice based products, but still worse
>> >> >> >> than grass raised beef if not grain fed as well.
>>
>> >> >> >How do you know?
>>
>> >> >> The only way it could not is if there are no wildlife in the area where the
>> >> >> grain is grown. Of course with rice it's not a question due to the flooding and
>> >> >> draining in addition to all the machinery and chemical deaths.
>>
>> >> >I don't really find your remarks convincing. We did an examination of
>> >> >one estimate for the expected collateral death rate associated with a
>> >> >serving of tofu in the past, and it turned out to be less than the
>> >> >corresponding estimate for grass-fed beef.
>>
>> >> I don't remember that, but feel that an estimate for number of deaths per
>> >> serving of grass raised beef should be much less than one.
>>
>> >Yes, we did agree on that point.
>>
>> * * The only way the average for tofu could be less than for beef would be if
>> there are no wildlife in the fields. That's not true with the cattle. Many
>> wildlife that would die in soybean fields thrive and do well in grazing areas.
>> It's another one of those things you don't like apparently, but it's true none
>> the less. Maybe you could learn to appreciate this one, and accept it? Or no?
>
>We've been through this before. We did an estimate both for the tofu
>and the beef.

I remember something about the beef and nothing about the tofu. It would
depend on how much wildlife is around with the soy. If there's a lot around,
then a lot would be killed. Only after all the wildlife is killed off in the
area would there no longer be lots of wildlife deaths due to growing soy. The
same is not true with grass raised beef, since cows eating grass kill few if any
wild animals. Sometimes predators are killed so they don't kill the cattle, but
doing so benefits wildlife and pets as well as the cattle so that aspect needs
to be considered as well as the predators' deaths. Especially in cases where the
predators had already been killed off and removed years ago, then were
re-introduced, and then had to be killed of and removed yet AGAIN! It doesn't
count the second time imo, since they shouldn't have been back to need killing
again.