On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 02:35:13 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote
>> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:43:31 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>>If I eat a 6oz steak from a moose with a carcass weight of
>>>1500lb, I am responsible for 1/3000 of an animal death.
>>
>> Then why didn't you tackle Jon when he wrote;
>>
>> "The wish to avoid or reduce personal culpability actually leads some
>> "vegans" and omnivores alike to view animal deaths, incorrectly, as
>> divisible. Many on both sides subscribe to a bizarre and erroneous
>> belief that one can be responsible for some discrete fraction of an
>> animal death. Somewhat surprisingly, the argument seems to be found
>> more commonly among omnivores, most often when they talk about
>> the number of meals that may be had from the meat from one large
>> animal; they'll talk about a "fraction of a death" attributable to one
>> hamburger, for example.
>>
>> The animal deaths are indivisible. If the food production that caused the
>> 1000 collateral deaths yielded food to feed 100,000 people (that would be
>> some yield!), the eaters cannot say that they only "caused" 1/100th of a
>> death. They all, collectively, are responsible for all 1000 deaths.
>> Similarly, if a dressed steer carcass yields 250 pounds of edible beef,
>> and those are made into 500 half-pound servings, those who eat them
>> cannot say they only "caused" 1/500th of a death; they ALL caused one
>> full death, together.
>>
>> The point is to compare the total numbers. One *could* eat a fish,
>> causing one animal death; or one could eat a serving of rice that came
>> from a particular crop whose cultivation and harvest caused 1000 deaths.
>> The rice eater caused 1000 deaths."
>> Jonathan Ball as Ted Bell http://tinyurl.com/4blce
>
>I didn't argue the point because I didn't read it. I may discuss it with him
>at some point

No, you won't. You'd rather continue trying to "reduce
personal culpability" for the deaths you're responsible for
instead. You won't take on Jon, coward, because unlike
me you're never ready to take on members of your own
side that you disagree with.

>> Also, why hasn't Jon tackled you for trying to "reduce personal
>> culpability" for the deaths you're responsible for?
>
>I can't speak for him

I can though, in this case. He won't hammer you for trying
to "reduce personal culpability" for the deaths you cause,
because, as we all know, Jon has a double standard and
won't criticise meatarians directly.

> and I am not "trying to reduce" anything.

You certainly are by subscribing "to a bizarre and erroneous
belief that one can be responsible for some discrete fraction
of an animal death. Somewhat surprisingly, the argument
seems to be found more commonly among omnivores, most
often when they talk about the number of meals that may be
had from the meat from one large animal; they'll talk about a
"fraction of a death" attributable to one hamburger, for example"

And here's what you wrote;

"I am responsible for 1/3000 of an animal death."

You'll get a free pass though, so don't worry about being
attacked by Jon on this; he has double standards.