> wrote
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:26:28 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Sprang" > wrote
>>> "rick" > wrote:
>>
>>>> Why? Your diet can and does kill many more animals than some
>>>> diets that include meat. So what's the point of a simple rule
>>>> for simple minds?
>>>
>>> What's the point of trolling a vegetarian newsgroup if you're not a
>>> vegetarian? Do you visit a different group every day or something?
>>
>>He's posting from an ethics forum. Do you always call people names when
>>they
>>challenge your position?
>>
>>> And who said anything about a simple rule/ I said it was a website. And
>>> the
>>> fact that the website is called LessMeat.com implies that it is about
>>> eating less meat, not applying some simple rule you posit.
>>
>>That site clearly presents the fallacy that "less meat" = "less animal
>>death",
>>among others. The site is essentially a series of strawmen.
>
> Do you have exact statistic about how many animals die from
> one acre's worth of,say, brown rice?

A demand for exact statistics is an attempt at disinformation.

> First, we would need to know how many pounds of brown rice per acre,
> then figure out how many animal deaths per pound of brown rice.

No you don't, it is sufficient to know if such deaths occur at all, and
if they occur in small or large numbers. This is not a counting game.
Here are a couple of links where the topic is discussed.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ba873733af8008

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm

> Then we would need to figure out how many animal deaths there
> are per pound of meat, depending on which kind of animal it is.

Again estimates are adequate to form a rational conclusion. What is
irrational, and disingenuous, is to refuse to consider collateral deaths
based on an absence of exact numbers.

> What I mean is, what is the average amout of beef, pork, chicken
> that meat eaters eat.

Ethics is never based on averages, it's based on individual actions.
A person who substitutes X amount of fresh salmon in place of
Y amount of commercially produced rice or soya-based substitute is
probably enhancing their health and causing fewer animal deaths.

> Obvioulsy, chicken eaters cause more
> animal deaths than beef eaters, but most people eat a combination.

It's equally obvious to me that regular consumers of free-range or hunted
meat, or freshly caught fish cause fewer animal deaths than most urban
vegans.

> without those numbers, it's all fluff.

The idea of collateral deaths in agriculture is not fluff, it's a
dagger in the heart of radical veganism.