> wrote in message
...
> 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?
>
> 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.
> 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.
> What I mean is, what is the average amout of beef, pork,
> chicken
> that meat eaters eat. Obvioulsy, chicken eaters cause more
> animal deaths than beef eaters, but most people eat a
> combination.
>
> without those numbers, it's all fluff.
=====================
LOL Exactly. It makes vegan claims bogus, since they don't
"know" that their diet is better, doesn't it?


>
>
> tracy
>
>