On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:50:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:26:28 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>A demand for exact statistics is an attempt at disinformation.

That's ridiculous. Sounds to me like you just cannot provide them.
>
>> 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.

No, it isn't sufficient.

>This is not a counting game.
>Here are a couple of links where the topic is discussed.
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ba873733af8008

Ok, a google post is hardly good evidence. What do you think I am, an
illiterate farmhand?

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

ahem:

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob.../leastharm.htm

In his article, “Least Harm,” Steven Davis (2003) accepts the common
moral intuition that we should cause the least harm (the “least harm
principle”) but challenges the empirical claim that vegetarian diets
do in fact cause the least harm. Davis argues the number of wild
animals (mice, rabbits, amphibians, birds, and other species) who are
killed in crop production from “plowing, disking, harrowing, planting,
cultivating, applying herbicides and pesticides as well as harvesting”
is greater than the number of wild animals and farmed animals who die
in ruminant-pasture production. Given the least harm principle, Davis
concludes the collective adoption of an omnivorous diet consisting
both of free-range ruminant meat and vegetarian fare would be more
ethical than that of a strictly vegetarian (vegan) diet.[2]

While eating animals who are grazed rather than intensively confined
would vastly improve the welfare of farmed animals given their current
mistreatment, Davis does not succeed in showing this is preferable to
vegetarianism. First, Davis makes a mathematical error in using total
rather than per capita estimates of animals killed; second, he focuses
on the number of animals killed in ruminant and crop production
systems and ignores important considerations about the welfare of
animals under both systems; and third, he does not consider the number
of animals who are prevented from existing under the two systems.
After correcting for these errors, Davis’s argument makes a strong
case for, rather than against, adopting a vegetarian diet.

and etc....

>
>> 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.

No, they aren't. Please provide real numbers.

>What is
>irrational, and disingenuous, is to refuse to consider collateral deaths
>based on an absence of exact numbers.

You are projecting.

>
>> 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.

I think you are not familiar with rational thought.

>
>> 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.

It;s on you to prove it.

>
>> 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.


Or maybe you are just a nut case with nothing better to do.