> wrote in message
...
> 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.
=================
LOL Then whee's you proof. The whole argument rests on the
claims from veg*ns thet they somehow cause either no animals, or
fewer animals for their diet. They've never provided any [proof
of those claims at all. Others have, however, presented many
many site to prove that you diet can and does kill millions upon
millions of animals in far more brutal, inhumane ways that food
animals experience.
>>
>>> 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.
====================
LOL Of course not, as long as you keep your eyes closed and your
delusions intact...
>
>>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.
==================
You fist, killer.
>
>>What is
>>irrational, and disingenuous, is to refuse to consider
>>collateral deaths
>>based on an absence of exact numbers.
>
> You are projecting.
==============
You're dodging....
>
>>
>>> 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.
======================
You wouldn't know, that's obvious...
>
>>
>>> 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.
=================
Wow, what a refutation! Got any more proff like that one? What
a maroon....
>
>