View Single Post
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> 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.


http://home.datawest.net/esn-recover...ts%20presented
19. Ignore facts presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a
variant of the 'play dumb' rule.

>>> 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.


Yes, it certainly is. We do NOT live in a "count-by-numbers" world.
Collateral deaths are a *fact* in agriculture, a fact wholly disregarded
in vegan ideology.

>>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?


The post is credible, it is evidence.

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

>
> ahem:

-snip-
> and etc....


Predictable.

Matheny's bag of strawmen does not dissuade from the conclusions
as presented by Davis et al, actual scientists. Pastured ruminents
represents a legitimate refutation to the vegan theorem.

>>> 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.


More disinformation, demanding numbers, waving arms, do not
make the truth evaporate.

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

>
> You are projecting.


You are in denial, no doubt experiencing cognitive dissonance.

>>> 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.


No you don't think, or you'd have shaken the sawdust out of your head
already.

>>> 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.


No it's not, the evidence is sufficient to disprove the theory,
reducing animal products does not, per se, reduce animal
deaths. Collateral deaths causes that theory to collapse. A
single large animal is one death, a kilo of rice may be many.

>>> 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.


If you are a typical vegan, I am undoubtedly wasting my time,
but it's my time after all.