Rupert wrote:

>
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>>Rupert wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>>Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and suffering results from
>>>>cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting, storage protection, etc, etc..
>>>
>>>(1) The number of animals involved is greater, and
>>>(2) The suffering inflicted on each animal is greater.
>>>
>>>Perhaps (1) is false when we take into account all the animals killed
>>>by the plant production necessitated by animal food production.
>>
>>Don't engage in _tu quoque_ if you want to claim that one diet is
>>ethical or even more ethical compared to others.
>>
>
>
> It wasn't a question of engaging in "tu quoque", I was just
> acknowledging a possible point that might be made. Why shouldn't I make
> this point?
>
>
>>>But it's not false if we're only talking about the amount of plant
>>>production that would be necessary to support universal veganism.
>>
>>Have you studied food science or agriculture? I'm curious how you know
>>so much about how many vegans the earth can support, etc.
>>
>>Anyway, (1) would be true regardless of how many vegans there are
>>because we would still farm using pesticides (organic production also
>>uses pesticides, so don't try to pull any BS about it) and mechanized
>>equipment -- and on a larger scale.
>>
>
>
> (1) is the claim that the number of animals killed who are actually
> farmed for their food is greater than the number of collateral deaths
> caused by the food production required for universal veganism. It would
> not be true if there was universal veganism.
>
>
>>>Davis estimates the death toll at 1.8 billion. More animals than that are
>>>killed in animal food production. And each animal suffers considerably
>>>more.
>>
>>Being fed, given clean water, and watched closely for sound health is
>>suffering?
>
>
> I do believe animals suffer considerably on factory-farms. I have given
> my references elsewhere.

Stop with the factory farms crapola. That isn't really
your objection. Your objection to meat is categorical;
it's to meat _per se_, not to any particular methods of
obtaining the stuff.



>>Do you think that list in my previous post is more "humane"
>>treatment?
>>1. Internal bleeding from poisoning (pesticides, herbicides)
>>2. Being run over by a tractor
>>3. Being crushed by a plow
>>4. Being sliced and diced by various tractor implements
>>5. Drowning (from irrigation)
>>6. Suffocation (which happens to aquatic life when rice fields are drained)
>>7. Being burned alive (straw is often burned after harvest)
>>
>>
>>>>I see, so it's fine to cause death and suffering of animals when it fits
>>>>conveniently into your chosen lifestyle but not when it fits into mine.
>>>
>>>That's not a very reasonable interpretation of my argument.
>>
>>I think it's quite a reasonable interpretation of your argument.
>>
>
>
> Well, you're wrong.

No, he isn't. In fact, it's the best interpretation of
your argument.


>>>I believe
>>>that, on any reasonable interpretation of this principle, this will
>>>require veganism or near-veganism.
>>
>>Funny that. You take an animal rights activist's ideas to heart and then
>>justify veganism accordingly. That doesn't show much thought on your
>>part, but the world does need followers.
>>
>
>
> If you think there's a problem with my conclusions, tell me what it is.

I've told you several times. Mr. Suspect agrees with
my assessment.


>>>It's not altogether clear to me that
>>>it requires me to stop supporting commercial agriculture.
>>
>>You summarized DaGrazia thusly:
>>
>> Make every reasonable effort to avoid providing financial
>> support to practices that cause or support unnecessary harm.
>>
>>Let me ask you which YOU consider more "necessary" between advancing
>>medicine through vivisection and running over animals with combines,
>>poisoning them, etc.
>>
>
>
> The latter. It's necessary to provide food.

So you really aren't concerned with animal suffering.
Orders of magnitude more animals are killed and/or made
to suffer in crop agriculture than in medical research
and testing, and the overwhelming majority of the few
animals used in medical research and testing are used
and then euthanized relatively humanely.


>>
>>>>A typical vegan could reduce the net amount of animal death and suffering
>>>>associated with his or her diet by the introduction of some carefully
>>>>selected meat, fish or game, a person who supplements their diet by hunting
>>>>or fishing for example.
>>>
>>>Fishing? Fishing involves a fairly high death rate per serving of food.
>>
>>No, it doesn't. One large fish provides many meals. Catch your own and
>>there's no bycatch.
>>
>
>
> If you're lucky enough to get a large fish.

One adult salmon, a very common fish, will feed dozens
of people.

We see, though, that you have an excuse ready-to-hand.
As always.


>>>I would want to see some more evidence that fishing will do any good.
>>
>>Meat from a 20-pound fish will dress out at about half that, providing
>>ten pounds of meat. At a quarter pound per serving, you have 40 meals'
>>worth of fish. One dead fish, 40 meals.
>>
>>How many animals die so you can have rice and beans? Better yet, tell us
>>if you eat any of the fake meat products made from soy and/or gluten.
>>
>
>
> Not very often. Only sometimes when I go out to restaurants.
>
>
>>>And one problem with hunting is that not all of the animals are killed,
>>>some of them are just seriously maimed.
>>
>>Then practice your shot before you go hunting, only shoot what you can
>>visually identify, and only shoot when you have confidence that you'll
>>kill it.
>>
>>
>>>So the amount of suffering and
>>>death caused per serving of food is higher than it appears at first.
>>
>>No, you're straining with some very ridiculous excuses.
>>
>>
>>>Where do you suggest I go hunting, anyway?
>>
>>In what area do you live?
>>
>
>
> North Sydney.
>
>
>>>Or where do you suggest I buy my meat?
>>
>> From a local producer of grazed ruminants.
>>
>
>
> I'm not convinced that would reduce my contribution to animal
> suffering, for reasons given in an article I linked to earlier.

You haven't really given it honest consideration.
You've looked for excuses not to give it honest
consideration, because you're a priori biased against meat.


>>>And what is your evidence that this will actually *reduce*
>>>the amount of animal death and suffering I contribute to?
>>
>>Where's YOUR evidence that your diet causes no or less animal suffering
>>and death than anyone else's?
>
>
> Well, animal food production mostly requires more plant production than
> plant food production. And I've linked to an article which argues that
> even Davis' ruminant-pasture model wouldn't do as well as a vegan model.

Wrong answer. The question was about "less...than
anyone else's." But you earlier have said you are NOT
basing your conclusion on any kind of comparison with
others. Apparently you lied.