On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:40:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:12:45 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 05:22:38 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>Rupert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, but I think I have reason to believe a vegan diet
>>>>>>minimizes the contribution to suffering.
>>>>>
>>>>>No
>>>>
>>>>Then why did you write
>>
>> I see that once again you have snipped your quotes
>> which show Rupert is indeed correct, according to
>> YOU.

Noted.

>>>The counting game is INVALID as a basis for claiming
>>>virtue.
>>
>> That may be so if argued correctly
>
>It is so, and I have argued it correctly. Rupert is
>lying. He isn't attempting to minimize, as I have
>proved. He is trying to "win" an invalid counting game.

He wins YOUR counting game and as such hoists
you on your own petard.

>**** off

Why don't you be honest with Rupert by agreeing
with him and explaining;

<unsnip>
"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/664t2

Not only have you given vegans a valid reason to
continue abstaining from meat on the basis that less
collateral deaths will occur, you've also given them
valid environmental and economic grounds to abstain
from it as well.

"What I mean is that in terms of the resources
expended for the amount of nutrition yielded, the
U.S. could easily substitute sufficient vegetable
products to come up with the "missing" protein and
calories if we suddenly stopped raising livestock.

Meat is expensive relative to vegetable produce. All
of the major meats consumed in the American diet -
beef, pork and poultry; lamb barely registers - are fed
cultivated agriculture products as animal feed, and the
resources that produce that animal feed could instead
produce vegetable food for direct human consumption.

There is a loss of energy in feeding livestock feed to
animals. It takes anywhere from 6 to 8 pounds of feed
to yield one additional *gross* pound of beef, for
example; the feed conversion ratio for broiler chickens
is a little under 2. Note that these ratios are gross; they
do not take into account that some of the weight gain
in the animal is not edible to humans. If you adjust for
that, the ratios are higher.

If Americans suddenly stopped eating meat entirely, and
all the animals were gone, no land or other productive
resources would be devoted to producing feed and other
materials for animals. It would take only a fraction of
those resources to produce the "missing" protein and
calories."
Jonathan Ball as Rudy Canoza 31 Mar 2005
http://tinyurl.com/5xs3b

You lose, Jon, while all vegans win.