Beach Runner wrote:
>>> To see how much effect being vegan rather than vegetarian makes, how
>>> about some maths...
>>
>> That's it, Bobby. Just make it up as you go along.
>>
>>> A dairy cow produces about 6,000 litres of milk a year, and live for
>>> (I think) about 5 years.
>>
>> You dope. They live and produce a bit longer than that.
>>
>>> Suppose they have 8 male calves a year (that's a total guess),
>>
>> No kidding. It's a ****ing wild guess. Try one calf per year.
>>
>>> then (ignoring female offspring)
>>
>> Why not hypothetically kill them, too, dumb ass?
>>
>>> we've got a total of 41 slaughtered cows for every 30,000 litres of
>>> milk produced.
>>
>> Not quite. The chance of each birth being male is 50% and each dairy
>> cow will produce for up to ~10 years (let's round it there to make it
>> easy for you, dope). So, assuming an average of 6 kl of milk and one
>> live birth per year, that's five bulls that make it to slaughter over
>> ten years and 60,000 liters of milk -- a rate of one slaughter per
>> 12,000 liters of milk. You're only off by a factor of sixteen. Not
>> what I'd expect from someone with a Master's from Columbia (hawhaw!),
>> but about what I'd expect from you.
>>
>>> So that's one death for every 731 litres of milk produced.
>>
>> No, one per 12,000 liters.
>>
>>> Now, suppose you drink 2 litres of milk a week which is about 100
>>> litres a year.
>>>
>>> So, with those figures, you would account for one cow's death every 7
>>> years 4 months by being vegetarian rather than vegan.
>>
>> Even if your math were correct, and it *isn't*, is it worth depriving
>> oneself of nutrients and enjoyment that comes from consuming dairy
>> products when the alternatives -- rice milk, soy milk, etc. -- lead to
>> far more than one animal death every ~7.3 years?
>>
>>> I'm fairly sure my maths and logic there is correct.
>>
>> Your math and logic are wrong. At the rate of 100 liters per year, it
>> would take someone 120 years to consume the 12,000 liters to average
>> out to one bull's death. *Twelve decades*, numbnuts. In that century
>> and a fifth, you would recommend soy milk and/or rice milk -- made
>> from crops which are lethal to other animals like mice, rats, rabbits,
>> raccoons, possum, snakes, frogs, birds, deer, etc. -- just to save ONE
>> ****ing bull. You clearly don't care about animals because you'd
>> rather see a pile of rotting corpses for soy milk than to see people
>> eat the flesh of just that one bull. And that's why you object -- you
>> don't give a shit if animals actually die, you just don't want people
>> to EAT meat.
>>
>>> But hopefully someone can come up with more accurate figures, but I'm
>>> sure it will show that it really does make an immediate difference.
>>
>> The difference made by my taking the time to do this is that everyone
>> -- vegan or not -- can judge for himself or herself what a flake you are.
>
> The gestation could certainly be wrong.

It is wrong, you benighted vegan blowhard.

> I admit when I'm wrong.

You don't have to admit it; your flabby old ass has just been handed
back to you on a silver platter. Note your dodges of every other point
stemming from your strange notion that cattle are like canines or
domestic felines. Why would you recommend 120 years of drinking soy milk
when its related animal deaths (from pesticides, irrigation, sowing,
harvesting, transporting, storage, processing, etc.) far outweigh the
number of deaths (one) stemming from turning an unwanted bull into
edible protein? One bull equals thousands of meals; one quart of soy
milk equals thousands of dead animals.

> Male cows are made into VEAL,

Not always VEAL, sometimes ordinary beef. Or BEEF.

> a horrible fate.

What's horrible about veal?


The leading producers of veal in the U.S. are small, isolated
Amish and Mennonite communities, which account for as much as
45% of national production, and 60-70% of production in the
east.
http://www.furcommission.com/n ews/newsF05z.htm cites the
following page:
http://www.vealusa.com/info/hi story.html

Is it true that veal calves are kept in the dark?
No. According to guidelines developed by the American Veterinary
Medical Association (AVMA), milk-fed veal calves should be and
are housed in a well-lit barn. Lighting, whether from natural or
artificial sources, allows family veal producers to easily
monitor calves for changes in behavior or eating patterns.

Are veal calves kept in crates?
Far from the four-sided "crate" portrayed by some activist
groups, modern veal stalls are designed to partition the animals
only up to the shoulder level, ensuring calves visual and
physical interaction with their neighbors. Individual housing
allows animals to receive their own feed, individual care and
attention. Most importantly, individual housing stalls have been
shown to help prevent the spread of disease by minimizing
calf-to-calf contact. Calves can comfortably lay in a natural
position, stand up and groom themselves.

What about the claim that veal calves are kept weak and anemic?
Veal producers carefully watch each calf to be sure it is not
suffering any clinical symptoms of anemia, such as weakness or
loss of appetite. Calves must receive diets with iron to meet
the animals' requirements for normal health and behavior. A calf
that does not eat will not grow.

Does keeping a calf in the dark produce light meat?
No. This is a complete myth. The presence or absence of light
has no effect on muscle color. The light meat results from the
age of the calf and the level of myoglobin in the muscle.
Myoglobin produces a red pigment that affects the color of the
meat.

Are veal calves routinely given massive amounts of drugs?
Absolutely not. The only time that veal calves receive
"therapeutic" doses of antibiotics (levels high enough to treat
illness) is when they are sick and then it is on the advice of a
veterinarian. As soon as the animal recovers, the use of
therapeutic medication is discontinued. In fact, milk-fed veal
calves have a stellar record of receiving one of the lowest
levels of antibiotics among all livestock.
http://www.vealusa.com/info/fa q.html

> This jerk doesn't care
> about cruelty to animals.

The issue isn't cruelty, it's food. It's also about your choice of foods
and how your choice relates to your principles. Instead of one dead cow,
you'd rather see piles and piles of various rodents, amphibians, birds,
reptiles, etc. You don't give a damn about injured or dead animals, you
only object when they're eaten by humans.

> Now cows are only used these days to produce milk for a shorter period
> than their life space.

You have no ****ing clue about anything related to agriculture. Add math
and logic, now that I think about it. You're a bumbling twit.

>> <snip of absolutely mindless rah-rah cheerleading>