On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:45:05 +0000, Derek > wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:33:54 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:52:45 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>
>>>There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
>>>deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
>>>foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
>>[...]
>>>(Rejoinder)
>>>Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
>>>aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans,
>>>and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill animals
>>>intentionally for food.
>>
>>The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should
>>Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet.
>>
>>S.L. Davis,
>
> .. and how many times those figures have been found
>to be nothing other than guesswork. Davis' guesswork
>is not peer-reviewed and has many flaws, as follows;
>
> [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.
[...]
>Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
>collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.

No matter what we do it will involve animals existing,
unless we can prevent all of them from ever being born.
So the question should ALWAYS be asked: which
animals do we want to promote life for. If you feel it's
none, then explain why. If you feel we should promote
life for some and not for others, explain that. You, Dutch
and Goo all agree that we should provide lives for wildlife
INSTEAD OF lives for wildlife AND livestock, but none
of you can explain WHICH wildlife, and/or WHY. Even
more absurdly: you/"they" insist that we should consider
the lives of wildlife and also other potential future wildlife,
but we should NOT do the same in regards to livestock.

The ONLY way to prevent the killing of wildlife in crop
fields is to prevent them from living, the same as the only
way to prevent humans, livestock, and all other beings
from dying is to prevent them from living. Much as all of
you appear to hate it for some odd reason, death means
life, and life means death. ALWAYS!!!