On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:08:38 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>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is not peer-reviewed and has many flaws, as follows;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,

So, playing a game of chess will involve animals existing, will
it?

>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.

No it shouldn't. It's a stupid question.

>If you feel it's none, then explain why.

Why should I waste my time even considering such a stupid
question in the first place?

>If you feel we should promote
>life for some and not for others, explain that.

That's exactly the question being put to you by Dutch and Jon
for over two weeks now, and you've dodged answering it at
every turn, so explain to me why you favour livestock animals
over wild animals, Harrison? Also, if your argument is to provide
lives for livestock animals, why choose large animals that require
a lot space when rats would populate that same space in larger
numbers? Surely, if your goal is to produce more lives by eating
livestock, you should be eating rats.