<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> 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is not peer-reviewed and has many flaws, as follows;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.

Shut up ****wit, nobody gives a shit about your stupic illogic.

> So the question should ALWAYS be asked:

No it should never be asked.