****wit David Harrison, criminal breeder of fighting roosters, lied:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 22:20:28 GMT, and/or www.mantra.com/jai
> (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>
>> Chapter 43: T he Meat-Free Life
>
> · Crackers contribute tocriminality


Exactly.

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 22:20:28 GMT, and/or www.mantra.com/jai
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:

>Chapter 43: T he Meat-Free Life

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:03:52 -0800 (PST), library101 >
wrote:

>Thank you for your post; Can we Research this to get exact numbers ?

"rice farming is ~20 pound (arithmetic follows). this works out a bit
less than two vertebrate deaths per square foot, and, again, is *quite*
conservative. for conventionally grown rice, the gross body-count is
*at least* several times that figure. collateral included deaths from
'conventional' agriculture are more inferential than from 'organic'
production (explained later) and, although the number of deaths is fewer
in organic v. conventional, they are far more visible in organic
production.

the vertebrate deaths come from: frogs (5+ species), toads (common
bufo), anole lizards, shrews (3 species), voles, mice, rats, snakes, a
couple of kinds of turtles, cats, rabbits, skunk, nutria & muskrats,
raccoons, possums, deer (never less than a pair of fawns harvested per
50 acres), pheasants, quail, pigeons, cattle egrets, sparrows,
starlings, waxwings, .... although all of these are not harvested
*every* time, they are the 'regulars.' occasionally a canvasback, teal,
heron, mallard, black duck, coot, spoonbill, crow, hawk, kite, eagle,
buzzard ... is shredded, as is the occasional feral pig or lost calf,
coyote or dog.

for information, an acre has 43,264+ square feet. the vast majority of
the deaths are (as one would imagine): frogs, toads and anole lizards;
rodents and insectivores.

- when cutting the rice, there is a - literal - green waterfall of frogs
and anoles moving in front of the combine. sometimes the 'rain' is just
a hard shower (± 10,000 frogs per acre) crossing the header, other times
it is a deluge (+50,000 acre). never is it a drought; never a mist.
sometimes, the number of frogs swimming across the cutter-bar is so
massive, we have to reduce travel speed of the combine - there is just
too much rice lost by being pressed into the rather thickish 'arroz con
gracielà paté' which travels across the screens, rather than falling
into the hopper as good grain should.

these numbers may sound extreme to those who believe there is a wildlife
de-population crisis, but considering one can easily see 10-20-30+ frogs
(and several anoles) within the top few inches of a foot stand of rice,
the numbers making gracielà paté are trivial.

most times, judging from the visible continuious population swimming
across the header, it is somewhere between 10K & 50+K per acre
harvested. a good, reasonable, annualised (but still conservative)
number of amphibian and anole deaths through the combine is 35,000 of
all species harvested per acre, combined average for two cuttings. in
spite of these seemingly large numbers, far, far more frogs & lizards
escape than are combined. i would guess that the 35,000 amphibian
deaths represents less than 20% of the total population, and probably
far less, but that is just a guess - plenty, plenty, plenty are not
killed." - didderot

****wit David Harrison, criminal breeder of fighting roosters, lied:

> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:03:52 -0800 (PST), >
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for your post; Can we Research this to get exact numbers ?
>
> "rice farming is ~20 pound [plagiarism snipped]

I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care
enough to make the effort.
Goo/****wit 31 July 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2v5ayqy

I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

On Feb 24, 11:25*am, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 22:20:28 GMT, and/orwww.mantra.com/jai
>
> (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> >Chapter 43: T he Meat-Free Life
>
> * Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
> in order to be successful:
>
> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
> gelatin capsules, *adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
>
> * * The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
> being vegan.
> * * From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products.

It seems to me that what you want to say is that if I am interested in
minimising the amount of suffering and premature death for nonhuman
animals caused per serving of the food I buy, I would be better off
going with grass-raised beef than soy or rice products. Can you
substantiate this? Where exactly can I buy beef that really is
completely "grass-raised"? How many collateral deaths do you think it
takes to make a pound of tofu?

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 03:01:46 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Feb 24, 11:25*am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 22:20:28 GMT, and/orwww.mantra.com/jai
>>
>> (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>> >Chapter 43: T he Meat-Free Life
>>
>> * Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
>> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
>> in order to be successful:
>>
>> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
>> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
>> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
>> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
>> gelatin capsules, *adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
>> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
>> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
>>
>> * * The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
>> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
>> being vegan.
>> * * From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
>> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products.
>
>It seems to me that what you want to say is that if I am interested in
>minimising the amount of suffering and premature death for nonhuman
>animals caused per serving of the food I buy, I would be better off
>going with grass-raised beef than soy or rice products. Can you
>substantiate this?

You can do it, so you do it and I'll try to add to what you come up with.

>Where exactly can I buy beef that really is
>completely "grass-raised"?

I feel sure there are places on the internet, but I would very much suggest
you go somewhere and ask a farmer. If you could open your mind and then go and
discuss it with a farmer, it could very well change your life for the better and
make you a much better person too if you would do it with the right attitude.
Here is one example of how it could go:

You know of or find a place where there are beef cattle grazing, and find the
farmer or someone who tells you how to get in touch with him. You do get in
touch with him, and at that point you will actually be talking to some who
raises beef cattle. You tell him you're an ethical veg*n and that someone you
consider to be a fool keeps encouraging people to consider things on the
internet that you don't want to even believe, much less apply to your way of
thinking. But you are trying to be open minded and you were wondering if he
would be willing to help you figure out if this fool actually has any valid
point(s) or not, and if so could the farmer tell you how you might be able to
get some grass raised beef in the area. The farmer almost certainly would be
able to suggest something, even if it's just to put you in touch with a local
butcher or slaughterhouse. From there you could find and contact the actual
farmer you're interested in, and almost certainly he would let you come by and
see his operation, and see how the cattle live, and then you would be in a
somewhat decent position to evaluate realistically. Really that's the only way,
so it would be better for you to take that approach than to just order some off
the internet. It would be AFTER you do the actual research yourself that you
either come to the same conclusion I did after doing it myself, or not. If you
do, THEN would be the time to consider other grass raises sources that are
impractical for you to visit, unless you really like the farm where you learn to
appreciate the animals and you would rather make your contribution to that one
instead of a different one. And while you're there and doing that you could
probably learn where to get true free range eggs, and grass raised dairy, and
vegetables grown in more of a garden style than an indubrial farm machinery
style. It could change your life for the better if you can go in with an open
mind and a learning attitude....

>How many collateral deaths do you think it
>takes to make a pound of tofu?

It would depend on the area. For example a field with woods or pasture
around it in most cases will have more deaths than one that's surrounded by
housing developments or something like that, or desert, because there won't be
as much wildlife available to move into the fields to begin with if it's a
fairly isolated habitat. There are other things too of course, but that's one to
help you think about it. Also remember that with rice it's different in that a
lot of life is brought into the fields by the water. So even if 50% are killed
instead of didderot's estimated 20%, the new water will bring in a new batch the
next time the fields are flooded. Stuff like that.

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Feb 24, 11:25 am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 22:20:28 GMT,
>> and/orwww.mantra.com/jai
>>
>> (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>> >Chapter 43: T he Meat-Free Life
>>
>> Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
>> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
>> in order to be successful:
>>
>> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
>> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
>> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
>> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
>> gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
>> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
>> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
>>
>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
>> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
>> being vegan.
>> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
>> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products.
>
> It seems to me that what you want to say is that if I am interested in
> minimising the amount of suffering and premature death for nonhuman
> animals caused per serving of the food I buy, I would be better off
> going with grass-raised beef than soy or rice products. Can you
> substantiate this? Where exactly can I buy beef that really is
> completely "grass-raised"? How many collateral deaths do you think it
> takes to make a pound of tofu?

Never mind Harrison, sane omnivorous people aren't interested in doing this
calculation. The "cruelty free" crowd are the ones squealing about animal
death and suffering, so they need to look more closely at their own
lifestyles before pointing fingers, that's the point. Animals die, it's part
of nature's cycle, that's the point, if you can't deal with it that's your
problem, don't transfer your guilt onto others.

On 2/27/2011 3:01 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Feb 24, 11:25 am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 22:20:28 GMT, and/orwww.mantra.com/jai
>>
>> (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>>> Chapter 43: T he Meat-Free Life
>>
>> Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
>> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
>> in order to be successful:
>>
>> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
>> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
>> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
>> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
>> gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
>> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
>> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
>>
>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
>> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
>> being vegan.
>> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
>> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products.
>
> It seems to me that what you want to say is that if I am interested in
> minimising the amount of suffering and premature death for nonhuman
> animals caused per serving of the food I buy, I would be better off
> going with grass-raised beef than soy or rice products. Can you
> substantiate this? Where exactly can I buy beef that really is
> completely "grass-raised"? How many collateral deaths do you think it
> takes to make a pound of tofu?

Do *you* have any idea how many collateral deaths are involved? No, you
don't. That is perfectly clear, and beyond all dispute - *you* have no
idea.

The point is, the death-and-cruelty minimizing diet *could* be one that
includes carefully selected animal parts, but because you follow a
brainless rule that says "exclude animal parts", you don't adhere to
that diet. There is no valid ethical principle behind your dietary dogma.

****wit David Harrison, criminal breeder of fighting roosters, lied:

> "I eat meat."

Which you know. Therefore, accusing me of being an "ara" is just stupid
on your part.


> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - George Plimpton
>
> "No farm animals benefit from farming." -George Plimpton

Both true.

You're ****ed, ****wit. You know you are.

"I eat meat." - Goo


"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"I consume meat. I consume it daily - I can't even remember a
day in my life when I didn't." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
killing them." - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

On 3/1/2011 1:34 PM, dh@. wrote:

> None of you care about any animals, domestic or wild. In contrast to
> eliminationists, AW minded people consider both.


It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005

I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care
enough to make the effort.
Goo/****wit 31 July 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2v5ayqy

I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999


You *DON'T* care about the animals at all, ****wit, you incompetent
shithead liar.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:43:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Rupert" > wrote
>> On Feb 24, 11:25 am, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 22:20:28 GMT,
>>> and/orwww.mantra.com/jai
>>>
>>> (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>>> >Chapter 43: T he Meat-Free Life
>>>
>>> Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
>>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
>>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
>>> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
>>> in order to be successful:
>>>
>>> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
>>> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
>>> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
>>> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
>>> gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
>>> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
>>> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
>>>
>>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
>>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
>>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
>>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
>>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
>>> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
>>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
>>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
>>> being vegan.
>>> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>>> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
>>> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>>> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products.
>>
>> It seems to me that what you want to say is that if I am interested in
>> minimising the amount of suffering and premature death for nonhuman
>> animals caused per serving of the food I buy, I would be better off
>> going with grass-raised beef than soy or rice products. Can you
>> substantiate this? Where exactly can I buy beef that really is
>> completely "grass-raised"? How many collateral deaths do you think it
>> takes to make a pound of tofu?
>
>Never mind Harrison, sane omnivorous people aren't interested in doing this
>calculation.

Those of us who have some experience do it automatically.

>The "cruelty free" crowd are the ones squealing about animal
>death and suffering

None of you care about any animals, domestic or wild. In contrast to
eliminationists, AW minded people consider both.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:43:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"Rupert" > wrote
>>> On Feb 24, 11:25 am, dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 22:20:28 GMT,
>>>> and/orwww.mantra.com/jai
>>>>
>>>> (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>>>> >Chapter 43: T he Meat-Free Life
>>>>
>>>> Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
>>>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
>>>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
>>>> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
>>>> in order to be successful:
>>>>
>>>> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
>>>> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
>>>> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
>>>> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
>>>> gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
>>>> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
>>>> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
>>>>
>>>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>>>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
>>>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
>>>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
>>>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
>>>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
>>>> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
>>>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
>>>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
>>>> being vegan.
>>>> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>>>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>>>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>>>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>>>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>>>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>>>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>>>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>>>> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
>>>> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>>>> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that what you want to say is that if I am interested in
>>> minimising the amount of suffering and premature death for nonhuman
>>> animals caused per serving of the food I buy, I would be better off
>>> going with grass-raised beef than soy or rice products. Can you
>>> substantiate this? Where exactly can I buy beef that really is
>>> completely "grass-raised"? How many collateral deaths do you think it
>>> takes to make a pound of tofu?
>>
>>Never mind Harrison, sane omnivorous people aren't interested in doing
>>this
>>calculation.
>
> Those of us who have some experience do it automatically.

No you don't, you think about nothing beyond The Logic of the Larder. You're
obsessed with a stupid, circular sophism.

>>The "cruelty free" crowd are the ones squealing about animal
>>death and suffering
>
> None of you care about any animals, domestic or wild. In contrast to
> eliminationists, AW minded people consider both.

AW minded people are not tricked by the twisted, tortured logic behind "The
Logic of the Larder".