I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site
again to share here.

http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...-fails-and-one

This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as
a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like the
author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means the
flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of
animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and
undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving
either one.

"George Plimpton" > wrote in message
...
> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site
> again to share here.
>
> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...-fails-and-one
>
> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as a
> sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like the
> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means the
> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of
> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and
> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving
> either one.

That is an excellent blog. Too bad the formatting in the comments section is
so messed up.

On 2/29/2012 12:06 PM, Dutch wrote:
> "George Plimpton" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the
>> site again to share here.
>>
>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...-fails-and-one
>>
>>
>> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails
>> as a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like
>> the author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means
>> the flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction
>> of animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable
>> and undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for
>> achieving either one.
>
> That is an excellent blog. Too bad the formatting in the comments
> section is so messed up.

It is a good blog, isn't it?

I think that formatting is due to the way that site has implemented the
commenting technology. A newspaper with which I have some familiarity
uses what appears to be the same technology for its comments, and they
don't seem to have that problem. See the comments following this story:

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/29/430...ones-dies.html

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:

>"veganism" is not a reliable means

· 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 3/1/2012 2:46 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
>
>> "veganism" is not a reliable means
>
> · Vegans contribute to the

Shut up, ****wit.

On Mar 1, 6:41*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/1/2012 2:46 PM, dh@. wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
>
> >> "veganism" is not a reliable means
>
> > * *· Vegans contribute to the
>
> Shut up, ****wit.

Show us some photographic proof of all the millions of animals killed
by grain farming, Gooberdoodle.

On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
> >"veganism" is not a reliable means
>
> * · 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.

You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
for it you are unable to provide any.

If you were able to provide evidence for it, you would. One can only
conclude that you are making the claim in the absence of any real
evidence.

> Grass raised animal products
> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means
>>
>> · 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.
>
> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
> for it you are unable to provide any.

****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
strong logical case to be made. What do you think the number of deaths
caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? How many deaths can
plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
paddy?

Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the
products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice,
refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus
solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product -
that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the
primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer.

There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you
have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. There
can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer
animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself.

Forget about ****wit's lack of hard evidence. You have to make a wholly
implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice. Now
I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
believe, because I know: you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
CDs than the beef. You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't
believe it.

On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
> >>> "veganism" is not a reliable means
>
> >> * *· 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.
>
> > You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
> > for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
> > for it you are unable to provide any.
>
> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
> strong logical case to be made. *What do you think the number of deaths
> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? *How many deaths can
> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
> paddy?
>

I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.

> Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the
> products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice,
> refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus
> solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product -
> that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the
> primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer.
>
> There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you
> have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. *There
> can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer
> animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself.
>
> Forget about ****wit's lack of hard evidence. *You have to make a wholly
> implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
> of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.

I never said anything about rice.

But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.

> *Now
> I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
> believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
> CDs than the beef.

No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
evidence one way or the other.

(I assume you're talking about fully grass-fed beef, by the way, the
cattle are put out to pasture the whole year round. Yes?)

In any case I never said anything about rice. I was talking about
tofu.

> *You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't
> believe it.

I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have
sufficient information.

Suppose I wanted to go about buying some beef which had a smaller CD
count per serving than a typical calorically equivalent serving of
rice. How exactly would you suggest I go about doing that, given that
I live in the European Union at the moment? How would I be sure that
the beef was not partially grain-fed?

On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > wrote:
>> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means
>>
>>>> · 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.
>>
>>> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
>>> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
>>> for it you are unable to provide any.
>>
>> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
>> strong logical case to be made. What do you think the number of deaths
>> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? How many deaths can
>> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
>> paddy?
>>
>
> I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
> and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.

But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible
and seems to make sense, can't you? Oh, wait - maybe not.


>> Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the
>> products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice,
>> refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus
>> solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product -
>> that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the
>> primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer.
>>
>> There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you
>> have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. There
>> can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer
>> animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself.
>>
>> Forget about ****wit's lack of hard evidence. You have to make a wholly
>> implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
>> of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.
>
> I never said anything about rice.

**** off.


> But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
> calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.

You ought to have. If you don't, you're trying not to have any idea.


>> Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
>> believe, because I know: you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
>> CDs than the beef.
>
> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
> evidence one way or the other.

No, that's false. You do not lack any belief one way or another. We
know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
agriculture kills animals. You have *some* sense as to what might be a
plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.


>
> (I assume you're talking about fully grass-fed beef, by the way, the
> cattle are put out to pasture the whole year round. Yes?)

Obviously.


>
> In any case I never said anything about rice. I was talking about
> tofu.

Fine.


>> You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't
>> believe it.
>
> I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have
> sufficient information.

That's false. You have information on what might be plausible numbers.

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:35:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
wrote:

>On 2 Mrz., 16:43, Goo wrote:
>>
>> Forget about ****wit's lack of hard evidence. *You have to make a wholly
>> implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
>> of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.
>
>I never said anything about rice.

We were discussing soy because I am overly generous, just as I also was with
the estimate of 5 deaths related to a type of animal that is often likely to
produce none.

>But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
>calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.

Rice would necessarily involve even more than soy. If you figure up the
difference between grass raised milk and rice milk the difference would be even
more huge in favor of the cow milk. HUGE!!!

>> *Now
>> I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
>> believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
>> CDs than the beef.
>
>No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
>evidence one way or the other.

In some cases soy causes more and in some beef causes more. Can you get that
far along with it, doctor?

>(I assume you're talking about fully grass-fed beef, by the way, the
>cattle are put out to pasture the whole year round. Yes?)

Start with that.

>In any case I never said anything about rice. I was talking about
>tofu.

It looks like we're on rice too now. Rice is worse then either. It's
probably the worst of all. What could be worse? How?

>> *You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't
>> believe it.
>
>I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have
>sufficient information.

Sometimes beef will involve more and sometimes the soy will.

>Suppose I wanted to go about buying some beef which had a smaller CD
>count per serving than a typical calorically equivalent serving of
>rice. How exactly would you suggest I go about doing that, given that
>I live in the European Union at the moment? How would I be sure that
>the beef was not partially grain-fed?

Go inquire from some cattle farmers in the area. If they don't have any to
sell you, or know anyone who does, they could still help you move in the
direction of finding someone who does know. While you're around the cattle see
if the farmer will let you observe them a little bit, and if so see if you can
appreciate that some or all of them appear to have lives of positive value, or
if you see some you feel do and some you feel don't maybe then you could learn
to appreciate the distinction. That is if you want to see it first hand as you
SHOULD! If there are any grass raised dairys in the area you would almost
certainly do better to begin with that, and it's better than beef anyway
ethically. So a great opportunity for you is to drop by a dairy farm probably in
the evening around 4 or 5 or in the morning when there are people around
milking, and ask them if any dairies in the area are grass raised. Also if there
is some sort of agricultural department in your area or someplace not too far
away you should call them and they might be able to tell you where to get grass
raised animal products and free range eggs too. If you could go to a battery
farm and ask them where to get cage free eggs, and see if they would let you
look at the birds to see what you think, then go to the cage free place or a
place where they raise the parents of either broilers or layers (because the
parents are kept cage free for better breeding) and see what you think. If you
do that successfully even you might learn to appreciate a distinction you as yet
claim to be unable to.

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 03:43:46 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
wrote:

>On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
>> >"veganism" is not a reliable means
>>
>> * · 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.
>
>You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
>for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
>for it you are unable to provide any.
>
>If you were able to provide evidence for it, you would. One can only
>conclude that you are making the claim in the absence of any real
>evidence.

If we factor in all by-products and divide the deaths among them TOO it
comes out to a much smaller number than if we don't. If we don't but only factor
in servings of human quality food as we SHOULD, then the number per serving goes
up for food and becomes N/A for things made from byproducts, but the number per
serving still stays at probably around 100 times less. How many deaths per
serving of tofu did you estimate, do you remember?

>> Grass raised animal products
>> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

On Mar 5, 8:07*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 03:43:46 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
> >> >"veganism" is not a reliable means
>
> >> * · 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.
>
> >You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
> >for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
> >for it you are unable to provide any.
>
> >If you were able to provide evidence for it, you would. One can only
> >conclude that you are making the claim in the absence of any real
> >evidence.
>
> * * If we factor in all by-products and divide the deaths among them TOO it
> comes out to a much smaller number than if we don't.

This is false; you obviously lack the capacity to understand why.

> If we don't but only factor
> in servings of human quality food as we SHOULD, then the number per serving goes
> up for food and becomes N/A for things made from byproducts, but the number per
> serving still stays at probably *around 100 times less. How many deaths per
> serving of tofu did you estimate, do you remember?
>

I never gave an estimate for that.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Grass raised animal products
> >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·