Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > His main objection to Davis's study is the way he compares deaths per ha, > rather than deaths per pound of food. He makes a lot of hay on this point, > the rest of the discussion is mostly window dressing. Well, pounds of food > is not an accurate comparison, ... True, however an accurate and honest metric of CD's resulting from any agricultural system would be to compare the TOTAL animal biomass killed or displaced from the same area of virgin ecosystem through its transformation into "food" production. The anti-vegans intentionally skew the non-existent data in their own favor by falsely claiming the death of an ant is equal to the death of a cow: one death = one death. > because a pound of meat and a pound of grain are not equivalent. A pound > of meat is far more calorie-dense and particularly far more nutrient dense > than any[sic] pound of plants. All values for a pound of the "food", rounded to whole numbers. beef, almonds brazil nut composite retail cal 301 578 656 %pro 26 21 14 %fat 21 51 66 %cho 0 20 12, so we see that when an anti-veg*n, on a very rare occasion, comments about a verifiable -fact-, instead of spewing his own unsupportable dogma, he can't get even simple facts right. Dutch, your credibility remains zero. You also willfully fail to recognize that there are limits to the human ability to digest concentrated nutrients, and that consuming excess nutrients is a fundamental cause of most human "diseases of civilization". > The monetary value of it, not insignificant in itself, demonstrates this > fact. Are you REALLY claiming that the price of a "food" reflects its nutrient value?? Ever heard of potato chips or junk food?? Hey, Dutch, why don't you follow the ng convention and snip text that you are not replying to? Would that be just too polite for you?? Laurie |
|
|||
|
|||
"Laurie" > wrote in message ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > > His main objection to Davis's study is the way he compares deaths per ha, > > rather than deaths per pound of food. He makes a lot of hay on this point, > > the rest of the discussion is mostly window dressing. Well, pounds of food > > is not an accurate comparison, ... > True, however an accurate and honest metric of CD's resulting from any > agricultural system would be to compare the TOTAL animal biomass killed or > displaced from the same area of virgin ecosystem through its transformation > into "food" production. > The anti-vegans intentionally skew the non-existent data in their own > favor by falsely claiming the death of an ant is equal to the death of a > cow: one death = one death. I don't equate an ant with a cow, although vegans frequently agonize over bees and silkworms. Mice and cows are a fair comparison though, both equally intelligent social mammals. I do not agree with biomass as a measure either, if the concern is animal deaths/suffering per unit of nutrition produced then a large animal suffers no more or less than a small one, I presume. > > because a pound of meat and a pound of grain are not equivalent. A pound > > of meat is far more calorie-dense and particularly far more nutrient dense > > than any[sic] pound of plants. > > All values for a pound of the "food", rounded to whole numbers. > > beef, almonds brazil nut > composite retail > cal 301 578 656 > %pro 26 21 14 > %fat 21 51 66 > %cho 0 20 12, > > so we see that when an anti-veg*n, on a very rare occasion, comments about a > verifiable -fact-, instead of spewing his own unsupportable dogma, he can't > get even simple facts right. Almonds and brazil nuts are not typical North American crops. Vegans typically quote high-yield crops like potatoes. > Dutch, your credibility remains zero. > You also willfully fail to recognize that there are limits to the human > ability to digest concentrated nutrients, and that consuming excess > nutrients is a fundamental cause of most human "diseases of civilization". I don't recall advocating consumption of excess nutrients. *Production of* high amounts of nutrients per acre however seems to be right on topic. > > The monetary value of it, not insignificant in itself, demonstrates this > > fact. > Are you REALLY claiming that the price of a "food" reflects its nutrient > value?? Ever heard of potato chips or junk food?? Yes, at the source price does reflect nutrient value, notwithstanding such examples as over-packaged junk and convenience foods which do not follow this rule. > Hey, Dutch, why don't you follow the ng convention and snip text that > you are not replying to? Would that be just too polite for you?? I might start taking netnanny tips from you when you start respecting the normal practice of leaving spaces between your comments and the included text, fair enough? |
|
|||
|
|||
"Laurie" > wrote in message ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... >> His main objection to Davis's study is the way he compares deaths per ha, >> rather than deaths per pound of food. He makes a lot of hay on this >> point, >> the rest of the discussion is mostly window dressing. Well, pounds of >> food >> is not an accurate comparison, ... > True, however an accurate and honest metric of CD's resulting from any > agricultural system would be to compare the TOTAL animal biomass killed or > displaced from the same area of virgin ecosystem through its > transformation > into "food" production. ================== Sure, go right ahead, fool. You'd lose really really big time then. Mono-culture crop production is the definition of habitat destruction and environma=ental damage. Using natural grasslands for grazing is just that, natural. Whether you use farmed animals, or wild game off the land. > The anti-vegans intentionally skew the non-existent data in their own > favor by falsely claiming the death of an ant is equal to the death of a > cow: one death = one death. ===================== No, no one here *ever* brings up bugs except vegan loons! That's *your* strawman. That's your attempt to ignore the millions upon millions of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians that die in crop production. You think that be switching to billions of bugs you can pretend that the other animal deaths don't happen. But, if you want, be my guest, add the billions of bugs to your count. Afterall, they aren't mineral or plant, are they, hypocrite? > >> because a pound of meat and a pound of grain are not equivalent. A pound >> of meat is far more calorie-dense and particularly far more nutrient >> dense >> than any[sic] pound of plants. > > All values for a pound of the "food", rounded to whole numbers. > > beef, almonds brazil nut > composite retail > cal 301 578 656 > %pro 26 21 14 > %fat 21 51 66 > %cho 0 20 12, > > so we see that when an anti-veg*n, on a very rare occasion, comments about > a > verifiable -fact-, instead of spewing his own unsupportable dogma, he > can't > get even simple facts right. ===================== And neither can you, see above.... And, looks like you have to, as stinky puts it, compare apples to oranges. Where is this world-wide supply of almonds and brazil nuts that can feed everybody? > Dutch, your credibility remains zero. > You also willfully fail to recognize that there are limits to the human > ability to digest concentrated nutrients, and that consuming excess > nutrients is a fundamental cause of most human "diseases of civilization". ===================== If we are meant to eat so much plant material, why then is far more of it totally inedible to people, or downright poisonous? You can't say the same for meats, hypocrite. Looks to me like we aren't made all that much for plants only... > >> The monetary value of it, not insignificant in itself, demonstrates this >> fact. > Are you REALLY claiming that the price of a "food" reflects its > nutrient > value?? Ever heard of potato chips or junk food?? > > Hey, Dutch, why don't you follow the ng convention and snip text that > you are not replying to? Would that be just too polite for you?? > > Laurie > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Fruity wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > >>His main objection to Davis's study is the way he compares deaths per ha, >>rather than deaths per pound of food. He makes a lot of hay on this point, >>the rest of the discussion is mostly window dressing. Well, pounds of food >>is not an accurate comparison, ... > > True, however an accurate and honest metric of CD's resulting from any > agricultural system would be to compare the TOTAL animal biomass killed or > displaced from the same area of virgin ecosystem through its transformation > into "food" production. No. You've said this repeatedly, and it simply isn't so. In fact, it's idiotic and absurd. The issue of whether or not it's wrong cause CDs has nothing to do with "biomass", a term you don't even understand. The issue of whether or not it's wrong to cause CDs has to do with LIVES, irrespective of the "biomass" (scoff) of the animals represented in those lives. If someone thinks it's wrong to kill animals, then killing 10 prairie dogs is worse than killing one elk, even though the elk has hundreds of times the "biomass" of the 10 prairie dogs. You're an idiot. |
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Fruity wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > >>His main objection to Davis's study is the way he compares deaths per ha, >>rather than deaths per pound of food. He makes a lot of hay on this point, >>the rest of the discussion is mostly window dressing. Well, pounds of food >>is not an accurate comparison, ... > > True, however an accurate and honest metric of CD's resulting from any > agricultural system would be to compare the TOTAL animal biomass killed or > displaced from the same area of virgin ecosystem through its transformation > into "food" production. No. You've said this repeatedly, and it simply isn't so. In fact, it's idiotic and absurd. The issue of whether or not it's wrong cause CDs has nothing to do with "biomass", a term you don't even understand. The issue of whether or not it's wrong to cause CDs has to do with LIVES, irrespective of the "biomass" (scoff) of the animals represented in those lives. If someone thinks it's wrong to kill animals, then killing 10 prairie dogs is worse than killing one elk, even though the elk has hundreds of times the "biomass" of the 10 prairie dogs. You're an idiot. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... 8< > I don't recall advocating consumption of excess nutrients. *Production of* > high amounts of nutrients per acre however seems to be right on topic. Indeed it is: oats vs beef: 1 acre oats provides 8 times more protein 16 times more iron 25 times more calories 6 times more niacin 12 times more riboflavin 84 times more thiamine insignificant saturated fat and cholesterol broccoli vs beef: 1 acre broccoli provides 10 times more protein 24 times more iron 11 times more calories 11 times more niacin 79 times more riboflavin 85 times more thiamine 650 times more calcium insignificant saturated fat and cholesterol [Plant Roots, p. 186] Plant agriculture per acre supports more people (approx. 20 times more) than beef AND produces more nutrients. John |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
WHY VEGANISM? | Vegan | |||
Veganism & Atheism | Vegan | |||
"veganism" is religion | Vegan | |||
"veganism" is NOT about health | Vegan | |||
Depression and veganism | Vegan |