I realize that citing research papers and otherwise using rational arguments
runs contrary to the spirit of Usenet, but for what it's worth -- here's an
interesting article that's relevant to the recent discussions:

==========================

Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis's Omnivorous
Proposal

by Gaverick Matheny

(Accepted in revised form January 30, 2003)

Abstract: In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis argues that the number
of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number of
animals killed in crop production. Davis then concludes the adoption of an
omnivorous diet would cause less harm than the adoption of a vegetarian
diet. Davis's argument fails on three counts: 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
production and ignores the welfare of these animals; and third, he does not
count the number of animals who may be prevented from existing. When we
correct these errors, Davis's argument makes a strong case for, rather than
against, adopting a vegetarian diet: vegetarianism kills fewer animals,
involves better treatment of animals, and likely allows a greater number of
animals with lives worth living to exist.

==========================

Full text: http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf

Oh, and since this is Usenet: All of yo mommas wear combat boots! Nyah,
nyah, nyah!

--
Alex Chernavsky

http://www.astrocyte-design.com/

"Alex Chernavsky" > wrote in message
news 8<

Thanks a lot for posting this Alex, it has an excellent line of facts and
logic.

When anyone posts about cds now I will point them to this link, and refuse
to take the thread any further until this paper is rebutted. Anyone else
should do likewise IMO.

John

Alex Chernavsky wrote:
> I realize that citing research papers and otherwise using rational arguments
> runs contrary to the spirit of Usenet, but for what it's worth -- here's an
> interesting article that's relevant to the recent discussions:
>
> ==========================
>
> Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis's Omnivorous
> Proposal
>
> by Gaverick Matheny
>
> (Accepted in revised form January 30, 2003)
>
> Abstract: In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis argues that the number
> of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number of
> animals killed in crop production. Davis then concludes the adoption of an
> omnivorous diet would cause less harm than the adoption of a vegetarian
> diet. Davis's argument fails on three counts: first, Davis makes a
> mathematical error in using total rather than per capita estimates of
> animals killed;

The vegan claim is that "no animal dies because I don't eat animal
flesh." It's *not* an error to estimate aggregate dead animals rather
than per capita. It's the aggregate which is at issue.

> second, he focuses on the number of animals killed in
> production and ignores the welfare of these animals;

No, he doesn't.

> and third, he does not
> count the number of animals who may be prevented from existing.

Is Gaverick Matheny a pseudonym used by Davey "Houseboat" Harrison?

> When we correct these errors,

Rather, "When we move the goalposts..."

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:49:18 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Alex Chernavsky wrote:
>> I realize that citing research papers and otherwise using rational arguments
>> runs contrary to the spirit of Usenet, but for what it's worth -- here's an
>> interesting article that's relevant to the recent discussions:
>>
>> ==========================
>>
>> Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis's Omnivorous
>> Proposal
>>
>> by Gaverick Matheny
>>
>> (Accepted in revised form January 30, 2003)
>>
>> Abstract: In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis argues that the number
>> of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number of
>> animals killed in crop production. Davis then concludes the adoption of an
>> omnivorous diet would cause less harm than the adoption of a vegetarian
>> diet. Davis's argument fails on three counts: first, Davis makes a
>> mathematical error in using total rather than per capita estimates of
>> animals killed;
>
>The vegan claim is that "no animal dies because I don't eat animal
>flesh." It's *not* an error to estimate aggregate dead animals rather
>than per capita. It's the aggregate which is at issue.
>
>> second, he focuses on the number of animals killed in
>> production and ignores the welfare of these animals;
>
>No, he doesn't.
>
>> and third, he does not
>> count the number of animals who may be prevented from existing.
>
>Is Gaverick Matheny a pseudonym used by Davey "Houseboat" Harrison?

That's the whole idea behind being a veg*n you stupid moron. Even the
Gonad has admitted that.

>> When we correct these errors,
>
>Rather, "When we move the goalposts..."

"Alex Chernavsky" > wrote

>I realize that citing research papers and otherwise using rational
>arguments
> runs contrary to the spirit of Usenet, but for what it's worth -- here's
> an
> interesting article that's relevant to the recent discussions:


Gaverick Matheny - engineering school dropout who did NO research

Steven Davis et al - respected scientists who did several studies

And it shows.


> ==========================
>
> Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis's Omnivorous
> Proposal
>
> by Gaverick Matheny
>
> (Accepted in revised form January 30, 2003)
>
> Abstract: In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis argues that the
> number
> of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number
> of
> animals killed in crop production. Davis then concludes the adoption of
> an
> omnivorous diet would cause less harm than the adoption of a vegetarian
> diet. Davis's argument fails on three counts: 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
> production and ignores the welfare of these animals; and third, he does
> not
> count the number of animals who may be prevented from existing. When we
> correct these errors, Davis's argument makes a strong case for, rather
> than
> against, adopting a vegetarian diet: vegetarianism kills fewer animals,
> involves better treatment of animals, and likely allows a greater number
> of
> animals with lives worth living to exist.
>
> ==========================
>
> Full text: http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf
>
> Oh, and since this is Usenet: All of yo mommas wear combat boots! Nyah,
> nyah, nyah!
>
> --
> Alex Chernavsky
>
> http://www.astrocyte-design.com/

"John Coleman" > wrote ..
>
> "Alex Chernavsky" > wrote

> 8<
>
> Thanks a lot for posting this Alex, it has an excellent line of facts and
> logic.
>
> When anyone posts about cds now I will point them to this link, and refuse
> to take the thread any further until this paper is rebutted. Anyone else
> should do likewise IMO.

Grasping at straws, head in sand. Did you even read Davis et al?

Derek Matheny - college dropout - ARA - no research, made it all up in his
head

Steven Davis et al - published scientists - did several studies for his
paper

Who do you believe? Duh.. lemmee see...

"Alex Chernavsky" > wrote in message
news
>I realize that citing research papers and otherwise using rational
>arguments
> runs contrary to the spirit of Usenet, but for what it's worth -- here's
> an
> interesting article that's relevant to the recent discussions:
>
> ==========================
>
> Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis's Omnivorous
> Proposal
>
> by Gaverick Matheny
>
> (Accepted in revised form January 30, 2003)
>
> Abstract: In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis argues that the
> number
> of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number
> of
> animals killed in crop production. Davis then concludes the adoption of
> an
> omnivorous diet would cause less harm than the adoption of a vegetarian
> diet. Davis's argument fails on three counts: 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
> production and ignores the welfare of these animals; and third, he does
> not
> count the number of animals who may be prevented from existing. When we
> correct these errors, Davis's argument makes a strong case for, rather
> than
> against, adopting a vegetarian diet: vegetarianism kills fewer animals,
> involves better treatment of animals, and likely allows a greater number
> of
> animals with lives worth living to exist.
>
> ==========================
>
> Full text: http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf
>
> Oh, and since this is Usenet: All of yo mommas wear combat boots! Nyah,
> nyah, nyah!
>
> --
> Alex Chernavsky
>
> http://www.astrocyte-design.com/
>
>

Can we still eat eggs and fish?

Alex Chernavsky wrote:

> I realize that citing research papers and otherwise using rational arguments
> runs contrary to the spirit of Usenet, but for what it's worth -- here's an
> interesting article that's relevant to the recent discussions:
>
> ==========================
>
> Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis's Omnivorous
> Proposal
>
> by Gaverick Matheny

Matheny's silly bit of sophistry has been seen here,
and dismissed, months ago. It is not a worthwhile
defense of "veganism" at all.

The issue first it completely fails to address, while
taking shots at Davis that are totally inconsistent
with what "vegans" really believe, is that the "vegan"
choice not to *consume* animal parts does not address,
in any way at all, the collateral deaths that "vegans"
DO, in fact, help to cause. "veganism" is founded on
the belief that it is ABSOLUTELY wrong to cause the
needless (non self defense) death or suffering of
animals. The choice not to *consume* animal parts
simply does NOTHING to stop collateral death and
suffering of animals in agriculture in the course of
producing what "vegans" do eat. Because "veganism" is
based on this *absolute* belief, it is not sufficient
to claim to be "minimizing" animal suffering and death
RELATIVE TO OMNIVORES. Matheny illustrates, once
again, that "vegans" are fundamentally about declaring
themselves "virtuous" based on an invidious comparison
with others.

The second major problem with the bit of sophistry is
that, because of the basis - animal "rights" - from
which "vegans" derive their silly, inconsequential rule
("do not consume animal parts"), "vegans" NECESSARILY
must focus on the deaths, NOT the quality of life,
despite Matheny's pathetic attempt to invoke
utilitarian considerations. That is, "aras"/"vegans"
would be against the consumption of meat EVEN IF all
meat animals enjoyed the most pleasant animal welfare
conditions imaginable. To their way of thinking, the
deliberate death of the animal necessarily trumps any
considerations of its welfare during its life. This is
why no "ara", really, can be a disciple of Singer; they
must be Reganites, or abandon it altogether.

John Coleman wrote:

> "Alex Chernavsky" > wrote in message
> news > 8<
>
> Thanks a lot for posting this Alex, it has an excellent line of facts and
> logic.

It's complete bullshit, Coleman, you cheap 2p sophist.

wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:49:18 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>
>
>>Alex Chernavsky wrote:
>>
>>>I realize that citing research papers and otherwise using rational arguments
>>>runs contrary to the spirit of Usenet, but for what it's worth -- here's an
>>>interesting article that's relevant to the recent discussions:
>>>
>>>==========================
>>>
>>>Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis's Omnivorous
>>>Proposal
>>>
>>>by Gaverick Matheny
>>>
>>>(Accepted in revised form January 30, 2003)
>>>
>>>Abstract: In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis argues that the number
>>>of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number of
>>>animals killed in crop production. Davis then concludes the adoption of an
>>>omnivorous diet would cause less harm than the adoption of a vegetarian
>>>diet. Davis's argument fails on three counts: first, Davis makes a
>>>mathematical error in using total rather than per capita estimates of
>>>animals killed;
>>
>>The vegan claim is that "no animal dies because I don't eat animal
>>flesh." It's *not* an error to estimate aggregate dead animals rather
>>than per capita. It's the aggregate which is at issue.
>>
>>
>>>second, he focuses on the number of animals killed in
>>>production and ignores the welfare of these animals;
>>
>>No, he doesn't.
>>
>>
>>>and third, he does not
>>>count the number of animals who may be prevented from existing.
>>
>>Is Gaverick Matheny a pseudonym used by Davey "Houseboat" Harrison?
>
>
> That's the whole idea behind being a veg*n

Your use of pseudonyms is the whole idea of being a
"vegan"? Why would that be so, ****wit? That makes
even less sense than your usual bullshit, and since
that makes no sense at all, you're into the red ink
with that one.

Anticorporation wrote:
> "Alex Chernavsky" > wrote in message
> news >
>>I realize that citing research papers and otherwise using rational
>>arguments
>>runs contrary to the spirit of Usenet, but for what it's worth -- here's
>>an
>>interesting article that's relevant to the recent discussions:
>>
>>==========================
>>
>>Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis's Omnivorous
>>Proposal
>>
>>by Gaverick Matheny
>>
>>(Accepted in revised form January 30, 2003)
>>
>>Abstract: In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis argues that the
>>number
>>of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number
>>of
>>animals killed in crop production. Davis then concludes the adoption of
>>an
>>omnivorous diet would cause less harm than the adoption of a vegetarian
>>diet. Davis's argument fails on three counts: 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
>>production and ignores the welfare of these animals; and third, he does
>>not
>>count the number of animals who may be prevented from existing. When we
>>correct these errors, Davis's argument makes a strong case for, rather
>>than
>>against, adopting a vegetarian diet: vegetarianism kills fewer animals,
>>involves better treatment of animals, and likely allows a greater number
>>of
>>animals with lives worth living to exist.
>>
>>==========================
>>
>>Full text: http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf
>>
>>Oh, and since this is Usenet: All of yo mommas wear combat boots! Nyah,
>>nyah, nyah!
>>
>>--
>>Alex Chernavsky

>>http://www.astrocyte-design.com/
>>
>>
>
>
> Can we still eat eggs and fish?

At this point, you may eat whatever you like (except
humans and endangered animal species.) Fish and eggs,
of course, are not vegetarian.

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
8<
> Derek Matheny - college dropout - ARA - no research, made it all up in his
> head

You post yet more ad hominem fudge, very predictable - when you can't
disprove you disaprove. The article is by Gaverick Matheny, is peer
reviewed, published in a journal (Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics 16: 505-511, 2003), the same journal as the original article, and
referenced.

> Steven Davis et al - published scientists - did several studies for his
> paper

has he rebutted Gaverick Matheny?? NO

> Who do you believe? Duh.. lemmee see...

You try and appeal to authority, another fallacy. I don't need beliefs,
Gaverick has provided the facts, he has specifically reported an error in
Steven Davis' calculations, so Davis is now required to rebutt this, or his
paper remains discreditted.

Again Dutch, you completely discredit yourself as an unbiased judge in
rational debate. There is simply no point in debating you because you refuse
to admit to the weight of facts.

John

John Coleman wrote:
>>Derek Matheny - college dropout - ARA - no research, made it all up in his
>>head
>
> You post yet more ad hominem fudge, very predictable - when you can't
> disprove you disaprove. The article is by Gaverick Matheny,

So? He's a drop out and an activist, not a scientist.

> is peer reviewed,

Is it?

> published in a journal (Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
> Ethics 16: 505-511, 2003), the same journal as the original article, and
> referenced.

So? Your crappy website is referenced, but that doesn't make it true or
accurate.

>>Steven Davis et al - published scientists - did several studies for his
>>paper
>
> has he rebutted Gaverick Matheny?? NO

Gav Matheny hasn't rebutted Davis.

>>Who do you believe? Duh.. lemmee see...
>
> You try and appeal to authority, another fallacy. I don't need beliefs,
> Gaverick has provided the facts,

No, he has not.

> he has specifically reported an error in
> Steven Davis' calculations,

No, he didn't. He moved the goalposts and redefined veganism.

> so Davis is now required to rebutt this, or his
> paper remains discreditted.

Davis' thesis remains unharmed by Matheny's response.

Anticorporation wrote:

> Can we still eat eggs and fish?

I wouldn't recommend it. See these two articles from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2983045.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/220462.stm

Of course, you have to take this stuff with a grain of salt, as the BBC is
known to be a bastion of pro-animal-rights radical activism.

--
Alex Chernavsky

http://www.astrocyte-design.com/

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Anticorporation wrote:
>> "Alex Chernavsky" > wrote in message
>> news >>
>>>I realize that citing research papers and otherwise using rational
>>>arguments
>>>runs contrary to the spirit of Usenet, but for what it's worth -- here's
>>>an
>>>interesting article that's relevant to the recent discussions:
>>>
>>>==========================
>>>
>>>Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis's Omnivorous
>>>Proposal
>>>
>>>by Gaverick Matheny
>>>
>>>(Accepted in revised form January 30, 2003)
>>>
>>>Abstract: In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis argues that the
>>>number
>>>of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number
>>>of
>>>animals killed in crop production. Davis then concludes the adoption of
>>>an
>>>omnivorous diet would cause less harm than the adoption of a vegetarian
>>>diet. Davis's argument fails on three counts: 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
>>>production and ignores the welfare of these animals; and third, he does
>>>not
>>>count the number of animals who may be prevented from existing. When we
>>>correct these errors, Davis's argument makes a strong case for, rather
>>>than
>>>against, adopting a vegetarian diet: vegetarianism kills fewer animals,
>>>involves better treatment of animals, and likely allows a greater number
>>>of
>>>animals with lives worth living to exist.
>>>
>>>==========================
>>>
>>>Full text: http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf
>>>
>>>Oh, and since this is Usenet: All of yo mommas wear combat boots! Nyah,
>>>nyah, nyah!
>>>
>>>--
>>>Alex Chernavsky

>>>http://www.astrocyte-design.com/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Can we still eat eggs and fish?
>
> At this point, you may eat whatever you like (except humans and endangered
> animal species.) Fish and eggs, of course, are not vegetarian.

I meant if you consume these things can you still be vegan-correct, or, is
this crossing the line? I do not like to eat cows and pigs and stuff
because of the drugs and antibiotics and hormones, not based on cruelty.
And, the economic thing does not really apply to me.

As far as the chicken eggs, I go with the free-range stuff, but, only
because they do not screw with them so much. I am not quite sure about that
fish pain study yet though. but, I do worry about the toxins now being
found in fish, last I heard that is how all the bald eagles died, I just
wonder what made them lose their hair in the first place, was this genetic
or toxicity induced?

Then their is the question of organic cows milk, is this just seen as a
form of slavery by the vegetarian community?

usual suspect wrote:

> John Coleman wrote:
>
>>> Derek Matheny - college dropout - ARA - no research, made it all up
>>> in his
>>> head
>>
>>
>> You post yet more ad hominem fudge, very predictable - when you can't
>> disprove you disaprove. The article is by Gaverick Matheny,
>
>
> So? He's a drop out and an activist,

And a polemical sophist and "vegan" activist. He
clearly is trying to defend HIS choice of vegetarianism.

Gaverick Matheny is the Development Director of
Vegan Action, a non-profit organization that works
with students, animal advocates, and food producers
to promote vegan diets. To learn more about their
Vegan Dorm Food, Humane Outreach, and Vegan
Certification campaigns, visit ...
http://www.satyamag.com/may01/ball.html

Matheny is also a shakedown artist. He and several
other "vegan" activists, including Matt Ball (no
relation to me), tried to alter the terms of a
settlement McDonald's made in some worthless case
brought by other shakedown artists, in order to get
some of the loot for their "vegan" organizations:
http://www.vegsource.com/mcdonalds/M...sObjection.pdf

> not a scientist.
>
>> is peer reviewed,
>
>
> Is it?
>
>> published in a journal (Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
>> Ethics 16: 505-511, 2003), the same journal as the original article, and
>> referenced.
>
>
> So? Your crappy website is referenced, but that doesn't make it true or
> accurate.
>
>>> Steven Davis et al - published scientists - did several studies for his
>>> paper
>>
>>
>> has he rebutted Gaverick Matheny?? NO
>
>
> Gav Matheny hasn't rebutted Davis.
>
>>> Who do you believe? Duh.. lemmee see...
>>
>>
>> You try and appeal to authority, another fallacy. I don't need beliefs,
>> Gaverick has provided the facts,
>
>
> No, he has not.

He has made conjecture.

>
>> he has specifically reported an error in
>> Steven Davis' calculations,
>
>
> No, he didn't. He moved the goalposts and redefined veganism.
>
>> so Davis is now required to rebutt this, or his
>> paper remains discreditted.
>
>
> Davis' thesis remains unharmed by Matheny's response.

"Anticorporation" > wrote:

> As far as the chicken eggs, I go with the free-range stuff

In practice, there is little difference between free-range eggs and regular
eggs.

http://www.vegsource.com/jo/qa/qaeggs.htm

--
Alex Chernavsky

http://www.astrocyte-design.com/

Alex Chernavsky wrote:
> Anticorporation wrote:
>
>
>>Can we still eat eggs and fish?
>
>
> I wouldn't recommend it. See these two articles from the BBC:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2983045.stm

http://www.animalrights.net/archives...03/000094.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...?oneclick=true
http://www.flyanglersonline.com/alca.../ac051203.html
http://www.fishontario.com/articles/do-fish-feel-pain/

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/220462.stm

Not very shocking that urban "animal welfare campaigners" -- a nicer way
of calling someone an animal rights activist -- would find a few
examples of bad production practices and suggest such is the norm. Most
egg producers follow codes of ethics and jurisdictions enforce laws
protecting animals from inhumane practcies.

> Of course, you have to take this stuff with a grain of salt,

coming from animal rights activists, rather than investigative
reporting, as it did.

<...>

Anticorporation wrote:
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Anticorporation wrote:
>>
>>>"Alex Chernavsky" > wrote in message
>>>news >>>
>>>
>>>>I realize that citing research papers and otherwise using rational
>>>>arguments
>>>>runs contrary to the spirit of Usenet, but for what it's worth -- here's
>>>>an
>>>>interesting article that's relevant to the recent discussions:
>>>>
>>>>==========================
>>>>
>>>>Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis's Omnivorous
>>>>Proposal
>>>>
>>>>by Gaverick Matheny
>>>>
>>>>(Accepted in revised form January 30, 2003)
>>>>
>>>>Abstract: In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis argues that the
>>>>number
>>>>of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number
>>>>of
>>>>animals killed in crop production. Davis then concludes the adoption of
>>>>an
>>>>omnivorous diet would cause less harm than the adoption of a vegetarian
>>>>diet. Davis's argument fails on three counts: 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
>>>>production and ignores the welfare of these animals; and third, he does
>>>>not
>>>>count the number of animals who may be prevented from existing. When we
>>>>correct these errors, Davis's argument makes a strong case for, rather
>>>>than
>>>>against, adopting a vegetarian diet: vegetarianism kills fewer animals,
>>>>involves better treatment of animals, and likely allows a greater number
>>>>of
>>>>animals with lives worth living to exist.
>>>>
>>>>==========================
>>>>
>>>>Full text: http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf
>>>>
>>>>Oh, and since this is Usenet: All of yo mommas wear combat boots! Nyah,
>>>>nyah, nyah!
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Alex Chernavsky

>>>>http://www.astrocyte-design.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can we still eat eggs and fish?
>>
>>At this point, you may eat whatever you like (except humans and endangered
>>animal species.) Fish and eggs, of course, are not vegetarian.
>
>
> I meant if you consume these things can you still be vegan-correct, or, is
> this crossing the line? I do not like to eat cows and pigs and stuff
> because of the drugs and antibiotics and hormones, not based on cruelty.

I have good news for you: pork isn't fed hormones. Ever. Neither is
poultry. You really don't have any reason to fear the antibiotics used
because animals are withdrawn from it prior to slaughter and their meat
is tested for residues. If they test too high for antibiotic residue,
the meat is destroyed and kept out of the food supply.

You also have alternatives like free-range and organic meats.

Some people think that all commercially raised animals – cattle,
hogs, sheep, and poultry – are fed hormones as growth promoters.
In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not
permit the use of hormones in raising hogs or chickens, turkeys
and other fowl. That is why the USDA does not allow the use of
the term “no hormones added” on labels of pork or poultry
products unless it is followed by a statement explaining that
“Federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones.”
http://www.drweil.com/u/QA/QA71087/

> And, the economic thing does not really apply to me.

What economic thing?

> As far as the chicken eggs, I go with the free-range stuff, but, only
> because they do not screw with them so much. I am not quite sure about that
> fish pain study yet though. but, I do worry about the toxins now being
> found in fish,

Eat the safer species. There are only a handful of species at risk of
high methylmercury contamination, and even those are safe for most
people to consume in moderation. Check out the Seychelles study which
found no adverse risks among those with very high consumption of
contaminated fish.
http://www.rochester.edu/pr/releases/med/mercury.htm

> last I heard that is how all the bald eagles died, I just
> wonder what made them lose their hair in the first place, was this genetic
> or toxicity induced?

It was related to DDT exposure, which has been banned for 32 years. The
eagle populations are rebounding.

> Then their is the question of organic cows milk,

No, there isn't a question about it.

> is this just seen as a
> form of slavery by the vegetarian community?

Among vegans, likely. But they're a bunch of sanctimonious prats. You
shouldn't worry about what they think if you like certain foods.

Anticorporation wrote:
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Anticorporation wrote:
>>
>>>"Alex Chernavsky" > wrote in message
>>>news >>>
>>>
>>>>I realize that citing research papers and otherwise using rational
>>>>arguments
>>>>runs contrary to the spirit of Usenet, but for what it's worth -- here's
>>>>an
>>>>interesting article that's relevant to the recent discussions:
>>>>
>>>>==========================
>>>>
>>>>Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis's Omnivorous
>>>>Proposal
>>>>
>>>>by Gaverick Matheny
>>>>
>>>>(Accepted in revised form January 30, 2003)
>>>>
>>>>Abstract: In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis argues that the
>>>>number
>>>>of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number
>>>>of
>>>>animals killed in crop production. Davis then concludes the adoption of
>>>>an
>>>>omnivorous diet would cause less harm than the adoption of a vegetarian
>>>>diet. Davis's argument fails on three counts: 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
>>>>production and ignores the welfare of these animals; and third, he does
>>>>not
>>>>count the number of animals who may be prevented from existing. When we
>>>>correct these errors, Davis's argument makes a strong case for, rather
>>>>than
>>>>against, adopting a vegetarian diet: vegetarianism kills fewer animals,
>>>>involves better treatment of animals, and likely allows a greater number
>>>>of
>>>>animals with lives worth living to exist.
>>>>
>>>>==========================
>>>>
>>>>Full text: http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf
>>>>
>>>>Oh, and since this is Usenet: All of yo mommas wear combat boots! Nyah,
>>>>nyah, nyah!
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Alex Chernavsky

>>>>http://www.astrocyte-design.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can we still eat eggs and fish?
>>
>>At this point, you may eat whatever you like (except humans and endangered
>>animal species.) Fish and eggs, of course, are not vegetarian.
>
>
> I meant if you consume these things can you still be vegan-correct, or, is
> this crossing the line? I do not like to eat cows and pigs and stuff
> because of the drugs and antibiotics and hormones, not based on cruelty.

I have good news for you: pork isn't fed hormones. Ever. Neither is
poultry. You really don't have any reason to fear the antibiotics used
because animals are withdrawn from it prior to slaughter and their meat
is tested for residues. If they test too high for antibiotic residue,
the meat is destroyed and kept out of the food supply.

You also have alternatives like free-range and organic meats.

Some people think that all commercially raised animals – cattle,
hogs, sheep, and poultry – are fed hormones as growth promoters.
In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not
permit the use of hormones in raising hogs or chickens, turkeys
and other fowl. That is why the USDA does not allow the use of
the term “no hormones added” on labels of pork or poultry
products unless it is followed by a statement explaining that
“Federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones.”
http://www.drweil.com/u/QA/QA71087/

> And, the economic thing does not really apply to me.

What economic thing?

> As far as the chicken eggs, I go with the free-range stuff, but, only
> because they do not screw with them so much. I am not quite sure about that
> fish pain study yet though. but, I do worry about the toxins now being
> found in fish,

Eat the safer species. There are only a handful of species at risk of
high methylmercury contamination, and even those are safe for most
people to consume in moderation. Check out the Seychelles study which
found no adverse risks among those with very high consumption of
contaminated fish.
http://www.rochester.edu/pr/releases/med/mercury.htm

> last I heard that is how all the bald eagles died, I just
> wonder what made them lose their hair in the first place, was this genetic
> or toxicity induced?

It was related to DDT exposure, which has been banned for 32 years. The
eagle populations are rebounding.

> Then their is the question of organic cows milk,

No, there isn't a question about it.

> is this just seen as a
> form of slavery by the vegetarian community?

Among vegans, likely. But they're a bunch of sanctimonious prats. You
shouldn't worry about what they think if you like certain foods.

"John Coleman" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
> 8<
>> Derek Matheny - college dropout - ARA - no research, made it all up in
>> his
>> head
>
> You post yet more ad hominem fudge, very predictable

I figured you'd hang your hat on that. The different credentials is a fact
that ought to be recognized, Matheny's incoherent "rebuttal" fails on it's
own.

If Matheny was an esteemed environmental scientist and Davis a college
dropout I have no doubt you would make sure the facts were known.

>- when you can't
> disprove you disaprove. The article is by Gaverick Matheny, is peer
> reviewed,

How can it be "peer" reviewed? Matheny is a layman, his essay was accepted
as "discussion".

Please note that the original poster, displaying typical ARA bias, did not
even provide the link to Davis's research paper, which would have given some
context for the discussion, and which incidentally includes the link to
Matheny's "rebuttal".
Here it is
http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm

Notice there how Davis prominently links the Matheny "rebuttal" right at the
top of his paper, in bold text. How characteristic of a legitimate scientist
probing for the truth. Notice how no person who has ever supported the
"rebuttal" has ever linked the original document. How characteristic of
vegan/ARAs who only display what they want people to see.

> published in a journal (Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
> Ethics 16: 505-511, 2003), the same journal as the original article, and
> referenced.
>
>> Steven Davis et al - published scientists - did several studies for his
>> paper
>
> has he rebutted Gaverick Matheny?? NO

Davis is not obligated to respond to lay commentary. His paper stands on
it's own.

>> Who do you believe? Duh.. lemmee see...
>
> You try and appeal to authority, another fallacy. I don't need beliefs,

Yes you do John, you need this belief desperately, you believe that if it is
destroyed you will die.

> Gaverick has provided the facts, he has specifically reported an error in
> Steven Davis' calculations, so Davis is now required to rebutt this, or
> his
> paper remains discreditted.

Bullcrap John, Matheny juggles numbers, nothing more. The Davis research
presents a credible argument for the thesis that the ideal diet to achieve
least harm *may* include pastured ruminants.

> Again Dutch, you completely discredit yourself as an unbiased judge in
> rational debate.

Oh COME ON John. Please don't make me spit coffee on my monitor. YOU, of all
people, are NOT unbiased.

> There is simply no point in debating you because you refuse
> to admit to the weight of facts.

Did you even read Davis concusions at the end of his paper? I'll repeat them
here. Notice how he makes no *absolute* claims since there is a dearth of
research on collateral deaths? Notice how modest the claims are, in typical
fashion of a scientist, he *reports* his finding then *suggests*
implications. Matheny's sleight of hand tricks and convoluted sophistry are
IRRELEVANT, they do not refute the actual conclusions Davis makes.

CONCLUSION from
http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm

1. Vegan diets are not bloodless diets. Millions of animals of the field
die every year to provide products used in vegan diets.

2. Several alternative food production models exist that may kill fewer
animals than the vegan model.

3. More research is needed to obtain accurate estimations of the number
of field animals killed in different crop production systems.

4. Humans may be morally obligated to consume a diet from plant based plus
pasture-forage-ruminant systems.

Anticorporation wrote:
> "Alex Chernavsky" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>"Anticorporation" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As far as the chicken eggs, I go with the free-range stuff
>>
>>In practice, there is little difference between free-range eggs and
>>regular
>>eggs.
>>
>>http://www.vegsource.com/jo/qa/qaeggs.htm
>>
>>--
>>Alex Chernavsky

>>http://www.astrocyte-design.com/
>>
>>
>
>
> From article: "From a vegan perspective, the use of animals for human
> profit or gain, regardless of how they are raised or treated, is
> incompatible with vegan principles and the practice of compassionate living."

This is PRECISELY why Matheny's screed amounts to no
more than specious sophistry. EVEN IF it could be
shown that a meat-including diet caused less total
utilitarian harm, along the lines that Matheny scarcely
seems to understand, "vegans" STILL would believe that
eating the meat is wrong.

Matheny cobbles together an elaborate and flimsy
utilitarian framework to try to defeat Davis's
argument, when clearly Matheny himself doesn't really
accept utilitarianism.

It's very interesting to note, however, that Matheny
introduces a "lives prevented" utilitarian element to
his argument. That is exactly what David ****wit
Harrison attempts to argue, although in a different
dimension. To ****wit, the "lives prevented"
pseudo-argument is used to justify the livestock; to
him, these animals "getting to experience life" must be
given great weight. To Matheny, it's the prevention of
lives of other animals (so that livestock may live)
that needs to be given weight.

Here's an interesting problem for Matheny. It is
pretty well accepted on both sides of the debate that
the overwhelming amount of crop agriculture is to raise
food for livestock. Suppose this massive amount of
agriculture, which would almost entirely disappear if
we stopped eating meat, actually "causes" a much
greater number of animals of the field to exist. That
is, if a given field is cultivated for corn or soybeans
or some other feed grain, there will on average be some
50 animals of the field living in it; but if the same
field is not cultivated, there will be only 5 animals
of the field living in it.

It certainly seems plausible, using Matheny's (and
****wit's) lazy and casual form of ad hoc analysis, to
think that those 50 animals might actually have pretty
good lives, up until the point they're chopped to bits
by the harvesting machinery (Matheny very specifically
attempts to discount the disutility resulting from
small animals of the field being killed by harvesting
machinery.) By not taking those lives into
consideration in his slovenly utilitarian thought
exercise, Matheny is omitting a great unknown that
might wreck his whole conclusion.

"Alex Chernavsky" > wrote

> Anticorporation wrote:
>
>> Can we still eat eggs and fish?
>
> I wouldn't recommend it. See these two articles from the BBC:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2983045.stm

So what if they feel pain? So do the mammals killed collaterally in every
form of agriculture.

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/220462.stm

I don't buy battery eggs, I buy free range.

> Of course, you have to take this stuff with a grain of salt, as the BBC is
> known to be a bastion of pro-animal-rights radical activism.

Speaking of bias, I'm curious to know why you posted the Matheny "rebuttal"
to Davis et al's Least Harm hypothesis but failed to include the Davis et
all paper itself.

Is the kind of objectivity they teach at Yale these days?

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> "John Coleman" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > 8<
> >> Derek Matheny - college dropout - ARA - no research, made it all up in
> >> his
> >> head
> >
> > You post yet more ad hominem fudge, very predictable
>
> I figured you'd hang your hat on that. The different credentials is a
fact
> that ought to be recognized, Matheny's incoherent "rebuttal" fails on it's
> own.

where?

> If Matheny was an esteemed environmental scientist and Davis a college
> dropout I have no doubt you would make sure the facts were known.

maybe, but I prefer to let facts speak for themselves

> How can it be "peer" reviewed? Matheny is a layman, his essay was accepted
> as "discussion".

yes, "was accepted"

> Notice there how Davis prominently links the Matheny "rebuttal" right at
the
> top of his paper, in bold text. How characteristic of a legitimate
scientist
> probing for the truth. Notice how no person who has ever supported the
> "rebuttal" has ever linked the original document. How characteristic of
> vegan/ARAs who only display what they want people to see.

The original article is in the references.

> Davis is not obligated to respond to lay commentary. His paper stands on
> it's own.

rubbish - Davis failed miserably to make his case by not doing the math
properly

If forage production does kill half as many animals per unit area it still
only produces a tenth of the food.

> Yes you do John, you need this belief desperately, you believe that if it
is
> destroyed you will die.

You project your faults onto others.

> Bullcrap John, Matheny juggles numbers, nothing more. The Davis research
> presents a credible argument for the thesis that the ideal diet to achieve
> least harm *may* include pastured ruminants.

ROTFL!! HA HA HA. Davis' paper is a total failure.

> Oh COME ON John. Please don't make me spit coffee on my monitor. YOU, of
all
> people, are NOT unbiased.

How many cups of poison do you drink a day Dutch?. Clealry it affects you
ability at valid critical review.

> implications. Matheny's sleight of hand tricks and convoluted sophistry
are
> IRRELEVANT, they do not refute the actual conclusions Davis makes.

Matheny torched Davis. Live with it, move on.

> 2. Several alternative food production models exist that may kill fewer
> animals than the vegan model.

but none have been identified in this paper

> 3. More research is needed to obtain accurate estimations of the
number
> of field animals killed in different crop production systems.

no need, we can already expand organic farming and encourage no-till

> 4. Humans may be morally obligated to consume a diet from plant based
plus
> pasture-forage-ruminant systems.

not shown by Davis or you, in fact Davis only weakens the case with his
paper

1 ha of forrage doesn't produce as much food as 1 ha of human plant foods.
In fact it produces far far less. You need deaths from forrage systems to go
down more than tenfold to undermine what a vegan diet has to offer. Of
course, convert much of that arrable land to organic orchards and nut trees,
and you haven't got a hope.

John

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> "John Coleman" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > 8<
> >> Derek Matheny - college dropout - ARA - no research, made it all up in
> >> his
> >> head
> >
> > You post yet more ad hominem fudge, very predictable
>
> I figured you'd hang your hat on that. The different credentials is a
fact
> that ought to be recognized, Matheny's incoherent "rebuttal" fails on it's
> own.

where?

> If Matheny was an esteemed environmental scientist and Davis a college
> dropout I have no doubt you would make sure the facts were known.

maybe, but I prefer to let facts speak for themselves

> How can it be "peer" reviewed? Matheny is a layman, his essay was accepted
> as "discussion".

yes, "was accepted"

> Notice there how Davis prominently links the Matheny "rebuttal" right at
the
> top of his paper, in bold text. How characteristic of a legitimate
scientist
> probing for the truth. Notice how no person who has ever supported the
> "rebuttal" has ever linked the original document. How characteristic of
> vegan/ARAs who only display what they want people to see.

The original article is in the references.

> Davis is not obligated to respond to lay commentary. His paper stands on
> it's own.

rubbish - Davis failed miserably to make his case by not doing the math
properly

If forage production does kill half as many animals per unit area it still
only produces a tenth of the food.

> Yes you do John, you need this belief desperately, you believe that if it
is
> destroyed you will die.

You project your faults onto others.

> Bullcrap John, Matheny juggles numbers, nothing more. The Davis research
> presents a credible argument for the thesis that the ideal diet to achieve
> least harm *may* include pastured ruminants.

ROTFL!! HA HA HA. Davis' paper is a total failure.

> Oh COME ON John. Please don't make me spit coffee on my monitor. YOU, of
all
> people, are NOT unbiased.

How many cups of poison do you drink a day Dutch?. Clealry it affects you
ability at valid critical review.

> implications. Matheny's sleight of hand tricks and convoluted sophistry
are
> IRRELEVANT, they do not refute the actual conclusions Davis makes.

Matheny torched Davis. Live with it, move on.

> 2. Several alternative food production models exist that may kill fewer
> animals than the vegan model.

but none have been identified in this paper

> 3. More research is needed to obtain accurate estimations of the
number
> of field animals killed in different crop production systems.

no need, we can already expand organic farming and encourage no-till

> 4. Humans may be morally obligated to consume a diet from plant based
plus
> pasture-forage-ruminant systems.

not shown by Davis or you, in fact Davis only weakens the case with his
paper

1 ha of forrage doesn't produce as much food as 1 ha of human plant foods.
In fact it produces far far less. You need deaths from forrage systems to go
down more than tenfold to undermine what a vegan diet has to offer. Of
course, convert much of that arrable land to organic orchards and nut trees,
and you haven't got a hope.

John

"Alex Chernavsky" > wrote
> "Anticorporation" > wrote:
>
>> As far as the chicken eggs, I go with the free-range stuff
>
> In practice, there is little difference between free-range eggs and
> regular
> eggs.

Bullshit, this "vegan" activist Stepaniuk simply asserts this because she is
against *any* *exploitation* of animals. It's pure animal quasi-politics.

> http://www.vegsource.com/jo/qa/qaeggs.htm

Oops zero-objectivity alert "Vegsource".

John Coleman wrote:

> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"John Coleman" > wrote
>>
>>>"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>>>8<
>>>
>>>>Derek Matheny - college dropout - ARA - no research, made it all up in
>>>>his
>>>>head
>>>
>>>You post yet more ad hominem fudge, very predictable
>>
>>I figured you'd hang your hat on that. The different credentials is a
>
> fact
>
>>that ought to be recognized, Matheny's incoherent "rebuttal" fails on it's
>>own.
>
>
> where?
>
>
>>If Matheny was an esteemed environmental scientist and Davis a college
>>dropout I have no doubt you would make sure the facts were known.
>
>
> maybe, but I prefer to let facts speak for themselves
>
>
>>How can it be "peer" reviewed? Matheny is a layman, his essay was accepted
>>as "discussion".
>
>
> yes, "was accepted"

That does not mean peer reviewed. DUMMY!

>
>
>>Notice there how Davis prominently links the Matheny "rebuttal" right at
>
> the
>
>>top of his paper, in bold text. How characteristic of a legitimate
>
> scientist
>
>>probing for the truth. Notice how no person who has ever supported the
>>"rebuttal" has ever linked the original document. How characteristic of
>>vegan/ARAs who only display what they want people to see.
>
>
> The original article is in the references.
>
>
>>Davis is not obligated to respond to lay commentary. His paper stands on
>>it's own.
>
>
> rubbish - Davis failed miserably to make his case by not doing the math
> properly
>
> If forage production does kill half as many animals per unit area it still
> only produces a tenth of the food.
>
>
>>Yes you do John, you need this belief desperately, you believe that if it
>
> is
>
>>destroyed you will die.
>
>
> You project your faults onto others.
>
>
>>Bullcrap John, Matheny juggles numbers, nothing more. The Davis research
>>presents a credible argument for the thesis that the ideal diet to achieve
>>least harm *may* include pastured ruminants.
>
>
> ROTFL!! HA HA HA. Davis' paper is a total failure.
>
>
>>Oh COME ON John. Please don't make me spit coffee on my monitor. YOU, of
>
> all
>
>>people, are NOT unbiased.
>
>
> How many cups of poison do you drink a day Dutch?. Clealry it affects you
> ability at valid critical review.
>
>
>>implications. Matheny's sleight of hand tricks and convoluted sophistry
>
> are
>
>>IRRELEVANT, they do not refute the actual conclusions Davis makes.
>
>
> Matheny torched Davis. Live with it, move on.
>
>
>> 2. Several alternative food production models exist that may kill fewer
>>animals than the vegan model.
>
>
> but none have been identified in this paper
>
>
>> 3. More research is needed to obtain accurate estimations of the
>
> number
>
>>of field animals killed in different crop production systems.
>
>
> no need, we can already expand organic farming and encourage no-till
>
>
>> 4. Humans may be morally obligated to consume a diet from plant based
>
> plus
>
>>pasture-forage-ruminant systems.
>
>
> not shown by Davis or you, in fact Davis only weakens the case with his
> paper
>
> 1 ha of forrage doesn't produce as much food as 1 ha of human plant foods.
> In fact it produces far far less. You need deaths from forrage systems to go
> down more than tenfold to undermine what a vegan diet has to offer. Of
> course, convert much of that arrable land to organic orchards and nut trees,
> and you haven't got a hope.
>
> John
>
>

Dutch wrote:

> http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm
>
> Notice there how Davis prominently links the Matheny "rebuttal"
> righ at the top of his paper, in bold text. How characteristic of a
> legitimate scientist probing for the truth.

Steven L. Davis himself had nothing to do with the website you reference.
The website belongs to Nathan Nobis, a philosopher who recently graduated
from the University of Rochester. Nobis put the link there, not Davis.

As far as I can tell, this is the only "official" Davis site:

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/animal-s...ulty/davis.htm

--
Alex Chernavsky

http://www.astrocyte-design.com/

Dutch wrote:

> I'm curious to know why you posted the Matheny
> "rebuttal" to Davis et al's Least Harm hypothesis but failed
> to include the Davis et all paper itself.

You yourself posted the Davis link the day before my post:
http://tinyurl.com/5u3de

I saw no reason to repeat it.

--
Alex Chernavsky

http://www.astrocyte-design.com/

"Alex Chernavsky" > wrote in message
.. .
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm
>>
>> Notice there how Davis prominently links the Matheny "rebuttal"
>> righ at the top of his paper, in bold text. How characteristic of a
>> legitimate scientist probing for the truth.
>
> Steven L. Davis himself had nothing to do with the website you reference.

OK, apart from the content.

> The website belongs to Nathan Nobis, a philosopher who recently graduated
> from the University of Rochester. Nobis put the link there, not Davis.
>
> As far as I can tell, this is the only "official" Davis site:
>
> http://oregonstate.edu/dept/animal-s...ulty/davis.htm

Right, a PhD professor in Animal Science vs a college dropout activist
windbag.

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> ... incoherent "rebuttal" fails on it's own.[sic]
Lessee, you are talking about research papers, making believe you
understand them, but you can't handle the vagaries of 4th grade Ingleesh??
HINT: it's = it is, or it has; its = belonging to it.

Laurie

"John Coleman" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote
>> "John Coleman" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote

>> >> Derek Matheny - college dropout - ARA - no research, made it all up in
>> >> his
>> >> head
>> >
>> > You post yet more ad hominem fudge, very predictable
>>
>> I figured you'd hang your hat on that. The different credentials is a
> fact
>> that ought to be recognized, Matheny's incoherent "rebuttal" fails on
>> it's
>> own.
>
> where?

All over the place, he introduces so much extraneous content and so many
strawmen it is difficult to keep up, but one stands out. 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, 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 pound of plants. The monetary value of it, not
insignificant in itself, demonstrates this fact.

>> If Matheny was an esteemed environmental scientist and Davis a college
>> dropout I have no doubt you would make sure the facts were known.
>
> maybe, but I prefer to let facts speak for themselves

When your man is shlobo...

>> How can it be "peer" reviewed? Matheny is a layman, his essay was
>> accepted
>> as "discussion".
>
> yes, "was accepted"

Not peer reviewed.

>> Notice there how Davis prominently links the Matheny "rebuttal" right at
> the
>> top of his paper, in bold text. How characteristic of a legitimate
> scientist
>> probing for the truth. Notice how no person who has ever supported the
>> "rebuttal" has ever linked the original document. How characteristic of
>> vegan/ARAs who only display what they want people to see.
>
> The original article is in the references.

No link, no access to both sides of the story.

>> Davis is not obligated to respond to lay commentary. His paper stands on
>> it's own.
>
> rubbish - Davis failed miserably to make his case by not doing the math
> properly

It's not a math paper, it's a proposal. He does not draw absolute
conclusions, he concludes that it suggests certain things, and that more
research is warranted.

> If forage production does kill half as many animals per unit area it still
> only produces a tenth of the food.

By pound or by value?

>> Yes you do John, you need this belief desperately, you believe that if it
> is
>> destroyed you will die.
>
> You project your faults onto others.

It's the truth and you know it, your belief in veganism goes beyond all
reason.

>> Bullcrap John, Matheny juggles numbers, nothing more. The Davis research
>> presents a credible argument for the thesis that the ideal diet to
>> achieve
>> least harm *may* include pastured ruminants.
>
> ROTFL!! HA HA HA. Davis' paper is a total failure.

It's an arrow through the heart of veganism, you just can't accept it.

>> Oh COME ON John. Please don't make me spit coffee on my monitor. YOU, of
> all
>> people, are NOT unbiased.
>
> How many cups of poison do you drink a day Dutch?. Clealry it affects you
> ability at valid critical review.

You're not critical John, not of vegan ideas.

>> implications. Matheny's sleight of hand tricks and convoluted sophistry
> are
>> IRRELEVANT, they do not refute the actual conclusions Davis makes.
>
> Matheny torched Davis. Live with it, move on.

Matheny did shit.

>> 2. Several alternative food production models exist that may kill
>> fewer
>> animals than the vegan model.
>
> but none have been identified in this paper

Nonsense, the paper is about an alternative food model.

>> 3. More research is needed to obtain accurate estimations of the
> number
>> of field animals killed in different crop production systems.
>
> no need, we can already expand organic farming and encourage no-till

Both of which kill animals.

>> 4. Humans may be morally obligated to consume a diet from plant based
> plus
>> pasture-forage-ruminant systems.
>
> not shown by Davis or you, in fact Davis only weakens the case with his
> paper

Nope, he reinforces the case against the strict vegan model.

> 1 ha of forrage doesn't produce as much food as 1 ha of human plant foods.
> In fact it produces far far less.

Less in lbs but more in value with less impact on the earth.

> You need deaths from forrage systems to go
> down more than tenfold to undermine what a vegan diet has to offer.

False conclusion.

Of
> course, convert much of that arrable land to organic orchards and nut
> trees,
> and you haven't got a hope.

What about non-arable land and by-products?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:
>
> What about non-arable land and by-products?

I apologize, Dutch. My computer was bogged down and I attributed someone
else's comments to you.

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>>What about non-arable land and by-products?
>
>
> I apologize, Dutch. My computer was bogged down and I attributed someone
> else's comments to you.

Not for the first time. You're a mess.

"Alex Chernavsky" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> I'm curious to know why you posted the Matheny
>> "rebuttal" to Davis et al's Least Harm hypothesis but failed
>> to include the Davis et all paper itself.
>
> You yourself posted the Davis link the day before my post:
> http://tinyurl.com/5u3de

I didn't even remember that myself.

> I saw no reason to repeat it.

Think about it. These messages are propagated onto hundreds of usenet
servers, to Google Groups and copied into dozens of internet animal forums.
Anyone reading your message would have to have known that and read my
message to have any hope of referring to the actual content of Davis'
results. Matheny's essay certainly gives little indication of it's real
message.

Methinks you omitted it deliberately, consciously or otherwise, because you
wish to portray only one side of the issue.

"Laurie" > wrote
>
> "Dutch" > wrote

>> ... incoherent "rebuttal" fails on it's own.[sic]
> Lessee, you are talking about research papers, making believe you
> understand them, but you can't handle the vagaries of 4th grade Ingleesh??
> HINT: it's = it is, or it has; its = belonging to it.

Omigod, not a misplaced apostrophe! I shall fall on my sword immediately.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> What about non-arable land and by-products?
>
> I apologize, Dutch. My computer was bogged down and I attributed someone
> else's comments to you.

I forgive you, it was the least of your sins.

Dutch wrote:

> [Gaverick Matheny's] main objection to Davis's study is the
> way he [Davis] compares deaths per [hectare], rather than deaths
> per pound of food.

That is not what Matheny is saying. His calculations involve kilograms of
_protein_, not kilograms of _food_. The distinction is crucial.

> Well, pounds of food is not an accurate comparison, because a
> pound of meat and a pound of grain are not equivalent.

Yes, exactly so, as Matheny himself points out:

=======================

Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in crop
production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5). If this is
true, then as long as crop production uses less than half as many hectares
as ruminant-pasture to deliver the same amount of food, a vegetarian will
kill fewer animals than an omnivore. In fact, crop production uses less than
half as many hectares as grass-fed dairy and one-tenth as many hectares as
grass-fed beef to deliver the same amount of protein. In one year, 1,000
kilograms of protein can be produced on as few as 1.0 hectares planted with
soy and corn, 2.6 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed dairy cows, or 10
hectares used as pasture for grass-fed beef cattle (Vandehaar, 1998; UNFAO,
1996). As such, to obtain the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended
for adults, a vegan-vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually, a
lacto-vegetarian would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davisstyle omnivore
would kill 1.5 wild animals. Thus, correcting Davis's math, we see that a
vegan-vegetarian population would kill the fewest number of wild animals,
followed closely by a lacto-vegetarian population.

=======================

Incidentally, Gaverick Matheny more than likely graduated from college and
seems on his way to getting an advanced degree (not that it really matters
all that much): "Gaverick Matheny is a graduate student, Department of
Population and Family Health Sciences, Bloomberg School of Public Health,
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA."

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3013404.html

--
Alex Chernavsky

http://www.astrocyte-design.com/

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> What about non-arable land and by-products?
>> >
>> > I apologize, Dutch. My computer was bogged down and I attributed
>> > someone
>> > else's comments to you.
>>
>> I forgive you, it was the least of your sins.
>
> Oh, the diversions and distractions continue.

If I can't educate you at least I can entertain myself.

By being played like a fish?

That would certainly suit you.