grass-fed beef vs. tofu

[Rupert]

The cumulative elasticity factor for soybeans is about 0.4. If you accept Stephen Davis' estimate that the production of one hectare of soybeans causes 15 collateral deaths, then, given that one hectare of soybeans will yield about 1000 kilograms of protein, buying enough tofu to obtain 20 grams of protein will lead to an expected increase of 0.00012 in the number of collateral deaths that take place.

The cumulative elasticity factor for beef is 0.5. Let us assume for the sake of argument that if you buy grass-fed beef then the only relevant harm caused is the actual slaughter of the animal, and let us assume that each slaughter yields 250 kg of beef. Then buying enough beef to obtain the same quantity of protein (about 125 g) will lead to an expected increase of 0.00025 in the number of slaughters that take place.

This gives the collateral death rate from one serving of tofu as smaller than that for the equivalent serving of beef by a factor of two. David Harrison has repeatedly said that it is larger by a factor of hundreds. He has never given one shred of data to support this claim.

[George Plimpton]

On 4/24/2013 9:28 PM, Rupert wrote:
> The cumulative elasticity factor

Define your terms.

[Rupert]

The cumulative elasticity factor is defined to be E_S/(E_S-E_D), where E_S is the supply elasticity factor and E_D is the demand elasticity factor. It's supposed to be a measure of what impact a given reduction in the demand will have on the amount supplied.

[George Plimpton]

Elasticity refers to the responsiveness of supply or demand with respect
to price. If demand is elastic, it means that a 1% change in price will
result in more than a 1% change in quanty demanded; inelastic means the
percentage change in price results in a lower percentage change in
quantity demanded. It's the same for supply.

Now try again.

[Rupert]

Why do you want me to try again, what was wrong with my definition?

[dh]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:28:46 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>If you accept Stephen Davis' estimate that the production of one hectare of soybeans

Grown exactly where?

>causes 15 collateral deaths

Of what type(s) of animals? Killed by which processes? Include all.

[Rupert]

Well, you can read the details here:

https://ethik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/Davis__S._2003_The_least_Harm_-_Anti_Veg_in_J._Agric._Ethics.pdf

If you know of a better estimate, then we can use that one instead.

In order for your claim to be true that one cup of tofu involves "hundreds" more deaths than one quarter-pound of beef, it would have to be the case that the average collateral death rate associated with soybean production is 3000 deaths per hectare per year. That's obviously false. You should stop making the claim.

[dh]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:29:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Friday, April 26, 2013 12:14:15 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:28:46 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >If you accept Stephen Davis' estimate that the production of one hectare of soybeans
>>
>>
>>
>> Grown exactly where?
>>
>>
>>
>> >causes 15 collateral deaths
>>
>>
>>
>> Of what type(s) of animals? Killed by which processes? Include all.
>
>Well, you can read the details here:
>
>https://ethik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/Davis__S._2003_The_least_Harm_-_Anti_Veg_in_J._Agric._Ethics.pdf

No it's your thing so if you think it does the job then present some info
from it. I didn't believe it would give a decent representation before
questioning you about it, and now I know again there's nothing there you think
is worth presenting. Even though there's nothing there that even you think is
worth presenting you're hoping something at the page will make me change the pov
I've had for decades, but I doubt it would even though I don't intend to waste
time looking. As I always point out YOU need to present what you want people to
think you think you're trying to talk about, but you can't do it and the reason
for that is most likely because it doesn't exist.

>If you know of a better estimate, then we can use that one instead.
>
>In order for your claim to be true that one cup of tofu involves "hundreds" more deaths than one quarter-pound of beef, it would have to be the case that the average collateral death rate associated with soybean production is 3000 deaths per hectare per year.

I believe it could be true if the cup of beans only involved one or two
deaths, or maybe less than that.

>That's obviously false. You should stop making the claim.

No, I should keep on.

[Rupert]

On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:14:41 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:29:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Friday, April 26, 2013 12:14:15 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:28:46 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >If you accept Stephen Davis' estimate that the production of one hectare of soybeans
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Grown exactly where?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >causes 15 collateral deaths
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Of what type(s) of animals? Killed by which processes? Include all.
>
> >
>
> >Well, you can read the details here:
>
> >
>
> >https://ethik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/Davis__S._2003_The_least_Harm_-_Anti_Veg_in_J._Agric._Ethics.pdf
>
>
>
> No it's your thing so if you think it does the job then present some info
>
> from it. I didn't believe it would give a decent representation before
>
> questioning you about it, and now I know again there's nothing there you think
>
> is worth presenting. Even though there's nothing there that even you think is
>
> worth presenting you're hoping something at the page will make me change the pov
>
> I've had for decades, but I doubt it would even though I don't intend to waste
>
> time looking. As I always point out YOU need to present what you want people to
>
> think you think you're trying to talk about, but you can't do it and the reason
>
> for that is most likely because it doesn't exist.
>

I have presented it.

Steven Davis estimates the death rate from soybean production at 15 per hectare per year. I gave you a citation. If you think you have a better estimate, you need to tell us what it is and to give us your source for it.

>
>
> >If you know of a better estimate, then we can use that one instead.
>
> >
>
> >In order for your claim to be true that one cup of tofu involves "hundreds" more deaths than one quarter-pound of beef, it would have to be the case that the average collateral death rate associated with soybean production is 3000 deaths per hectare per year.
>
>
>
> I believe it could be true if the cup of beans only involved one or two
>
> deaths, or maybe less than that.
>

So you think soybean production involves 3000 deaths per hectare per year on average?

>
>
> >That's obviously false. You should stop making the claim.
>
>
>
> No, I should keep on.

No. It has been decisively refuted.

[dh]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:37:50 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:14:41 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:29:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Friday, April 26, 2013 12:14:15 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:28:46 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >If you accept Stephen Davis' estimate that the production of one hectare of soybeans
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Grown exactly where?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >causes 15 collateral deaths
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Of what type(s) of animals? Killed by which processes? Include all.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Well, you can read the details here:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >https://ethik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/Davis__S._2003_The_least_Harm_-_Anti_Veg_in_J._Agric._Ethics.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> No it's your thing so if you think it does the job then present some info
>>
>> from it. I didn't believe it would give a decent representation before
>>
>> questioning you about it, and now I know again there's nothing there you think
>>
>> is worth presenting. Even though there's nothing there that even you think is
>>
>> worth presenting you're hoping something at the page will make me change the pov
>>
>> I've had for decades, but I doubt it would even though I don't intend to waste
>>
>> time looking. As I always point out YOU need to present what you want people to
>>
>> think you think you're trying to talk about, but you can't do it and the reason
>>
>> for that is most likely because it doesn't exist.
>>
>
>I have presented it.
>
>Steven Davis estimates the death rate from soybean production at 15 per hectare per year. I gave you a citation. If you think you have a better estimate, you need to tell us what it is and to give us your source for it.

I do not. In some places it's lower than that and in other places it's
higher. That's just the way it is and only a total ignoramous would think it's
the same in all fields. You can't even say it's an average because you can't say
exactly what it's an average of.

>> >If you know of a better estimate, then we can use that one instead.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >In order for your claim to be true that one cup of tofu involves "hundreds" more deaths than one quarter-pound of beef, it would have to be the case that the average collateral death rate associated with soybean production is 3000 deaths per hectare per year.
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe it could be true if the cup of beans only involved one or two
>>
>> deaths, or maybe less than that.
>>
>
>So you think soybean production involves 3000 deaths per hectare per year on average?

Deaths of what? And no.

>> >That's obviously false. You should stop making the claim.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, I should keep on.
>
>No. It has been decisively refuted.

You haven't presented anything that COULD refute it, much less does.

[Rupert]

Of course you do.

> In some places it's lower than that and in other places it's
>
> higher.

Even saying that much requires some empirical support.

> That's just the way it is and only a total ignoramous would think it's
>
> the same in all fields. You can't even say it's an average because you can't say
>
> exactly what it's an average of.
>

It's an estimate for the mean collateral death rate per hectare per year for soybean production. It might be a little bit off, but it's likely to be the right order of magnitude. In order for the claim you've been making to be correct, it would have to be too small by a factor of 200. You've presented no serious reason at all to think that this is the case. Your claim has been refuted. You should stop making it.

>
>
> >> >If you know of a better estimate, then we can use that one instead.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >In order for your claim to be true that one cup of tofu involves "hundreds" more deaths than one quarter-pound of beef, it would have to be the case that the average collateral death rate associated with soybean production is 3000 deaths per hectare per year.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I believe it could be true if the cup of beans only involved one or two
>
> >>
>
> >> deaths, or maybe less than that.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >So you think soybean production involves 3000 deaths per hectare per year on average?
>
>
>
> Deaths of what? And no.
>

Of wildlife animals living in the field.

If you don't think that the death rate is at least 3000 per hectare per year, then you can't think there's at least one death associated with a cup of tofu. I've been through the maths with you.

>
>
> >> >That's obviously false. You should stop making the claim.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> No, I should keep on.
>
> >
>
> >No. It has been decisively refuted.
>
>
>
> You haven't presented anything that COULD refute it, much less does.

And why, pray tell, do you think that?

[dh]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 20:00:55 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

Try to explain why you want people to take his word for it. Go:

>> In some places it's lower than that and in other places it's
>>
>> higher.
>
>Even saying that much requires some empirical support.

The number of animals that even COULD be killed is different. It seems even
a guy with a PhD in math should be able to appreciate something as obvious and
significant as that.

>> That's just the way it is and only a total ignoramous would think it's
>>
>> the same in all fields. You can't even say it's an average because you can't say
>>
>> exactly what it's an average of.
>>
>
>It's an estimate for the mean collateral death rate per hectare per year for soybean production.

Produce your empirical support for that claim. Go:

>It might be a little bit off, but it's likely to be the right order of magnitude.

Produce your empirical support for that claim. Go:

>In order for the claim you've been making to be correct, it would have to be too small by a factor of 200. You've presented no serious reason at all to think that this is the case. Your claim has been refuted.

Produce your empirical support for that claim. Go:

>You should stop making it.

Not yet, and never at the rate you're not getting anywhere with your side of
the disagreement.

>> >> >If you know of a better estimate, then we can use that one instead.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >In order for your claim to be true that one cup of tofu involves "hundreds" more deaths than one quarter-pound of beef, it would have to be the case that the average collateral death rate associated with soybean production is 3000 deaths per hectare per year.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> I believe it could be true if the cup of beans only involved one or two
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> deaths, or maybe less than that.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >So you think soybean production involves 3000 deaths per hectare per year on average?
>>
>>
>>
>> Deaths of what? And no.
>>
>
>Of wildlife animals living in the field.

Exactly which types of animals? Produce your empirical support. Go:

>If you don't think that the death rate is at least 3000 per hectare per year, then you can't think there's at least one death associated with a cup of tofu. I've been through the maths with you.

It doesn't have to be a whole death in order to be more by a factor of
hundreds imo, since the beef is less than a thousandth. A half death would be
1500 per year, and that's still many hundreds more. A quarter death would be
down to 750 per year, and still hundreds more... An eighth 375, a sixteenth
187.5, a thirtysecond 93.75 and a sixtyfourth of a death would be 46.875, right?

>> >> >That's obviously false. You should stop making the claim.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> No, I should keep on.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >No. It has been decisively refuted.
>>
>>
>>
>> You haven't presented anything that COULD refute it, much less does.
>
>And why, pray tell, do you think that?

You haven't said where or what types of animals or how they're killed or why
we should believe he presented all the possible ways (if any), etc.... You have
no more than I do. Less in fact, since I at least let you know how you could get
started IF you really did give a shit about any of this. If you did you would
learn to appreciate the fact that there is a big difference in the number of
deaths in different fields and you'd make a point of buying beans that are grown
in areas where pretty much all the wildlife has been wiped out for years, and
try not to buy any where the beans have been grown in areas where there is
wildlife around. If you really cared you wouldn't need some stupid misnomer
opponent who's opinion you don't care about to point it out to you, but instead
would have looked into it yourself years ago and you'd be telling me about it.
So you really don't care as much as you might like to think you do, because you
won't consider the "other side". This is pretty much the vegan equivalent of the
difference between cage free and caged egg production, which you also don't care
enough about to mean anything IF you care any at all.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/6/2013 3:20 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On Thu, 2 May 2013 20:00:55 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>

>> On Thursday, May 2, 2013 11:52:17 PM UTC+2, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:37:50 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>>> On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:14:41 PM UTC+2, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:29:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>

>>>>>> On Friday, April 26, 2013 12:14:15 AM UTC+2, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:28:46 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> If you accept Stephen Davis' estimate that the production of one hectare of soybeans
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Grown exactly where?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> causes 15 collateral deaths
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Of what type(s) of animals? Killed by which processes? Include all.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Well, you can read the details here:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> https://ethik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/Davis__S._2003_The_least_Harm_-_Anti_Veg_in_J._Agric._Ethics.pdf
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> No it's your thing so if you think it does the job then present some info
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> from it. I didn't believe it would give a decent representation before
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> questioning you about it, and now I know again there's nothing there you think
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> is worth presenting. Even though there's nothing there that even you think is
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> worth presenting you're hoping something at the page will make me change the pov
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> I've had for decades, but I doubt it would even though I don't intend to waste
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> time looking. As I always point out YOU need to present what you want people to
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> think you think you're trying to talk about, but you can't do it and the reason
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> for that is most likely because it doesn't exist.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I have presented it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Steven Davis estimates the death rate from soybean production at 15 per hectare per year. I gave you a citation. If you think you have a better estimate, you need to tell us what it is and to give us your source for it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I do not.
>>
>> Of course you do.
>
> Try to explain why you

Try to explain why you're just pulling numbers out of your cracker ass,
*Goo*.

>>> In some places it's lower than that and in other places it's
>>>
>>> higher.
>>
>> Even saying that much requires some empirical support.
>
> The number of animals that even COULD be killed is different.

Meaningless.

>
>>> That's just the way it is and only a total ignoramous would think it's
>>>
>>> the same in all fields. You can't even say it's an average because you can't say
>>>
>>> exactly what it's an average of.
>>>
>>
>> It's an estimate for the mean collateral death rate per hectare per year for soybean production.
>
> Produce your empirical support for

LOL!

[Rupert]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:20:55 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 20:00:55 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Thursday, May 2, 2013 11:52:17 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:37:50 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>

> >> I do not.
>
> >
>
> >Of course you do.
>
>
>
> Try to explain why you want people to take his word for it. Go:
>

I do not want people to take his word for it, you stupid fool. What I am doing is pointing out that we have absolutely no good reason to take *your* word for it that the number of collateral deaths associated with one serving of tofu would be larger than the number of deaths by slaughter associated with one serving of beef by a factor of "hundreds", and every reason to believe that that's false.

>
>
> >> In some places it's lower than that and in other places it's
>
> >>
>
> >> higher.
>
> >
>
> >Even saying that much requires some empirical support.
>
>
>
> The number of animals that even COULD be killed is different. It seems even
>
> a guy with a PhD in math should be able to appreciate something as obvious and
>
> significant as that.
>

Different in which contexts, and by how much? These kinds of claims require empirical support.

>
>
> >> That's just the way it is and only a total ignoramous would think it's
>
> >>
>
> >> the same in all fields. You can't even say it's an average because you can't say
>
> >>
>
> >> exactly what it's an average of.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >It's an estimate for the mean collateral death rate per hectare per year for soybean production.
>
>
>
> Produce your empirical support for that claim. Go:
>

I did. Read the article.

>
>
> >It might be a little bit off, but it's likely to be the right order of magnitude.
>
>
>
> Produce your empirical support for that claim. Go:
>
>
>
> >In order for the claim you've been making to be correct, it would have to be too small by a factor of 200. You've presented no serious reason at all to think that this is the case. Your claim has been refuted.
>
>
>
> Produce your empirical support for that claim. Go:
>

The maths bit? I already did.

>
>
> >You should stop making it.
>
>
>
> Not yet, and never at the rate you're not getting anywhere with your side of
>
> the disagreement.
>

I've decisively refuted your claim, but you wilfully refuse to listen.

>
>
> >> >> >If you know of a better estimate, then we can use that one instead.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >In order for your claim to be true that one cup of tofu involves "hundreds" more deaths than one quarter-pound of beef, it would have to be the case that the average collateral death rate associated with soybean production is 3000 deaths per hectare per year.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> I believe it could be true if the cup of beans only involved one or two
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> deaths, or maybe less than that.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >So you think soybean production involves 3000 deaths per hectare per year on average?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Deaths of what? And no.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Of wildlife animals living in the field.
>
>
>
> Exactly which types of animals? Produce your empirical support. Go:
>

Empirical support for what?

>
>
> >If you don't think that the death rate is at least 3000 per hectare per year, then you can't think there's at least one death associated with a cup of tofu. I've been through the maths with you.
>
>
>
> It doesn't have to be a whole death in order to be more by a factor of
>
> hundreds imo, since the beef is less than a thousandth. A half death would be
>
> 1500 per year, and that's still many hundreds more. A quarter death would be
>
> down to 750 per year, and still hundreds more... An eighth 375, a sixteenth
>
> 187.5, a thirtysecond 93.75 and a sixtyfourth of a death would be 46.875, right?
>

No. We've done the maths. You were assuming that each slaughter yields 250 kg of beef. The serving of beef required to give the same amount of protein as a cup of tofu is 125 g and the cumulative elasticity factor is 0.5. It's 0.00025 of a death per serving. That's larger than the corresponding estimate for a cup of tofu by a factor of two. In order for your claim that it is larger by a factor of at least 100 to be correct, we have to multiply the death rate from soybean production by 200. So it has to be at least 3000 per hectare per year.

Read the calculations, goddammit.

> >> >> >That's obviously false. You should stop making the claim.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> No, I should keep on.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >No. It has been decisively refuted.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You haven't presented anything that COULD refute it, much less does.
>
> >
>
> >And why, pray tell, do you think that?
>
>
>
> You haven't said where or what types of animals or how they're killed or why
>
> we should believe he presented all the possible ways (if any), etc.... You have
>
> no more than I do.

I've presented one empirical study. You've presented none.

[dh]

On Mon, 6 May 2013 15:40:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:20:55 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 20:00:55 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Thursday, May 2, 2013 11:52:17 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:37:50 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >> I do not.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Of course you do.
>>
>>
>>
>> Try to explain why you want people to take his word for it. Go:
>>
>
>I do not want people to take his word for it, you stupid fool. What I am doing is pointing out that we have absolutely no good reason to take *your* word for it that the number of collateral deaths associated with one serving of tofu would be larger than the number of deaths by slaughter associated with one serving of beef by a factor of "hundreds", and every reason to believe that that's false.

For one thing we have none so far, and for another to think that it's never
a factor of hundreds is retarded since with all the variety of situations in
some cases it has to be. If you can ever get as "far" as that basic fact, maybe
then you can start to try to figure out when it is and when it's not, but so far
of course that question is more than you're capable of contemplating.

>> >> In some places it's lower than that and in other places it's
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> higher.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Even saying that much requires some empirical support.
>>
>>
>>
>> The number of animals that even COULD be killed is different. It seems even
>>
>> a guy with a PhD in math should be able to appreciate something as obvious and
>>
>> significant as that.
>>
>
>Different in which contexts,

Different from one field to the next.

>and by how much?

It varies greatly.

>These kinds of claims require empirical support.

To people less clueless than yourself it's common sense to understand that
more animals will be killed in an area where there are lots of them, than will
be killed in an area where there are practically none. It seems even a guy with
a PhD in math could comprehend that, but if you honestly can't (and you probably
don't have anywhere near a PhD), ask a person who you respect to explain it to
you. Tell them you can't comprehend how the number of animals living in a
soybean field could possibly have any influence on the number of animals who are
killed in that same soybean field. If you're even more clueless than that tell
them you can't comprehend how the number of animals living in one soybean field
could possibly be any different than the number of animals living in a different
soybean field.

>> >> That's just the way it is and only a total ignoramous would think it's
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> the same in all fields. You can't even say it's an average because you can't say
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> exactly what it's an average of.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >It's an estimate for the mean collateral death rate per hectare per year for soybean production.
>>
>>
>>
>> Produce your empirical support for that claim. Go:
>>
>
>I did.

I consider that to be an extremely blatant lie, and challenge you to prove
me wrong.
. . .

>> >It might be a little bit off, but it's likely to be the right order of magnitude.
>>
>>
>>
>> Produce your empirical support for that claim. Go:
>>
>>
>>
>> >In order for the claim you've been making to be correct, it would have to be too small by a factor of 200. You've presented no serious reason at all to think that this is the case. Your claim has been refuted.
>>
>>
>>
>> Produce your empirical support for that claim. Go:
>>
>
>The maths bit? I already did.
>
>>
>>
>> >You should stop making it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not yet, and never at the rate you're not getting anywhere with your side of
>>
>> the disagreement.
>>
>
>I've decisively refuted your claim, but you wilfully refuse to listen.

You can't even say what types of animals you want us to think about being
killed in any particular area, much less in all areas around the globe.

>> >> >> >If you know of a better estimate, then we can use that one instead.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >In order for your claim to be true that one cup of tofu involves "hundreds" more deaths than one quarter-pound of beef, it would have to be the case that the average collateral death rate associated with soybean production is 3000 deaths per hectare per year.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> I believe it could be true if the cup of beans only involved one or two
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> deaths, or maybe less than that.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >So you think soybean production involves 3000 deaths per hectare per year on average?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Deaths of what? And no.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Of wildlife animals living in the field.
>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly which types of animals? Produce your empirical support. Go:
>>
>
>Empirical support for what?

Exactly which types of animals of course you stupid fool.

>> >If you don't think that the death rate is at least 3000 per hectare per year, then you can't think there's at least one death associated with a cup of tofu. I've been through the maths with you.
>>
>>
>>
>> It doesn't have to be a whole death in order to be more by a factor of
>>
>> hundreds imo, since the beef is less than a thousandth. A half death would be
>>
>> 1500 per year, and that's still many hundreds more. A quarter death would be
>>
>> down to 750 per year, and still hundreds more... An eighth 375, a sixteenth
>>
>> 187.5, a thirtysecond 93.75 and a sixtyfourth of a death would be 46.875, right?
>>
>
>No.

I believe it is.

>We've done the maths. You were assuming that each slaughter yields 250 kg of beef. The serving of beef required to give the same amount of protein as a cup of tofu is 125 g and the cumulative elasticity factor is 0.5. It's 0.00025 of a death per serving. That's larger than the corresponding estimate for a cup of tofu by a factor of two. In order for your claim that it is larger by a factor of at least 100 to be correct, we have to multiply the death rate from soybean production by 200. So it has to be at least 3000 per hectare per year.
>
>Read the calculations, goddammit.

Mine work fine..

>> >> >> >That's obviously false. You should stop making the claim.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> No, I should keep on.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >No. It has been decisively refuted.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You haven't presented anything that COULD refute it, much less does.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >And why, pray tell, do you think that?
>>
>>
>>
>> You haven't said where or what types of animals or how they're killed or why
>>
>> we should believe he presented all the possible ways (if any), etc.... You have
>>
>> no more than I do.
>
>I've presented one empirical study. You've presented none.

You can't even answer the questions associated with what you're trying to
support. You're still stuck trying to get people to believe that the number of
deaths is exactly the same in all areas of the world even though you can't even
say the deaths of which types of animals. You have NOTHING!!!

>> Less in fact, since I at least let you know how you could get
>>
>> started IF you really did give a shit about any of this. If you did you would
>>
>> learn to appreciate the fact that there is a big difference in the number of
>>
>> deaths in different fields and you'd make a point of buying beans that are grown
>>
>> in areas where pretty much all the wildlife has been wiped out for years, and
>>
>> try not to buy any where the beans have been grown in areas where there is
>>
>> wildlife around. If you really cared you wouldn't need some stupid misnomer
>>
>> opponent who's opinion you don't care about to point it out to you, but instead
>>
>> would have looked into it yourself years ago and you'd be telling me about it.
>>
>> So you really don't care as much as you might like to think you do, because you
>>
>> won't consider the "other side". This is pretty much the vegan equivalent of the
>>
>> difference between cage free and caged egg production, which you also don't care
>>
>> enough about to mean anything IF you care any at all.

You can't even get this far, when you should have been all over it years ago
without me ever having to point it out for you. And now that I have pointed it
out to you because you couldn't appreciate it on your own, you STILL can't
appreciate it. As I correctly pointed out also, you don't care as much as you
like to think you do IF! you care any at all.

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:06:27 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Mon, 6 May 2013 15:40:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:20:55 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 2 May 2013 20:00:55 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Thursday, May 2, 2013 11:52:17 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:37:50 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> I do not.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Of course you do.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Try to explain why you want people to take his word for it. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I do not want people to take his word for it, you stupid fool. What I am doing is pointing out that we have absolutely no good reason to take *your* word for it that the number of collateral deaths associated with one serving of tofu would be larger than the number of deaths by slaughter associated with one serving of beef by a factor of "hundreds", and every reason to believe that that's false.
>
>
>
> For one thing we have none so far, and for another to think that it's never
>
> a factor of hundreds is retarded since with all the variety of situations in
>
> some cases it has to be.

So you do think that there are some situations where the collateral death rate for soybean production is 3000 per hectare per year, do you?

> If you can ever get as "far" as that basic fact, maybe
>
> then you can start to try to figure out when it is and when it's not, but so far
>
> of course that question is more than you're capable of contemplating.
>
>
>
> >> >> In some places it's lower than that and in other places it's
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> higher.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Even saying that much requires some empirical support.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The number of animals that even COULD be killed is different. It seems even
>
> >>
>
> >> a guy with a PhD in math should be able to appreciate something as obvious and
>
> >>
>
> >> significant as that.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Different in which contexts,
>
>
>
> Different from one field to the next.
>
>
>
> >and by how much?
>
>
>
> It varies greatly.
>

Well, do you have an estimate for the standard deviation?

>
>
> >These kinds of claims require empirical support.
>
>
>
> To people less clueless than yourself it's common sense to understand that
>
> more animals will be killed in an area where there are lots of them, than will
>
> be killed in an area where there are practically none. It seems even a guy with
>
> a PhD in math could comprehend that, but if you honestly can't (and you probably
>
> don't have anywhere near a PhD), ask a person who you respect to explain it to
>
> you. Tell them you can't comprehend how the number of animals living in a
>
> soybean field could possibly have any influence on the number of animals who are
>
> killed in that same soybean field. If you're even more clueless than that tell
>
> them you can't comprehend how the number of animals living in one soybean field
>
> could possibly be any different than the number of animals living in a different
>
> soybean field.
>

You're such a fool. The point is, you haven't given any estimate at all for the standard deviation of the population of a given species of wildlife in soybean fields. Until you've given some kind of estimate for what it would be, we have pretty much nothing worth talking about. And your idea that sometimes the collateral death rate would be as high as 3000 per hectare per year is of course perfectly absurd.

>
>
> >> >> That's just the way it is and only a total ignoramous would think it's
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> the same in all fields. You can't even say it's an average because you can't say
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> exactly what it's an average of.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >It's an estimate for the mean collateral death rate per hectare per year for soybean production.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Produce your empirical support for that claim. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I did.
>
>
>
> I consider that to be an extremely blatant lie, and challenge you to prove
>
> me wrong.
>
> . . .
>

You know I presented the empirical support. I presented you with a link to Stephen Davis' paper, which describes the empirical study that was done.

> >> >It might be a little bit off, but it's likely to be the right order of magnitude.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Produce your empirical support for that claim. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >In order for the claim you've been making to be correct, it would have to be too small by a factor of 200. You've presented no serious reason at all to think that this is the case. Your claim has been refuted.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Produce your empirical support for that claim. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >The maths bit? I already did.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >You should stop making it.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Not yet, and never at the rate you're not getting anywhere with your side of
>
> >>
>
> >> the disagreement.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I've decisively refuted your claim, but you wilfully refuse to listen.
>
>
>
> You can't even say what types of animals you want us to think about being
>
> killed in any particular area, much less in all areas around the globe.
>

Stephen Davis probably mentions which species were involved in the areas he examined in his study. It doesn't matter, anyway. The point is, it's absurd to think that it would ever be as high as 3000 per hectare per year, which is what we would need in order for your claim to be true.

>
>
> >> >> >> >If you know of a better estimate, then we can use that one instead.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >In order for your claim to be true that one cup of tofu involves "hundreds" more deaths than one quarter-pound of beef, it would have to be the case that the average collateral death rate associated with soybean production is 3000 deaths per hectare per year.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> I believe it could be true if the cup of beans only involved one or two
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> deaths, or maybe less than that.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >So you think soybean production involves 3000 deaths per hectare per year on average?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Deaths of what? And no.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Of wildlife animals living in the field.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Exactly which types of animals? Produce your empirical support. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Empirical support for what?
>
>
>
> Exactly which types of animals of course you stupid fool.
>

Clarifying which types of animals I am asking about is not producing empirical support for a claim, you stupid fool. I think the species most affected is probably mice, but it doesn't matter.

>
>
> >> >If you don't think that the death rate is at least 3000 per hectare per year, then you can't think there's at least one death associated with a cup of tofu. I've been through the maths with you.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> It doesn't have to be a whole death in order to be more by a factor of
>
> >>
>
> >> hundreds imo, since the beef is less than a thousandth. A half death would be
>
> >>
>
> >> 1500 per year, and that's still many hundreds more. A quarter death would be
>
> >>
>
> >> down to 750 per year, and still hundreds more... An eighth 375, a sixteenth
>
> >>
>
> >> 187.5, a thirtysecond 93.75 and a sixtyfourth of a death would be 46.875, right?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >No.
>
>
>
> I believe it is.
>

Well, I've been through the maths with you as patiently as I can more than once. I can do no more.

In order for your claim that the death rate associated with one cup of tofu is greater than that for a calorically equivalent serving of beef by a factor of hundreds, the death rate from soybean production would have to be at least 3000 per year. I've given you the figures. You haven't engaged with the calculations in any way.

>
>
> >We've done the maths. You were assuming that each slaughter yields 250 kg of beef. The serving of beef required to give the same amount of protein as a cup of tofu is 125 g and the cumulative elasticity factor is 0.5. It's 0.00025 of a death per serving. That's larger than the corresponding estimate for a cup of tofu by a factor of two. In order for your claim that it is larger by a factor of at least 100 to be correct, we have to multiply the death rate from soybean production by 200. So it has to be at least 3000 per hectare per year.
>
> >
>
> >Read the calculations, goddammit.
>
>
>
> Mine work fine..
>

You've done some calculations, have you? Where are they?

And where is the error in mine?

>
>
> >> >> >> >That's obviously false. You should stop making the claim.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> No, I should keep on.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >No. It has been decisively refuted.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> You haven't presented anything that COULD refute it, much less does.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >And why, pray tell, do you think that?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You haven't said where or what types of animals or how they're killed or why
>
> >>
>
> >> we should believe he presented all the possible ways (if any), etc.... You have
>
> >>
>
> >> no more than I do.
>
> >
>
> >I've presented one empirical study. You've presented none.
>
>
>
> You can't even answer the questions associated with what you're trying to
>
> support.

Which questions?

> You're still stuck trying to get people to believe that the number of
>
> deaths is exactly the same in all areas of the world

I have never said any such thing, you stupid fool.

> even though you can't even
>
> say the deaths of which types of animals. You have NOTHING!!!
>

You're an idiot.

>
>
> >> Less in fact, since I at least let you know how you could get
>
> >>
>
> >> started IF you really did give a shit about any of this. If you did you would
>
> >>
>
> >> learn to appreciate the fact that there is a big difference in the number of
>
> >>
>
> >> deaths in different fields and you'd make a point of buying beans that are grown
>
> >>
>
> >> in areas where pretty much all the wildlife has been wiped out for years, and
>
> >>
>
> >> try not to buy any where the beans have been grown in areas where there is
>
> >>
>
> >> wildlife around. If you really cared you wouldn't need some stupid misnomer
>
> >>
>
> >> opponent who's opinion you don't care about to point it out to you, but instead
>
> >>
>
> >> would have looked into it yourself years ago and you'd be telling me about it.
>
> >>
>
> >> So you really don't care as much as you might like to think you do, because you
>
> >>
>
> >> won't consider the "other side". This is pretty much the vegan equivalent of the
>
> >>
>
> >> difference between cage free and caged egg production, which you also don't care
>
> >>
>
> >> enough about to mean anything IF you care any at all.
>
>
>
> You can't even get this far, when you should have been all over it years ago
>
> without me ever having to point it out for you.

Been over what? What are you talking about?

> And now that I have pointed it
>
> out to you

Pointed out what?

> because you couldn't appreciate it on your own, you STILL can't
>
> appreciate it.

*What*? What are you babbling on about?

Do you still have the imbecilic idea that I need you to tell me that there would be some variation in the wildlife populations of soybean fields?

[dh]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:13:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

No, but if you think there is one then why don't you try to find out what it
is? Standard deviation from what?

>> >These kinds of claims require empirical support.
>>
>>
>>
>> To people less clueless than yourself it's common sense to understand that
>>
>> more animals will be killed in an area where there are lots of them, than will
>>
>> be killed in an area where there are practically none. It seems even a guy with
>>
>> a PhD in math could comprehend that, but if you honestly can't (and you probably
>>
>> don't have anywhere near a PhD), ask a person who you respect to explain it to
>>
>> you. Tell them you can't comprehend how the number of animals living in a
>>
>> soybean field could possibly have any influence on the number of animals who are
>>
>> killed in that same soybean field. If you're even more clueless than that tell
>>
>> them you can't comprehend how the number of animals living in one soybean field
>>
>> could possibly be any different than the number of animals living in a different
>>
>> soybean field.
>>
>
>You're such a fool. The point is, you haven't given any estimate at all for the standard deviation of the population of a given species of wildlife in soybean fields.

What do you have that's better, or as good? Why haven't you already figured
it out if you think it matters so much?

> Until you've given some kind of estimate for what it would be, we have pretty much nothing worth talking about. And your idea that sometimes the collateral death rate would be as high as 3000 per hectare per year is of course perfectly absurd.

You can't even say deaths of what. Your such a fool you can't think about
this topic at all, but as I point out you don't care.

>> >> >> That's just the way it is and only a total ignoramous would think it's
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> the same in all fields. You can't even say it's an average because you can't say
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> exactly what it's an average of.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >It's an estimate for the mean collateral death rate per hectare per year for soybean production.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Produce your empirical support for that claim. Go:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I did.
>>
>>
>>
>> I consider that to be an extremely blatant lie, and challenge you to prove
>>
>> me wrong.
>>
>> . . .
>>
>
>You know I presented the empirical support. I presented you with a link to Stephen Davis' paper, which describes the empirical study that was done.

What types of animals were killed and how? You can't even answer that,
meaning Davis' paper is another nothing and you can't even pretend it's anything
more than that.

>> >> >It might be a little bit off, but it's likely to be the right order of magnitude.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Produce your empirical support for that claim. Go:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >In order for the claim you've been making to be correct, it would have to be too small by a factor of 200. You've presented no serious reason at all to think that this is the case. Your claim has been refuted.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Produce your empirical support for that claim. Go:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >The maths bit? I already did.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >You should stop making it.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Not yet, and never at the rate you're not getting anywhere with your side of
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> the disagreement.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I've decisively refuted your claim, but you wilfully refuse to listen.
>>
>>
>>
>> You can't even say what types of animals you want us to think about being
>>
>> killed in any particular area, much less in all areas around the globe.
>>
>
>Stephen Davis probably mentions which species were involved in the areas he examined in his study. It doesn't matter, anyway.

It sure does, since the animals killed in his example might not even exist
in lots of other fields. Even a guy with a PhD in math should know the number of
animals killed in a field where they do exist is likely to be a lot different
than the number of them killed in fields where they do not exist...or even where
they do exist but in different numbers.

>The point is, it's absurd to think that it would ever be as high as 3000 per hectare per year, which is what we would need in order for your claim to be true.

No it wouldn't, as I already showed.

>> >> >> >> >If you know of a better estimate, then we can use that one instead.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> >In order for your claim to be true that one cup of tofu involves "hundreds" more deaths than one quarter-pound of beef, it would have to be the case that the average collateral death rate associated with soybean production is 3000 deaths per hectare per year.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> I believe it could be true if the cup of beans only involved one or two
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> deaths, or maybe less than that.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >So you think soybean production involves 3000 deaths per hectare per year on average?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> Deaths of what? And no.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Of wildlife animals living in the field.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Exactly which types of animals? Produce your empirical support. Go:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Empirical support for what?
>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly which types of animals of course you stupid fool.
>>
>
>Clarifying which types of animals I am asking about is not producing empirical support for a claim, you stupid fool. I think the species most affected is probably mice, but it doesn't matter.

What do you want us to think does matter?

>> >> >If you don't think that the death rate is at least 3000 per hectare per year, then you can't think there's at least one death associated with a cup of tofu. I've been through the maths with you.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> It doesn't have to be a whole death in order to be more by a factor of
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> hundreds imo, since the beef is less than a thousandth. A half death would be
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> 1500 per year, and that's still many hundreds more. A quarter death would be
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> down to 750 per year, and still hundreds more... An eighth 375, a sixteenth
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> 187.5, a thirtysecond 93.75 and a sixtyfourth of a death would be 46.875, right?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >No.
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe it is.
>>
>
>Well, I've been through the maths with you as patiently as I can more than once. I can do no more.
>
>In order for your claim that the death rate associated with one cup of tofu is greater than that for a calorically equivalent serving of beef by a factor of hundreds, the death rate from soybean production would have to be at least 3000 per year. I've given you the figures. You haven't engaged with the calculations in any way.
>
>>
>>
>> >We've done the maths. You were assuming that each slaughter yields 250 kg of beef. The serving of beef required to give the same amount of protein as a cup of tofu is 125 g and the cumulative elasticity factor is 0.5. It's 0.00025 of a death per serving. That's larger than the corresponding estimate for a cup of tofu by a factor of two. In order for your claim that it is larger by a factor of at least 100 to be correct, we have to multiply the death rate from soybean production by 200. So it has to be at least 3000 per hectare per year.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Read the calculations, goddammit.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mine work fine..
>>
>
>You've done some calculations, have you? Where are they?

I don't know. You didn't snip them did you?

>And where is the error in mine?

Thinking the number of deaths is the same in all soy fields everywhere.

. . .

>>
>>
>> You can't even answer the questions associated with what you're trying to
>>
>> support.
>
>Which questions?

What types of animals? How are they killed? How much wildlife is there in
the area surrounding the one field you appear to think represents every field in
every type of situation on the planet?

>> You're still stuck trying to get people to believe that the number of
>>
>> deaths is exactly the same in all areas of the world
>
>I have never said any such thing, you stupid fool.
>
>> even though you can't even
>>
>> say the deaths of which types of animals. You have NOTHING!!!
>>
>
>You're an idiot.

So are you. You're an idiot with nothing.

>> >> Less in fact, since I at least let you know how you could get
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> started IF you really did give a shit about any of this. If you did you would
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> learn to appreciate the fact that there is a big difference in the number of
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> deaths in different fields and you'd make a point of buying beans that are grown
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> in areas where pretty much all the wildlife has been wiped out for years, and
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> try not to buy any where the beans have been grown in areas where there is
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wildlife around. If you really cared you wouldn't need some stupid misnomer
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> opponent who's opinion you don't care about to point it out to you, but instead
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> would have looked into it yourself years ago and you'd be telling me about it.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> So you really don't care as much as you might like to think you do, because you
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> won't consider the "other side". This is pretty much the vegan equivalent of the
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> difference between cage free and caged egg production, which you also don't care
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> enough about to mean anything IF you care any at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> You can't even get this far, when you should have been all over it years ago
>>
>> without me ever having to point it out for you.
>
>Been over what? What are you talking about?

The number of different deaths associated with the food you eat of course,
you're an idiot.

>> And now that I have pointed it
>>
>> out to you
>
>Pointed out what?
>
>> because you couldn't appreciate it on your own, you STILL can't
>>
>> appreciate it.
>
>*What*? What are you babbling on about?

The number of different deaths associated with the food you eat of course,
you're an idiot.

>Do you still have the imbecilic idea that I need you to tell me that there would be some variation in the wildlife populations of soybean fields?

You've made it very clear that you don't care enough to even think about it.

[Rupert]

You have just admitted that you do not have any idea what the standard deviation is for the number of collateral deaths per hectare per year in a soybean field, and indeed that you do not know what the term "standard deviation" means. This means that you could not possibly have any realistic idea of what the probability would be that there would be one death associated with one cup of tofu. In any event, we have seen that in order for that to be the case Steven Davis' estimate for the mean would have to be too small by a factor of 200, which is patently absurd.

>
>
> >> >These kinds of claims require empirical support.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> To people less clueless than yourself it's common sense to understand that
>
> >>
>
> >> more animals will be killed in an area where there are lots of them, than will
>
> >>
>
> >> be killed in an area where there are practically none. It seems even a guy with
>
> >>
>
> >> a PhD in math could comprehend that, but if you honestly can't (and you probably
>
> >>
>
> >> don't have anywhere near a PhD), ask a person who you respect to explain it to
>
> >>
>
> >> you. Tell them you can't comprehend how the number of animals living in a
>
> >>
>
> >> soybean field could possibly have any influence on the number of animals who are
>
> >>
>
> >> killed in that same soybean field. If you're even more clueless than that tell
>
> >>
>
> >> them you can't comprehend how the number of animals living in one soybean field
>
> >>
>
> >> could possibly be any different than the number of animals living in a different
>
> >>
>
> >> soybean field.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >You're such a fool. The point is, you haven't given any estimate at all for the standard deviation of the population of a given species of wildlife in soybean fields.
>
>
>
> What do you have that's better, or as good? Why haven't you already figured
>
> it out if you think it matters so much?
>

I've given you an estimate for the mean number of collateral deaths per hectare per year associated with soybean production. I've also given you calculations showing you that in order for your claim that the collateral death rate associated with one serving of tofu is larger than that associated with a calorically equivalent serving of beef by a factor of "hundreds" to be correct, this estimate would have to be too small by a factor of 200, which is patently absurd.

I don't believe that anyone has any idea what the standard deviation is, least of all you. But that means, of course, that you are talking through your hat when you make such claims as "there would have to be at least one death associated with a cup of tofu".

>
>
> > Until you've given some kind of estimate for what it would be, we have pretty much nothing worth talking about. And your idea that sometimes the collateral death rate would be as high as 3000 per hectare per year is of course perfectly absurd.
>
>
>
> You can't even say deaths of what. Your such a fool you can't think about
>
> this topic at all, but as I point out you don't care.
>

I told you that I believe the main species affected would be field mice, but it doesn't matter.

>
>
> >> >> >> That's just the way it is and only a total ignoramous would think it's
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> the same in all fields. You can't even say it's an average because you can't say
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> exactly what it's an average of.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >It's an estimate for the mean collateral death rate per hectare per year for soybean production.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Produce your empirical support for that claim. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I did.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I consider that to be an extremely blatant lie, and challenge you to prove
>
> >>
>
> >> me wrong.
>
> >>
>
> >> . . .
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >You know I presented the empirical support. I presented you with a link to Stephen Davis' paper, which describes the empirical study that was done.
>
>
>
> What types of animals were killed and how? You can't even answer that,
>
> meaning Davis' paper is another nothing and you can't even pretend it's anything
>
> more than that.
>

"Animals living in and around agricultural fields are killed during field
activities and the greater the number of field activities, the greater the
number of field animals that die. A partial list of animals of the field in
the USA include opossum, rock dove, house sparrow, European starling,
black rat, Norway rat, house mouse, Chukar, gray partridge, ring-necked
pheasant, wild turkey, cottontail rabbit, gray-tailed vole, and numerous
species of amphibians (Edge, 2000). In addition, Edge (2000) says,
“production of most crops requires multiple field operations that may
include plowing, disking, harrowing, planting, cultivating, applying herbicides
and pesticides as well as harvesting.” These practices have negative
effects on the populations of the animals living in the fields. For example,
just one operation, the “mowing of alfalfa caused a 50% decline in graytailed
vole population” (Edge, 2000). Although these examples represent
crop production systems in the USA, the concept is also valid for intensive
crop production in any country. Other studies have also examined the effect
of agricultural tillage practices on field animal populations (Johnson et al.,
1991; Pollard and Helton, 1970; Tew et al., 1992).
Although accurate estimates of the total number of animals killed by
different agronomic practices from plowing to harvesting are not available,
some studies show that the numbers are quite large. Kerasote (1993)
describes it as follows: “When I inquired about the lives lost on a mechanized
farm, I realized what costs we pay at the supermarket. One Oregon
farmer told me that half of the cottontail rabbits went into his combine
when he cut a wheat field, that virtually all of the small mammals, ground
birds, and reptiles were killed when he harvested his crops. Because
most of these animals have been seen as expendable, or not seen at
all, few scientific studies have been done measuring agriculture’s effects
on their populations.” In a study that has been done to examine the
effect of harvesting grain crops, Tew and Macdonald (1993) reported that
mouse population density dropped from 25/ha preharvest to less than 5/ha
postharvest. This decrease was attributed to both migration out of the field
and to mortality. They estimated the mortality rate to be 52%. In another
study, Nass et al. (1971) reported that the mortality rate of Polynesian
rats was 77% during the harvest of sugar cane in Hawaii. These are the
estimated mortality rates for only a single species, and for only a single
operation (i.e., harvesting). Therefore, an estimate somewhere between 52
and 77% (say 60%) for animals of all kinds killed during the production
year would be reasonable. If we multiply the population density shown in
Tew and Macdonald’s (1993) paper (25/ha) times a 60% mortality rate,
that equals a mortality of 15 animals/ha each year."

You could of course have found this yourself by clicking on the link I gave.

>
>
> >> >> >It might be a little bit off, but it's likely to be the right order of magnitude.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Produce your empirical support for that claim. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >In order for the claim you've been making to be correct, it would have to be too small by a factor of 200. You've presented no serious reason at all to think that this is the case. Your claim has been refuted.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Produce your empirical support for that claim. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >The maths bit? I already did.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >You should stop making it.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Not yet, and never at the rate you're not getting anywhere with your side of
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> the disagreement.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I've decisively refuted your claim, but you wilfully refuse to listen.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You can't even say what types of animals you want us to think about being
>
> >>
>
> >> killed in any particular area, much less in all areas around the globe.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Stephen Davis probably mentions which species were involved in the areas he examined in his study. It doesn't matter, anyway.
>
>
>
> It sure does, since the animals killed in his example might not even exist
>
> in lots of other fields. Even a guy with a PhD in math should know the number of
>
> animals killed in a field where they do exist is likely to be a lot different
>
> than the number of them killed in fields where they do not exist...or even where
>
> they do exist but in different numbers.
>
>
>
> >The point is, it's absurd to think that it would ever be as high as 3000 per hectare per year, which is what we would need in order for your claim to be true.
>
>
>
> No it wouldn't, as I already showed.
>

How did you show that?

>
>
> >> >> >> >> >If you know of a better estimate, then we can use that one instead.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >> >In order for your claim to be true that one cup of tofu involves "hundreds" more deaths than one quarter-pound of beef, it would have to be the case that the average collateral death rate associated with soybean production is 3000 deaths per hectare per year.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >> I believe it could be true if the cup of beans only involved one or two
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >> deaths, or maybe less than that.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >So you think soybean production involves 3000 deaths per hectare per year on average?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> Deaths of what? And no.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >Of wildlife animals living in the field.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Exactly which types of animals? Produce your empirical support. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Empirical support for what?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Exactly which types of animals of course you stupid fool.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Clarifying which types of animals I am asking about is not producing empirical support for a claim, you stupid fool. I think the species most affected is probably mice, but it doesn't matter.
>
>
>
> What do you want us to think does matter?
>

The fact that 15 per hectare per year is an estimate for the collateral death rate which is at least of the correct order of magnitude, thereby debunking your claim that the death rate for one serving of tofu is larger than that for a calorically equivalent serving of beef by a factor of hundreds.

I said it in the first post. And I said it again. And again. And again...

>
>
> >> >> >If you don't think that the death rate is at least 3000 per hectare per year, then you can't think there's at least one death associated with a cup of tofu. I've been through the maths with you.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> It doesn't have to be a whole death in order to be more by a factor of
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> hundreds imo, since the beef is less than a thousandth. A half death would be
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> 1500 per year, and that's still many hundreds more. A quarter death would be
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> down to 750 per year, and still hundreds more... An eighth 375, a sixteenth
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> 187.5, a thirtysecond 93.75 and a sixtyfourth of a death would be 46.875, right?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >No.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I believe it is.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Well, I've been through the maths with you as patiently as I can more than once. I can do no more.
>
> >
>
> >In order for your claim that the death rate associated with one cup of tofu is greater than that for a calorically equivalent serving of beef by a factor of hundreds, the death rate from soybean production would have to be at least 3000 per year. I've given you the figures. You haven't engaged with the calculations in any way.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >We've done the maths. You were assuming that each slaughter yields 250 kg of beef. The serving of beef required to give the same amount of protein as a cup of tofu is 125 g and the cumulative elasticity factor is 0.5. It's 0.00025 of a death per serving. That's larger than the corresponding estimate for a cup of tofu by a factor of two. In order for your claim that it is larger by a factor of at least 100 to be correct, we have to multiply the death rate from soybean production by 200. So it has to be at least 3000 per hectare per year.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Read the calculations, goddammit.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Mine work fine..
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >You've done some calculations, have you? Where are they?
>
>
>
> I don't know. You didn't snip them did you?
>

No. If they are in the thread it should be possible for you to find them easily enough.

>
>
> >And where is the error in mine?
>
>
>
> Thinking the number of deaths is the same in all soy fields everywhere.
>

But I never once said any such thing, and you're a complete moron for thinking that I did.

>
>
> . . .
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You can't even answer the questions associated with what you're trying to
>
> >>
>
> >> support.
>
> >
>
> >Which questions?
>
>
>
> What types of animals? How are they killed? How much wildlife is there in
>
> the area surrounding the one field you appear to think represents every field in
>
> every type of situation on the planet?
>

I gave you the relevant quote from Davis. No-one is saying that one particular field is representative of every other situation on the planet. Davis' estimate of 15 per hectare is an estimate for the mean. It is unrealistic to think that it would be too small by a factor of 200.

That's exactly what the OP in the thread was about. I gave an estimate for the expected number of collateral deaths caused by buying one cup of tofu. You haven't done any decent critique of the estimate.

>
>
> >> And now that I have pointed it
>
> >>
>
> >> out to you
>
> >
>
> >Pointed out what?
>
> >
>
> >> because you couldn't appreciate it on your own, you STILL can't
>
> >>
>
> >> appreciate it.
>
> >
>
> >*What*? What are you babbling on about?
>
>
>
> The number of different deaths associated with the food you eat of course,
>
> you're an idiot.
>

Well, I gave an estimate for that, and you haven't shown me what's wrong with it.

>
>
> >Do you still have the imbecilic idea that I need you to tell me that there would be some variation in the wildlife populations of soybean fields?
>
>
>
> You've made it very clear that you don't care enough to even think about it.
>

Moron.

[dh]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 03:54:55 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

I challenged you to say what the deviation is from but you apparently do not
have any idea.

>and indeed that you do not know what the term "standard deviation" means. This means that you could not possibly have any realistic idea of what the probability would be that there would be one death associated with one cup of tofu. In any event, we have seen that in order for that to be the case Steven Davis' estimate for the mean would have to be too small by a factor of 200, which is patently absurd.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >These kinds of claims require empirical support.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> To people less clueless than yourself it's common sense to understand that
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> more animals will be killed in an area where there are lots of them, than will
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> be killed in an area where there are practically none. It seems even a guy with
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> a PhD in math could comprehend that, but if you honestly can't (and you probably
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> don't have anywhere near a PhD), ask a person who you respect to explain it to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you. Tell them you can't comprehend how the number of animals living in a
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> soybean field could possibly have any influence on the number of animals who are
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> killed in that same soybean field. If you're even more clueless than that tell
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> them you can't comprehend how the number of animals living in one soybean field
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> could possibly be any different than the number of animals living in a different
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> soybean field.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >You're such a fool. The point is, you haven't given any estimate at all for the standard deviation of the population of a given species of wildlife in soybean fields.
>>
>>
>>
>> What do you have that's better, or as good? Why haven't you already figured
>>
>> it out if you think it matters so much?
>>
>
>I've given you an estimate for the mean number of collateral deaths per hectare per year associated with soybean production.

But you've given no reason to believe you're correct about what you want
people to think it is. Try giving one now. Go:

>I've also given you calculations showing you that in order for your claim that the collateral death rate associated with one serving of tofu is larger than that associated with a calorically equivalent serving of beef by a factor of "hundreds" to be correct, this estimate would have to be too small by a factor of 200, which is patently absurd.
>
>I don't believe that anyone has any idea what the standard deviation is, least of all you. But that means, of course, that you are talking through your hat

No more than you are.

>when you make such claims as "there would have to be at least one death associated with a cup of tofu".
>
>>
>>
>> > Until you've given some kind of estimate for what it would be, we have pretty much nothing worth talking about. And your idea that sometimes the collateral death rate would be as high as 3000 per hectare per year is of course perfectly absurd.
>>
>>
>>
>> You can't even say deaths of what. Your such a fool you can't think about
>>
>> this topic at all, but as I point out you don't care.
>>
>
>I told you that I believe the main species affected would be field mice, but it doesn't matter.

Why doesn't it matter? What does?

It says the mortality rate is over 50% for all species it mentioned. How do
you think cattle eating grass kill over 50% of the wildlife that share pastures
with them? HOW????

[Rupert]

You apparently have no understanding of the term "standard deviation". Sorry, I did not realize that you were asking for the definition. Standard deviation refers to the root mean square value of the deviation from the mean. Do you know the meaning of the term "mean" in a statistical sense?

>
>
> >and indeed that you do not know what the term "standard deviation" means. This means that you could not possibly have any realistic idea of what the probability would be that there would be one death associated with one cup of tofu. In any event, we have seen that in order for that to be the case Steven Davis' estimate for the mean would have to be too small by a factor of 200, which is patently absurd.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >These kinds of claims require empirical support.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> To people less clueless than yourself it's common sense to understand that
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> more animals will be killed in an area where there are lots of them, than will
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> be killed in an area where there are practically none. It seems even a guy with
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> a PhD in math could comprehend that, but if you honestly can't (and you probably
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> don't have anywhere near a PhD), ask a person who you respect to explain it to
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> you. Tell them you can't comprehend how the number of animals living in a
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> soybean field could possibly have any influence on the number of animals who are
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> killed in that same soybean field. If you're even more clueless than that tell
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> them you can't comprehend how the number of animals living in one soybean field
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> could possibly be any different than the number of animals living in a different
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> soybean field.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >You're such a fool. The point is, you haven't given any estimate at all for the standard deviation of the population of a given species of wildlife in soybean fields.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> What do you have that's better, or as good? Why haven't you already figured
>
> >>
>
> >> it out if you think it matters so much?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I've given you an estimate for the mean number of collateral deaths per hectare per year associated with soybean production.
>
>
>
> But you've given no reason to believe you're correct about what you want
>
> people to think it is. Try giving one now. Go:
>

I posted a quote from the Steven Davis paper in which he explains how he arrived at the estimate. Did you read the quote?

>
>
> >I've also given you calculations showing you that in order for your claim that the collateral death rate associated with one serving of tofu is larger than that associated with a calorically equivalent serving of beef by a factor of "hundreds" to be correct, this estimate would have to be too small by a factor of 200, which is patently absurd.
>
> >
>
> >I don't believe that anyone has any idea what the standard deviation is, least of all you. But that means, of course, that you are talking through your hat
>
>
>
> No more than you are.
>

Do you think that Steven Davis is talking through his hat when he estimates the mean collateral death rate at 15 per hectare per year? If you do, then you ought to engage in some way with the reasoning presented in his paper behind the estimate. I've even copied and pasted it for you in this very thread, I believe.

>
>
> >when you make such claims as "there would have to be at least one death associated with a cup of tofu".
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> > Until you've given some kind of estimate for what it would be, we have pretty much nothing worth talking about. And your idea that sometimes the collateral death rate would be as high as 3000 per hectare per year is of course perfectly absurd.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You can't even say deaths of what. Your such a fool you can't think about
>
> >>
>
> >> this topic at all, but as I point out you don't care.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I told you that I believe the main species affected would be field mice, but it doesn't matter.
>
>
>
> Why doesn't it matter? What does?
>

What matters is the expected contribution to harm to animals caused by buying a given quantity of tofu. I have given one estimate for that, and explained in detail the reasoning behind it. It is in the nature of these things that these estimates have uncertainty about them, but I believe that I am justified in thinking that the estimate is at least of the correct order of magnitude. If you think that I am wrong about that, then you ought to present some reason for thinking so. That would involve engaging with the evidence that I have presented for the estimate, something which so far you have not done.

Quite obviously, I said absolutely no such thing. I do not understand why you ask such ridiculouus questions.

I'll go through the reasoning with you again.

We have Steven Davis' estimate that the collateral death rate for soybean production is 15 per hectare per year. I copied and pasted the detailed reasoning behind this.

One hectare of soybeans yields 1000 kilograms of protein. One cup of tofu contains approximately 20 grams of protein. So the number of collateral deaths required to produce one cup of tofu is approximately 0.0003. But the cumulative elasticity factor for soy products is about 0.4. So buying one cup of tofu will only cause an expected increase of 0.4 of a cup of tofu in the amount supplied, because the purchase will inflate the market price and cause a decline in consumption by other consumers. So buying one cup of tofu causes an expected 0.00012 of a death.

To obtain 20 grams of protein, you need about 125 g of beef. Let's assume that the only relevant harm is the slaughter of the cow. You yourself gave an estimate that each slaughter yields about 250 kg of beef. So 0.0005 deaths need to be caused to produce 125 g of beef. But the cumulative elasticity factor for beef is 0.5, so buying 125 g of beef will only cause an expected increase in the number of deaths by slaughter of 0.00025.

On these estimates, the death rate for a nutritionally equivalent serving of tofu is smaller by a factor of two. The best we can say for these estimates is that they are likely to be of the correct order of magnitude. So we are justified in saying that the death rate for tofu is the same order of magnitude as the death rate for beef. It is not, as you repeatedly claim, larger by a factor of hundreds.

[dh]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 23:26:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:20:34 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 03:54:55 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:51:35 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:13:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> >Well, do you have an estimate for the standard deviation?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> No, but if you think there is one then why don't you try to find out what it
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> is? Standard deviation from what?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >You have just admitted that you do not have any idea what the standard deviation is for the number of collateral deaths per hectare per year in a soybean field,
>>
>>
>>
>> I challenged you to say what the deviation is from but you apparently do not
>>
>> have any idea.
>>
>
>You apparently have no understanding of the term "standard deviation". Sorry, I did not realize that you were asking for the definition. Standard deviation refers to the root mean square value of the deviation from the mean. Do you know the meaning of the term "mean" in a statistical sense?

My guess is it's what I asked you about which is what the deviation is from
and so far you haven't been able to answer or even make an attempt to answer.

>> >and indeed that you do not know what the term "standard deviation" means. This means that you could not possibly have any realistic idea of what the probability would be that there would be one death associated with one cup of tofu. In any event, we have seen that in order for that to be the case Steven Davis' estimate for the mean would have to be too small by a factor of 200, which is patently absurd.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >These kinds of claims require empirical support.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> To people less clueless than yourself it's common sense to understand that
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> more animals will be killed in an area where there are lots of them, than will
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> be killed in an area where there are practically none. It seems even a guy with
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> a PhD in math could comprehend that, but if you honestly can't (and you probably
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> don't have anywhere near a PhD), ask a person who you respect to explain it to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> you. Tell them you can't comprehend how the number of animals living in a
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> soybean field could possibly have any influence on the number of animals who are
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> killed in that same soybean field. If you're even more clueless than that tell
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> them you can't comprehend how the number of animals living in one soybean field
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> could possibly be any different than the number of animals living in a different
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> soybean field.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >You're such a fool. The point is, you haven't given any estimate at all for the standard deviation of the population of a given species of wildlife in soybean fields.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> What do you have that's better, or as good? Why haven't you already figured
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> it out if you think it matters so much?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I've given you an estimate for the mean number of collateral deaths per hectare per year associated with soybean production.
>>
>>
>>
>> But you've given no reason to believe you're correct about what you want
>>
>> people to think it is. Try giving one now. Go:
>>
>
>I posted a quote from the Steven Davis paper in which he explains how he arrived at the estimate. Did you read the quote?

I saw nothing that would lead me to believe him even for one field, much
less the rest of the entire planet as well as some field somewhere.

>> >I've also given you calculations showing you that in order for your claim that the collateral death rate associated with one serving of tofu is larger than that associated with a calorically equivalent serving of beef by a factor of "hundreds" to be correct, this estimate would have to be too small by a factor of 200, which is patently absurd.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I don't believe that anyone has any idea what the standard deviation is, least of all you. But that means, of course, that you are talking through your hat
>>
>>
>>
>> No more than you are.
>>
>
>Do you think that Steven Davis is talking through his hat when he estimates the mean collateral death rate at 15 per hectare per year?

For the entire planet, or just the one field?

>If you do, then you ought to engage in some way with the reasoning presented in his paper behind the estimate. I've even copied and pasted it for you in this very thread, I believe.
>
>>
>>
>> >when you make such claims as "there would have to be at least one death associated with a cup of tofu".
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > Until you've given some kind of estimate for what it would be, we have pretty much nothing worth talking about. And your idea that sometimes the collateral death rate would be as high as 3000 per hectare per year is of course perfectly absurd.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You can't even say deaths of what. Your such a fool you can't think about
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> this topic at all, but as I point out you don't care.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I told you that I believe the main species affected would be field mice, but it doesn't matter.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why doesn't it matter? What does?
>>
>
>What matters is the expected contribution to harm to animals caused by buying a given quantity of tofu. I have given one estimate for that, and explained in detail the reasoning behind it. It is in the nature of these things that these estimates have uncertainty about them, but I believe that I am justified in thinking that the estimate is at least of the correct order of magnitude.

I don't. Why do you?

>If you think that I am wrong about that, then you ought to present some reason for thinking so. That would involve engaging with the evidence that I have presented for the estimate, something which so far you have not done.

Present that evidence now and let's check it out. Go:

It would have to be true if tofu kills less than grass raised cattle do,
which of course is one great reason not to believe it does. Your buddy Davis
told us that over 50%, like 60% and 70%, of particular types of animals are
killed in soy fields. Cattle eating grass do NOT kill 60%-70% of the wildlife
that share pastures with them. If you want us to think they do, then YOU need to
provide evidence that they do.

>I do not understand why you ask such ridiculouus questions.
>
>I'll go through the reasoning with you again.
>
>We have Steven Davis' estimate that the collateral death rate for soybean production is 15 per hectare per year. I copied and pasted the detailed reasoning behind this.

Present it now and let's check it out. Go:

[Rupert]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:20:21 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 23:26:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:20:34 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 14 May 2013 03:54:55 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:51:35 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:13:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >Well, do you have an estimate for the standard deviation?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> No, but if you think there is one then why don't you try to find out what it
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> is? Standard deviation from what?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >You have just admitted that you do not have any idea what the standard deviation is for the number of collateral deaths per hectare per year in a soybean field,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I challenged you to say what the deviation is from but you apparently do not
>
> >>
>
> >> have any idea.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >You apparently have no understanding of the term "standard deviation". Sorry, I did not realize that you were asking for the definition. Standard deviation refers to the root mean square value of the deviation from the mean. Do you know the meaning of the term "mean" in a statistical sense?
>
>
>
> My guess is it's what I asked you about which is what the deviation is from
>
> and so far you haven't been able to answer or even make an attempt to answer.
>

Right, so you don't know what the mean is. The mean of a sample of data is the sum of all the data, divided by the number of data. Then to obtain the standard deviation you take the square root of the mean of the squares of the deviations from the mean.

You can quite easily look this stuff up on Wikipedia, you know.

>
>
> >> >and indeed that you do not know what the term "standard deviation" means. This means that you could not possibly have any realistic idea of what the probability would be that there would be one death associated with one cup of tofu. In any event, we have seen that in order for that to be the case Steven Davis' estimate for the mean would have to be too small by a factor of 200, which is patently absurd.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >These kinds of claims require empirical support.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> To people less clueless than yourself it's common sense to understand that
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> more animals will be killed in an area where there are lots of them, than will
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> be killed in an area where there are practically none. It seems even a guy with
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> a PhD in math could comprehend that, but if you honestly can't (and you probably
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> don't have anywhere near a PhD), ask a person who you respect to explain it to
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> you. Tell them you can't comprehend how the number of animals living in a
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> soybean field could possibly have any influence on the number of animals who are
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> killed in that same soybean field. If you're even more clueless than that tell
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> them you can't comprehend how the number of animals living in one soybean field
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> could possibly be any different than the number of animals living in a different
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> soybean field.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >You're such a fool. The point is, you haven't given any estimate at all for the standard deviation of the population of a given species of wildlife in soybean fields.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> What do you have that's better, or as good? Why haven't you already figured
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> it out if you think it matters so much?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I've given you an estimate for the mean number of collateral deaths per hectare per year associated with soybean production.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> But you've given no reason to believe you're correct about what you want
>
> >>
>
> >> people to think it is. Try giving one now. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I posted a quote from the Steven Davis paper in which he explains how he arrived at the estimate. Did you read the quote?
>
>
>
> I saw nothing that would lead me to believe him even for one field, much
>
> less the rest of the entire planet as well as some field somewhere.
>

No claim is being made that the estimate holds uniformly across the entire planet, as you ought to know if you read the quote I presented. If you think you have reasons for thinking that the estimate is not a good one then you'll have to actually engage with his reasoning in some way. I copied and pasted the quote for you.

>
>
> >> >I've also given you calculations showing you that in order for your claim that the collateral death rate associated with one serving of tofu is larger than that associated with a calorically equivalent serving of beef by a factor of "hundreds" to be correct, this estimate would have to be too small by a factor of 200, which is patently absurd.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I don't believe that anyone has any idea what the standard deviation is, least of all you. But that means, of course, that you are talking through your hat
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> No more than you are.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Do you think that Steven Davis is talking through his hat when he estimates the mean collateral death rate at 15 per hectare per year?
>
>
>
> For the entire planet, or just the one field?
>

Sigh. So you don't know what "mean" means?

>
>
> >If you do, then you ought to engage in some way with the reasoning presented in his paper behind the estimate. I've even copied and pasted it for you in this very thread, I believe.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >when you make such claims as "there would have to be at least one death associated with a cup of tofu".
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> > Until you've given some kind of estimate for what it would be, we have pretty much nothing worth talking about. And your idea that sometimes the collateral death rate would be as high as 3000 per hectare per year is of course perfectly absurd.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> You can't even say deaths of what. Your such a fool you can't think about
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> this topic at all, but as I point out you don't care.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I told you that I believe the main species affected would be field mice, but it doesn't matter.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Why doesn't it matter? What does?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >What matters is the expected contribution to harm to animals caused by buying a given quantity of tofu. I have given one estimate for that, and explained in detail the reasoning behind it. It is in the nature of these things that these estimates have uncertainty about them, but I believe that I am justified in thinking that the estimate is at least of the correct order of magnitude.
>
>
>
> I don't. Why do you?
>

I've presented my justification more than once. So far, you've done nothing by way of engaging with it.

>
>
> >If you think that I am wrong about that, then you ought to present some reason for thinking so. That would involve engaging with the evidence that I have presented for the estimate, something which so far you have not done.
>
>
>
> Present that evidence now and let's check it out. Go:
>

I did, at the end of the post.

And why, pray tell, would that be?

In counting the death rate for beef production, I am counting the deaths caused by the slaughter of the cows, nothing more.

> which of course is one great reason not to believe it does. Your buddy Davis
>
> told us that over 50%, like 60% and 70%, of particular types of animals are
>
> killed in soy fields. Cattle eating grass do NOT kill 60%-70% of the wildlife
>
> that share pastures with them. If you want us to think they do, then YOU need to
>
> provide evidence that they do.
>

It would be nice if you actually made some effort to read what I wrote. In estimating the death toll associated with one cup of tofu, I count the collateral deaths associated with the crop production. In estimate the death toll for beef, I count the deaths caused by the slaughter of the cows, nothing more.

>
>
> >I do not understand why you ask such ridiculouus questions.
>
> >
>
> >I'll go through the reasoning with you again.
>
> >
>
> >We have Steven Davis' estimate that the collateral death rate for soybean production is 15 per hectare per year. I copied and pasted the detailed reasoning behind this.
>
>
>
> Present it now and let's check it out. Go:

No. I have copied and pasted it once. Scroll up and find it yourself.

[dh]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:08:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:20:21 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 23:26:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:20:34 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Tue, 14 May 2013 03:54:55 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:51:35 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:13:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >Well, do you have an estimate for the standard deviation?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> No, but if you think there is one then why don't you try to find out what it
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> is? Standard deviation from what?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >You have just admitted that you do not have any idea what the standard deviation is for the number of collateral deaths per hectare per year in a soybean field,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> I challenged you to say what the deviation is from but you apparently do not
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> have any idea.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >You apparently have no understanding of the term "standard deviation". Sorry, I did not realize that you were asking for the definition. Standard deviation refers to the root mean square value of the deviation from the mean. Do you know the meaning of the term "mean" in a statistical sense?
>>
>>
>>
>> My guess is it's what I asked you about which is what the deviation is from
>>
>> and so far you haven't been able to answer or even make an attempt to answer.
>>
>
>Right,

Since we have nothing to deviate from, there's no way to find the standard
deviation. What makes you think there is one anyway?

Or even in a small area of it, or even in one field.

>as you ought to know if you read the quote I presented.

I understood that from the start without having to read any quote you may or
may not have presented.

>If you think you have reasons for thinking that the estimate is not a good one then you'll have to actually engage with his reasoning in some way. I copied and pasted the quote for you.

60%-70% death rate was the estimate I saw.

>> >> >I've also given you calculations showing you that in order for your claim that the collateral death rate associated with one serving of tofu is larger than that associated with a calorically equivalent serving of beef by a factor of "hundreds" to be correct, this estimate would have to be too small by a factor of 200, which is patently absurd.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I don't believe that anyone has any idea what the standard deviation is, least of all you. But that means, of course, that you are talking through your hat
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> No more than you are.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Do you think that Steven Davis is talking through his hat when he estimates the mean collateral death rate at 15 per hectare per year?
>>
>>
>>
>> For the entire planet, or just the one field?
>>
>
>Sigh. So you don't know what "mean" means?

Tell us exactly what the mean is if you think you know what it is and how
you arrived at it. Go:

>> >If you do, then you ought to engage in some way with the reasoning presented in his paper behind the estimate. I've even copied and pasted it for you in this very thread, I believe.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >when you make such claims as "there would have to be at least one death associated with a cup of tofu".
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> > Until you've given some kind of estimate for what it would be, we have pretty much nothing worth talking about. And your idea that sometimes the collateral death rate would be as high as 3000 per hectare per year is of course perfectly absurd.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> You can't even say deaths of what. Your such a fool you can't think about
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> this topic at all, but as I point out you don't care.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I told you that I believe the main species affected would be field mice, but it doesn't matter.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Why doesn't it matter? What does?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >What matters is the expected contribution to harm to animals caused by buying a given quantity of tofu. I have given one estimate for that, and explained in detail the reasoning behind it. It is in the nature of these things that these estimates have uncertainty about them, but I believe that I am justified in thinking that the estimate is at least of the correct order of magnitude.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't. Why do you?
>>
>
>I've presented my justification more than once.

Try presenting it now. Go:

>So far, you've done nothing by way of engaging with it.
>
>> >If you think that I am wrong about that, then you ought to present some reason for thinking so. That would involve engaging with the evidence that I have presented for the estimate, something which so far you have not done.
>>
>>
>>
>> Present that evidence now and let's check it out. Go:
>>
>
>I did

Try presenting it now. Go:

If you want us to think cattle eating grass kill over 60% of the wildlife
they share the pastures with then try to explain how you want us to think they
do so. Go:

[Rupert]

On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:14:03 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:08:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> Since we have nothing to deviate from, there's no way to find the standard
>
> deviation. What makes you think there is one anyway?
>

I'm sorry you seem to be having so much trouble understanding the meaning of the terms "mean" and "standard deviation". I'll do my best to make it clear. Given a sample of data, one obtains the mean by adding up all the values of the data and dividing by the total number of data. The resulting number is the mean. In order to obtain the standard deviation, one goes through each piece of data, and subtracts the mean, and takes the square, and then one takes the mean of all the data that result from that, and then the square root of that. You can quite easily find introductory explanations on Google. I hope that this was sufficiently clear, if not let me know and I will try to help some more.

> >No claim is being made that the estimate holds uniformly across the entire planet,
>
>
>
> Or even in a small area of it, or even in one field.
>

Exactly. It is a claim about the mean value. You apparently have difficulty grasping the concept of a mean value. I have been trying to explain it to you. I hope that I have been of some help.

> I understood that from the start without having to read any quote you may or
>
> may not have presented.
>

Well, good for you. A fine achievement indeed. So did I. But one thing you do apparently have difficulty understanding is the concept of taking the mean of a set of data.

>
>
> >If you think you have reasons for thinking that the estimate is not a good one then you'll have to actually engage with his reasoning in some way. I copied and pasted the quote for you.
>
>
>
> 60%-70% death rate was the estimate I saw.
>

Yep, which comes to 15 per hectare per year. Did you read the full quote I presented?

> >> >Do you think that Steven Davis is talking through his hat when he estimates the mean collateral death rate at 15 per hectare per year?
>
> >> For the entire planet, or just the one field?
>
> >Sigh. So you don't know what "mean" means?
>
>
>
> Tell us exactly what the mean is if you think you know what it is and how
>
> you arrived at it. Go:
>

It is not very polite to order someone with a PhD qualification in maths to give you some free tutoring in basic statistical concepts, (which you could *very* easily look up on Google), without even saying "please". But anyway.

The mean of a finite set of a data, as I believe I also discussed elsewhere in this thread, is obtained by adding up all the data and dividing by the total number of data. That is what "mean value" means. Steven Davis' estimate is an estimate for the mean value of the collateral death rate associated with soybean production. This is absolutely basic and would be taken for granted as completely obvious by pretty much any adult reading the article who had completed high school.

Steven Davis presents the reasoning by which he arrived at the estimate (15 per hectare per year) in the quote I gave you.

> >> >What matters is the expected contribution to harm to animals caused by buying a given quantity of tofu. I have given one estimate for that, and explained in detail the reasoning behind it. It is in the nature of these things that these estimates have uncertainty about them, but I believe that I am justified in thinking that the estimate is at least of the correct order of magnitude.
>
> >> I don't. Why do you?
>
> >I've presented my justification more than once.
>
> Try presenting it now. Go:
>

The justification is the quote I gave from Davis, where he presents the reasoning behind the estimate. It's unrealistic to think that the estimate would be off by a full order of magnitude. Scroll back up, and read the quote again, checking the reference he cites if need be. That's the justification.

> >> Present that evidence now and let's check it out. Go:
>
> >I did
>
> Try presenting it now. Go:
>

I'm not going to copy and paste the same quote over and over again, pointless time-waster. Scroll back up and read the quote.

> >It would be nice if you actually made some effort to read what I wrote. In estimating the death toll associated with one cup of tofu, I count the collateral deaths associated with the crop production. In estimate the death toll for beef, I count the deaths caused by the slaughter of the cows, nothing more.
>
>
>
> If you want us to think cattle eating grass kill over 60% of the wildlife
>
> they share the pastures with then try to explain how you want us to think they
>
> do so. Go:

Unbelievable, simply unbelievable. It would appear that it is not possible to communicate with you even when the most simple, basic, plain English is used.

[dh]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:45:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:14:03 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:08:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Since we have nothing to deviate from, there's no way to find the standard
>>
>> deviation. What makes you think there is one anyway?
>>
>
>I'm sorry you seem to be having so much trouble understanding the meaning of the terms "mean" and "standard deviation". I'll do my best to make it clear. Given a sample of data, one obtains the mean by adding up all the values of the data and dividing by the total number of data. The resulting number is the mean. In order to obtain the standard deviation, one goes through each piece of data, and subtracts the mean, and takes the square, and then one takes the mean of all the data that result from that, and then the square root of that. You can quite easily find introductory explanations on Google. I hope that this was sufficiently clear, if not let me know and I will try to help some more.
>
>> >No claim is being made that the estimate holds uniformly across the entire planet,
>>
>>
>>
>> Or even in a small area of it, or even in one field.
>>
>
>Exactly. It is a claim about the mean value. You apparently have difficulty grasping the concept of a mean value. I have been trying to explain it to you. I hope that I have been of some help.

Since it doesn't apply to anything, what good shall we pretend it is and how
do we try to apply that supposed good?

>> I understood that from the start without having to read any quote you may or
>>
>> may not have presented.
>>
>
>Well, good for you. A fine achievement indeed. So did I. But one thing you do apparently have difficulty understanding is the concept of taking the mean of a set of data.

Present the set.

>> >If you think you have reasons for thinking that the estimate is not a good one then you'll have to actually engage with his reasoning in some way. I copied and pasted the quote for you.
>>
>>
>>
>> 60%-70% death rate was the estimate I saw.
>>
>
>Yep, which comes to 15 per hectare per year.

So when it's 60% it's 15 per hectare per year and when it's 70% it's 15 per
hectare per year in your mind. Not in mine though. You don't even know what the
15 deaths are...LOL...your position is amusing.

>Did you read the full quote I presented?

I probably read what you presented.

>> >> >Do you think that Steven Davis is talking through his hat when he estimates the mean collateral death rate at 15 per hectare per year?
>>
>> >> For the entire planet, or just the one field?
>>
>> >Sigh. So you don't know what "mean" means?
>>
>>
>>
>> Tell us exactly what the mean is if you think you know what it is and how
>>
>> you arrived at it. Go:
>>
>
>It is not very polite to order someone with a PhD qualification in maths to give you some free tutoring in basic statistical concepts, (which you could *very* easily look up on Google), without even saying "please".

You're pretending it has value so it's up to YOU to try explaining what you
want other people to think it is.

>But anyway.
>
>The mean of a finite set of a data, as I believe I also discussed elsewhere in this thread, is obtained by adding up all the data and dividing by the total number of data. That is what "mean value" means. Steven Davis' estimate is an estimate for the mean value of the collateral death rate associated with soybean production.

Let's see some evidence for that so we know where the info came from and
what sort of animals were noted being killed.

> This is absolutely basic and would be taken for granted as completely obvious by pretty much any adult reading the article who had completed high school.

ONLY after YOU present the data that the supposed mean was established from,
and you damn sure haven't come anywhere near doing that. You never will either,
by my predition.

>Steven Davis presents the reasoning by which he arrived at the estimate (15 per hectare per year) in the quote I gave you.

Maybe. Maybe not. Try presenting it now. If you don't then I believe you're
lying and it's not there. I don't even have to go look it up.

>> >> >What matters is the expected contribution to harm to animals caused by buying a given quantity of tofu. I have given one estimate for that, and explained in detail the reasoning behind it. It is in the nature of these things that these estimates have uncertainty about them, but I believe that I am justified in thinking that the estimate is at least of the correct order of magnitude.
>>
>> >> I don't. Why do you?
>>
>> >I've presented my justification more than once.
>>
>> Try presenting it now. Go:
>>
>
>The justification is the quote I gave from Davis, where he presents the reasoning behind the estimate. It's unrealistic to think that the estimate would be off by a full order of magnitude. Scroll back up, and read the quote again, checking the reference he cites if need be. That's the justification.
>
>> >> Present that evidence now and let's check it out. Go:
>>
>> >I did
>>
>> Try presenting it now. Go:
>>
>
>I'm not going to copy and paste the same quote over and over again, pointless time-waster. Scroll back up and read the quote.

You consistently try to trick me into looking for something that you make it
obvious you don't believe is there. On the very rare occasions when you actually
believe something you're referring to backs up what you're trying to encourage
someone else to believe you present it. I've seen you do it even though your
thing with the PARENTS OF broiler chickens did nothing to cause life to be of
negative value for any animals imo. But you thought it was good, and that was
the "best" you could come up with which is why you presented it. That being the
case I know that you don't feel anything else at the page is as good or better
than the failed bit you presented, so I don't have to go look in order to know
that. Now you can't present any examples of where your guy supposedly got
information about all the soybean fields on the planet, so I know he didn't
without having to go look. That's how that works, as I've pointed out to you
more than once.

>> >It would be nice if you actually made some effort to read what I wrote. In estimating the death toll associated with one cup of tofu, I count the collateral deaths associated with the crop production. In estimate the death toll for beef, I count the deaths caused by the slaughter of the cows, nothing more.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you want us to think cattle eating grass kill over 60% of the wildlife
>>
>> they share the pastures with then try to explain how you want us to think they
>>
>> do so. Go:
>
>Unbelievable, simply unbelievable. It would appear that it is not possible to communicate with you even when the most simple, basic, plain English is used.

You did communicate. You let me know that not only did your guy NOT give a
good or even acceptable supposed mean for the entire planet or even one field,
but you've also made it clear that you have no idea how cattle eating grass
could possibly cause as high a percentage of wildlife deaths as farm machinery
and chemicals etc do. Actually I knew that was true the entire time. Now that
you've proven it so clearly maybe you'll be able to learn to appreciate that
fact yourself. Well....we have seen that your cognitive dissonance will not
allow you to consider ANY situations in which animal products involve fewer
deaths than vegetable products. That being the case, it's another entire huge
area that your poor challenged little mind is incapable of thinking about. I'm
not kidding, or lying, or even being overly critical when I point out that you
are on the absolute bottom. Your mental restrictions necessarily keep you there.
IF you really were a great math guy you should be able to comprehend that from a
most extremist position like the one you're in, you can't appreciate as many
aspects of the whole as someone who is much less restricted. That's another
basic that you can't get "far" enough to appreciate or possibly even comprehend
at all. It's there though whether you ever learn about it or not.

[Rupert]

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:13:32 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:45:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:14:03 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:08:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> Since we have nothing to deviate from, there's no way to find the standard
>
> >>
>
> >> deviation. What makes you think there is one anyway?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I'm sorry you seem to be having so much trouble understanding the meaning of the terms "mean" and "standard deviation". I'll do my best to make it clear. Given a sample of data, one obtains the mean by adding up all the values of the data and dividing by the total number of data. The resulting number is the mean. In order to obtain the standard deviation, one goes through each piece of data, and subtracts the mean, and takes the square, and then one takes the mean of all the data that result from that, and then the square root of that. You can quite easily find introductory explanations on Google. I hope that this was sufficiently clear, if not let me know and I will try to help some more.
>
> >
>
> >> >No claim is being made that the estimate holds uniformly across the entire planet,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Or even in a small area of it, or even in one field.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Exactly. It is a claim about the mean value. You apparently have difficulty grasping the concept of a mean value. I have been trying to explain it to you. I hope that I have been of some help.
>
>
>
> Since it doesn't apply to anything, what good shall we pretend it is and how
>
> do we try to apply that supposed good?
>

I'm sorry you have so much trouble grasping basic statistics. I really don't know what more I can do to help.

>
>
> >> I understood that from the start without having to read any quote you may or
>
> >>
>
> >> may not have presented.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Well, good for you. A fine achievement indeed. So did I. But one thing you do apparently have difficulty understanding is the concept of taking the mean of a set of data.
>
>
>
> Present the set.
>

I don't have access to the dataset, but I have good grounds for thinking that my estimate for the mean of the dataset is approximately correct.

>
>
> >> >If you think you have reasons for thinking that the estimate is not a good one then you'll have to actually engage with his reasoning in some way. I copied and pasted the quote for you.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> 60%-70% death rate was the estimate I saw.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Yep, which comes to 15 per hectare per year.
>
>
>
> So when it's 60% it's 15 per hectare per year and when it's 70% it's 15 per
>
> hectare per year in your mind. Not in mine though. You don't even know what the
>
> 15 deaths are...LOL...your position is amusing.
>

No, he took 60% as a reasonable estimate for the mean. God, this is tedious.

>
>
> >Did you read the full quote I presented?
>
>
>
> I probably read what you presented.
>
>
>
> >> >> >Do you think that Steven Davis is talking through his hat when he estimates the mean collateral death rate at 15 per hectare per year?
>
> >>
>
> >> >> For the entire planet, or just the one field?
>
> >>
>
> >> >Sigh. So you don't know what "mean" means?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Tell us exactly what the mean is if you think you know what it is and how
>
> >>
>
> >> you arrived at it. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >It is not very polite to order someone with a PhD qualification in maths to give you some free tutoring in basic statistical concepts, (which you could *very* easily look up on Google), without even saying "please".
>
>
>
> You're pretending it has value so it's up to YOU to try explaining what you
>
> want other people to think it is.
>

Or, on the other hand, I could say, if you don't know the basics of statistics, it's not really my job to try to give you free tutoring.

>
>
> >But anyway.
>
> >
>
> >The mean of a finite set of a data, as I believe I also discussed elsewhere in this thread, is obtained by adding up all the data and dividing by the total number of data. That is what "mean value" means. Steven Davis' estimate is an estimate for the mean value of the collateral death rate associated with soybean production.
>
>
>
> Let's see some evidence for that so we know where the info came from and
>
> what sort of animals were noted being killed.
>

I gave you the quote.

>
>
> > This is absolutely basic and would be taken for granted as completely obvious by pretty much any adult reading the article who had completed high school.
>
>
>
> ONLY after YOU present the data that the supposed mean was established from,
>
> and you damn sure haven't come anywhere near doing that. You never will either,
>
> by my predition.
>

Yes, I have. I gave you the quote from Steven Davis, where he presents the data whereby he arrived at the estimate.

>
>
> >Steven Davis presents the reasoning by which he arrived at the estimate (15 per hectare per year) in the quote I gave you.
>
>
>
> Maybe. Maybe not. Try presenting it now. If you don't then I believe you're
>
> lying and it's not there. I don't even have to go look it up.
>

God help me, you're an idiot.

>
>
> >> >> >What matters is the expected contribution to harm to animals caused by buying a given quantity of tofu. I have given one estimate for that, and explained in detail the reasoning behind it. It is in the nature of these things that these estimates have uncertainty about them, but I believe that I am justified in thinking that the estimate is at least of the correct order of magnitude.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> I don't. Why do you?
>
> >>
>
> >> >I've presented my justification more than once.
>
> >>
>
> >> Try presenting it now. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >The justification is the quote I gave from Davis, where he presents the reasoning behind the estimate. It's unrealistic to think that the estimate would be off by a full order of magnitude. Scroll back up, and read the quote again, checking the reference he cites if need be. That's the justification.
>
> >
>
> >> >> Present that evidence now and let's check it out. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >> >I did
>
> >>
>
> >> Try presenting it now. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I'm not going to copy and paste the same quote over and over again, pointless time-waster. Scroll back up and read the quote.
>
>
>
> You consistently try to trick me into looking for something that you make it
>
> obvious you don't believe is there. On the very rare occasions when you actually
>
> believe something you're referring to backs up what you're trying to encourage
>
> someone else to believe you present it. I've seen you do it even though your
>
> thing with the PARENTS OF broiler chickens did nothing to cause life to be of
>
> negative value for any animals imo. But you thought it was good, and that was
>
> the "best" you could come up with which is why you presented it. That being the
>
> case I know that you don't feel anything else at the page is as good or better
>
> than the failed bit you presented, so I don't have to go look in order to know
>
> that. Now you can't present any examples of where your guy supposedly got
>
> information about all the soybean fields on the planet, so I know he didn't
>
> without having to go look. That's how that works, as I've pointed out to you
>
> more than once.
>

Yawn.

[dh]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:08:01 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:13:32 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:45:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:14:03 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:08:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Since we have nothing to deviate from, there's no way to find the standard
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> deviation. What makes you think there is one anyway?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I'm sorry you seem to be having so much trouble understanding the meaning of the terms "mean" and "standard deviation". I'll do my best to make it clear. Given a sample of data, one obtains the mean by adding up all the values of the data and dividing by the total number of data. The resulting number is the mean. In order to obtain the standard deviation, one goes through each piece of data, and subtracts the mean, and takes the square, and then one takes the mean of all the data that result from that, and then the square root of that. You can quite easily find introductory explanations on Google. I hope that this was sufficiently clear, if not let me know and I will try to help some more.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >No claim is being made that the estimate holds uniformly across the entire planet,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Or even in a small area of it, or even in one field.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Exactly. It is a claim about the mean value. You apparently have difficulty grasping the concept of a mean value. I have been trying to explain it to you. I hope that I have been of some help.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since it doesn't apply to anything, what good shall we pretend it is and how
>>
>> do we try to apply that supposed good?
>>
>
>I'm sorry you have so much trouble grasping basic statistics. I really don't know what more I can do to help.

You can't apply it at all, so you can't help yourself.

>> >> I understood that from the start without having to read any quote you may or
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> may not have presented.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Well, good for you. A fine achievement indeed. So did I. But one thing you do apparently have difficulty understanding is the concept of taking the mean of a set of data.
>>
>>
>>
>> Present the set.
>>
>
>I don't have access to the dataset,

You have nothing then.

>but I have good grounds for thinking that my estimate for the mean of the dataset is approximately correct.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >If you think you have reasons for thinking that the estimate is not a good one then you'll have to actually engage with his reasoning in some way. I copied and pasted the quote for you.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> 60%-70% death rate was the estimate I saw.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Yep, which comes to 15 per hectare per year.
>>
>>
>>
>> So when it's 60% it's 15 per hectare per year and when it's 70% it's 15 per
>>
>> hectare per year in your mind. Not in mine though. You don't even know what the
>>
>> 15 deaths are...LOL...your position is amusing.
>>
>
>No

You still have nothing then.

>, he took 60% as a reasonable estimate for the mean. God, this is tedious.

That's because you're trying to do something with nothing.

>> >Did you read the full quote I presented?
>>
>>
>>
>> I probably read what you presented.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >Do you think that Steven Davis is talking through his hat when he estimates the mean collateral death rate at 15 per hectare per year?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> For the entire planet, or just the one field?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Sigh. So you don't know what "mean" means?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Tell us exactly what the mean is if you think you know what it is and how
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you arrived at it. Go:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >It is not very polite to order someone with a PhD qualification in maths to give you some free tutoring in basic statistical concepts, (which you could *very* easily look up on Google), without even saying "please".
>>
>>
>>
>> You're pretending it has value so it's up to YOU to try explaining what you
>>
>> want other people to think it is.
>>
>
>Or, on the other hand, I could say, if you don't know the basics of statistics, it's not really my job to try to give you free tutoring.

You don't have any idea what you're trying to talk about, and can't even
pretend you do.

>> >But anyway.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >The mean of a finite set of a data, as I believe I also discussed elsewhere in this thread, is obtained by adding up all the data and dividing by the total number of data. That is what "mean value" means. Steven Davis' estimate is an estimate for the mean value of the collateral death rate associated with soybean production.
>>
>>
>>
>> Let's see some evidence for that so we know where the info came from and
>>
>> what sort of animals were noted being killed.
>>
>
>I gave you the quote.
>
>>
>>
>> > This is absolutely basic and would be taken for granted as completely obvious by pretty much any adult reading the article who had completed high school.
>>
>>
>>
>> ONLY after YOU present the data that the supposed mean was established from,
>>
>> and you damn sure haven't come anywhere near doing that. You never will either,
>>
>> by my predition.
>>
>
>Yes, I have. I gave you the quote from Steven Davis, where he presents the data

I don't believe you.

>whereby he arrived at the estimate.
>
>>
>>
>> >Steven Davis presents the reasoning by which he arrived at the estimate (15 per hectare per year) in the quote I gave you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe. Maybe not. Try presenting it now. If you don't then I believe you're
>>
>> lying and it's not there. I don't even have to go look it up.
>>
>
>God help me, you're an idiot.

You can't even pretend that I'm wrong.

[Rupert]

On Friday, May 31, 2013 12:35:31 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:08:01 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:13:32 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:45:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:14:03 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:08:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Since we have nothing to deviate from, there's no way to find the standard
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> deviation. What makes you think there is one anyway?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I'm sorry you seem to be having so much trouble understanding the meaning of the terms "mean" and "standard deviation". I'll do my best to make it clear. Given a sample of data, one obtains the mean by adding up all the values of the data and dividing by the total number of data. The resulting number is the mean. In order to obtain the standard deviation, one goes through each piece of data, and subtracts the mean, and takes the square, and then one takes the mean of all the data that result from that, and then the square root of that. You can quite easily find introductory explanations on Google. I hope that this was sufficiently clear, if not let me know and I will try to help some more.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >No claim is being made that the estimate holds uniformly across the entire planet,
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Or even in a small area of it, or even in one field.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Exactly. It is a claim about the mean value. You apparently have difficulty grasping the concept of a mean value. I have been trying to explain it to you. I hope that I have been of some help.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Since it doesn't apply to anything, what good shall we pretend it is and how
>
> >>
>
> >> do we try to apply that supposed good?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I'm sorry you have so much trouble grasping basic statistics. I really don't know what more I can do to help.
>
>
>
> You can't apply it at all, so you can't help yourself.
>

I did apply it.

>
>
> >> >> I understood that from the start without having to read any quote you may or
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> may not have presented.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Well, good for you. A fine achievement indeed. So did I. But one thing you do apparently have difficulty understanding is the concept of taking the mean of a set of data.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Present the set.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I don't have access to the dataset,
>
>
>
> You have nothing then.
>

False.

You have a poor memory then.

>
>
> >whereby he arrived at the estimate.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >Steven Davis presents the reasoning by which he arrived at the estimate (15 per hectare per year) in the quote I gave you.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Maybe. Maybe not. Try presenting it now. If you don't then I believe you're
>
> >>
>
> >> lying and it's not there. I don't even have to go look it up.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >God help me, you're an idiot.
>
>
>
> You can't even pretend that I'm wrong.

You are wrong.