Received: by 10.224.189.16 with SMTP id dc16mr9594217qab.0.1352888835670;
        Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:27:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.115.33 with SMTP id d21mr2722253yhh.12.1352888835641; Wed,
 14 Nov 2012 02:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Path: gf5ni56274882qab.0!nntp.google.com!u2no1546861qal.0!postnews.google.com!c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=128.176.181.49; posting-account=QWNvHAkAAAAMkEJLeYjo1aXo1CZIR1Tf
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.176.181.49
References: <hfvt88hvskg7mtakeokvomp2fc74iha2t5@4ax.com> <ea3c6b0e-6331-4f63-81c0-d4c17f3bbfc2@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
 <rq6598lueg42mtt20hpf8d3qn45j7ipccb@4ax.com> <9eafb6b9-13b6-4a6d-824e-92c10752ddf4@a6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
 <e09g98hpms7482h4lqhh3mjau0nft5rqm1@4ax.com> <e7e485a5-73f3-4464-a890-413f025be9eb@v9g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
 <j3hi98dnp1jghi39a0rv1n2v7fu4j8or9r@4ax.com> <f5fc712c-13fc-4382-8df2-9c14901e9eee@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
 <e3g5a8l0bgctcb3uemhbkqj968v9giflcf@4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.9)
 Gecko/20100101 Firefox/10.0.9,gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <b07f6fe3-528e-49cf-902a-c22ed63a4232@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
From: Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:27:15 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Nov 13, 10:51=A0pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:37:20 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com=
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 6 Nov., 18:11, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:15:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.=
com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 5, 9:54 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:04:56 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yah=
oo.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >On 1 Nov., 16:55, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 01:16:15 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...=
@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On 29 Okt., 23:07, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:44:53 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal=
....@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 24, 9:50 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:19:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmc=
cal...@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 24, 12:32 am, dh@. wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Probably what would be best would be to learn what perc=
entage of which type
> >> >> >> >> >> >> animals are killed by growing soy. Then by cows eating =
grass. Even though it
> >> >> >> >> >> >> seems obvious the number would be much lower for the ca=
ttle, you could never
> >> >> >> >> >> >> learn to appreciate it or probably even accept it. It w=
ould probably be another
> >> >> >> >> >> >> one of those things your brain can only interpret as "n=
onsense".
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >You've got to take into account the death of the cow when=
 it is
> >> >> >> >> >> >slaughtered as well.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> With the cow its life and death both need to be considered=
, while with the
> >> >> >> >> >> CDs only their deaths since they weren't raised deliberate=
ly to be killed for
> >> >> >> >> >> human food production. And remember that even you have onc=
e in a while felt the
> >> >> >> >> >> lives of some grass raised cattle might be "good".
>
> >> >> >> >> >Your original remark was "It [seitan] almost certainly invol=
ves more
> >> >> >> >> >animal deaths than grass raised beef". This remark was unfou=
nded.
>
> >> >> >> >> It could only be untrue if there are no wildlife to speak of =
in the soy
> >> >> >> >> fields.
>
> >> >> >> >That`s false.
>
> >> >> >> You're being dishonest again. How do you suggest that we could t=
ry to
> >> >> >> pretend the number of animals in the fields has nothing to do wi=
th it?
>
> >> >> >Obviously I didn't say any such thing.
>
> >> >> >> >We have done a comparative analysis of the death toll
> >> >> >> >caused by soy products and beef elsewhere in this thread.
>
> >> >> >> Nothing worthwhile if at all. Do one now if you want. Good luck.
>
> >> >> >If you look at Gaverick Matheny's article "Least Harm", you see th=
at
> >> >> >it requires slightly less than 0.001 deaths to produce the daily
> >> >> >requirement of protein from soy products.
>
> >> >> Anyone who doesn't understand that that depends VERY MUCH on how mu=
ch
> >> >> wildlife is in the area doesn't have any clue about the subject at =
all.
>
> >> >So there is variation, so in order to make decisions about what to ea=
t
> >> >you go by the average. So we go with our best guess as to what the
> >> >average is. You haven't offered any better estimate.
>
> >> On average cattle eating grass kill less than farm machines and chemic=
als
> >> do. Also on average wildlife thrives much better in grazing areas than=
 it does
> >> in crop fields. Then there's the part you especially can't appreciate =
or even
> >> acknowledge, which is that grazing areas provide good lives for billio=
ns of
> >> livestock animals. In contrast to that crop fields do not. So right th=
ere we see
> >> three ways livestock raising is better than crop farming for wildlife =
and
> >> livestock, yet you can't appreciate any and possibly can't even compre=
hend any.
> >> And IF you can, I doubt you could acknowledge it.
>
> >It may or may not be. I don't really think I'm in a position to know.
>
> =A0 =A0 You don't want to know about situations like that because they wo=
rk against
> what you want to believe, which in part is that they don't exist. They do=
 exist
> though.
>

That is false. I would like to be in a position to know how the harm
caused by the production of grass-fed beef and the harm caused by the
production of soy products compare, and I have no reason to prefer the
outcome to be one way or the other, but I think that it is a complex
issue and I don't think I am in a position to know. I don't think that
the evidence you have offered about the matter gives conclusive
grounds for making a decision, one would need to do more to make sure
that one had taken into account all the relevant factors. I am quite
open to investigating the matter further.

One thing that we can definitely say is false is the assertion which
you still repeatedly make that soy products are likely to cause more
deaths than grass-fed beef by a factor of hundreds. This assertion has
been shown to be false but you still keep making it over and over
again.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >On the other hand, if we
> >> >> >assume that one quarter of a pound of beef gives you the daily
> >> >> >requirement of protein from beef, then by your own estimate that
> >> >> >requires 0.0005 deaths from slaughter alone, and you also need to =
take
> >> >> >into account the fact that the farmer needs to kill predators to
> >> >> >protect the cattle.
>
> >> >> For one thing it would depend on whether or not there are any preda=
tors that
> >> >> are killed to protect a particular group of animals. For another th=
e deaths of
> >> >> any predators would need to be averaged out amoung all the animals =
that don't
> >> >> get killed by that particular predator, including wildlife. That me=
ans that
> >> >> killing the predator results in LESS DEATHS overall, not more, so i=
t also means
> >> >> LESS DEATHS because of the cattle, not more. You so far still have =
no argument
> >> >> and it appears you're at a dead end. For some reason it seems to be=
 too bad for
> >> >> you but grass raised beef still comes up less deaths than soy, and =
a lot less
> >> >> than rice. It's too bad you hate that, because you would be a bette=
r person if
> >> >> you could appreciate it since it's the way it is. Maybe Goo will he=
lp you keep
> >> >> denying it to yourself though....or maybe he already has through em=
ail....
>
> >> >It may very well be that grass-raised beef involves fewer deaths than
> >> >soy or rice products; my mind has always been perfectly open on that
> >> >issue,
>
> >> Uh huh.
>
> >> >I've simply been pointing out that it's a complex question, and
> >> >also the difference is not by a factor of hundreds as you repeatedly
> >> >claim.
>
> >> Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's not. The only times it would not be wo=
uld be
> >> when the wildlife has already been killed off in the area and there's =
no longer
> >> any living to kill in the crop fields.
>
> >What's your evidence for that claim?
>
> =A0 =A0 Their absence when they're absent for one since it means they've =
all been
> killed off. But when the fields are beside other areas where wildlife can
> survive then new animals can move into the crop fields after others have =
been
> killed off by machinery and chemicals and loss of habitat after harvest. =
Cows
> don't do that stuff to wildlife in their pastures. If you could advance t=
o an AW
> position you would be in a position to appreciate things like that, rathe=
r than
> being in an eliminationist position so you not only can't appreciate thin=
gs like
> that but have to try to deny them to yourself. It seems there are a few w=
ays you
> could become a better person if you moved on from the misnomer.

You've presented no evidence that in the situation where a substantial
amount of wildlife was present, the number of deaths caused by soy
production would be greater by a factor of hundreds. In fact at this
stage we have enough evidence to see pretty clearly that that's false.
You should stop making the claim.