Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Cruelty of the biscuit revisited

47 views
Skip to first unread message

dh

unread,
May 8, 2013, 1:10:40 PM5/8/13
to

A guy was telling me about his dinner the other night,
which included deer meat that he had shot. He got
about 75 pounds of edible meat from it. That's over
100 servings. Less than 1/100 animal deaths for the
deer meat in his dinner. He also had broccoli, potatoes,
and biscuits. We thought it over and figured in that
meal the deer meat certainly contributed to the least
animal deaths, then the broccoli probably least after
that followed by the potatoe, and the biscuits contributed
to the most. He didn't have dessert or that would probably
have been above the biscuit.
Since he and his family eat a lot of meat that he hunts,
it's likely they contribute to far fewer animal deaths each
year than the average veg*n family. But it's easy to
imagine a veg*n kid being critical of another who is
chewing on some deer jerky at school, while the veg*n
kid is munching on a rice cake which caused far more
suffering to animals.

George Plimpton

unread,
May 8, 2013, 1:15:13 PM5/8/13
to
On 5/8/2013 10:10 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>
> A guy was telling me about his dinner the other night,

No, he wasn't.

Rupert

unread,
May 8, 2013, 3:27:44 PM5/8/13
to
What was the basis for your estimate of the death rate associated with the broccoli, potatoes, and biscuits?

George Plimpton

unread,
May 8, 2013, 3:41:41 PM5/8/13
to
You should give this thread a pass, Woopert. It's just Fuckwit trying
to resurrect an old thread from eight and a half years ago:
http://tinyurl.com/ctjehqa

It was bullshit then and still is.

>

dh

unread,
May 9, 2013, 6:31:30 PM5/9/13
to
On Wed, 8 May 2013 12:27:44 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
It takes a bigger area to grow enough grain for the biscuits than it does
for the other two, on top of the fact that a grain field is more animal friendly
than broccoli or potatoes growing areas. That gets into a detail that you can't
comprehend apparently: that more animals means more deaths. Potatoes would be
more than broccoli since the ground has be be dup up to get to them killing more
animals underground as well as whatever on the surface. If you think it's
different then you need to explain HOW you think it's different AND provide your
empirical evidence since you feel that it's a necessity. Or is it only necessary
for other people but not for you? You haven't produce a shred of it for anything
at all yet, that's for sure.

dh

unread,
May 9, 2013, 6:31:35 PM5/9/13
to
On Wed, 08 May 2013 12:41:41 -0700, Goo lied:
You couldn't explain what was bullshit about it then and still can't, Goo.

dh

unread,
May 9, 2013, 6:31:39 PM5/9/13
to
On Wed, 08 May 2013 10:15:13 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On 5/8/2013 10:10 AM, dh reposted:
>>
>> A guy was telling me about his dinner the other night,
>
>No, he wasn't.

He was at the time it was originally posted, Goo.

George Plimpton

unread,
May 9, 2013, 10:32:34 PM5/9/13
to
On 5/9/2013 3:31 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:

I did, and I still can.

George Plimpton

unread,
May 9, 2013, 10:32:33 PM5/9/13
to
On 5/9/2013 3:31 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 Wed, 08 May 2013 10:15:13 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On 5/8/2013 10:10 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>
>>> A guy was telling me about his dinner the other night,
>>
>> No, he wasn't.
>
> He was at the time it

No, he wasn't. The entire thing is bullshit; never happened.

Rupert

unread,
May 10, 2013, 12:54:40 AM5/10/13
to
Of course I can comprehend it, you stupid patronizing nitwit.

> Potatoes would be
>
> more than broccoli since the ground has be be dup up to get to them killing more
>
> animals underground as well as whatever on the surface. If you think it's
>
> different then you need to explain HOW you think it's different AND provide your
>
> empirical evidence since you feel that it's a necessity. Or is it only necessary
>
> for other people but not for you? You haven't produce a shred of it for anything
>
> at all yet, that's for sure.

That's false; I've produced empirical evidence for plenty of things.

It would appear that you have no answer to the question; i.e. you have no basis whatsoever for any estimate of the death rate associated with broccoli, potatoes, or biscuits.

dh

unread,
May 13, 2013, 8:57:22 PM5/13/13
to
On Thu, 09 May 2013 19:32:34 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 09 May 2013 18:31:35 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 08 May 2013 12:41:41 -0700, Goo lied:
>>
>> You couldn't explain what was bullshit about it then and still can't, Goo.
>
>I did, and I still can.

Try doing it now Goo. Go:

dh

unread,
May 13, 2013, 8:58:02 PM5/13/13
to
On Thu, 9 May 2013 21:54:40 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
If so ONLY because I mentioned it and THEN you finally looked into it and
foud out it's a significant aspect. You still can't appreciate that aspect
enough for it to have any significant influence on your thinking though, and you
may never be able to.

>you stupid patronizing nitwit.

You can't appreciate significant aspects of human influence on animals, like
the animals LIVES. You are on the very lowest level of understanding and
interpretation of human influence on animals imo, lower than the average junior
high school kid, from my pov. If it seems that I treat you like a clueless fool,
it's because from my pov you are a clueless fool. AND! It would be bad enough if
you had just never thought about some of the things I point out for you, but you
HAVE thought about them because I've told you about them and you STILL can't
appreciate them. That puts you and keeps you on the lowest level from my pov,
and I imagine most people you know in your real world feel similarly about your
vaganism and eliminationism but they're just too "nice" to tell you.

>> Potatoes would be
>>
>> more than broccoli since the ground has be be dup up to get to them killing more
>>
>> animals underground as well as whatever on the surface. If you think it's
>>
>> different then you need to explain HOW you think it's different AND provide your
>>
>> empirical evidence since you feel that it's a necessity. Or is it only necessary
>>
>> for other people but not for you? You haven't produce a shred of it for anything
>>
>> at all yet, that's for sure.
>
>That's false; I've produced empirical evidence for plenty of things.

Not for a single thing, afawk.

>It would appear that you have no answer to the question; i.e. you have no basis whatsoever for any estimate of the death rate associated with broccoli, potatoes, or biscuits.

Apparently you think broccoli involves as many deaths as grain does, but I
don't. Apparently you think broccoli involves as many deaths as potatoes do, but
I don't. You have no better reason to think it does than I do to think it does
not since you have no reason at all to believe what you believe but I pointed
out the reasons I believe as I do. If you think it's different then you need to
explain HOW you think it's different AND provide your empirical evidence since
you feel that it's a necessity. Go:

Rupert

unread,
May 14, 2013, 12:21:19 AM5/14/13
to
That is nonsense.

> You still can't appreciate that aspect
>
> enough for it to have any significant influence on your thinking though, and you
>
> may never be able to.
>

You're a fool.

>
>
> >you stupid patronizing nitwit.
>
>
>
> You can't appreciate significant aspects of human influence on animals, like
>
> the animals LIVES. You are on the very lowest level of understanding and
>
> interpretation of human influence on animals imo, lower than the average junior
>
> high school kid, from my pov. If it seems that I treat you like a clueless fool,
>
> it's because from my pov you are a clueless fool. AND! It would be bad enough if
>
> you had just never thought about some of the things I point out for you, but you
>
> HAVE thought about them because I've told you about them and you STILL can't
>
> appreciate them. That puts you and keeps you on the lowest level from my pov,
>
> and I imagine most people you know in your real world feel similarly about your
>
> vaganism and eliminationism but they're just too "nice" to tell you.
>

I wonder if most of the people you hang out with in the real world are as stupid as you.

>
>
> >> Potatoes would be
>
> >>
>
> >> more than broccoli since the ground has be be dup up to get to them killing more
>
> >>
>
> >> animals underground as well as whatever on the surface. If you think it's
>
> >>
>
> >> different then you need to explain HOW you think it's different AND provide your
>
> >>
>
> >> empirical evidence since you feel that it's a necessity. Or is it only necessary
>
> >>
>
> >> for other people but not for you? You haven't produce a shred of it for anything
>
> >>
>
> >> at all yet, that's for sure.
>
> >
>
> >That's false; I've produced empirical evidence for plenty of things.
>
>
>
> Not for a single thing, afawk.
>

False.

>
>
> >It would appear that you have no answer to the question; i.e. you have no basis whatsoever for any estimate of the death rate associated with broccoli, potatoes, or biscuits.
>
>
>
> Apparently you think broccoli involves as many deaths as grain does,

I never said any such thing, nitwit. I don't claim to know how the comparison would go, I have no basis for knowing. If you think you have some kind of basis, then present it.

> but I
>
> don't. Apparently you think broccoli involves as many deaths as potatoes do, but
>
> I don't.

Why would anyone care what you do or don't think if you can present no decent empirical research about the matter? Sheesh.

> You have no better reason to think it does than I do to think it does
>
> not since you have no reason at all to believe what you believe but I pointed
>
> out the reasons I believe as I do.

You appear to have this weird propensity for making up stories about "what I believe". I simply asked you if you had any actual empirical data to back up the claims you were making. That's all. Which you obviously don't.

> If you think it's different then you need to
>
> explain HOW you think it's different AND provide your empirical evidence since
>
> you feel that it's a necessity. Go:

If I think what's different? I am not the one who has made any claims that require empirical support. You think that the meat from the hunted animal would involve fewer deaths per calorie than the biscuit, I want to know if you can produce some actual data to back that up or not. Of course, you can't.

George Plimpton

unread,
May 14, 2013, 1:19:09 AM5/14/13
to
On 5/13/2013 5:58 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, 9 May 2013 21:54:40 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, May 10, 2013 12:31:30 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, 8 May 2013 12:27:44 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:10:40 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:
>>>
>>>>> A guy was telling me about his dinner the other night,

No.


>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> What was the basis for your estimate of the death rate associated with the broccoli, potatoes, and biscuits?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It takes a bigger area to grow enough grain for the biscuits than it does
>>>
>>> for the other two, on top of the fact that a grain field is more animal friendly
>>>
>>> than broccoli or potatoes growing areas. That gets into a detail that you can't
>>>
>>> comprehend apparently: that more animals means more deaths.
>>
>> Of course I can comprehend it,
>
> If so ONLY because I mentioned

No.

George Plimpton

unread,
May 14, 2013, 1:19:09 AM5/14/13
to
On 5/13/2013 5:57 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 5/9/2013 7:32 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/9/2013 3:31 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 5/8/2013 12:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> I did, and I still can.
>
> Try doing it now

Go to the archives, *Goo*. Again.

dh

unread,
May 16, 2013, 5:51:28 PM5/16/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 21:21:19 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
Bullshit. You STILL can't appreciate it even after I pointed it out for you,
but you expect me to believe you've been thinking about it for years? Not
hardly.

>> You still can't appreciate that aspect
>>
>> enough for it to have any significant influence on your thinking though, and you
>>
>> may never be able to.
>>
>
>You're a fool.

You're a bigger one, regardless of how much a fool I am or am not.

>> >you stupid patronizing nitwit.
>>
>>
>>
>> You can't appreciate significant aspects of human influence on animals, like
>>
>> the animals LIVES. You are on the very lowest level of understanding and
>>
>> interpretation of human influence on animals imo, lower than the average junior
>>
>> high school kid, from my pov. If it seems that I treat you like a clueless fool,
>>
>> it's because from my pov you are a clueless fool. AND! It would be bad enough if
>>
>> you had just never thought about some of the things I point out for you, but you
>>
>> HAVE thought about them because I've told you about them and you STILL can't
>>
>> appreciate them. That puts you and keeps you on the lowest level from my pov,
>>
>> and I imagine most people you know in your real world feel similarly about your
>>
>> vaganism and eliminationism but they're just too "nice" to tell you.
>>
>
>I wonder if most of the people you hang out with in the real world are as stupid as you.

The ones I've discussed it with aren't as stupid as you, since they can
appreciate the distinction between lives of positive and negative value. They
don't need me to tell them exactly what it means either, but instead can figure
it out and decide it for themselves. We did it in grade school regarding
American slaves in fact. The whole class did, so none of them were as stupid as
you.

>> >> Potatoes would be
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> more than broccoli since the ground has be be dup up to get to them killing more
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> animals underground as well as whatever on the surface. If you think it's
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> different then you need to explain HOW you think it's different AND provide your
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> empirical evidence since you feel that it's a necessity. Or is it only necessary
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> for other people but not for you? You haven't produce a shred of it for anything
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> at all yet, that's for sure.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >That's false; I've produced empirical evidence for plenty of things.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not for a single thing, afawk.
>>
>
>False.

Such as?

>> >It would appear that you have no answer to the question; i.e. you have no basis whatsoever for any estimate of the death rate associated with broccoli, potatoes, or biscuits.
>>
>>
>>
>> Apparently you think broccoli involves as many deaths as grain does,
>
>I never said any such thing, nitwit. I don't claim to know how the comparison would go, I have no basis for knowing. If you think you have some kind of basis, then present it.

What did I tell you?

>> but I
>>
>> don't. Apparently you think broccoli involves as many deaths as potatoes do, but
>>
>> I don't.
>
>Why would anyone care what you do or don't think if you can present no decent empirical research about the matter? Sheesh.

Because I've thought about it more than you have for one thing. And because
you have no decent empirical research about the matter your own self.

>> You have no better reason to think it does than I do to think it does
>>
>> not since you have no reason at all to believe what you believe but I pointed
>>
>> out the reasons I believe as I do.
>
>You appear to have this weird propensity for making up stories about "what I believe". I simply asked you if you had any actual empirical data to back up the claims you were making. That's all. Which you obviously don't.

And since you don't either it gets down ot opinion. By now it's clear you've
figure out that I'm probably correct though, or you'd be trying to show
something different.

>> If you think it's different then you need to
>>
>> explain HOW you think it's different AND provide your empirical evidence since
>>
>> you feel that it's a necessity. Go:
>
>If I think what's different?

You sure are a slow one.

>I am not the one who has made any claims that require empirical support. You think that the meat from the hunted animal would involve fewer deaths per calorie than the biscuit,

There's no doubt in my mind. How do you think it could be different?

>I want to know if you can produce some actual data to back that up or not. Of course, you can't.

Nor can you to back up anything different. It's amusing that you think it
could be different, even though you apparently can't even imagine how it
possibly could be.

dh

unread,
May 16, 2013, 5:51:34 PM5/16/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 22:19:09 -0700, Goo wussed horribly:

>On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:57:22 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 May 2013 19:32:34 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 09 May 2013 18:31:35 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 08 May 2013 12:41:41 -0700, Goo lied:
>>>>
>>>> You couldn't explain what was bullshit about it then and still can't, Goo.
>>>
>>>I did, and I still can.
>>
>> Try doing it now Goo. Go:
>
>Go to the archives

It's not there and you can't even pretend that it is, Goo.

George Plimpton

unread,
May 16, 2013, 7:34:40 PM5/16/13
to
On 5/16/2013 2:51 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 5/13/2013 10:19 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/13/2013 5:57 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 5/9/2013 7:32 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 5/9/2013 3:31 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 5/8/2013 12:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> I did, and I still can.
>>>
>>> Try doing it now
>>
>> Go to the archives, *Goo*. Again.
>
> It's not there and

It's there. Go there now.

Rupert

unread,
May 16, 2013, 11:52:54 PM5/16/13
to
Moron.
I gave you empirical data for my estimate of the impact of buying one slice of cheese, and also for buying one cup of tofu.

>
>
> >> >It would appear that you have no answer to the question; i.e. you have no basis whatsoever for any estimate of the death rate associated with broccoli, potatoes, or biscuits.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Apparently you think broccoli involves as many deaths as grain does,
>
> >
>
> >I never said any such thing, nitwit. I don't claim to know how the comparison would go, I have no basis for knowing. If you think you have some kind of basis, then present it.
>
>
>
> What did I tell you?
>

Some bullshit. I don't know, what are you talking about? You've said plenty of crap in this thread but I don't know what you're trying to talk about at the moment.

>
>
> >> but I
>
> >>
>
> >> don't. Apparently you think broccoli involves as many deaths as potatoes do, but
>
> >>
>
> >> I don't.
>
> >
>
> >Why would anyone care what you do or don't think if you can present no decent empirical research about the matter? Sheesh.
>
>
>
> Because I've thought about it more than you have for one thing.

You've given no evidence of having had any worthwhile insights about the matter.

> And because
>
> you have no decent empirical research about the matter your own self.
>

What's that got to do with it? I haven't made any claims about the matter. That has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that you've got no decent data to back up any of the claims you've made.

>
>
> >> You have no better reason to think it does than I do to think it does
>
> >>
>
> >> not since you have no reason at all to believe what you believe but I pointed
>
> >>
>
> >> out the reasons I believe as I do.
>
> >
>
> >You appear to have this weird propensity for making up stories about "what I believe". I simply asked you if you had any actual empirical data to back up the claims you were making. That's all. Which you obviously don't.
>
>
>
> And since you don't either it gets down ot opinion.

In other words, there's really nothing worth talking about since all you're doing is making unfounded guesses about a matter that would require empirical research. In other words, you've finally admitted that you have no basis for the claims you made, as I correctly pointed out. So all that's left for you to do now is retract the claims and apologize for taking me to task for pointing out to you that you had no foundation for them. When you're ready.

> By now it's clear you've
>
> figure out that I'm probably correct though, or you'd be trying to show
>
> something different.
>

Pfffft.

>
>
> >> If you think it's different then you need to
>
> >>
>
> >> explain HOW you think it's different AND provide your empirical evidence since
>
> >>
>
> >> you feel that it's a necessity. Go:
>
> >
>
> >If I think what's different?
>
>
>
> You sure are a slow one.
>
>
>
> >I am not the one who has made any claims that require empirical support. You think that the meat from the hunted animal would involve fewer deaths per calorie than the biscuit,
>
>
>
> There's no doubt in my mind. How do you think it could be different?
>

Well, there doesn't seem to be much point in speculating about it until we've got some kind of sensible estimate for the death rate associated with the production of one biscuit. Since you clearly don't have the slightest idea, it seems a bit silly to talk about it.

>
>
> >I want to know if you can produce some actual data to back that up or not. Of course, you can't.
>
>
>
> Nor can you to back up anything different.

Irrelevant. I'm not the one who made any claims.

> It's amusing that you think it
>
> could be different, even though you apparently can't even imagine how it
>
> possibly could be.

You mean, it's amusing that I don't accept your claims just because you made them, when you can't provide the least bit of support for them?

dh

unread,
May 20, 2013, 7:03:37 PM5/20/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:34:40 -0700, Goo wussed horribly:

>On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:51:34 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 22:19:09 -0700, Goo wussed horribly:
>>
>>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:57:22 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 09 May 2013 19:32:34 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 09 May 2013 18:31:35 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 08 May 2013 12:41:41 -0700, Goo lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You couldn't explain what was bullshit about it then and still can't, Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>I did, and I still can.
>>>>
>>>> Try doing it now Goo. Go:
>>>
>>>Go to the archives
>>
>> It's not there and you can't even pretend that it is, Goo.
>
>It's there. Go there now.

You can't even pretend it's there, Goo.

dh

unread,
May 20, 2013, 7:05:37 PM5/20/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 20:52:54 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
At least you've finally realised that I'm right, whether you ever try to
move on or not. You won't try to move on in any direction though because if you
did, it would tend to lead you away from elimination.
You just tossed out whatever numbers you like thinking about.

>> >> >It would appear that you have no answer to the question; i.e. you have no basis whatsoever for any estimate of the death rate associated with broccoli, potatoes, or biscuits.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Apparently you think broccoli involves as many deaths as grain does,
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I never said any such thing, nitwit. I don't claim to know how the comparison would go, I have no basis for knowing. If you think you have some kind of basis, then present it.
>>
>>
>>
>> What did I tell you?
>>
>
>Some bullshit. I don't know, what are you talking about?

Again:
It takes a bigger area to grow enough grain for the biscuits than it does
for the other two, on top of the fact that a grain field is more animal friendly
than broccoli or potatoes growing areas. That gets into a detail that you can't
comprehend apparently: that more animals means more deaths.
Potatoes would be more than broccoli since the ground has be be dup up to get to
them killing more animals underground as well as whatever on the surface. If you
think it's different then you need to explain HOW you think it's different AND
provide your empirical evidence since you feel that it's a necessity. Or is it
only necessary for other people but not for you?

>You've said plenty of crap in this thread but I don't know what you're trying to talk about at the moment.



>> >> but I
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> don't. Apparently you think broccoli involves as many deaths as potatoes do, but
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> I don't.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Why would anyone care what you do or don't think if you can present no decent empirical research about the matter? Sheesh.
>>
>>
>>
>> Because I've thought about it more than you have for one thing.
>
>You've given no evidence of having had any worthwhile insights about the matter.

More than you have.

>> And because
>>
>> you have no decent empirical research about the matter your own self.
>>
>
>What's that got to do with it? I haven't made any claims about the matter.

So far you haven't even tried to think about it.

>That has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that you've got no decent data to back up any of the claims you've made.

You have nothing at all.

>> >> You have no better reason to think it does than I do to think it does
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> not since you have no reason at all to believe what you believe but I pointed
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> out the reasons I believe as I do.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >You appear to have this weird propensity for making up stories about "what I believe". I simply asked you if you had any actual empirical data to back up the claims you were making. That's all. Which you obviously don't.
>>
>>
>>
>> And since you don't either it gets down ot opinion.
>
>In other words, there's really nothing worth talking about since all you're doing is making unfounded guesses about a matter that would require empirical research.

The deer meat involves fewer animal deaths than the other products unless
YOU can explain how they could be less. The deer meat involves ONLY the death of
the one deer divided by however many servings they got out of it.

>In other words, you've finally admitted that you have no basis for the claims you made, as I correctly pointed out.

Since the deer meat didn't involve any cds at all, I'd say every cd
associated with the particular entire crop from the field(s) the vegie products
were involved with, and all other cds associated with getting them to the table,
since they're in a completely different catagory than the deer meat. That might
mean that the veggies involved millions of times more deaths than the deer meat.
>So all that's left for you to do now is retract the claims and apologize for
taking me to task for pointing out to you that you had no foundation for them.

Since you think it's so important I might consider doing it after you
apologise to me for the same thing, since you haven't provided any foundation
for anything at all yourself. Not for anything, afawk.

>When you're ready.
>
>> By now it's clear you've
>>
>> figure out that I'm probably correct though, or you'd be trying to show
>>
>> something different.
>>
>
>Pfffft.

By now we both know you know I'm correct.

>> >> If you think it's different then you need to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> explain HOW you think it's different AND provide your empirical evidence since
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you feel that it's a necessity. Go:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >If I think what's different?
>>
>>
>>
>> You sure are a slow one.
>>
>>
>>
>> >I am not the one who has made any claims that require empirical support. You think that the meat from the hunted animal would involve fewer deaths per calorie than the biscuit,
>>
>>
>>
>> There's no doubt in my mind. How do you think it could be different?
>>
>
>Well, there doesn't seem to be much point in speculating about it until we've got some kind of sensible estimate for the death rate associated with the production of one biscuit. Since you clearly don't have the slightest idea, it seems a bit silly to talk about it.

It's safe to say the production of the biscuit probably was tied to
thousands if not millions of deaths, while the deer meat was less than 1/100
death. Possibly less than 1/1000.

>> >I want to know if you can produce some actual data to back that up or not. Of course, you can't.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nor can you to back up anything different.
>
>Irrelevant. I'm not the one who made any claims.

You want people to believe the number of deaths in soybean fields is the
same in all fields on the entire planet every year regardless of where or
anything to do with the surrounding environment. You DO need to back that up,
but you can't even make an attempt. Nor can you say why we should have any
confidence in your favorite guess that was made by some guy who I feel sure is
some sort of veg*n and eliminationist.

>> It's amusing that you think it
>>
>> could be different, even though you apparently can't even imagine how it
>>
>> possibly could be.
>
>You mean, it's amusing that I don't accept your claims just because you made them

No. It's amusing that you want to think it could be different than what I
pointed out even though you can't even begin to try to figure out how it
possibly could be different.

Rupert

unread,
May 21, 2013, 12:31:45 AM5/21/13
to
I do not need your help, you pitiful fool, to realize that more wildlife in a given crop field would mean a higher collateral death rate from crop production.
I gave you my calculations together with reliable sources for the figures that I used. I didn't give you all my sources that I used for the figures in calculating the impact of one slice of cheese, but I found them all on Google and I could provide them easily enough, or you can check them yourself by doing your own research.

>
>
> >> >> >It would appear that you have no answer to the question; i.e. you have no basis whatsoever for any estimate of the death rate associated with broccoli, potatoes, or biscuits.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Apparently you think broccoli involves as many deaths as grain does,
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I never said any such thing, nitwit. I don't claim to know how the comparison would go, I have no basis for knowing. If you think you have some kind of basis, then present it.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> What did I tell you?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Some bullshit. I don't know, what are you talking about?
>
>
>
> Again:
>
> It takes a bigger area to grow enough grain for the biscuits than it does
>
> for the other two, on top of the fact that a grain field is more animal friendly
>
> than broccoli or potatoes growing areas. That gets into a detail that you can't
>
> comprehend apparently: that more animals means more deaths.
>
> Potatoes would be more than broccoli since the ground has be be dup up to get to
>
> them killing more animals underground as well as whatever on the surface. If you
>
> think it's different then you need to explain HOW you think it's different AND
>
> provide your empirical evidence since you feel that it's a necessity. Or is it
>
> only necessary for other people but not for you?
>

What I would like to know, is how your got your estimate that it takes a bigger area to grow enough grain for the biscuit than to grow the broccoli and potatoes. If you can tell me more about that then I will listen.

What we really want, though, is some basis for a comparison with deer meat. That's what I was really asking about.

>
>
> >You've said plenty of crap in this thread but I don't know what you're trying to talk about at the moment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> but I
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> don't. Apparently you think broccoli involves as many deaths as potatoes do, but
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> I don't.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Why would anyone care what you do or don't think if you can present no decent empirical research about the matter? Sheesh.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Because I've thought about it more than you have for one thing.
>
> >
>
> >You've given no evidence of having had any worthwhile insights about the matter.
>
>
>
> More than you have.
>
>
>
> >> And because
>
> >>
>
> >> you have no decent empirical research about the matter your own self.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >What's that got to do with it? I haven't made any claims about the matter.
>
>
>
> So far you haven't even tried to think about it.
>

I've asked you to present your evidence ...

>
>
> >That has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that you've got no decent data to back up any of the claims you've made.
>
>
>
> You have nothing at all.
>

So what? I made no claims. You are the one making your claim and it is your job to provide the evidence.

>
>
> >> >> You have no better reason to think it does than I do to think it does
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> not since you have no reason at all to believe what you believe but I pointed
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> out the reasons I believe as I do.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >You appear to have this weird propensity for making up stories about "what I believe". I simply asked you if you had any actual empirical data to back up the claims you were making. That's all. Which you obviously don't.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> And since you don't either it gets down ot opinion.
>
> >
>
> >In other words, there's really nothing worth talking about since all you're doing is making unfounded guesses about a matter that would require empirical research.
>
>
>
> The deer meat involves fewer animal deaths than the other products unless
>
> YOU can explain how they could be less.

No, it involves fewer animal deaths if there is some valid reason for thinking so based on reasonable empirical estimates of the death rates associated with the different foods, which you have not provided.

> The deer meat involves ONLY the death of
>
> the one deer divided by however many servings they got out of it.
>

Right, so what's the death rate associated with one biscuit?

>
>
> >In other words, you've finally admitted that you have no basis for the claims you made, as I correctly pointed out.
>
>
>
> Since the deer meat didn't involve any cds at all, I'd say every cd
>
> associated with the particular entire crop from the field(s) the vegie products
>
> were involved with, and all other cds associated with getting them to the table,
>
> since they're in a completely different catagory than the deer meat. That might
>
> mean that the veggies involved millions of times more deaths than the deer meat.
>

You don't count all the CD's for the entire crop field. You take the quantity of grain required to produce the one biscuit, and divided it by the total quantity of grain produced by one hectare. Then you multiply the resulting number by the mean death rate for one hectare. You have no way of knowing how that would compare with the death rate for deer meat because you haven't done the calculation.

> >So all that's left for you to do now is retract the claims and apologize for
>
> taking me to task for pointing out to you that you had no foundation for them.
>
>
>
> Since you think it's so important I might consider doing it after you
>
> apologise to me for the same thing, since you haven't provided any foundation
>
> for anything at all yourself. Not for anything, afawk.
>

I don't have to provide any evidence. I haven't made any claims. In threads in which I do make claims, I do produce evidence.

>
>
> >When you're ready.
>
> >
>
> >> By now it's clear you've
>
> >>
>
> >> figure out that I'm probably correct though, or you'd be trying to show
>
> >>
>
> >> something different.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Pfffft.
>
>
>
> By now we both know you know I'm correct.
>

About what?

>
>
> >> >> If you think it's different then you need to
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> explain HOW you think it's different AND provide your empirical evidence since
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> you feel that it's a necessity. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >If I think what's different?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You sure are a slow one.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >I am not the one who has made any claims that require empirical support. You think that the meat from the hunted animal would involve fewer deaths per calorie than the biscuit,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> There's no doubt in my mind. How do you think it could be different?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Well, there doesn't seem to be much point in speculating about it until we've got some kind of sensible estimate for the death rate associated with the production of one biscuit. Since you clearly don't have the slightest idea, it seems a bit silly to talk about it.
>
>
>
> It's safe to say the production of the biscuit probably was tied to
>
> thousands if not millions of deaths,

That is a totally absurd claim.

> while the deer meat was less than 1/100
>
> death. Possibly less than 1/1000.
>
>
>
> >> >I want to know if you can produce some actual data to back that up or not. Of course, you can't.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Nor can you to back up anything different.
>
> >
>
> >Irrelevant. I'm not the one who made any claims.
>
>
>
> You want people to believe the number of deaths in soybean fields is the
>
> same in all fields on the entire planet every year regardless of where or
>
> anything to do with the surrounding environment.

No. Anyone with half a brain knows perfectly well that I never once said any such thing.

> You DO need to back that up,
>

No, I don't. I never made such a ridiculous claim.

> but you can't even make an attempt. Nor can you say why we should have any
>
> confidence in your favorite guess that was made by some guy who I feel sure is
>
> some sort of veg*n and eliminationist.
>

He's not. And I copied and pasted a quote for you from his paper which explains his evidence for the estimate. If you think that the estimate is likely to be the wrong order of magnitude then you should offer some reason for thinking why. That would involve engaging with the evidence he has presented.


>
>
> >> It's amusing that you think it
>
> >>
>
> >> could be different, even though you apparently can't even imagine how it
>
> >>
>
> >> possibly could be.
>
> >
>
> >You mean, it's amusing that I don't accept your claims just because you made them
>
>
>
> No. It's amusing that you want to think it could be different than what I
>
> pointed out even though you can't even begin to try to figure out how it
>
> possibly could be different.

Are you still stuck on this idea that I somehow believe the death rate is the same in all soybean fields?

Look, the notion of the mean value of a sample is a very basic one in statistics. To obtain the mean value of a sample of data you add up all the data and divide by the total number of data. Have you never heard of that before?

George Plimpton

unread,
May 21, 2013, 12:51:55 PM5/21/13
to
On 5/20/2013 4:03 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 5/16/2013 4:34 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/16/2013 2:51 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 5/13/2013 10:19 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2013 5:57 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 5/9/2013 7:32 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/9/2013 3:31 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 5/8/2013 12:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> I did, and I still can.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try doing it now
>>>>
>>>> Go to the archives, *Goo*. Again.
>>>
>>> It's not there and
>>

dh

unread,
May 23, 2013, 5:18:13 PM5/23/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:31:45 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:05:37 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 20:52:54 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:51:28 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> Bullshit. You STILL can't appreciate it even after I pointed it out for you,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> but you expect me to believe you've been thinking about it for years? Not
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> hardly.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Moron.
>>
>>
>>
>> At least you've finally realised that I'm right, whether you ever try to
>>
>> move on or not. You won't try to move on in any direction though because if you
>>
>> did, it would tend to lead you away from elimination.
>>
>
>I do not need your help, you pitiful fool, to realize that more wildlife in a given crop field would mean a higher collateral death rate from crop production.

Not any more, but you still wouldn't be aware of it if I hadn't kept
pointing it out until you finally slowly learned to appreciate the fact.
The impact of one slice of cheese is nothing, so whatever impact you figured
it to have is grossly exagerated to say the least. Since it's fantasy you could
make up whatever you want to.

>> >> >> >It would appear that you have no answer to the question; i.e. you have no basis whatsoever for any estimate of the death rate associated with broccoli, potatoes, or biscuits.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> Apparently you think broccoli involves as many deaths as grain does,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I never said any such thing, nitwit. I don't claim to know how the comparison would go, I have no basis for knowing. If you think you have some kind of basis, then present it.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> What did I tell you?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Some bullshit. I don't know, what are you talking about?
>>
>>
>>
>> Again:
>>
>> It takes a bigger area to grow enough grain for the biscuits than it does
>>
>> for the other two, on top of the fact that a grain field is more animal friendly
>>
>> than broccoli or potatoes growing areas. That gets into a detail that you can't
>>
>> comprehend apparently: that more animals means more deaths.
>>
>> Potatoes would be more than broccoli since the ground has be be dup up to get to
>>
>> them killing more animals underground as well as whatever on the surface. If you
>>
>> think it's different then you need to explain HOW you think it's different AND
>>
>> provide your empirical evidence since you feel that it's a necessity. Or is it
>>
>> only necessary for other people but not for you?
>>
>
>What I would like to know, is how your got your estimate that it takes a bigger area to grow enough grain for the biscuit than to grow the broccoli and potatoes. If you can tell me more about that then I will listen.

It takes an area of soil maybe a cubic yard to grow the potatoes and less
than that to grow the broccoli. Do you think that's true of the grain as well?

>What we really want, though, is some basis for a comparison with deer meat. That's what I was really asking about.

There are no cds associated with the deer meat. Only the death of the one
deer divided by the number of servings it produced. That puts it in a completely
different catagory than the other products that have lots of cds associated with
them. Really the thing that's most in question about this whole discussion is
why you don't care. But we know why. Not only are you opposed to animals living
so humans can use them for food, but you're also probably even more opposed to
human hunting controlling wildlife populations. You would rather see other
things like disease and starvation and non-human predators do that...things that
not only will not but can not even attempt to be humane about it. Things that
also are harder on baby animals and pregnant females than human hunting is.
There are other reasons that other agents involve more suffering than human
hunting but you don't care about any of them or the ones I mentioned above,
right?

>> >You've said plenty of crap in this thread but I don't know what you're trying to talk about at the moment.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> but I
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> don't. Apparently you think broccoli involves as many deaths as potatoes do, but
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> I don't.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Why would anyone care what you do or don't think if you can present no decent empirical research about the matter? Sheesh.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Because I've thought about it more than you have for one thing.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >You've given no evidence of having had any worthwhile insights about the matter.
>>
>>
>>
>> More than you have.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> And because
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you have no decent empirical research about the matter your own self.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >What's that got to do with it? I haven't made any claims about the matter.
>>
>>
>>
>> So far you haven't even tried to think about it.
>>
>
>I've asked you to present your evidence ...

For what specifically, and what evidence have YOU presented about it?

>> >That has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that you've got no decent data to back up any of the claims you've made.
>>
>>
>>
>> You have nothing at all.
>>
>
>So what?

You're the one that wants to make huge changes to society as we know it, yet
you have nothing at all to even suggest that what you'd like to see happen would
be good for anything.

>I made no claims. You are the one making your claim

The deer meat is the only thing I remember making a claim about if anything,
and there's no doubt it involves fewer deaths than commercially produced
broccoli, potatoes and flour.

>and it is your job to provide the evidence.

It's obvious since the deer meat involves no cds and the other things
involve many. What do you think you gain by pretending to be too stupid to
appreciate this one? Or are you saying that you really are too stupid to even
comprehend, much less appreciate?

>> >> >> You have no better reason to think it does than I do to think it does
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> not since you have no reason at all to believe what you believe but I pointed
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> out the reasons I believe as I do.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >You appear to have this weird propensity for making up stories about "what I believe". I simply asked you if you had any actual empirical data to back up the claims you were making. That's all. Which you obviously don't.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> And since you don't either it gets down ot opinion.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >In other words, there's really nothing worth talking about since all you're doing is making unfounded guesses about a matter that would require empirical research.
>>
>>
>>
>> The deer meat involves fewer animal deaths than the other products unless
>>
>> YOU can explain how they could be less.
>
>No, it involves fewer animal deaths if there is some valid reason for thinking so based on reasonable empirical estimates of the death rates associated with the different foods, which you have not provided.
>
>> The deer meat involves ONLY the death of
>>
>> the one deer divided by however many servings they got out of it.
>>
>
>Right, so what's the death rate associated with one biscuit?

It involves some cds and the deer meat involves none.

>> >In other words, you've finally admitted that you have no basis for the claims you made, as I correctly pointed out.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since the deer meat didn't involve any cds at all, I'd say every cd
>>
>> associated with the particular entire crop from the field(s) the vegie products
>>
>> were involved with, and all other cds associated with getting them to the table,
>>
>> since they're in a completely different catagory than the deer meat. That might
>>
>> mean that the veggies involved millions of times more deaths than the deer meat.
>>
>
>You don't count all the CD's for the entire crop field.

In this case we can since there are no cds associated with the deer.

>You take the quantity of grain required to produce the one biscuit, and divided it by the total quantity of grain produced by one hectare. Then you multiply the resulting number by the mean death rate for one hectare. You have no way of knowing how that would compare with the death rate for deer meat because you haven't done the calculation.
>
>> >So all that's left for you to do now is retract the claims and apologize for
>>
>> taking me to task for pointing out to you that you had no foundation for them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since you think it's so important I might consider doing it after you
>>
>> apologise to me for the same thing, since you haven't provided any foundation
>>
>> for anything at all yourself. Not for anything, afawk.
>>
>
>I don't have to provide any evidence.

I don't either then.

>I haven't made any claims. In threads in which I do make claims, I do produce evidence.
>
>>
>>
>> >When you're ready.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> By now it's clear you've
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> figure out that I'm probably correct though, or you'd be trying to show
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> something different.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Pfffft.
>>
>>
>>
>> By now we both know you know I'm correct.
>>
>
>About what?

I believe that one was about the number of deaths being influenced by the
number of animals that are or are not in the area. You still haven't fully
accepted that it matters, and this trail is you trying to oppose the fact if I
remember correctly. If not, then you go back and figure out what this one was
about if you give a shit enough. The way you crap up everything with tons of
empty lines of nothing makes it more of a pain in the ass to go back and see
what was being discussed, which I feel sure is one of the reasons you fuck
things up so much. If not, then why else would you do it?

>> >> >> If you think it's different then you need to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> explain HOW you think it's different AND provide your empirical evidence since
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> you feel that it's a necessity. Go:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >If I think what's different?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You sure are a slow one.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I am not the one who has made any claims that require empirical support. You think that the meat from the hunted animal would involve fewer deaths per calorie than the biscuit,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> There's no doubt in my mind. How do you think it could be different?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Well, there doesn't seem to be much point in speculating about it until we've got some kind of sensible estimate for the death rate associated with the production of one biscuit. Since you clearly don't have the slightest idea, it seems a bit silly to talk about it.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's safe to say the production of the biscuit probably was tied to
>>
>> thousands if not millions of deaths,
>
>That is a totally absurd claim.

It's tied to all cds associated with the field, and really to all cds
associated with the company that gets it into the hands of the consumers.

>> while the deer meat was less than 1/100
>>
>> death. Possibly less than 1/1000.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >I want to know if you can produce some actual data to back that up or not. Of course, you can't.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Nor can you to back up anything different.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Irrelevant. I'm not the one who made any claims.
>>
>>
>>
>> You want people to believe the number of deaths in soybean fields is the
>>
>> same in all fields on the entire planet every year regardless of where or
>>
>> anything to do with the surrounding environment.
>
>No.

Try providing any reason(s) you can for someone to try to believe you. Go:

>Anyone with half a brain knows perfectly well that I never once said any such thing.
>
>> You DO need to back that up,
>>
>
>No, I don't. I never made such a ridiculous claim.
>
>> but you can't even make an attempt. Nor can you say why we should have any
>>
>> confidence in your favorite guess that was made by some guy who I feel sure is
>>
>> some sort of veg*n and eliminationist.
>>
>
>He's not. And I copied and pasted a quote for you from his paper which explains his evidence for the estimate. If you think that the estimate is likely to be the wrong order of magnitude then you should offer some reason for thinking why. That would involve engaging with the evidence he has presented.

I had thought that the death rate was less than 50% of the animals in the
fields, but he said it's 60%-70% so it's fine with me to go with that unless you
think it's higher.

>> >> It's amusing that you think it
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> could be different, even though you apparently can't even imagine how it
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> possibly could be.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >You mean, it's amusing that I don't accept your claims just because you made them
>>
>>
>>
>> No. It's amusing that you want to think it could be different than what I
>>
>> pointed out even though you can't even begin to try to figure out how it
>>
>> possibly could be different.
>
>Are you still stuck on this idea that I somehow believe the death rate is the same in all soybean fields?
>
>Look, the notion of the mean value of a sample is a very basic one in statistics. To obtain the mean value of a sample of data you add up all the data and divide by the total number of data. Have you never heard of that before?

You haven't done it and neither has anyone else and no one can. So now what?

Rupert

unread,
May 24, 2013, 1:16:40 AM5/24/13
to
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:18:13 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:31:45 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> >I do not need your help, you pitiful fool, to realize that more wildlife in a given crop field would mean a higher collateral death rate from crop production.
>
>
>
> Not any more, but you still wouldn't be aware of it if I hadn't kept
>
> pointing it out until you finally slowly learned to appreciate the fact.
>

No, it was completely obvious to me long before you mentioned it, you stupid twit.

> >I gave you my calculations together with reliable sources for the figures that I used. I didn't give you all my sources that I used for the figures in calculating the impact of one slice of cheese, but I found them all on Google and I could provide them easily enough, or you can check them yourself by doing your own research.
>
>
>
> The impact of one slice of cheese is nothing, so whatever impact you figured
>
> it to have is grossly exagerated to say the least. Since it's fantasy you could
>
> make up whatever you want to.
>

Right, so what was wrong with my calculations? Which of the figures were wrong?

> >What I would like to know, is how your got your estimate that it takes a bigger area to grow enough grain for the biscuit than to grow the broccoli and potatoes. If you can tell me more about that then I will listen.
>
>
>
> It takes an area of soil maybe a cubic yard to grow the potatoes and less
>
> than that to grow the broccoli. Do you think that's true of the grain as well?
>

Well, it sounds as though you're claiming you need more than one cubic yard of soil to produce enough grain for the biscuit. How much grain do you think we need for the biscuit, anyway? Which grains?

>
>
> >What we really want, though, is some basis for a comparison with deer meat. That's what I was really asking about.
>
>
>
> There are no cds associated with the deer meat. Only the death of the one
>
> deer divided by the number of servings it produced. That puts it in a completely
>
> different catagory than the other products that have lots of cds associated with
>
> them.

Why? We found 0.00012 of a death for one cup of tofu. You've given no grounds for quarrelling with that estimate. So the death rates for such products could quite easily be of the same order of magnitude as that for a serving of hunted deer meat, possibliy even smaller.

> Really the thing that's most in question about this whole discussion is
>
> why you don't care. But we know why. Not only are you opposed to animals living
>
> so humans can use them for food, but you're also probably even more opposed to
>
> human hunting controlling wildlife populations. You would rather see other
>
> things like disease and starvation and non-human predators do that...things that
>
> not only will not but can not even attempt to be humane about it. Things that
>
> also are harder on baby animals and pregnant females than human hunting is.
>
> There are other reasons that other agents involve more suffering than human
>
> hunting but you don't care about any of them or the ones I mentioned above,
>
> right?
>

I haven't said anything about hunting one way or the other. I simply want you to produce some evidence for your claims.

> >> >> >Why would anyone care what you do or don't think if you can present no decent empirical research about the matter? Sheesh.
>
> >> >> Because I've thought about it more than you have for one thing.
>
> >> >You've given no evidence of having had any worthwhile insights about the matter.
>
> >> More than you have.
>

No, actually, none at all.
> >I've asked you to present your evidence ...
>
>
>
> For what specifically, and what evidence have YOU presented about it?
>

I want you to present evidence for the claim that you made that there would be a larger expected increase in collateral deaths caused by buying one biscuit than the number of deaths associated with one serving of hunted deer meat. I do not have any evidence that bears on this matter, I do not make any claim about it one way or the other. I am simply curious to know what led you to make your assertion.

> >> >That has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that you've got no decent data to back up any of the claims you've made.
>
> >> You have nothing at all.
>

I'm not the one who has made claims that I need to back up.

> >So what?
>
>
>
> You're the one that wants to make huge changes to society as we know it, yet
>
> you have nothing at all to even suggest that what you'd like to see happen would
>
> be good for anything.
>

That's a change in topic. We were not discussing any changes I wished to see happen in society. I would like to see a reduction in meat consumption because I believe that most animals that live on modern farms have lives that are full of suffering and on the whole not worth living. Some evidence for this claim is presented in the third edition of Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation", and also on the Compassion in World Farming web site. I believe that suffering reduction is, other things equal, a good thing. This premise of mine would be widely granted.

>
>
> >I made no claims. You are the one making your claim
>
>
>
> The deer meat is the only thing I remember making a claim about if anything,
>
> and there's no doubt it involves fewer deaths than commercially produced
>
> broccoli, potatoes and flour.
>

Why? How do you know? This is what I keep asking over and over.

>
>
> >and it is your job to provide the evidence.
>
>
>
> It's obvious since the deer meat involves no cds and the other things
>
> involve many. What do you think you gain by pretending to be too stupid to
>
> appreciate this one? Or are you saying that you really are too stupid to even
>
> comprehend, much less appreciate?
>

Why is it obvious? How do you know that the number of CD's associated with a given serving of broccoli and potatoes is higher than that associated with a given serving of deer meat? If it's so obvious, then just explain to me how you know.

> >> >> >You appear to have this weird propensity for making up stories about "what I believe". I simply asked you if you had any actual empirical data to back up the claims you were making. That's all. Which you obviously don't.
>
> >> >> And since you don't either it gets down ot opinion.
>
> >> >In other words, there's really nothing worth talking about since all you're doing is making unfounded guesses about a matter that would require empirical research.
>
> >> The deer meat involves fewer animal deaths than the other products unless
>
> >> YOU can explain how they could be less.

> >No, it involves fewer animal deaths if there is some valid reason for thinking so based on reasonable empirical estimates of the death rates associated with the different foods, which you have not provided.

> >> The deer meat involves ONLY the death of
> >> the one deer divided by however many servings they got out of it.
>
> >Right, so what's the death rate associated with one biscuit?
>
>
>
> It involves some cds and the deer meat involves none.
>

Okay, so where does that leave us? You need to somehow compare the CD's associated with the biscuit with the deaths from hunting associated with deer meat. Why is it so obvious how the comparison would turn out?

> >> >In other words, you've finally admitted that you have no basis for the claims you made, as I correctly pointed out.
>
> >> Since the deer meat didn't involve any cds at all, I'd say every cd
>
> >>
>
> >> associated with the particular entire crop from the field(s) the vegie products
>
> >>
>
> >> were involved with, and all other cds associated with getting them to the table,
>
> >>
>
> >> since they're in a completely different catagory than the deer meat. That might
>
> >>
>
> >> mean that the veggies involved millions of times more deaths than the deer meat.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >You don't count all the CD's for the entire crop field.
>
>
>
> In this case we can since there are no cds associated with the deer.
>

No, that's not how it works. If you divide the death associated with hunting one deer by the number of servings it provides, then the same logic works with CD's from crop production. Take the number of CD's associated with producing one hectare of grain, and then divide that by the number of biscuits that you could produce from one hectare of grain.

>
>
> >You take the quantity of grain required to produce the one biscuit, and divided it by the total quantity of grain produced by one hectare. Then you multiply the resulting number by the mean death rate for one hectare. You have no way of knowing how that would compare with the death rate for deer meat because you haven't done the calculation.
>
> >> Since you think it's so important I might consider doing it after you
>
> >>
>
> >> apologise to me for the same thing, since you haven't provided any foundation
>
> >>
>
> >> for anything at all yourself. Not for anything, afawk.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I don't have to provide any evidence.
>
>
>
> I don't either then.
>

Yes, you do. You have made a claim. I have not.

> >> By now we both know you know I'm correct.
>
> >About what?
>
>
>
> I believe that one was about the number of deaths being influenced by the
>
> number of animals that are or are not in the area. You still haven't fully
>
> accepted that it matters, and this trail is you trying to oppose the fact if I
>
> remember correctly. If not, then you go back and figure out what this one was
>
> about if you give a shit enough. The way you crap up everything with tons of
>
> empty lines of nothing makes it more of a pain in the ass to go back and see
>
> what was being discussed, which I feel sure is one of the reasons you fuck
>
> things up so much. If not, then why else would you do it?
>

It happens when I use Google Groups.

I have never once opposed your claim that the amount of wildlife present would have an effect on the number of collateral deaths that take place. That has always been completely obvious to me.

> >> >> >I am not the one who has made any claims that require empirical support. You think that the meat from the hunted animal would involve fewer deaths per calorie than the biscuit,
>
> >> >> There's no doubt in my mind. How do you think it could be different?
>
> >> >Well, there doesn't seem to be much point in speculating about it until we've got some kind of sensible estimate for the death rate associated with the production of one biscuit. Since you clearly don't have the slightest idea, it seems a bit silly to talk about it.
>
> >> It's safe to say the production of the biscuit probably was tied to
>
> >>
>
> >> thousands if not millions of deaths,
>
> >
>
> >That is a totally absurd claim.
>
>
>
> It's tied to all cds associated with the field, and really to all cds
>
> associated with the company that gets it into the hands of the consumers.
>

Rubbish.

> >> You want people to believe the number of deaths in soybean fields is the
>
> >> same in all fields on the entire planet every year regardless of where or
>
> >> anything to do with the surrounding environment.
>
> >No.
>
>
>
> Try providing any reason(s) you can for someone to try to believe you. Go:
>

An examination of my posts will reveal that never once have I suggested that the death rate for soybean production would be the same in all soybean fields. There is simply no evidence that I ever suggested any such thing. Of course I realize that it would be different in different fields and would depend on various factors.


>
>
> >Anyone with half a brain knows perfectly well that I never once said any such thing.
>
> >> You DO need to back that up,
>

No. If you think that you have some evidence that I once said such a thing, it is your job to provide the evidence. It is not my job to somehow reference an absence of any evidence, that is not possible.

> >He's not. And I copied and pasted a quote for you from his paper which explains his evidence for the estimate. If you think that the estimate is likely to be the wrong order of magnitude then you should offer some reason for thinking why. That would involve engaging with the evidence he has presented.
>
>
>
> I had thought that the death rate was less than 50% of the animals in the
>
> fields, but he said it's 60%-70% so it's fine with me to go with that unless you
>
> think it's higher.
>

So you agree that the mean death rate associated with soybean production is about 15 per hectare per year, then?

> >> No. It's amusing that you want to think it could be different than what I
>
> >>
>
> >> pointed out even though you can't even begin to try to figure out how it
>
> >>
>
> >> possibly could be different.
>
> >
>
> >Are you still stuck on this idea that I somehow believe the death rate is the same in all soybean fields?
>
> >
>
> >Look, the notion of the mean value of a sample is a very basic one in statistics. To obtain the mean value of a sample of data you add up all the data and divide by the total number of data. Have you never heard of that before?
>
>
>
> You haven't done it and neither has anyone else and no one can. So now what?

You can't actually perform the calculation I indicated, no, but there are techniques for estimating the mean. The point is that giving an estimate for the mean doesn't somehow commit you to the claim that the data is uniform across all soybean fields, or that there is even one soybean field for which the value is equal to the mean.

dh

unread,
May 28, 2013, 7:52:22 PM5/28/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 22:16:40 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:18:13 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:31:45 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I do not need your help, you pitiful fool, to realize that more wildlife in a given crop field would mean a higher collateral death rate from crop production.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not any more, but you still wouldn't be aware of it if I hadn't kept
>>
>> pointing it out until you finally slowly learned to appreciate the fact.
>>
>
>No, it was completely obvious to me long before you mentioned it, you stupid twit.

You're lying. You owe me thanks but instead you lie, which is what you've
taught me to expect.

>> >I gave you my calculations together with reliable sources for the figures that I used. I didn't give you all my sources that I used for the figures in calculating the impact of one slice of cheese, but I found them all on Google and I could provide them easily enough, or you can check them yourself by doing your own research.
>>
>>
>>
>> The impact of one slice of cheese is nothing, so whatever impact you figured
>>
>> it to have is grossly exagerated to say the least. Since it's fantasy you could
>>
>> make up whatever you want to.
>>
>
>Right, so what was wrong with my calculations? Which of the figures were wrong?

Any that say the impact of one slice of cheese has any sort of influence on
the life of any livestock animal. I'm not saying a slice of cheese never did
have any influence on any livestock animal, but whether or not you purchase a
whole pack of cheese from a grocery store won't have any impact regardless of
whether you eat any or not.

>> >What I would like to know, is how your got your estimate that it takes a bigger area to grow enough grain for the biscuit than to grow the broccoli and potatoes. If you can tell me more about that then I will listen.
>>
>>
>>
>> It takes an area of soil maybe a cubic yard to grow the potatoes and less
>>
>> than that to grow the broccoli. Do you think that's true of the grain as well?
>>
>
>Well, it sounds as though you're claiming you need more than one cubic yard of soil to produce enough grain for the biscuit. How much grain do you think we need for the biscuit, anyway? Which grains?

It goes beyond just that to the number of animals that can survive in the
area. Do you think in general there's as much wildlife in fields where broccoli
is grown as there is in grain fields? I sure don't, since there's a lot more
open space and bare dirt in broccoli fields. But you can't appreciate things
like that anyway as we've seen. Maybe you will learn to appreciate this example
eventually too, and if so then you'll dishonestly pretend to have understood it
even before I pointed it out to you, but you would just be lying again. So far
you STILL can't appreciate it, much MUCH less were you able to appreciate it
before I pointed it out to you. AGAIN you never even thought about before I told
you about it.

>> >What we really want, though, is some basis for a comparison with deer meat. That's what I was really asking about.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are no cds associated with the deer meat. Only the death of the one
>>
>> deer divided by the number of servings it produced. That puts it in a completely
>>
>> different catagory than the other products that have lots of cds associated with
>>
>> them.
>
>Why?

Because it does. If you want to pretend it doesn't then YOU need to explain
how we could possibly pretend that.

>We found 0.00012 of a death for one cup of tofu.

That's just some number you pulled out of your ass and
ignorantly/dishonestly want to try to apply to every soy field on the planet.

>You've given no grounds for quarrelling with that estimate. So the death rates for such products could quite easily be of the same order of magnitude as that for a serving of hunted deer meat, possibliy even smaller.

There are still no cds associated with the deer meat but there are with the
potatoes. The fact that you want to try to make that seem different than it is
is more evidence of you not caring, btw.

>> Really the thing that's most in question about this whole discussion is
>>
>> why you don't care. But we know why. Not only are you opposed to animals living
>>
>> so humans can use them for food, but you're also probably even more opposed to
>>
>> human hunting controlling wildlife populations. You would rather see other
>>
>> things like disease and starvation and non-human predators do that...things that
>>
>> not only will not but can not even attempt to be humane about it. Things that
>>
>> also are harder on baby animals and pregnant females than human hunting is.
>>
>> There are other reasons that other agents involve more suffering than human
>>
>> hunting but you don't care about any of them or the ones I mentioned above,
>>
>> right?
>>
>
>I haven't said anything about hunting one way or the other.

I'm correct none the less.

>I simply want you to produce some evidence for your claims.
>
>> >> >> >Why would anyone care what you do or don't think if you can present no decent empirical research about the matter? Sheesh.
>>
>> >> >> Because I've thought about it more than you have for one thing.
>>
>> >> >You've given no evidence of having had any worthwhile insights about the matter.
>>
>> >> More than you have.
>>
>
>No, actually, none at all.
>> >I've asked you to present your evidence ...
>>
>>
>>
>> For what specifically, and what evidence have YOU presented about it?
>>
>
>I want you to present evidence for the claim that you made that there would be a larger expected increase in collateral deaths caused by buying one biscuit than the number of deaths associated with one serving of hunted deer meat.

When you buy a biscuit you contribute to an industry that causes millions of
cds. When you get deer meat that has been hunted you don't. The fact that you
don't care is more evidence that you don't care.

>I do not have any evidence that bears on this matter, I do not make any claim about it one way or the other. I am simply curious to know what led you to make your assertion.
>
>> >> >That has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that you've got no decent data to back up any of the claims you've made.
>>
>> >> You have nothing at all.
>>
>
>I'm not the one who has made claims that I need to back up.

So we can forget completely about the estimate you pulled out of your ass
for the number of deaths associated with a cup of tofu. Good.

>> >So what?
>>
>>
>>
>> You're the one that wants to make huge changes to society as we know it, yet
>>
>> you have nothing at all to even suggest that what you'd like to see happen would
>>
>> be good for anything.
>>
>
>That's a change in topic. We were not discussing any changes I wished to see happen in society.

So you're saying the organization you contribute to doesn't want to make any
changes in society. I don't believe you.

>I would like to see a reduction in meat consumption

How would you do that without making any changes to society?

>because I believe that most animals that live on modern farms have lives that are full of suffering and on the whole not worth living.

As yet you've presented not even one single reason to believe that any farm
animals have lives which are that full of suffering. You claim to believe most
do, yet you can't produce even one single example of what you want people to
think you're trying to talk about.

>Some evidence for this claim is presented in the third edition of Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation", and also on the Compassion in World Farming web site. I believe that suffering reduction is, other things equal, a good thing. This premise of mine would be widely granted.
>
>>
>>
>> >I made no claims. You are the one making your claim
>>
>>
>>
>> The deer meat is the only thing I remember making a claim about if anything,
>>
>> and there's no doubt it involves fewer deaths than commercially produced
>>
>> broccoli, potatoes and flour.
>>
>
>Why? How do you know? This is what I keep asking over and over.

Your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to consider a single situation in
which animal products involve fewer deaths than vegetable products. And if
you're actually stupid enough to believe that they never do, then not only is
your cognitive dissonance preventing you from taking such situations into
consideration, but your brain is honestly too stupid to comprehend how it could
ever be the case.

>> >and it is your job to provide the evidence.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's obvious since the deer meat involves no cds and the other things
>>
>> involve many. What do you think you gain by pretending to be too stupid to
>>
>> appreciate this one? Or are you saying that you really are too stupid to even
>>
>> comprehend, much less appreciate?
>>
>
>Why is it obvious? How do you know that the number of CD's associated with a given serving of broccoli and potatoes is higher than that associated with a given serving of deer meat? If it's so obvious, then just explain to me how you know.

What did I tell you?

So the estimate you keep throwing up is useless.

>> >Anyone with half a brain knows perfectly well that I never once said any such thing.
>>
>> >> You DO need to back that up,
>>
>
>No. If you think that you have some evidence that I once said such a thing, it is your job to provide the evidence. It is not my job to somehow reference an absence of any evidence, that is not possible.
>
>> >He's not. And I copied and pasted a quote for you from his paper which explains his evidence for the estimate. If you think that the estimate is likely to be the wrong order of magnitude then you should offer some reason for thinking why. That would involve engaging with the evidence he has presented.
>>
>>
>>
>> I had thought that the death rate was less than 50% of the animals in the
>>
>> fields, but he said it's 60%-70% so it's fine with me to go with that unless you
>>
>> think it's higher.
>>
>
>So you agree that the mean death rate associated with soybean production is about 15 per hectare per year, then?

For what type animal? In which particular fields? How do you think you know?

>> >> No. It's amusing that you want to think it could be different than what I
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> pointed out even though you can't even begin to try to figure out how it
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> possibly could be different.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Are you still stuck on this idea that I somehow believe the death rate is the same in all soybean fields?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Look, the notion of the mean value of a sample is a very basic one in statistics. To obtain the mean value of a sample of data you add up all the data and divide by the total number of data. Have you never heard of that before?
>>
>>
>>
>> You haven't done it and neither has anyone else and no one can. So now what?
>
>You can't actually perform the calculation I indicated, no, but there are techniques for estimating the mean. The point is that giving an estimate for the mean doesn't somehow commit you to the claim that the data is uniform across all soybean fields, or that there is even one soybean field for which the value is equal to the mean.

You made up any number you wanted to and are trying to get me to put my
faith in it being correct. I'm not going to and afawk you have no reason to.

Rupert

unread,
May 28, 2013, 11:23:25 PM5/28/13
to
On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 1:52:22 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 22:16:40 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:18:13 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:31:45 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >I do not need your help, you pitiful fool, to realize that more wildlife in a given crop field would mean a higher collateral death rate from crop production.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Not any more, but you still wouldn't be aware of it if I hadn't kept
>
> >>
>
> >> pointing it out until you finally slowly learned to appreciate the fact.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >No, it was completely obvious to me long before you mentioned it, you stupid twit.
>
>
>
> You're lying. You owe me thanks but instead you lie, which is what you've
>
> taught me to expect.
>

I'm not lying, you stupid fool.

>
>
> >> >I gave you my calculations together with reliable sources for the figures that I used. I didn't give you all my sources that I used for the figures in calculating the impact of one slice of cheese, but I found them all on Google and I could provide them easily enough, or you can check them yourself by doing your own research.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The impact of one slice of cheese is nothing, so whatever impact you figured
>
> >>
>
> >> it to have is grossly exagerated to say the least. Since it's fantasy you could
>
> >>
>
> >> make up whatever you want to.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Right, so what was wrong with my calculations? Which of the figures were wrong?
>
>
>
> Any that say the impact of one slice of cheese has any sort of influence on
>
> the life of any livestock animal. I'm not saying a slice of cheese never did
>
> have any influence on any livestock animal, but whether or not you purchase a
>
> whole pack of cheese from a grocery store won't have any impact regardless of
>
> whether you eat any or not.
>

What if 10,000 people purchase a pack of cheese? Or 1,000,000? Will that have any impact?

>
>
> >> >What I would like to know, is how your got your estimate that it takes a bigger area to grow enough grain for the biscuit than to grow the broccoli and potatoes. If you can tell me more about that then I will listen.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> It takes an area of soil maybe a cubic yard to grow the potatoes and less
>
> >>
>
> >> than that to grow the broccoli. Do you think that's true of the grain as well?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Well, it sounds as though you're claiming you need more than one cubic yard of soil to produce enough grain for the biscuit. How much grain do you think we need for the biscuit, anyway? Which grains?
>
>
>
> It goes beyond just that to the number of animals that can survive in the
>
> area. Do you think in general there's as much wildlife in fields where broccoli
>
> is grown as there is in grain fields? I sure don't, since there's a lot more
>
> open space and bare dirt in broccoli fields. But you can't appreciate things
>
> like that anyway as we've seen. Maybe you will learn to appreciate this example
>
> eventually too, and if so then you'll dishonestly pretend to have understood it
>
> even before I pointed it out to you, but you would just be lying again. So far
>
> you STILL can't appreciate it, much MUCH less were you able to appreciate it
>
> before I pointed it out to you. AGAIN you never even thought about before I told
>
> you about it.
>

Do you have any kind of sensible estimate of the number of deaths required for the biscuit?

>
>
> >> >What we really want, though, is some basis for a comparison with deer meat. That's what I was really asking about.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> There are no cds associated with the deer meat. Only the death of the one
>
> >>
>
> >> deer divided by the number of servings it produced. That puts it in a completely
>
> >>
>
> >> different catagory than the other products that have lots of cds associated with
>
> >>
>
> >> them.
>
> >
>
> >Why?
>
>
>
> Because it does. If you want to pretend it doesn't then YOU need to explain
>
> how we could possibly pretend that.
>

No, the burden of proof is on you, you made the claim. You said that a product with no CD's associated with it has to be in a different category to a product that does have CD's associated with it. That is not obvious at all. We've already done a comparison of grass-fed beef and tofu in a different thread.

>
>
> >We found 0.00012 of a death for one cup of tofu.
>
>
>
> That's just some number you pulled out of your ass and
>
> ignorantly/dishonestly want to try to apply to every soy field on the planet.
>

I gave you the method by which I found the number. And I also *very* patiently tried to explain to you why no claim is being made about "every soy field on the planet".

>
>
> >You've given no grounds for quarrelling with that estimate. So the death rates for such products could quite easily be of the same order of magnitude as that for a serving of hunted deer meat, possibliy even smaller.
>
>
>
> There are still no cds associated with the deer meat but there are with the
>
> potatoes. The fact that you want to try to make that seem different than it is
>
> is more evidence of you not caring, btw.
>

I don't get your point. Deaths have to take place to produce deer meat, deaths have to take place to produce potatoes. So far as I can see you currently have no sensible basis for doing a comparison.

>
>
> >> Really the thing that's most in question about this whole discussion is
>
> >>
>
> >> why you don't care. But we know why. Not only are you opposed to animals living
>
> >>
>
> >> so humans can use them for food, but you're also probably even more opposed to
>
> >>
>
> >> human hunting controlling wildlife populations. You would rather see other
>
> >>
>
> >> things like disease and starvation and non-human predators do that...things that
>
> >>
>
> >> not only will not but can not even attempt to be humane about it. Things that
>
> >>
>
> >> also are harder on baby animals and pregnant females than human hunting is.
>
> >>
>
> >> There are other reasons that other agents involve more suffering than human
>
> >>
>
> >> hunting but you don't care about any of them or the ones I mentioned above,
>
> >>
>
> >> right?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I haven't said anything about hunting one way or the other.
>
>
>
> I'm correct none the less.
>

No, you are not.

>
>
> >I simply want you to produce some evidence for your claims.
>
> >
>
> >> >> >> >Why would anyone care what you do or don't think if you can present no decent empirical research about the matter? Sheesh.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> Because I've thought about it more than you have for one thing.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >You've given no evidence of having had any worthwhile insights about the matter.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> More than you have.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >No, actually, none at all.
>
> >> >I've asked you to present your evidence ...
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> For what specifically, and what evidence have YOU presented about it?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I want you to present evidence for the claim that you made that there would be a larger expected increase in collateral deaths caused by buying one biscuit than the number of deaths associated with one serving of hunted deer meat.
>
>
>
> When you buy a biscuit you contribute to an industry that causes millions of
>
> cds. When you get deer meat that has been hunted you don't. The fact that you
>
> don't care is more evidence that you don't care.
>

You have no reason for thinking I don't care. The point is that we have no basis for comparing the expected contribution to suffering from obtaining the deer meat and from obtaining the biscuit. You have to come up with some kind of basis for doing a comparison in order for the claims you made in your OP to be worth anything.

>
>
> >I do not have any evidence that bears on this matter, I do not make any claim about it one way or the other. I am simply curious to know what led you to make your assertion.
>
> >
>
> >> >> >That has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that you've got no decent data to back up any of the claims you've made.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> You have nothing at all.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I'm not the one who has made claims that I need to back up.
>
>
>
> So we can forget completely about the estimate you pulled out of your ass
>
> for the number of deaths associated with a cup of tofu. Good.
>

No. I can back up that claim.

>
>
> >> >So what?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You're the one that wants to make huge changes to society as we know it, yet
>
> >>
>
> >> you have nothing at all to even suggest that what you'd like to see happen would
>
> >>
>
> >> be good for anything.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >That's a change in topic. We were not discussing any changes I wished to see happen in society.
>
>
>
> So you're saying the organization you contribute to doesn't want to make any
>
> changes in society. I don't believe you.
>

No, I'm saying it's a change of topic. The organization I contribute to wants to achieve a reduction in consumption of animal products. And the rationale for that is that it will reduce suffering.

>
>
> >I would like to see a reduction in meat consumption
>
>
>
> How would you do that without making any changes to society?
>

Never said it wasn't a change to society.

>
>
> >because I believe that most animals that live on modern farms have lives that are full of suffering and on the whole not worth living.
>
>
>
> As yet you've presented not even one single reason to believe that any farm
>
> animals have lives which are that full of suffering. You claim to believe most
>
> do, yet you can't produce even one single example of what you want people to
>
> think you're trying to talk about.
>

Except that I have actually presented information which is relevant which you refuse to read.

>
>
> >Some evidence for this claim is presented in the third edition of Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation", and also on the Compassion in World Farming web site. I believe that suffering reduction is, other things equal, a good thing. This premise of mine would be widely granted.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >I made no claims. You are the one making your claim
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The deer meat is the only thing I remember making a claim about if anything,
>
> >>
>
> >> and there's no doubt it involves fewer deaths than commercially produced
>
> >>
>
> >> broccoli, potatoes and flour.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Why? How do you know? This is what I keep asking over and over.
>
>
>
> Your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to consider a single situation in
>
> which animal products involve fewer deaths than vegetable products.

I'm perfectly happy to consider it, I just want to be given some evidence that it is indeed the case.

> And if
>
> you're actually stupid enough to believe that they never do, then not only is
>
> your cognitive dissonance preventing you from taking such situations into
>
> consideration, but your brain is honestly too stupid to comprehend how it could
>
> ever be the case.
>
>
>
> >> >and it is your job to provide the evidence.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> It's obvious since the deer meat involves no cds and the other things
>
> >>
>
> >> involve many. What do you think you gain by pretending to be too stupid to
>
> >>
>
> >> appreciate this one? Or are you saying that you really are too stupid to even
>
> >>
>
> >> comprehend, much less appreciate?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Why is it obvious? How do you know that the number of CD's associated with a given serving of broccoli and potatoes is higher than that associated with a given serving of deer meat? If it's so obvious, then just explain to me how you know.
>
>
>
> What did I tell you?
>

Nothing that in any explains the answer to the question I just asked.
No. Estimates for the statistical mean of a sample of data are not useless.

>
>
> >> >Anyone with half a brain knows perfectly well that I never once said any such thing.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> You DO need to back that up,
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >No. If you think that you have some evidence that I once said such a thing, it is your job to provide the evidence. It is not my job to somehow reference an absence of any evidence, that is not possible.
>
> >
>
> >> >He's not. And I copied and pasted a quote for you from his paper which explains his evidence for the estimate. If you think that the estimate is likely to be the wrong order of magnitude then you should offer some reason for thinking why. That would involve engaging with the evidence he has presented.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I had thought that the death rate was less than 50% of the animals in the
>
> >>
>
> >> fields, but he said it's 60%-70% so it's fine with me to go with that unless you
>
> >>
>
> >> think it's higher.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >So you agree that the mean death rate associated with soybean production is about 15 per hectare per year, then?
>
>
>
> For what type animal? In which particular fields? How do you think you know?
>

I already copied and pasted the stuff from Davis' paper answering these questions. Go and read it again.

>
>
> >> >> No. It's amusing that you want to think it could be different than what I
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> pointed out even though you can't even begin to try to figure out how it
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> possibly could be different.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Are you still stuck on this idea that I somehow believe the death rate is the same in all soybean fields?
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Look, the notion of the mean value of a sample is a very basic one in statistics. To obtain the mean value of a sample of data you add up all the data and divide by the total number of data. Have you never heard of that before?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You haven't done it and neither has anyone else and no one can. So now what?
>
> >
>
> >You can't actually perform the calculation I indicated, no, but there are techniques for estimating the mean. The point is that giving an estimate for the mean doesn't somehow commit you to the claim that the data is uniform across all soybean fields, or that there is even one soybean field for which the value is equal to the mean.
>
>
>
> You made up any number you wanted to and are trying to get me to put my
>
> faith in it being correct. I'm not going to and afawk you have no reason to.

I've presented you with the evidence. You need to actually engage with the evidence if you want to dispute the estimate.

dh

unread,
May 30, 2013, 6:47:52 PM5/30/13
to
On Tue, 28 May 2013 20:23:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 1:52:22 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 22:16:40 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:18:13 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:31:45 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I do not need your help, you pitiful fool, to realize that more wildlife in a given crop field would mean a higher collateral death rate from crop production.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Not any more, but you still wouldn't be aware of it if I hadn't kept
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> pointing it out until you finally slowly learned to appreciate the fact.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >No, it was completely obvious to me long before you mentioned it, you stupid twit.
>>
>>
>>
>> You're lying. You owe me thanks but instead you lie, which is what you've
>>
>> taught me to expect.
>>
>
>I'm not lying

You STILL want people to think the number of deaths is the same in every
soybean field on the planet every season regardless of the number of animals
that are or are not present. I believe that magic number is 15 per hectar in
every field, every year, regardless of anything and everything.

>, you stupid fool.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >I gave you my calculations together with reliable sources for the figures that I used. I didn't give you all my sources that I used for the figures in calculating the impact of one slice of cheese, but I found them all on Google and I could provide them easily enough, or you can check them yourself by doing your own research.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> The impact of one slice of cheese is nothing, so whatever impact you figured
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> it to have is grossly exagerated to say the least. Since it's fantasy you could
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> make up whatever you want to.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Right, so what was wrong with my calculations? Which of the figures were wrong?
>>
>>
>>
>> Any that say the impact of one slice of cheese has any sort of influence on
>>
>> the life of any livestock animal. I'm not saying a slice of cheese never did
>>
>> have any influence on any livestock animal, but whether or not you purchase a
>>
>> whole pack of cheese from a grocery store won't have any impact regardless of
>>
>> whether you eat any or not.
>>
>
>What if 10,000 people purchase a pack of cheese? Or 1,000,000? Will that have any impact?

Even a guy with a PhD in math should be able to appreciate that there's a
huge distinction between a single slice of cheese, and 10,000 and 1,000,000
packs of cheese.

>> >> >What I would like to know, is how your got your estimate that it takes a bigger area to grow enough grain for the biscuit than to grow the broccoli and potatoes. If you can tell me more about that then I will listen.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> It takes an area of soil maybe a cubic yard to grow the potatoes and less
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> than that to grow the broccoli. Do you think that's true of the grain as well?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Well, it sounds as though you're claiming you need more than one cubic yard of soil to produce enough grain for the biscuit. How much grain do you think we need for the biscuit, anyway? Which grains?
>>
>>
>>
>> It goes beyond just that to the number of animals that can survive in the
>>
>> area. Do you think in general there's as much wildlife in fields where broccoli
>>
>> is grown as there is in grain fields? I sure don't, since there's a lot more
>>
>> open space and bare dirt in broccoli fields. But you can't appreciate things
>>
>> like that anyway as we've seen. Maybe you will learn to appreciate this example
>>
>> eventually too, and if so then you'll dishonestly pretend to have understood it
>>
>> even before I pointed it out to you, but you would just be lying again. So far
>>
>> you STILL can't appreciate it, much MUCH less were you able to appreciate it
>>
>> before I pointed it out to you. AGAIN you never even thought about before I told
>>
>> you about it.
>>
>
>Do you have any kind of sensible estimate of the number of deaths required for the biscuit?

We don't.

>> >> >What we really want, though, is some basis for a comparison with deer meat. That's what I was really asking about.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> There are no cds associated with the deer meat. Only the death of the one
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> deer divided by the number of servings it produced. That puts it in a completely
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> different catagory than the other products that have lots of cds associated with
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> them.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Why?
>>
>>
>>
>> Because it does. If you want to pretend it doesn't then YOU need to explain
>>
>> how we could possibly pretend that.
>>
>
>No

Okay, then we'll just accept that they are in completely different
catagories. If you decide to change your mind and try to pretend differently
though, I'm interested in seeing you make some attempt.

>, the burden of proof is on you, you made the claim. You said that a product with no CD's associated with it has to be in a different category to a product that does have CD's associated with it. That is not obvious at all. We've already done a comparison of grass-fed beef and tofu in a different thread.
>
>>
>>
>> >We found 0.00012 of a death for one cup of tofu.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's just some number you pulled out of your ass and
>>
>> ignorantly/dishonestly want to try to apply to every soy field on the planet.
>>
>
>I gave you the method by which I found the number. And I also *very* patiently tried to explain to you why no claim is being made about "every soy field on the planet".

You haven't made any respectable estimates about any of them at all afawk.

>> >You've given no grounds for quarrelling with that estimate. So the death rates for such products could quite easily be of the same order of magnitude as that for a serving of hunted deer meat, possibliy even smaller.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are still no cds associated with the deer meat but there are with the
>>
>> potatoes. The fact that you want to try to make that seem different than it is
>>
>> is more evidence of you not caring, btw.
>>
>
>I don't get your point. Deaths have to take place to produce deer meat,

Such as?

>deaths have to take place to produce potatoes. So far as I can see you currently have no sensible basis for doing a comparison.

Do you think anyone does? If so what do you think it is/they are?

>> >> Really the thing that's most in question about this whole discussion is
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> why you don't care. But we know why. Not only are you opposed to animals living
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> so humans can use them for food, but you're also probably even more opposed to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> human hunting controlling wildlife populations. You would rather see other
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> things like disease and starvation and non-human predators do that...things that
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> not only will not but can not even attempt to be humane about it. Things that
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> also are harder on baby animals and pregnant females than human hunting is.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> There are other reasons that other agents involve more suffering than human
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> hunting but you don't care about any of them or the ones I mentioned above,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> right?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I haven't said anything about hunting one way or the other.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm correct none the less.
>>
>
>No, you are not.

If so, then try providing some reason(s) to believe your claim. Go:

>> >I simply want you to produce some evidence for your claims.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >> >> >Why would anyone care what you do or don't think if you can present no decent empirical research about the matter? Sheesh.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> Because I've thought about it more than you have for one thing.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >You've given no evidence of having had any worthwhile insights about the matter.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> More than you have.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >No, actually, none at all.
>>
>> >> >I've asked you to present your evidence ...
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> For what specifically, and what evidence have YOU presented about it?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I want you to present evidence for the claim that you made that there would be a larger expected increase in collateral deaths caused by buying one biscuit than the number of deaths associated with one serving of hunted deer meat.
>>
>>
>>
>> When you buy a biscuit you contribute to an industry that causes millions of
>>
>> cds. When you get deer meat that has been hunted you don't. The fact that you
>>
>> don't care is more evidence that you don't care.
>>
>
>You have no reason for thinking I don't care.

You let me know you don't care. Maybe you will learn to, but then again
maybe you never will.

>The point is that we have no basis for comparing the expected contribution to suffering from obtaining the deer meat and from obtaining the biscuit. You have to come up with some kind of basis for doing a comparison

Anyone who is open minded and wants to stay that way should take things like
this into consideration. ONLY those of you who are close minded and already have
put your faith in elimination and the elimination of human hunting have reason
to oppose taking things that work AGAINST elimination into consideration.

>in order for the claims you made in your OP to be worth anything.
>
>>
>>
>> >I do not have any evidence that bears on this matter, I do not make any claim about it one way or the other. I am simply curious to know what led you to make your assertion.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >> >That has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that you've got no decent data to back up any of the claims you've made.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> You have nothing at all.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I'm not the one who has made claims that I need to back up.
>>
>>
>>
>> So we can forget completely about the estimate you pulled out of your ass
>>
>> for the number of deaths associated with a cup of tofu. Good.
>>
>
>No. I can back up that claim.

It can't be backed up, which is why you have not and will not do it.

>> >> >So what?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You're the one that wants to make huge changes to society as we know it, yet
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you have nothing at all to even suggest that what you'd like to see happen would
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> be good for anything.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >That's a change in topic. We were not discussing any changes I wished to see happen in society.
>>
>>
>>
>> So you're saying the organization you contribute to doesn't want to make any
>>
>> changes in society. I don't believe you.
>>
>
>No

Then they do and you contribute to them, meaning that what I pointed out is
true. Now the question is: Since you have faith in it enough to send your own
money to contribute to it, why are you ashamed to admit it and try to defend it?

>, I'm saying it's a change of topic. The organization I contribute to wants to achieve a reduction in consumption of animal products. And the rationale for that is that it will reduce suffering.
>
>>
>>
>> >I would like to see a reduction in meat consumption
>>
>>
>>
>> How would you do that without making any changes to society?
>>
>
>Never said it wasn't a change to society.
>
>>
>>
>> >because I believe that most animals that live on modern farms have lives that are full of suffering and on the whole not worth living.
>>
>>
>>
>> As yet you've presented not even one single reason to believe that any farm
>>
>> animals have lives which are that full of suffering. You claim to believe most
>>
>> do, yet you can't produce even one single example of what you want people to
>>
>> think you're trying to talk about.
>>
>
>Except that I have actually presented information which is relevant which you refuse to read.

I read what you present, and not what you don't. And as I said you haven't
presented a single example of why any farm animals have lives so full of
suffering that they're of negative value.

>> >Some evidence for this claim is presented in the third edition of Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation", and also on the Compassion in World Farming web site. I believe that suffering reduction is, other things equal, a good thing. This premise of mine would be widely granted.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I made no claims. You are the one making your claim
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> The deer meat is the only thing I remember making a claim about if anything,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> and there's no doubt it involves fewer deaths than commercially produced
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> broccoli, potatoes and flour.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Why? How do you know? This is what I keep asking over and over.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to consider a single situation in
>>
>> which animal products involve fewer deaths than vegetable products.
>
>I'm perfectly happy to consider it, I just want to be given some evidence that it is indeed the case.

If you can't think of any on your own that means you're not capable of
considering it. Further proof of that is your inability to consider it even
after I gave you an example like grass raised cow milk vs. rice milk. If you
honestly can't comprehend how the cow milk ever involves fewer deaths than rice
milk you are incredibly stupid and mentally unfit to think about this in detail.
. . .
>> >So you agree that the mean death rate associated with soybean production is about 15 per hectare per year, then?
>>
>>
>>
>> For what type animal? In which particular fields? How do you think you know?
>>
>
>I already copied and pasted the stuff from Davis' paper answering these questions.

I don't believe you.

>Go and read it again.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >> No. It's amusing that you want to think it could be different than what I
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> pointed out even though you can't even begin to try to figure out how it
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> possibly could be different.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Are you still stuck on this idea that I somehow believe the death rate is the same in all soybean fields?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Look, the notion of the mean value of a sample is a very basic one in statistics. To obtain the mean value of a sample of data you add up all the data and divide by the total number of data. Have you never heard of that before?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You haven't done it and neither has anyone else and no one can. So now what?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >You can't actually perform the calculation I indicated, no, but there are techniques for estimating the mean. The point is that giving an estimate for the mean doesn't somehow commit you to the claim that the data is uniform across all soybean fields, or that there is even one soybean field for which the value is equal to the mean.
>>
>>
>>
>> You made up any number you wanted to and are trying to get me to put my
>>
>> faith in it being correct. I'm not going to and afawk you have no reason to.
>
>I've presented you with the evidence.

Rupert

unread,
May 30, 2013, 9:48:00 PM5/30/13
to
On Friday, May 31, 2013 12:47:52 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 20:23:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 1:52:22 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 23 May 2013 22:16:40 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:18:13 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:31:45 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >I do not need your help, you pitiful fool, to realize that more wildlife in a given crop field would mean a higher collateral death rate from crop production.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Not any more, but you still wouldn't be aware of it if I hadn't kept
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> pointing it out until you finally slowly learned to appreciate the fact.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >No, it was completely obvious to me long before you mentioned it, you stupid twit.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You're lying. You owe me thanks but instead you lie, which is what you've
>
> >>
>
> >> taught me to expect.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I'm not lying
>
>
>
> You STILL want people to think the number of deaths is the same in every
>
> soybean field on the planet every season regardless of the number of animals
>
> that are or are not present.

No. This is a bizarre delusion that you have. I never said or implied any such thing.

> I believe that magic number is 15 per hectar in
>
> every field, every year, regardless of anything and everything.
>

That is absolutely not what I have been saying. Apparently you still do not understand the concept of a mean value despite my very patient efforts to explain.

>
>
> >, you stupid fool.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >I gave you my calculations together with reliable sources for the figures that I used. I didn't give you all my sources that I used for the figures in calculating the impact of one slice of cheese, but I found them all on Google and I could provide them easily enough, or you can check them yourself by doing your own research.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> The impact of one slice of cheese is nothing, so whatever impact you figured
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> it to have is grossly exagerated to say the least. Since it's fantasy you could
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> make up whatever you want to.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Right, so what was wrong with my calculations? Which of the figures were wrong?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Any that say the impact of one slice of cheese has any sort of influence on
>
> >>
>
> >> the life of any livestock animal. I'm not saying a slice of cheese never did
>
> >>
>
> >> have any influence on any livestock animal, but whether or not you purchase a
>
> >>
>
> >> whole pack of cheese from a grocery store won't have any impact regardless of
>
> >>
>
> >> whether you eat any or not.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >What if 10,000 people purchase a pack of cheese? Or 1,000,000? Will that have any impact?
>
>
>
> Even a guy with a PhD in math should be able to appreciate that there's a
>
> huge distinction between a single slice of cheese, and 10,000 and 1,000,000
>
> packs of cheese.
>

Yes, to be more exact a factor of 10,000, or as the case may be, 1,000,000.

So buying just one slice of cheese would still have a measurable impact. And you've given no good reason to think that my estimate for the impact was wrong.

>
>
> >> >> >What I would like to know, is how your got your estimate that it takes a bigger area to grow enough grain for the biscuit than to grow the broccoli and potatoes. If you can tell me more about that then I will listen.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> It takes an area of soil maybe a cubic yard to grow the potatoes and less
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> than that to grow the broccoli. Do you think that's true of the grain as well?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Well, it sounds as though you're claiming you need more than one cubic yard of soil to produce enough grain for the biscuit. How much grain do you think we need for the biscuit, anyway? Which grains?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> It goes beyond just that to the number of animals that can survive in the
>
> >>
>
> >> area. Do you think in general there's as much wildlife in fields where broccoli
>
> >>
>
> >> is grown as there is in grain fields? I sure don't, since there's a lot more
>
> >>
>
> >> open space and bare dirt in broccoli fields. But you can't appreciate things
>
> >>
>
> >> like that anyway as we've seen. Maybe you will learn to appreciate this example
>
> >>
>
> >> eventually too, and if so then you'll dishonestly pretend to have understood it
>
> >>
>
> >> even before I pointed it out to you, but you would just be lying again. So far
>
> >>
>
> >> you STILL can't appreciate it, much MUCH less were you able to appreciate it
>
> >>
>
> >> before I pointed it out to you. AGAIN you never even thought about before I told
>
> >>
>
> >> you about it.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Do you have any kind of sensible estimate of the number of deaths required for the biscuit?
>
>
>
> We don't.
>

Right, so how is it that you are in a position to know that it is larger than the number of deaths associated with the deer meat?

>
>
> >> >> >What we really want, though, is some basis for a comparison with deer meat. That's what I was really asking about.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> There are no cds associated with the deer meat. Only the death of the one
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> deer divided by the number of servings it produced. That puts it in a completely
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> different catagory than the other products that have lots of cds associated with
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> them.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Why?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Because it does. If you want to pretend it doesn't then YOU need to explain
>
> >>
>
> >> how we could possibly pretend that.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >No
>
>
>
> Okay, then we'll just accept that they are in completely different
>
> catagories. If you decide to change your mind and try to pretend differently
>
> though, I'm interested in seeing you make some attempt.
>

There are some deaths caused by grain production, and there are some deaths caused by deer meat production. You've provided no sensible basis for a comparison between the two.

>
>
> >, the burden of proof is on you, you made the claim. You said that a product with no CD's associated with it has to be in a different category to a product that does have CD's associated with it. That is not obvious at all. We've already done a comparison of grass-fed beef and tofu in a different thread.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >We found 0.00012 of a death for one cup of tofu.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> That's just some number you pulled out of your ass and
>
> >>
>
> >> ignorantly/dishonestly want to try to apply to every soy field on the planet.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I gave you the method by which I found the number. And I also *very* patiently tried to explain to you why no claim is being made about "every soy field on the planet".
>
>
>
> You haven't made any respectable estimates about any of them at all afawk.
>

False. I gave you the reasoning by which the estimate was arrived at, including a quote from Steven Davis explaning where he got his data. You haven't engaged with this reasoning or with this data.

>
>
> >> >You've given no grounds for quarrelling with that estimate. So the death rates for such products could quite easily be of the same order of magnitude as that for a serving of hunted deer meat, possibliy even smaller.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> There are still no cds associated with the deer meat but there are with the
>
> >>
>
> >> potatoes. The fact that you want to try to make that seem different than it is
>
> >>
>
> >> is more evidence of you not caring, btw.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I don't get your point. Deaths have to take place to produce deer meat,
>
>
>
> Such as?
>

Animals have to die to become meat.

>
>
> >deaths have to take place to produce potatoes. So far as I can see you currently have no sensible basis for doing a comparison.
>
>
>
> Do you think anyone does? If so what do you think it is/they are?
>

I'm not aware of anyone having a sensible basis for making such a comparison, no.

>
>
> >> >> Really the thing that's most in question about this whole discussion is
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> why you don't care. But we know why. Not only are you opposed to animals living
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> so humans can use them for food, but you're also probably even more opposed to
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> human hunting controlling wildlife populations. You would rather see other
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> things like disease and starvation and non-human predators do that...things that
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> not only will not but can not even attempt to be humane about it. Things that
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> also are harder on baby animals and pregnant females than human hunting is.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> There are other reasons that other agents involve more suffering than human
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> hunting but you don't care about any of them or the ones I mentioned above,
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> right?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I haven't said anything about hunting one way or the other.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I'm correct none the less.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >No, you are not.
>
>
>
> If so, then try providing some reason(s) to believe your claim. Go:
>

You want me to present reasons for thinking that I care about wildlife suffering?

>
>
> >> >I simply want you to produce some evidence for your claims.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >> >Why would anyone care what you do or don't think if you can present no decent empirical research about the matter? Sheesh.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >> Because I've thought about it more than you have for one thing.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >You've given no evidence of having had any worthwhile insights about the matter.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> More than you have.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >No, actually, none at all.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >I've asked you to present your evidence ...
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> For what specifically, and what evidence have YOU presented about it?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I want you to present evidence for the claim that you made that there would be a larger expected increase in collateral deaths caused by buying one biscuit than the number of deaths associated with one serving of hunted deer meat.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> When you buy a biscuit you contribute to an industry that causes millions of
>
> >>
>
> >> cds. When you get deer meat that has been hunted you don't. The fact that you
>
> >>
>
> >> don't care is more evidence that you don't care.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >You have no reason for thinking I don't care.
>
>
>
> You let me know you don't care. Maybe you will learn to, but then again
>
> maybe you never will.
>
>
>
> >The point is that we have no basis for comparing the expected contribution to suffering from obtaining the deer meat and from obtaining the biscuit. You have to come up with some kind of basis for doing a comparison
>
>
>
> Anyone who is open minded and wants to stay that way should take things like
>
> this into consideration.

Like what? Are you *ever* going to get around to providing any evidence for your claim?

> ONLY those of you who are close minded and already have
>
> put your faith in elimination and the elimination of human hunting have reason
>
> to oppose taking things that work AGAINST elimination into consideration.
>
>
>
> >in order for the claims you made in your OP to be worth anything.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >I do not have any evidence that bears on this matter, I do not make any claim about it one way or the other. I am simply curious to know what led you to make your assertion.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >That has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that you've got no decent data to back up any of the claims you've made.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> You have nothing at all.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I'm not the one who has made claims that I need to back up.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> So we can forget completely about the estimate you pulled out of your ass
>
> >>
>
> >> for the number of deaths associated with a cup of tofu. Good.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >No. I can back up that claim.
>
>
>
> It can't be backed up, which is why you have not and will not do it.
>

I have backed it up.

>
>
> >> >> >So what?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> You're the one that wants to make huge changes to society as we know it, yet
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> you have nothing at all to even suggest that what you'd like to see happen would
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> be good for anything.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >That's a change in topic. We were not discussing any changes I wished to see happen in society.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> So you're saying the organization you contribute to doesn't want to make any
>
> >>
>
> >> changes in society. I don't believe you.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >No
>
>
>
> Then they do and you contribute to them, meaning that what I pointed out is
>
> true. Now the question is: Since you have faith in it enough to send your own
>
> money to contribute to it, why are you ashamed to admit it and try to defend it?
>

I'm not.

>
>
> >, I'm saying it's a change of topic. The organization I contribute to wants to achieve a reduction in consumption of animal products. And the rationale for that is that it will reduce suffering.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >I would like to see a reduction in meat consumption
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> How would you do that without making any changes to society?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Never said it wasn't a change to society.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >because I believe that most animals that live on modern farms have lives that are full of suffering and on the whole not worth living.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> As yet you've presented not even one single reason to believe that any farm
>
> >>
>
> >> animals have lives which are that full of suffering. You claim to believe most
>
> >>
>
> >> do, yet you can't produce even one single example of what you want people to
>
> >>
>
> >> think you're trying to talk about.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Except that I have actually presented information which is relevant which you refuse to read.
>
>
>
> I read what you present, and not what you don't.

That's false.

> And as I said you haven't
>
> presented a single example of why any farm animals have lives so full of
>
> suffering that they're of negative value.
>

Read the information I gave about broiler chickens.

>
>
> >> >Some evidence for this claim is presented in the third edition of Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation", and also on the Compassion in World Farming web site. I believe that suffering reduction is, other things equal, a good thing. This premise of mine would be widely granted.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >I made no claims. You are the one making your claim
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> The deer meat is the only thing I remember making a claim about if anything,
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> and there's no doubt it involves fewer deaths than commercially produced
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> broccoli, potatoes and flour.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Why? How do you know? This is what I keep asking over and over.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to consider a single situation in
>
> >>
>
> >> which animal products involve fewer deaths than vegetable products.
>
> >
>
> >I'm perfectly happy to consider it, I just want to be given some evidence that it is indeed the case.
>
>
>
> If you can't think of any on your own that means you're not capable of
>
> considering it.

I see.

> Further proof of that is your inability to consider it even
>
> after I gave you an example like grass raised cow milk vs. rice milk. If you
>
> honestly can't comprehend how the cow milk ever involves fewer deaths than rice
>
> milk you are incredibly stupid and mentally unfit to think about this in detail.
>
> . . .
>

So anyone who doesn't accept your claims in the absence of any supporting evidence is too stupid to think about this topic?

dh

unread,
Jun 4, 2013, 2:34:25 PM6/4/13
to
On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:48:00 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, May 31, 2013 12:47:52 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 May 2013 20:23:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 1:52:22 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Thu, 23 May 2013 22:16:40 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:18:13 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:31:45 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >I do not need your help, you pitiful fool, to realize that more wildlife in a given crop field would mean a higher collateral death rate from crop production.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> Not any more, but you still wouldn't be aware of it if I hadn't kept
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> pointing it out until you finally slowly learned to appreciate the fact.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >No, it was completely obvious to me long before you mentioned it, you stupid twit.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You're lying. You owe me thanks but instead you lie, which is what you've
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> taught me to expect.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I'm not lying
>>
>>
>>
>> You STILL want people to think the number of deaths is the same in every
>>
>> soybean field on the planet every season regardless of the number of animals
>>
>> that are or are not present.
>
>No.

How much do you want people to think it varies by, and why?

>This is a bizarre delusion that you have. I never said or implied any such thing.
>
>> I believe that magic number is 15 per hectar in
>>
>> every field, every year, regardless of anything and everything.
>>
>
>That is absolutely not what I have been saying. Apparently you still do not understand the concept of a mean value despite my very patient efforts to explain.

How much do you want people to think it varies by, and why?

>> >, you stupid fool.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >I gave you my calculations together with reliable sources for the figures that I used. I didn't give you all my sources that I used for the figures in calculating the impact of one slice of cheese, but I found them all on Google and I could provide them easily enough, or you can check them yourself by doing your own research.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> The impact of one slice of cheese is nothing, so whatever impact you figured
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> it to have is grossly exagerated to say the least. Since it's fantasy you could
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> make up whatever you want to.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Right, so what was wrong with my calculations? Which of the figures were wrong?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Any that say the impact of one slice of cheese has any sort of influence on
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> the life of any livestock animal. I'm not saying a slice of cheese never did
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> have any influence on any livestock animal, but whether or not you purchase a
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> whole pack of cheese from a grocery store won't have any impact regardless of
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> whether you eat any or not.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >What if 10,000 people purchase a pack of cheese? Or 1,000,000? Will that have any impact?
>>
>>
>>
>> Even a guy with a PhD in math should be able to appreciate that there's a
>>
>> huge distinction between a single slice of cheese, and 10,000 and 1,000,000
>>
>> packs of cheese.
>>
>
>Yes, to be more exact a factor of 10,000, or as the case may be, 1,000,000.
>
>So buying just one slice of cheese would still have a measurable impact. And you've given no good reason to think that my estimate for the impact was wrong.

You've given no reason to believe buying a slice of cheese would have any
impact at all, which isn't surprising since it would have none.

>> >> >> >What I would like to know, is how your got your estimate that it takes a bigger area to grow enough grain for the biscuit than to grow the broccoli and potatoes. If you can tell me more about that then I will listen.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> It takes an area of soil maybe a cubic yard to grow the potatoes and less
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> than that to grow the broccoli. Do you think that's true of the grain as well?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Well, it sounds as though you're claiming you need more than one cubic yard of soil to produce enough grain for the biscuit. How much grain do you think we need for the biscuit, anyway? Which grains?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> It goes beyond just that to the number of animals that can survive in the
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> area. Do you think in general there's as much wildlife in fields where broccoli
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> is grown as there is in grain fields? I sure don't, since there's a lot more
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> open space and bare dirt in broccoli fields. But you can't appreciate things
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> like that anyway as we've seen. Maybe you will learn to appreciate this example
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> eventually too, and if so then you'll dishonestly pretend to have understood it
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> even before I pointed it out to you, but you would just be lying again. So far
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you STILL can't appreciate it, much MUCH less were you able to appreciate it
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> before I pointed it out to you. AGAIN you never even thought about before I told
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you about it.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Do you have any kind of sensible estimate of the number of deaths required for the biscuit?
>>
>>
>>
>> We don't.
>>
>
>Right, so how is it that you are in a position to know that it is larger than the number of deaths associated with the deer meat?

It's associated with all the cds associated with growing the grain while the
deer meat is associated with none. It's understandable why you want it not to be
true, but it's also idiotic of you to try pretending it isn't.

>> >> >> >What we really want, though, is some basis for a comparison with deer meat. That's what I was really asking about.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> There are no cds associated with the deer meat. Only the death of the one
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> deer divided by the number of servings it produced. That puts it in a completely
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> different catagory than the other products that have lots of cds associated with
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> them.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Why?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Because it does. If you want to pretend it doesn't then YOU need to explain
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> how we could possibly pretend that.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >No
>>
>>
>>
>> Okay, then we'll just accept that they are in completely different
>>
>> catagories. If you decide to change your mind and try to pretend differently
>>
>> though, I'm interested in seeing you make some attempt.
>>
>
>There are some deaths caused by grain production, and there are some deaths caused by deer meat production.

Like what?

>You've provided no sensible basis for a comparison between the two.

The comparison is between the vegetable parts and the animal parts of a meal
a friend and I were discussing.

>> >, the burden of proof is on you, you made the claim. You said that a product with no CD's associated with it has to be in a different category to a product that does have CD's associated with it. That is not obvious at all. We've already done a comparison of grass-fed beef and tofu in a different thread.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >We found 0.00012 of a death for one cup of tofu.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> That's just some number you pulled out of your ass and
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> ignorantly/dishonestly want to try to apply to every soy field on the planet.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I gave you the method by which I found the number. And I also *very* patiently tried to explain to you why no claim is being made about "every soy field on the planet".
>>
>>
>>
>> You haven't made any respectable estimates about any of them at all afawk.
>>
>
>False. I gave you the reasoning by which the estimate was arrived at, including a quote from Steven Davis explaning where he got his data. You haven't engaged with this reasoning or with this data.

I don't believe you presented it, or that you can present it at all.

>> >> >You've given no grounds for quarrelling with that estimate. So the death rates for such products could quite easily be of the same order of magnitude as that for a serving of hunted deer meat, possibliy even smaller.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> There are still no cds associated with the deer meat but there are with the
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> potatoes. The fact that you want to try to make that seem different than it is
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> is more evidence of you not caring, btw.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I don't get your point. Deaths have to take place to produce deer meat,
>>
>>
>>
>> Such as?
>>
>
>Animals have to die to become meat.

No cds associated with the deer meat. Lots of cds associated with the
vegetable products.

>> >deaths have to take place to produce potatoes. So far as I can see you currently have no sensible basis for doing a comparison.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you think anyone does? If so what do you think it is/they are?
>>
>
>I'm not aware of anyone having a sensible basis for making such a comparison, no.

A person would be interested if he/she had an open mind about it instead of
closed and trying to put all faith in the misnomer being ethically supreme. A
more open minded person is in a position to consider a number of things misnomer
addicts can't afford to take into consideration because they work against what
eliminationists want to believe.

>> >> >> Really the thing that's most in question about this whole discussion is
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> why you don't care. But we know why. Not only are you opposed to animals living
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> so humans can use them for food, but you're also probably even more opposed to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> human hunting controlling wildlife populations. You would rather see other
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> things like disease and starvation and non-human predators do that...things that
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> not only will not but can not even attempt to be humane about it. Things that
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> also are harder on baby animals and pregnant females than human hunting is.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> There are other reasons that other agents involve more suffering than human
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> hunting but you don't care about any of them or the ones I mentioned above,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> right?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I haven't said anything about hunting one way or the other.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> I'm correct none the less.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >No, you are not.
>>
>>
>>
>> If so, then try providing some reason(s) to believe your claim. Go:
>>
>
>You want me to present reasons for thinking that I care about wildlife suffering?

You can't, but you would have to in order to back up your claim.

>> >> >I simply want you to produce some evidence for your claims.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Why would anyone care what you do or don't think if you can present no decent empirical research about the matter? Sheesh.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Because I've thought about it more than you have for one thing.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> >You've given no evidence of having had any worthwhile insights about the matter.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> More than you have.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >No, actually, none at all.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >I've asked you to present your evidence ...
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> For what specifically, and what evidence have YOU presented about it?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I want you to present evidence for the claim that you made that there would be a larger expected increase in collateral deaths caused by buying one biscuit than the number of deaths associated with one serving of hunted deer meat.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> When you buy a biscuit you contribute to an industry that causes millions of
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> cds. When you get deer meat that has been hunted you don't. The fact that you
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> don't care is more evidence that you don't care.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >You have no reason for thinking I don't care.
>>
>>
>>
>> You let me know you don't care. Maybe you will learn to, but then again
>>
>> maybe you never will.
>>
>>
>>
>> >The point is that we have no basis for comparing the expected contribution to suffering from obtaining the deer meat and from obtaining the biscuit. You have to come up with some kind of basis for doing a comparison
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyone who is open minded and wants to stay that way should take things like
>>
>> this into consideration.
>
>Like what?

The fact that commercially produced vegetable products contribute to lots of
cds while eating hunted deer meat does not.
Try defending it then. Go:

>> >, I'm saying it's a change of topic. The organization I contribute to wants to achieve a reduction in consumption of animal products. And the rationale for that is that it will reduce suffering.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I would like to see a reduction in meat consumption
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> How would you do that without making any changes to society?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Never said it wasn't a change to society.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >because I believe that most animals that live on modern farms have lives that are full of suffering and on the whole not worth living.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> As yet you've presented not even one single reason to believe that any farm
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> animals have lives which are that full of suffering. You claim to believe most
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> do, yet you can't produce even one single example of what you want people to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> think you're trying to talk about.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Except that I have actually presented information which is relevant which you refuse to read.
>>
>>
>>
>> I read what you present, and not what you don't.
>
>That's false.

What do you want me to try to think is false about it, don't you have any
idea?

>> And as I said you haven't
>>
>> presented a single example of why any farm animals have lives so full of
>>
>> suffering that they're of negative value.
>>
>
>Read the information I gave about broiler chickens.

I read what you presented and none of it seems to make their lives of
negative value. As much as you wish they were horrible, they seem ok to me.

>> >> >Some evidence for this claim is presented in the third edition of Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation", and also on the Compassion in World Farming web site. I believe that suffering reduction is, other things equal, a good thing. This premise of mine would be widely granted.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >I made no claims. You are the one making your claim
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> The deer meat is the only thing I remember making a claim about if anything,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> and there's no doubt it involves fewer deaths than commercially produced
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> broccoli, potatoes and flour.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Why? How do you know? This is what I keep asking over and over.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to consider a single situation in
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> which animal products involve fewer deaths than vegetable products.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I'm perfectly happy to consider it, I just want to be given some evidence that it is indeed the case.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you can't think of any on your own that means you're not capable of
>>
>> considering it.
>
>I see.

And you're content being in such a clueless, ignorant position?

>> Further proof of that is your inability to consider it even
>>
>> after I gave you an example like grass raised cow milk vs. rice milk. If you
>>
>> honestly can't comprehend how the cow milk ever involves fewer deaths than rice
>>
>> milk you are incredibly stupid and mentally unfit to think about this in detail.
>>
>> . . .
>>
>
>So anyone who doesn't accept your claims in the absence of any supporting evidence is too stupid to think about this topic?

Anyone who can't comprehend how flooding and draining fields, turning the
ground inside out a couple of times, running heavy farm machinery, treating with
chemicals, harvesting plants that have become home and shelter to animals, etc,
causes more deaths than cows do by eating grass, is too stupid to think about it
in detail.

. . .

Rupert

unread,
Jun 5, 2013, 2:08:10 AM6/5/13
to
On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 8:34:25 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:48:00 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
> >> You STILL want people to think the number of deaths is the same in every
> >> soybean field on the planet every season regardless of the number of animals
> >> that are or are not present.
>
> >No.
>
>
>
> How much do you want people to think it varies by, and why?
>

I don't know how much it varies. This was of course precisely the point of my asking you "What's the standard deviation?" The standard deviation is a measure of how much it varies.

> >> I believe that magic number is 15 per hectar in
> >> every field, every year, regardless of anything and everything.
>
> >That is absolutely not what I have been saying. Apparently you still do not understand the concept of a mean value despite my very patient efforts to explain.
>
>
>
> How much do you want people to think it varies by, and why?
>

I don't know. I have an estimate for the mean but not the standard deviation.

> >Yes, to be more exact a factor of 10,000, or as the case may be, 1,000,000.
>
> >
>
> >So buying just one slice of cheese would still have a measurable impact. And you've given no good reason to think that my estimate for the impact was wrong.
>
>
>
> You've given no reason to believe buying a slice of cheese would have any
>
> impact at all, which isn't surprising since it would have none.
>

I did. I gave you my calculations and the data that I used.

And if buying 10,000 slices of cheese would have some impact then it is simply not possible that buying one slice of cheese would have literally zero impact. I have a PhD in maths; I know that zero multiplied by 10,000 is not greater then zero.

> >> >Do you have any kind of sensible estimate of the number of deaths required for the biscuit?

> >> We don't.

> >Right, so how is it that you are in a position to know that it is larger than the number of deaths associated with the deer meat?

> It's associated with all the cds associated with growing the grain while the
> deer meat is associated with none. It's understandable why you want it not to be
> true, but it's also idiotic of you to try pretending it isn't.
>

I find your thick-skulledness extraordinary. The deer meat may not have required any CD's, but it requires some deaths, namely the death of the deer. You have to work out what fraction of a death is associated with a serving of deer meat and compare that with the numbers of CD's associated with the biscuit. And you seem to have admitted that you have absolutely no basis for doing so.

> >There are some deaths caused by grain production, and there are some deaths caused by deer meat production.
>
>
>
> Like what?
>

In order to produce some meat, an animal must die in order to become meat.

(Unbelievable, simply unbelievable.)

>
>
> >You've provided no sensible basis for a comparison between the two.
>
>
>
> The comparison is between the vegetable parts and the animal parts of a meal
>
> a friend and I were discussing.
>

Yes, and you haven't got any sensible basis on which to make that comparison.

> >False. I gave you the reasoning by which the estimate was arrived at, including a quote from Steven Davis explaning where he got his data. You haven't engaged with this reasoning or with this data.
>
>
>
> I don't believe you presented it, or that you can present it at all.
>

You know that I copied and pasted a quote from the Steven Davis paper elsewhere, explaining the basis for the estimate of the collateral death rate associated with soybean production. You also saw my calculations where I worked out the number of deaths associated with one cup of tofu. You have not engaged with any of this in any way.

> >> Such as?
>
> >Animals have to die to become meat.
>
>
>
> No cds associated with the deer meat. Lots of cds associated with the
>
> vegetable products.
>

So what?

> >I'm not aware of anyone having a sensible basis for making such a comparison, no.
>
>
>
> A person would be interested if he/she had an open mind about it instead of
>
> closed and trying to put all faith in the misnomer being ethically supreme. A
>
> more open minded person is in a position to consider a number of things misnomer
>
> addicts can't afford to take into consideration because they work against what
>
> eliminationists want to believe.
>

Consider what things? I'm perfectly happy to consider anything you say as long as you are willing to provide the least scintilla of evidence for it.

> >> >> >I haven't said anything about hunting one way or the other.
>
> >> >> I'm correct none the less.
>
> >> >No, you are not.
>
> >> If so, then try providing some reason(s) to believe your claim. Go:
>
> >You want me to present reasons for thinking that I care about wildlife suffering?
>
>
>
> You can't, but you would have to in order to back up your claim.
>

No, I don't. I didn't make any claim that I care about wildlife suffering. You made a claim that I didn't, which you have failed to back up. It is not I who has the job of providing the evidence.

I do care about wildlife suffering. I am not in a position to prove this to anyone and have no interest in doing so. The point is, you have shown yourself totally unable to provide any evidence for the claim you made in the OP. Talking about me "not caring" is just a technique to try to distract attention from this fact.

> >> >> >I want you to present evidence for the claim that you made that there would be a larger expected increase in collateral deaths caused by buying one biscuit than the number of deaths associated with one serving of hunted deer meat.
>
> >> >> When you buy a biscuit you contribute to an industry that causes millions of
> >> >> cds. When you get deer meat that has been hunted you don't. The fact that you
> >> >> don't care is more evidence that you don't care.
>
> >> >You have no reason for thinking I don't care.
>
> >> You let me know you don't care. Maybe you will learn to, but then again
> >> maybe you never will.
>
> >> >The point is that we have no basis for comparing the expected contribution to suffering from obtaining the deer meat and from obtaining the biscuit. You have to come up with some kind of basis for doing a comparison
>
> >> Anyone who is open minded and wants to stay that way should take things like
> >> this into consideration.
>
> >Like what?
>
> The fact that commercially produced vegetable products contribute to lots of
> cds while eating hunted deer meat does not.
>

When you buy a commerically produced vegetable product, you make a certain expected contribution to the number of CD's that take place. As you have clearly demonstrated, you do not have the least idea what this number is. When you obtained hunted deer meat, you make a certain contribution to the number of deaths from hunting that take place. You have no idea how the two numbers compare.

> >> >> So we can forget completely about the estimate you pulled out of your ass
> >> >> for the number of deaths associated with a cup of tofu. Good.
>
> >> >No. I can back up that claim.
>
> >> It can't be backed up, which is why you have not and will not do it.
>
> >I have backed it up.
>
> It can't be backed up, which is why you have not and will not do it.
>

I have backed it up in the past. And now I will do so again.

The cumulative elasticity factor for soybeans is about 0.4. I found this on Google. If you can find a different estimate somewhere else we can use that number instead.

Steven Davis estimates the average collateral death rate from soybean production at 15 per hectare per year. Here is his justification for 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."

One hectare of soy yields about 1000 kilograms of protein.

So, suppose that you buy enough tofu to obtain 20 grams of protein (which is the average daily requirement for adults). Your expected contribution to the number of collateral deaths that take place will be 0.00002 * 15 * 0.4 = 0.00012.

> >> Then they do and you contribute to them, meaning that what I pointed out is
> >> true. Now the question is: Since you have faith in it enough to send your own
> >> money to contribute to it, why are you ashamed to admit it and try to defend it?
>
> >I'm not.
>
> Try defending it then. Go:
>

I believe that the money I contribute will be effective at helping them to do research about how best to reduce animal suffering, and encouraging people to make donations towards those organizations that are effective at doing so, such that Vegan Outreach and the Humane League for example.

> >> >> As yet you've presented not even one single reason to believe that any farm
> >> >> animals have lives which are that full of suffering. You claim to believe most
> >> >> do, yet you can't produce even one single example of what you want people to
> >> >> think you're trying to talk about.
>
> >> >Except that I have actually presented information which is relevant which you refuse to read.
>
>
> >> I read what you present, and not what you don't.
>
> >
>
> >That's false.
>
>
>
> What do you want me to try to think is false about it, don't you have any
>
> idea?
>

You are saying something stupid like I have to copy and paste the information into the actual post before you will read it. That is stupid. I have given you a link to a document about broiler chickens, and hey, I even copied and pasted a substantial part of it (and no, I'm not talking about the bit I quoted about the underfeeding of the parents of the broilers). You still haven't read any of it.

>
> >Read the information I gave about broiler chickens.
>
>
>
> I read what you presented

No. You did not. What I presented was the link to the complete document. Find a place where I posted that link, or find the link yourself by Googling for "CIWF broiler chickens", and click the link, and read the entire document. Then get back to me.

> and none of it seems to make their lives of
>
> negative value. As much as you wish they were horrible, they seem ok to me.
>

You haven't read the document.

>
>
> >> >> >Some evidence for this claim is presented in the third edition of Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation", and also on the Compassion in World Farming web site. I believe that suffering reduction is, other things equal, a good thing. This premise of mine would be widely granted.

> >> If you can't think of any on your own that means you're not capable of
>
> >>
>
> >> considering it.
>
> >
>
> >I see.
>
>
>
> And you're content being in such a clueless, ignorant position?
>

If you had some evidence to back up a specific claim about a specific example, then maybe you could provide it and then maybe I would be in a less clueless, ignorant position.

> >So anyone who doesn't accept your claims in the absence of any supporting evidence is too stupid to think about this topic?
>
>
>
> Anyone who can't comprehend how flooding and draining fields, turning the
>
> ground inside out a couple of times, running heavy farm machinery, treating with
>
> chemicals, harvesting plants that have become home and shelter to animals, etc,
>
> causes more deaths than cows do by eating grass, is too stupid to think about it
>
> in detail.
>

But that is irrelevant. First of all, deaths are caused by the dairy industry other than the deaths caused by cows eating grass, namely the slaughter of the dairy cows and the use of their calves for meat. And what needs to be compared is the expected contribution to the number of deaths for a given serving of the two different products, and you have absolutely no idea at all what the relevant numbers would be. I am quite open to the possibility that the death rate for grass-raised cow milk might be lower than that for rice milk. But you have given me no sensible basis for knowing such a thing.


dh

unread,
Jun 6, 2013, 6:03:06 PM6/6/13
to
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 23:08:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 8:34:25 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:48:00 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>> >> You STILL want people to think the number of deaths is the same in every
>> >> soybean field on the planet every season regardless of the number of animals
>> >> that are or are not present.
>>
>> >No.
>>
>>
>>
>> How much do you want people to think it varies by, and why?
>>
>
>I don't know how much it varies.

Try answering why then.

>This was of course precisely the point of my asking you "What's the standard deviation?"

That's your department. You're the one with Davis' 15 deaths per hectare, so
you need to fill in the rest of it too. You can't but it's still on you since
you stepped in it to begin with.

>The standard deviation is a measure of how much it varies.

To me it sound like the standard deviation should be some sort of standard
variation, not how much it sometimes CAN and DOES vary.

>> >> I believe that magic number is 15 per hectar in
>> >> every field, every year, regardless of anything and everything.
>>
>> >That is absolutely not what I have been saying. Apparently you still do not understand the concept of a mean value despite my very patient efforts to explain.
>>
>>
>>
>> How much do you want people to think it varies by, and why?
>>
>
>I don't know. I have an estimate for the mean but not the standard deviation.

You don't know if you have the mean or not. You're just saying it is because
you apparently like the number, but there's no reason to believe it's correct
and you don't even know how he got it or what area of the planet it's supposedly
the mean for or anything like that. You don't even know what types of animals it
supposedly represents.

>> >Yes, to be more exact a factor of 10,000, or as the case may be, 1,000,000.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >So buying just one slice of cheese would still have a measurable impact. And you've given no good reason to think that my estimate for the impact was wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> You've given no reason to believe buying a slice of cheese would have any
>>
>> impact at all, which isn't surprising since it would have none.
>>
>
>I did.

You did not and can not because it has NO influence.

>I gave you my calculations and the data that I used.
>
>And if buying 10,000 slices of cheese would have some impact then it is simply not possible that buying one slice of cheese would have literally zero impact. I have a PhD in maths; I know that zero multiplied by 10,000 is not greater then zero.

That doesn't matter in this case. Where are you imagining buying this single
slice of cheese anyway? Wherever it is it won't have any impact on any livestock
anywhere.

Goo would disagree with you on this I feel sure, and he likes to pretend he
knows something about economics. He might agree with you, but I doubt even the
Goober would go along with such an absurd idea, doc.

>> >> >Do you have any kind of sensible estimate of the number of deaths required for the biscuit?
>
>> >> We don't.
>
>> >Right, so how is it that you are in a position to know that it is larger than the number of deaths associated with the deer meat?
>
>> It's associated with all the cds associated with growing the grain while the
>> deer meat is associated with none. It's understandable why you want it not to be
>> true, but it's also idiotic of you to try pretending it isn't.
>>
>
>I find your thick-skulledness extraordinary. The deer meat may not have required any CD's, but it requires some deaths, namely the death of the deer. You have to work out what fraction of a death is associated with a serving of deer meat and compare that with the numbers of CD's associated with the biscuit. And you seem to have admitted that you have absolutely no basis for doing so.

Why are you so opposed to seeing the comparison made? ONLY because you know
the veggies involve more cds than the deer meat. If you honestly believed the
veggies do not, then you'd try to support that instead of complaining that the
comparison is being made.

>> >There are some deaths caused by grain production, and there are some deaths caused by deer meat production.
>>
>>
>>
>> Like what?
>>
>
>In order to produce some meat, an animal must die in order to become meat.

That's one death. It's the veggies that involve some deaths, not the deer
meat. That's why the deer meat is in a different class. The fact that it is
works against your imagined ethical superiority to all vegetable products over
all animal products which is absurd to the point of a form of insanity from my
pov, and it makes you very uncomfortable.

>(Unbelievable, simply unbelievable.)

The discomfort is caused by your cognitive dissonance. Your cognitive
dissonance is caused by the fact that hunted meat involving fewer deaths than
commercially grown vegetable products works against what you WANT TO believe.
That's how that works.

>> >You've provided no sensible basis for a comparison between the two.
>>
>>
>>
>> The comparison is between the vegetable parts and the animal parts of a meal
>>
>> a friend and I were discussing.
>>
>
>Yes, and you haven't got any sensible basis on which to make that comparison.

I've got cds vs no cds on which to make it.

>> >False. I gave you the reasoning by which the estimate was arrived at, including a quote from Steven Davis explaning where he got his data. You haven't engaged with this reasoning or with this data.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't believe you presented it, or that you can present it at all.
>>
>
>You know that I copied and pasted a quote from the Steven Davis paper elsewhere, explaining the basis for the estimate of the collateral death rate associated with soybean production. You also saw my calculations where I worked out the number of deaths associated with one cup of tofu. You have not engaged with any of this in any way.

There's nothing really there and you haven't been able to trick me into
believing there is. I did notice his estimate of killing over 50% of the
populations of various types of animals though. That's higher than I had thought
when I first started pointing out the distinctions between beef and tofu, so the
info you presented makes me feel that the beef would involve an even smaller
amount of deaths compared with the soy than I'd thought to begin with, IF Davis
is right. So the info you presented makes me more confident that I'm right, not
less.

>> >> Such as?
>>
>> >Animals have to die to become meat.
>>
>>
>>
>> No cds associated with the deer meat. Lots of cds associated with the
>>
>> vegetable products.
>>
>
>So what?

Well at least that's a step up for you. You can't get as far as so what
though. The so what is for people who are far more open minded than you. It's
for people who are willing to accept facts like these and take them into
consideration, not for people like you who desperately try to deny them because
they work against what you WANT TO believe.

>> >I'm not aware of anyone having a sensible basis for making such a comparison, no.
>>
>>
>>
>> A person would be interested if he/she had an open mind about it instead of
>>
>> closed and trying to put all faith in the misnomer being ethically supreme. A
>>
>> more open minded person is in a position to consider a number of things misnomer
>>
>> addicts can't afford to take into consideration because they work against what
>>
>> eliminationists want to believe.
>>
>
>Consider what things? I'm perfectly happy to consider anything you say as long as you are willing to provide the least scintilla of evidence for it.

Probably the most basic thing is that some livestock experience lives of
positive value. You say you can't comprehend what that means, while I've
provided links to many photos of animals who appear to be enjoying that very
thing.

Another is that some animal products involve fewer deaths than some
vegetable products. To think that none do is not only ignorant and naive, but
also remarkably stupid. So the question from my position has become whether or
not you honestly are ignorant, naive and stupid enough to believe no animal
products ever involve fewer deaths than any vegetable products, or are you
dishonestly pretending to be. Whichever it is, you're being as closed minded as
you could be about it and you'll probably never be able to do any better.

>> >> >> >I haven't said anything about hunting one way or the other.
>>
>> >> >> I'm correct none the less.
>>
>> >> >No, you are not.
>>
>> >> If so, then try providing some reason(s) to believe your claim. Go:
>>
>> >You want me to present reasons for thinking that I care about wildlife suffering?
>>
>>
>>
>> You can't, but you would have to in order to back up your claim.
>>
>
>No, I don't. I didn't make any claim that I care about wildlife suffering. You made a claim that I didn't, which you have failed to back up. It is not I who has the job of providing the evidence.
>
>I do care about wildlife suffering.

Now you have made the claim, and I still don't believe you do.

>I am not in a position to prove this to anyone and have no interest in doing so.

Nor could you if you did.

>The point is, you have shown yourself totally unable to provide any evidence for the claim you made in the OP.

Except that hunted deer meat involves fewer cds than commercially produced
vegetable products.

>Talking about me "not caring" is just a technique to try to distract attention from this fact.

Your not caring is just another aspect of the situation that's being taken
into consideration. Why does it bother you?

>> >> >> >I want you to present evidence for the claim that you made that there would be a larger expected increase in collateral deaths caused by buying one biscuit than the number of deaths associated with one serving of hunted deer meat.
>>
>> >> >> When you buy a biscuit you contribute to an industry that causes millions of
>> >> >> cds. When you get deer meat that has been hunted you don't. The fact that you
>> >> >> don't care is more evidence that you don't care.
>>
>> >> >You have no reason for thinking I don't care.
>>
>> >> You let me know you don't care. Maybe you will learn to, but then again
>> >> maybe you never will.
>>
>> >> >The point is that we have no basis for comparing the expected contribution to suffering from obtaining the deer meat and from obtaining the biscuit. You have to come up with some kind of basis for doing a comparison
>>
>> >> Anyone who is open minded and wants to stay that way should take things like
>> >> this into consideration.
>>
>> >Like what?
>>
>> The fact that commercially produced vegetable products contribute to lots of
>> cds while eating hunted deer meat does not.
>>
>
>When you buy a commerically produced vegetable product, you make a certain expected contribution to the number of CD's that take place.

Which is not the case when you shoot a wild deer since they don't cause any,
and even if they did it still wouldn't count. For example if you ate a wild fox
that was trapped or shot, you couldn't really say all the animals it killed
during its life are cds associated with you for eating it, since that animal was
not raised specificlly for you to eat.

>As you have clearly demonstrated, you do not have the least idea what this number is. When you obtained hunted deer meat, you make a certain contribution to the number of deaths from hunting that take place. You have no idea how the two numbers compare.

We do know the commercially produced vegetable products are associated with
a LOT more cds than the deer meat. You can try pretending that's not true all
you want and it will still remain true.

>> >> >> So we can forget completely about the estimate you pulled out of your ass
>> >> >> for the number of deaths associated with a cup of tofu. Good.
>>
>> >> >No. I can back up that claim.
>>
>> >> It can't be backed up, which is why you have not and will not do it.
>>
>> >I have backed it up.
>>
>> It can't be backed up, which is why you have not and will not do it.
>>
>
>I have backed it up in the past. And now I will do so again.
>
>The cumulative elasticity factor for soybeans is about 0.4. I found this on Google. If you can find a different estimate somewhere else we can use that number instead.
>
>Steven Davis estimates the average collateral death rate from soybean production at 15 per hectare per year. Here is his justification for 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).

So that's 50% of one species just from ONE operation, and there are more.

>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,

50% again from ONE operation.

>that virtually all of the small mammals, ground
>birds, and reptiles were killed when he harvested his crops.

WAAAAAY over 50% of a number of species again from ONE operation. Wow, it
keeps getting even worse than I'd thought, and I thought it was bad to begin
with.

>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.

That's over 15 per ha of just ONE species while you're trying to make it out
like it's only 15 total of all species. You are an incredibly dishonest person.

>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).

77% of a single species for only ONE operation!!!

>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."

Bullshit. According to what you presented the number is greater than that
for mice alone, you lying shit.

>One hectare of soy yields about 1000 kilograms of protein.
>
>So, suppose that you buy enough tofu to obtain 20 grams of protein (which is the average daily requirement for adults). Your expected contribution to the number of collateral deaths that take place will be 0.00002 * 15 * 0.4 = 0.00012.
>
>> >> Then they do and you contribute to them, meaning that what I pointed out is
>> >> true. Now the question is: Since you have faith in it enough to send your own
>> >> money to contribute to it, why are you ashamed to admit it and try to defend it?
>>
>> >I'm not.
>>
>> Try defending it then. Go:
>>
>
>I believe that the money I contribute will be effective at helping them to do research about how best to reduce animal suffering,

How would they reduce suffering for animals that they want to prevent from
having any life at all?

>and encouraging people to make donations towards those organizations that are effective at doing so, such that Vegan Outreach and the Humane League for example.

So you make donations to an eliminationist organization so they can
encourage other people to donate to other eliminationist organizations, the
whole time idiotically trying to pretend these people want to reduce suffering
for potential future animals they want to prevent from ever having any life at
all. LOL...your position is pathetic, though it's funny to think about what it
actually is.

>> >> >> As yet you've presented not even one single reason to believe that any farm
>> >> >> animals have lives which are that full of suffering. You claim to believe most
>> >> >> do, yet you can't produce even one single example of what you want people to
>> >> >> think you're trying to talk about.
>>
>> >> >Except that I have actually presented information which is relevant which you refuse to read.
>>
>>
>> >> I read what you present, and not what you don't.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >That's false.
>>
>>
>>
>> What do you want me to try to think is false about it, don't you have any
>>
>> idea?
>>
>
>You are saying something stupid like I have to copy and paste the information into the actual post before you will read it. That is stupid.

It might seem stupid from your tiny stifled little pov, or you may just be
afraid of why it's not stupid. Since I want to think what YOU believe makes life
of negative value to them, it's up to YOU to present whatever you think it is.
When you can't, I know you don't know what you think you're trying to talk
about. You SHOW ME that you don't. After a while sometimes you can figure out
something you think MIGHT support you and then you do present it, but nothing
you've presented does the job from my pov much MUCH less would whatever other
information that you're not even going to make an attempt with.

>I have given you a link to a document about broiler chickens, and hey, I even copied and pasted a substantial part of it (and no, I'm not talking about the bit I quoted about the underfeeding of the parents of the broilers). You still haven't read any of it.

I told you I did read it and there's nothing in it that makes it seem like
life is of negative value to them. I believe I even told you I believe they're
exagerating about the problems the birds have with moving around because they
grow too quickly. I believe that's all a bunch of stupid bullshit that extremely
rarely if ever is at all significant, much less enough to make life of negative
value.
. . .
>> >> If you can't think of any on your own that means you're not capable of
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> considering it.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I see.
>>
>>
>>
>> And you're content being in such a clueless, ignorant position?
>>
>
>If you had some evidence to back up a specific claim about a specific example, then maybe you could provide it and then maybe I would be in a less clueless, ignorant position.

Probably what we're discussing is how an animal product can involve fewer
deaths than a vegetable product. Let's say a grass raised dairy cow kills two
small animals in her life and produces 8 gallons of milk per day for three
years. In the other example, rice milk involves the deaths of 40 animals per
hectar including rodents, birds, amphibions and reptiles. Compare the two
situations and let's see how it comes out.

>> >So anyone who doesn't accept your claims in the absence of any supporting evidence is too stupid to think about this topic?
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyone who can't comprehend how flooding and draining fields, turning the
>>
>> ground inside out a couple of times, running heavy farm machinery, treating with
>>
>> chemicals, harvesting plants that have become home and shelter to animals, etc,
>>
>> causes more deaths than cows do by eating grass, is too stupid to think about it
>>
>> in detail.
>>
>
>But that is irrelevant.

In contrast to that it's extremely significant.

>First of all, deaths are caused by the dairy industry other than the deaths caused by cows eating grass, namely the slaughter of the dairy cows and the use of their calves for meat.

Since the calves also experience life and the life cancels out their deaths
in this case they don't count as cds. Maybe you can find some cds associated
with them, or maybe not. I could but that doesn't mean you can, as clueless as
you are.

>And what needs to be compared is the expected contribution to the number of deaths for a given serving of the two different products, and you have absolutely no idea at all what the relevant numbers would be. I am quite open to the possibility that the death rate for grass-raised cow milk might be lower than that for rice milk.

Try being open about it since you claim to be. Go:

Rupert

unread,
Jun 7, 2013, 1:40:49 AM6/7/13
to
On Friday, June 7, 2013 12:03:06 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 23:08:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 8:34:25 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:48:00 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> You STILL want people to think the number of deaths is the same in every
>
> >> >> soybean field on the planet every season regardless of the number of animals
>
> >> >> that are or are not present.
>
> >>
>
> >> >No.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> How much do you want people to think it varies by, and why?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I don't know how much it varies.
>
>
>
> Try answering why then.
>

Why it varies? Well, there would be various factors having an effect on the wildlife population in a given area. An ecologist would be able to tell you what the most important ones were.

>
>
> >This was of course precisely the point of my asking you "What's the standard deviation?"
>
>
>
> That's your department. You're the one with Davis' 15 deaths per hectare, so
>
> you need to fill in the rest of it too. You can't but it's still on you since
>
> you stepped in it to begin with.
>

No. I don't need to give an estimate for the standard deviation. None of the claims I have made require any knowledge of the standard deviation. On the other hand, when you claim that sometimes the death toll associated with tofu would be larger than that for grass-fed beef by a factor of hundreds, you do need to know something about the distribution of the data in order to justify that claim.

>
>
> >The standard deviation is a measure of how much it varies.
>
>
>
> To me it sound like the standard deviation should be some sort of standard
>
> variation, not how much it sometimes CAN and DOES vary.
>

Well, I gave you the definition. There's really nothing more I can do.

>
>
> >> >> I believe that magic number is 15 per hectar in
>
> >> >> every field, every year, regardless of anything and everything.
>
> >>
>
> >> >That is absolutely not what I have been saying. Apparently you still do not understand the concept of a mean value despite my very patient efforts to explain.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> How much do you want people to think it varies by, and why?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I don't know. I have an estimate for the mean but not the standard deviation.
>
>
>
> You don't know if you have the mean or not. You're just saying it is because
>
> you apparently like the number, but there's no reason to believe it's correct
>
> and you don't even know how he got it or what area of the planet it's supposedly
>
> the mean for or anything like that.

I copied and pasted the relevant quote from the Steven Davis paper, twice, explaining how he got the estimate.

> You don't even know what types of animals it
>
> supposedly represents.
>

I copied and pasted the relevant quote from the Steven Davis paper, twice, explaining what types of animals are involved.

>
>
> >> >Yes, to be more exact a factor of 10,000, or as the case may be, 1,000,000.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >So buying just one slice of cheese would still have a measurable impact. And you've given no good reason to think that my estimate for the impact was wrong.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You've given no reason to believe buying a slice of cheese would have any
>
> >>
>
> >> impact at all, which isn't surprising since it would have none.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I did.
>
>
>
> You did not and can not because it has NO influence.
>

That's false. I gave my reasoning. Here it is again.

"It takes 10 kg of milk to produce 1 kg of cheese. The cumulative elasticity factor for milk products is 0.45. So buying one 20-gram slice of cheese will lead to an expected increase of 90 grams in the total amount of milk produced.

The average lifespan of a dairy cow is 2000 days and she will produce about 50,000 kg of milk during her lifetime. So buying one 20-gram slice of cheese, means, overage, an extra six minutes of life experienced by dairy cows."

That is all based on publicly available information.

>
>
> >I gave you my calculations and the data that I used.
>
> >
>
> >And if buying 10,000 slices of cheese would have some impact then it is simply not possible that buying one slice of cheese would have literally zero impact. I have a PhD in maths; I know that zero multiplied by 10,000 is not greater then zero.
>
>
>
> That doesn't matter in this case.

Why not?

> Where are you imagining buying this single
>
> slice of cheese anyway? Wherever it is it won't have any impact on any livestock
>
> anywhere.
>

I can buy a slice of cheese on a bread roll at my local cafe. The probability is high that there will be no impact on livestock. But there is a small probability that it will have some effect. As a result, there is a positive expected contribution to the amount of life experienced by dairy cows.

>
>
> Goo would disagree with you on this I feel sure, and he likes to pretend he
>
> knows something about economics. He might agree with you, but I doubt even the
>
> Goober would go along with such an absurd idea, doc.
>

Well, anyone can agree or disagree with me as they see fit, what I am interested in is some evidence that I am wrong. I have provided the reasoning, now it needs to be engaged with in some way. You have not engaged with it at all.

>
>
> >> >> >Do you have any kind of sensible estimate of the number of deaths required for the biscuit?
>
> >
>
> >> >> We don't.
>
> >
>
> >> >Right, so how is it that you are in a position to know that it is larger than the number of deaths associated with the deer meat?
>
> >
>
> >> It's associated with all the cds associated with growing the grain while the
>
> >> deer meat is associated with none. It's understandable why you want it not to be
>
> >> true, but it's also idiotic of you to try pretending it isn't.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I find your thick-skulledness extraordinary. The deer meat may not have required any CD's, but it requires some deaths, namely the death of the deer. You have to work out what fraction of a death is associated with a serving of deer meat and compare that with the numbers of CD's associated with the biscuit. And you seem to have admitted that you have absolutely no basis for doing so.
>
>
>
> Why are you so opposed to seeing the comparison made?

Dear Lord in Heaven. I have been trying to get you to make the comparison throughout this entire thread. The point is you obviously do not have the necessary data.

> ONLY because you know
>
> the veggies involve more cds than the deer meat. If you honestly believed the
>
> veggies do not, then you'd try to support that instead of complaining that the
>
> comparison is being made.
>

But I'm not complaining that the comparison has been made. I simply want you to provide one scintilla of evidence to back up your claim. Which you obviously can't do.

>
>
> >> >There are some deaths caused by grain production, and there are some deaths caused by deer meat production.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Like what?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >In order to produce some meat, an animal must die in order to become meat.
>
>
>
> That's one death. It's the veggies that involve some deaths, not the deer
>
> meat. That's why the deer meat is in a different class. The fact that it is
>
> works against your imagined ethical superiority to all vegetable products over
>
> all animal products which is absurd to the point of a form of insanity from my
>
> pov, and it makes you very uncomfortable.
>

Producing one hectare of whatever grain would be required to produce the biscuit would probably involve more than one death. Producing enough deer meat to be calorically equivalent to however many biscuits could be made from that much grain would probably involve more than one death, too. If you want to make the comparison, it has to be between calorically equivalent servings of food. You don't have any idea how the comparison would turn out.

>
>
> >(Unbelievable, simply unbelievable.)
>
>
>
> The discomfort is caused by your cognitive dissonance. Your cognitive
>
> dissonance is caused by the fact that hunted meat involving fewer deaths than
>
> commercially grown vegetable products works against what you WANT TO believe.
>
> That's how that works.
>

I don't care one way or the other. If you could actually produce some evidence to support your claim, I'd simply say "Fine, you have supported your claim". I was just curious to know whether you actually had any evidence at all. Which you obviously don't.

>
>
> >> >You've provided no sensible basis for a comparison between the two.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The comparison is between the vegetable parts and the animal parts of a meal
>
> >>
>
> >> a friend and I were discussing.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Yes, and you haven't got any sensible basis on which to make that comparison.
>
>
>
> I've got cds vs no cds on which to make it.
>

That is not a sufficient basis for making the comparison.

>
>
> >> >False. I gave you the reasoning by which the estimate was arrived at, including a quote from Steven Davis explaning where he got his data. You haven't engaged with this reasoning or with this data.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I don't believe you presented it, or that you can present it at all.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >You know that I copied and pasted a quote from the Steven Davis paper elsewhere, explaining the basis for the estimate of the collateral death rate associated with soybean production. You also saw my calculations where I worked out the number of deaths associated with one cup of tofu. You have not engaged with any of this in any way.
>
>
>
> There's nothing really there and you haven't been able to trick me into
>
> believing there is. I did notice his estimate of killing over 50% of the
>
> populations of various types of animals though. That's higher than I had thought
>
> when I first started pointing out the distinctions between beef and tofu, so the
>
> info you presented makes me feel that the beef would involve an even smaller
>
> amount of deaths compared with the soy than I'd thought to begin with, IF Davis
>
> is right. So the info you presented makes me more confident that I'm right, not
>
> less.
>

I've presented the evidence for my claim. You haven't told me what's wrong with the argument. There's nothing I can do if you refuse to engage with the evidence.

>
>
> >> >> Such as?
>
> >>
>
> >> >Animals have to die to become meat.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> No cds associated with the deer meat. Lots of cds associated with the
>
> >>
>
> >> vegetable products.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >So what?
>
>
>
> Well at least that's a step up for you. You can't get as far as so what
>
> though. The so what is for people who are far more open minded than you. It's
>
> for people who are willing to accept facts like these and take them into
>
> consideration, not for people like you who desperately try to deny them because
>
> they work against what you WANT TO believe.
>

I never once tried to deny the claim you made above.

>
>
> >> >I'm not aware of anyone having a sensible basis for making such a comparison, no.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> A person would be interested if he/she had an open mind about it instead of
>
> >>
>
> >> closed and trying to put all faith in the misnomer being ethically supreme. A
>
> >>
>
> >> more open minded person is in a position to consider a number of things misnomer
>
> >>
>
> >> addicts can't afford to take into consideration because they work against what
>
> >>
>
> >> eliminationists want to believe.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Consider what things? I'm perfectly happy to consider anything you say as long as you are willing to provide the least scintilla of evidence for it.
>
>
>
> Probably the most basic thing is that some livestock experience lives of
>
> positive value. You say you can't comprehend what that means, while I've
>
> provided links to many photos of animals who appear to be enjoying that very
>
> thing.
>

When you speak of "lives of positive value", does that mean that you believe in intrinsic value?

>
>
> Another is that some animal products involve fewer deaths than some
>
> vegetable products. To think that none do is not only ignorant and naive, but
>
> also remarkably stupid. So the question from my position has become whether or
>
> not you honestly are ignorant, naive and stupid enough to believe no animal
>
> products ever involve fewer deaths than any vegetable products, or are you
>
> dishonestly pretending to be. Whichever it is, you're being as closed minded as
>
> you could be about it and you'll probably never be able to do any better.
>

Never once have I made the claim tha tno animal products ever involve fewer deaths than any vegetable products, or said anything that would imply that I think that. You have made a specific claim about how the biscuit compares with the deer meat, and I want to know whether you have the least scintilla of evidence to support that claim. Which you obviously don't.

>
>
> >> >> >> >I haven't said anything about hunting one way or the other.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> I'm correct none the less.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >No, you are not.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> If so, then try providing some reason(s) to believe your claim. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >> >You want me to present reasons for thinking that I care about wildlife suffering?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You can't, but you would have to in order to back up your claim.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >No, I don't. I didn't make any claim that I care about wildlife suffering. You made a claim that I didn't, which you have failed to back up. It is not I who has the job of providing the evidence.
>
> >
>
> >I do care about wildlife suffering.
>
>
>
> Now you have made the claim, and I still don't believe you do.
>

So what care I?

>
>
> >I am not in a position to prove this to anyone and have no interest in doing so.
>
>
>
> Nor could you if you did.
>
>
>
> >The point is, you have shown yourself totally unable to provide any evidence for the claim you made in the OP.
>
>
>
> Except that hunted deer meat involves fewer cds than commercially produced
>
> vegetable products.
>

But we're not counting just the CD's, we're counting the total death toll, and you don't know how the total death toll would compare in the two cases.

>
>
> >Talking about me "not caring" is just a technique to try to distract attention from this fact.
>
>
>
> Your not caring is just another aspect of the situation that's being taken
>
> into consideration. Why does it bother you?
>

Not caring about what, anyway?

>
>
> >> >> >> >I want you to present evidence for the claim that you made that there would be a larger expected increase in collateral deaths caused by buying one biscuit than the number of deaths associated with one serving of hunted deer meat.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> When you buy a biscuit you contribute to an industry that causes millions of
>
> >> >> >> cds. When you get deer meat that has been hunted you don't. The fact that you
>
> >> >> >> don't care is more evidence that you don't care.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >You have no reason for thinking I don't care.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> You let me know you don't care. Maybe you will learn to, but then again
>
> >> >> maybe you never will.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >The point is that we have no basis for comparing the expected contribution to suffering from obtaining the deer meat and from obtaining the biscuit. You have to come up with some kind of basis for doing a comparison
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Anyone who is open minded and wants to stay that way should take things like
>
> >> >> this into consideration.
>
> >>
>
> >> >Like what?
>
> >>
>
> >> The fact that commercially produced vegetable products contribute to lots of
>
> >> cds while eating hunted deer meat does not.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >When you buy a commerically produced vegetable product, you make a certain expected contribution to the number of CD's that take place.
>
>
>
> Which is not the case when you shoot a wild deer since they don't cause any,
>
> and even if they did it still wouldn't count. For example if you ate a wild fox
>
> that was trapped or shot, you couldn't really say all the animals it killed
>
> during its life are cds associated with you for eating it, since that animal was
>
> not raised specificlly for you to eat.
>
>
>
> >As you have clearly demonstrated, you do not have the least idea what this number is. When you obtained hunted deer meat, you make a certain contribution to the number of deaths from hunting that take place. You have no idea how the two numbers compare.
>
>
>
> We do know the commercially produced vegetable products are associated with
>
> a LOT more cds than the deer meat. You can try pretending that's not true all
>
> you want and it will still remain true.
>

We're not comparing the CD rate, we're comparing the total death rate.
On average the death rate from mortality is about 60%, (as opposed to in this specific case), and he's estimating the total population density at approximately 25 per hectare. If you can find a better estimate for the total population density then we'll use that instead.

>
>
> >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).
>
>
>
> 77% of a single species for only ONE operation!!!
>
>
>
> >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."
>
>
>
> Bullshit. According to what you presented the number is greater than that
>
> for mice alone, you lying shit.
>

That was one study of one operation in which the mortality rate was higher than normal. It now seems that you yourself are the one having trouble comprehending that the mortality rate is different for different operations.

>
>
> >One hectare of soy yields about 1000 kilograms of protein.
>
> >
>
> >So, suppose that you buy enough tofu to obtain 20 grams of protein (which is the average daily requirement for adults). Your expected contribution to the number of collateral deaths that take place will be 0.00002 * 15 * 0.4 = 0.00012.
>
> >
>
> >> >> Then they do and you contribute to them, meaning that what I pointed out is
>
> >> >> true. Now the question is: Since you have faith in it enough to send your own
>
> >> >> money to contribute to it, why are you ashamed to admit it and try to defend it?
>
> >>
>
> >> >I'm not.
>
> >>
>
> >> Try defending it then. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I believe that the money I contribute will be effective at helping them to do research about how best to reduce animal suffering,
>
>
>
> How would they reduce suffering for animals that they want to prevent from
>
> having any life at all?
>

Preventing a life containing a lot of suffering from taking place is a form of suffering reduction.

>
>
> >and encouraging people to make donations towards those organizations that are effective at doing so, such that Vegan Outreach and the Humane League for example.
>
>
>
> So you make donations to an eliminationist organization so they can
>
> encourage other people to donate to other eliminationist organizations, the
>
> whole time idiotically trying to pretend these people want to reduce suffering
>
> for potential future animals they want to prevent from ever having any life at
>
> all. LOL...your position is pathetic, though it's funny to think about what it
>
> actually is.
>

I've told you before that EAA has no specific position on whether the elimination of animal agriculture is a desirable ultimate goal. I doubt that Vegan Outreach does either. Yes, the goal is suffering reduction, by means of preventing farm animals from coming into existence.

>
>
> >> >> >> As yet you've presented not even one single reason to believe that any farm
>
> >> >> >> animals have lives which are that full of suffering. You claim to believe most
>
> >> >> >> do, yet you can't produce even one single example of what you want people to
>
> >> >> >> think you're trying to talk about.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >Except that I have actually presented information which is relevant which you refuse to read.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> I read what you present, and not what you don't.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >That's false.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> What do you want me to try to think is false about it, don't you have any
>
> >>
>
> >> idea?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >You are saying something stupid like I have to copy and paste the information into the actual post before you will read it. That is stupid.
>
>
>
> It might seem stupid from your tiny stifled little pov, or you may just be
>
> afraid of why it's not stupid. Since I want to think what YOU believe makes life
>
> of negative value to them, it's up to YOU to present whatever you think it is.
>

I do, by presenting links to relevant information. Also, sometimes I copy and paste large segments from the articles I link to and you still refuse to read them.

> When you can't, I know you don't know what you think you're trying to talk
>
> about. You SHOW ME that you don't. After a while sometimes you can figure out
>
> something you think MIGHT support you and then you do present it, but nothing
>
> you've presented does the job from my pov much MUCH less would whatever other
>
> information that you're not even going to make an attempt with.
>

http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/w/welfare_of_broilers_in_the_eu_2005.pdf

"Around 5.9 billion broiler chicks are reared for meat
in the EU every year. Most are intensively farmed
and kept in windowless, barren and crowded sheds
holding tens of thousands of birds for the whole of
their brief 6 - 7 week lives. Up to 2005, there have
been virtually no specific European laws to protect
the welfare of broiler chickens.

The March 2000 report on broiler chicken welfare
by the European Union's Scientific Committee on
Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW)
confirms the serious criticisms of the broiler
industry that Compassion in World Farming Trust
has made for many years. The scientific evidence
cited in the Committee's report shows that:

Selective breeding for ever faster growth rate
and feed conversion efficiency has caused
most of the welfare problems broilers suffer
from today. Broiler chickens have a mortality
rate of 1% a week, seven times the rate of
laying hens of the same age.

Because they grow too fast, millions and
possibly tens of millions of EU broiler
chickens a year suffer from painful lameness
due to abnormal skeletal development or
bone disease, so that many have difficulty in
walking or even standing. Lame broilers
spend up to 86% of their time lying down.
They may be unable to reach up to their
drinking water containers and can go without
water for several days.

In one heavy strain of broilers, over 47% have
been found to have tibial dyschondroplasia, a
disorder of bone growth, in their legs. A 1999
survey in Denmark found that over 30% of
the broilers studied were limping or severely lame and that there was development of
dyschondroplasia in 57% of chicks. A 2002
survey in Sweden found that 72.4% of broilers
had a walking abnormality and 1 in 5 were so
lame that they had some difficulty in moving
around. The SCAHAW Report says that: 'Leg
disorders are a major cause of poor welfare in
broilers' (SCAHAW, 2000, Conclusions 6).

The breeding companies give low priority to
reducing lameness in their breeding
programs. In 2000, the SCAHAW concluded
that up to now any attempt the breeding
companies may have made to reduce leg
problems 'has not improved welfare'
(SCAHAW, 2000, Conclusion 3).

As a result of selective breeding, broiler
chickens' hearts and lungs often cannot keep
up with their bodies' fast growth rate. They
frequently suffer from heart failure when they
are only a few weeks old. Acute heart failure
known as Sudden Death Syndrome kills 0.1%
to 3% of broilers in European countries. A
second form of heart failure known as ascites
affects nearly 5% of broilers worldwide.
Using UK industry figures, nearly 130 million
broilers may die in the EU from heart failure
annually.

High stocking density in broiler sheds restricts
the broiler chickens' behaviour and causes
health problems. It leads to increases in
lameness, breast blisters, foot-pad dermatitis,
hock burns and infections. Crowded broiler
sheds lead to wet litter, increased air pollution
from ammonia and dust particles and poor
temperature and humidity control, all of
which damage the broilers' health and welfare."


>
>
> >I have given you a link to a document about broiler chickens, and hey, I even copied and pasted a substantial part of it (and no, I'm not talking about the bit I quoted about the underfeeding of the parents of the broilers). You still haven't read any of it.
>
>
>
> I told you I did read it and there's nothing in it that makes it seem like
>
> life is of negative value to them.

Can you explain to me why I should agree with that evaluation?

> I believe I even told you I believe they're
>
> exagerating about the problems the birds have with moving around because they
>
> grow too quickly. I believe that's all a bunch of stupid bullshit that extremely
>
> rarely if ever is at all significant, much less enough to make life of negative
>
> value.
>

And what's your evidence for that?

> . . .
>
> >> >> If you can't think of any on your own that means you're not capable of
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> considering it.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I see.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> And you're content being in such a clueless, ignorant position?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >If you had some evidence to back up a specific claim about a specific example, then maybe you could provide it and then maybe I would be in a less clueless, ignorant position.
>
>
>
> Probably what we're discussing is how an animal product can involve fewer
>
> deaths than a vegetable product. Let's say a grass raised dairy cow kills two
>
> small animals in her life and produces 8 gallons of milk per day for three
>
> years. In the other example, rice milk involves the deaths of 40 animals per
>
> hectar including rodents, birds, amphibions and reptiles. Compare the two
>
> situations and let's see how it comes out.
>

Well, you need to know how much rice milk you can get from growing one hectare of rice, don't you.

>
>
> >> >So anyone who doesn't accept your claims in the absence of any supporting evidence is too stupid to think about this topic?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Anyone who can't comprehend how flooding and draining fields, turning the
>
> >>
>
> >> ground inside out a couple of times, running heavy farm machinery, treating with
>
> >>
>
> >> chemicals, harvesting plants that have become home and shelter to animals, etc,
>
> >>
>
> >> causes more deaths than cows do by eating grass, is too stupid to think about it
>
> >>
>
> >> in detail.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >But that is irrelevant.
>
>
>
> In contrast to that it's extremely significant.
>
>
>
> >First of all, deaths are caused by the dairy industry other than the deaths caused by cows eating grass, namely the slaughter of the dairy cows and the use of their calves for meat.
>
>
>
> Since the calves also experience life and the life cancels out their deaths
>
> in this case they don't count as cds. Maybe you can find some cds associated
>
> with them, or maybe not. I could but that doesn't mean you can, as clueless as
>
> you are.
>

Harms are caused by the dairy industry. Those harms are relevant to its moral evaluation, just as the harms caused by rice production are relevant to its moral evaluation.

>
>
> >And what needs to be compared is the expected contribution to the number of deaths for a given serving of the two different products, and you have absolutely no idea at all what the relevant numbers would be. I am quite open to the possibility that the death rate for grass-raised cow milk might be lower than that for rice milk.
>
>
>
> Try being open about it since you claim to be. Go:

Uh?

dh

unread,
Jun 11, 2013, 11:53:46 AM6/11/13
to
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 22:40:49 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, June 7, 2013 12:03:06 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 23:08:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 8:34:25 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:48:00 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> You STILL want people to think the number of deaths is the same in every
>>
>> >> >> soybean field on the planet every season regardless of the number of animals
>>
>> >> >> that are or are not present.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >No.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> How much do you want people to think it varies by, and why?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I don't know how much it varies.
>>
>>
>>
>> Try answering why then.
>>
>
>Why it varies? Well, there would be various factors having an effect on the wildlife population in a given area. An ecologist would be able to tell you what the most important ones were.

How about the influence of the surrounding area?

>> >This was of course precisely the point of my asking you "What's the standard deviation?"
>>
>>
>>
>> That's your department. You're the one with Davis' 15 deaths per hectare, so
>>
>> you need to fill in the rest of it too. You can't but it's still on you since
>>
>> you stepped in it to begin with.
>>
>
>No. I don't need to give an estimate for the standard deviation.

Yes you do but you can't do it. You might if you could, but you can't and
couldn't if you did try.

>None of the claims I have made require any knowledge of the standard deviation. On the other hand, when you claim that sometimes the death toll associated with tofu would be larger than that for grass-fed beef by a factor of hundreds, you do need to know something about the distribution of the data in order to justify that claim.

Maybe I should just change it to pointing out that the production of tofu
results in the death of over 50% of the population for a number of creatures
that inhabit soy fields, while nowhere near that many are killed by cattle
eating grass in their pastures.

>> >The standard deviation is a measure of how much it varies.
>>
>>
>>
>> To me it sound like the standard deviation should be some sort of standard
>>
>> variation, not how much it sometimes CAN and DOES vary.
>>
>
>Well, I gave you the definition.

What was it?

>There's really nothing more I can do.

Do it now. Go:

>> >> >> I believe that magic number is 15 per hectar in
>>
>> >> >> every field, every year, regardless of anything and everything.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >That is absolutely not what I have been saying. Apparently you still do not understand the concept of a mean value despite my very patient efforts to explain.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> How much do you want people to think it varies by, and why?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I don't know. I have an estimate for the mean but not the standard deviation.
>>
>>
>>
>> You don't know if you have the mean or not. You're just saying it is because
>>
>> you apparently like the number, but there's no reason to believe it's correct
>>
>> and you don't even know how he got it or what area of the planet it's supposedly
>>
>> the mean for or anything like that.
>
>I copied and pasted the relevant quote from the Steven Davis paper, twice, explaining how he got the estimate.
>
>> You don't even know what types of animals it
>>
>> supposedly represents.
>>
>
>I copied and pasted the relevant quote from the Steven Davis paper, twice, explaining what types of animals are involved.

Maybe, but you didn't say what you think they are. There's no reason to
believe he mentioned all the animals that are killed in soy fields either. Far
from it, imo. So they have to be included in addition to the ones he did
mention. You just have nothing, as I keep pointing out for you. And don't forget
that the number of total deaths is more than 15 for just one species, not 15
total as you dishonestly tried to get me to believe.

>> >> >Yes, to be more exact a factor of 10,000, or as the case may be, 1,000,000.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >So buying just one slice of cheese would still have a measurable impact. And you've given no good reason to think that my estimate for the impact was wrong.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You've given no reason to believe buying a slice of cheese would have any
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> impact at all, which isn't surprising since it would have none.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I did.
>>
>>
>>
>> You did not and can not because it has NO influence.
>>
>
>That's false. I gave my reasoning. Here it is again.
>
>"It takes 10 kg of milk to produce 1 kg of cheese. The cumulative elasticity factor for milk products is 0.45. So buying one 20-gram slice of cheese will lead to an expected increase of 90 grams in the total amount of milk produced.

How exactly would it do that, and what would be different if that one slice
were not bought?

>The average lifespan of a dairy cow is 2000 days and she will produce about 50,000 kg of milk during her lifetime. So buying one 20-gram slice of cheese, means, overage, an extra six minutes of life experienced by dairy cows."
>
>That is all based on publicly available information.
>
>>
>>
>> >I gave you my calculations and the data that I used.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >And if buying 10,000 slices of cheese would have some impact then it is simply not possible that buying one slice of cheese would have literally zero impact. I have a PhD in maths; I know that zero multiplied by 10,000 is not greater then zero.
>>
>>
>>
>> That doesn't matter in this case.
>
>Why not?
>
>> Where are you imagining buying this single
>>
>> slice of cheese anyway? Wherever it is it won't have any impact on any livestock
>>
>> anywhere.
>>
>
>I can buy a slice of cheese on a bread roll at my local cafe. The probability is high that there will be no impact on livestock.

Or anything at all, as I pointed out from the start.

>But there is a small probability that it will have some effect.

No there isn't. Not even if you bought it directly from the farmer, much
less after it gets filtered through all the hands it would take to get on a
sandwich.

>As a result, there is a positive expected contribution to the amount of life experienced by dairy cows.

Nope.

>> Goo would disagree with you on this I feel sure, and he likes to pretend he
>>
>> knows something about economics. He might agree with you, but I doubt even the
>>
>> Goober would go along with such an absurd idea, doc.
>>
>
>Well, anyone can agree or disagree with me as they see fit,

Damn few would be fool enough to agree and none should, imo.

>what I am interested in is some evidence that I am wrong.

The fact that there's no way buying a slice of cheese COULD have impact on
anything is some very strong evidence, now that you mention it.

>I have provided the reasoning,

HOW exactly could a slice of cheese influence anything at any farm anywhere?
What particular set of conditions must exist around the slice you're imagining
in order to make it possible that it have some influence? Do you believe all
slices of cheese in the world have equal potential to have influence, or that
some have much more potential than others do?

>now it needs to be engaged with in some way.

Then try answering my questions. Go:

>You have not engaged with it at all.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >Do you have any kind of sensible estimate of the number of deaths required for the biscuit?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >> We don't.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >Right, so how is it that you are in a position to know that it is larger than the number of deaths associated with the deer meat?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> It's associated with all the cds associated with growing the grain while the
>>
>> >> deer meat is associated with none. It's understandable why you want it not to be
>>
>> >> true, but it's also idiotic of you to try pretending it isn't.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I find your thick-skulledness extraordinary. The deer meat may not have required any CD's, but it requires some deaths, namely the death of the deer. You have to work out what fraction of a death is associated with a serving of deer meat and compare that with the numbers of CD's associated with the biscuit. And you seem to have admitted that you have absolutely no basis for doing so.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why are you so opposed to seeing the comparison made?
>
>Dear Lord in Heaven. I have been trying to get you to make the comparison throughout this entire thread. The point is you obviously do not have the necessary data.

Commercially grown products contribute to many wildlife deaths while
consuming hunted deer meat contributes to none. Can you comprehend how pork that
was bought in a supermarket could contribute to more deaths than hunted deer
meat? If so, try providing some reason(s) to believe you are able to comprehend.
Go:

>> ONLY because you know
>>
>> the veggies involve more cds than the deer meat. If you honestly believed the
>>
>> veggies do not, then you'd try to support that instead of complaining that the
>>
>> comparison is being made.
>>
>
>But I'm not complaining that the comparison has been made. I simply want you to provide one scintilla of evidence to back up your claim. Which you obviously can't do.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >There are some deaths caused by grain production, and there are some deaths caused by deer meat production.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Like what?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >In order to produce some meat, an animal must die in order to become meat.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's one death. It's the veggies that involve some deaths, not the deer
>>
>> meat. That's why the deer meat is in a different class. The fact that it is
>>
>> works against your imagined ethical superiority to all vegetable products over
>>
>> all animal products which is absurd to the point of a form of insanity from my
>>
>> pov, and it makes you very uncomfortable.
>>
>
>Producing one hectare of whatever grain would be required to produce the biscuit would probably involve more than one death. Producing enough deer meat to be calorically equivalent to however many biscuits could be made from that much grain would probably involve more than one death, too. If you want to make the comparison, it has to be between calorically equivalent servings of food. You don't have any idea how the comparison would turn out.

We'd certainly have to consider the fact that meat is a lot more nutritious
and therefore it would take less meat than it would biscuit to provide the
nutrition. We'd also have to take more than just calories into consideration but
also protein, so you'd have to include enough biscuit to provide an amount of
protein equal to that of the deer meat. That would probably take a LOT of
biscuit, if it would be possible at all.

>> >(Unbelievable, simply unbelievable.)
>>
>>
>>
>> The discomfort is caused by your cognitive dissonance. Your cognitive
>>
>> dissonance is caused by the fact that hunted meat involving fewer deaths than
>>
>> commercially grown vegetable products works against what you WANT TO believe.
>>
>> That's how that works.
>>
>
>I don't care one way or the other. If you could actually produce some evidence to support your claim, I'd simply say "Fine, you have supported your claim". I was just curious to know whether you actually had any evidence at all. Which you obviously don't.

Can you comprehend how commercially raised chicken could involve more animal
deaths than deer meat that has been hunted? If so, provide some reason(s) to
believe you can comprehend. Go:

>> >> >You've provided no sensible basis for a comparison between the two.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> The comparison is between the vegetable parts and the animal parts of a meal
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> a friend and I were discussing.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Yes, and you haven't got any sensible basis on which to make that comparison.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've got cds vs no cds on which to make it.
>>
>
>That is not a sufficient basis for making the comparison.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >False. I gave you the reasoning by which the estimate was arrived at, including a quote from Steven Davis explaning where he got his data. You haven't engaged with this reasoning or with this data.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> I don't believe you presented it, or that you can present it at all.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >You know that I copied and pasted a quote from the Steven Davis paper elsewhere, explaining the basis for the estimate of the collateral death rate associated with soybean production. You also saw my calculations where I worked out the number of deaths associated with one cup of tofu. You have not engaged with any of this in any way.
>>
>>
>>
>> There's nothing really there and you haven't been able to trick me into
>>
>> believing there is. I did notice his estimate of killing over 50% of the
>>
>> populations of various types of animals though. That's higher than I had thought
>>
>> when I first started pointing out the distinctions between beef and tofu, so the
>>
>> info you presented makes me feel that the beef would involve an even smaller
>>
>> amount of deaths compared with the soy than I'd thought to begin with, IF Davis
>>
>> is right. So the info you presented makes me more confident that I'm right, not
>>
>> less.
>>
>
>I've presented the evidence for my claim. You haven't told me what's wrong with the argument.

What have I told you, and asked you about?

>There's nothing I can do if you refuse to engage with the evidence.

LOL... You can't do anything when I do either, from my pov.

>> >> >> Such as?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Animals have to die to become meat.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> No cds associated with the deer meat. Lots of cds associated with the
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> vegetable products.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >So what?
>>
>>
>>
>> Well at least that's a step up for you. You can't get as far as so what
>>
>> though. The so what is for people who are far more open minded than you. It's
>>
>> for people who are willing to accept facts like these and take them into
>>
>> consideration, not for people like you who desperately try to deny them because
>>
>> they work against what you WANT TO believe.
>>
>
>I never once tried to deny the claim you made above.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >I'm not aware of anyone having a sensible basis for making such a comparison, no.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> A person would be interested if he/she had an open mind about it instead of
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> closed and trying to put all faith in the misnomer being ethically supreme. A
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> more open minded person is in a position to consider a number of things misnomer
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> addicts can't afford to take into consideration because they work against what
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> eliminationists want to believe.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Consider what things? I'm perfectly happy to consider anything you say as long as you are willing to provide the least scintilla of evidence for it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Probably the most basic thing is that some livestock experience lives of
>>
>> positive value. You say you can't comprehend what that means, while I've
>>
>> provided links to many photos of animals who appear to be enjoying that very
>>
>> thing.
>>
>
>When you speak of "lives of positive value", does that mean that you believe in intrinsic value?

To what? The value has to be to something, not to nothing. So value to what?

>> Another is that some animal products involve fewer deaths than some
>>
>> vegetable products. To think that none do is not only ignorant and naive, but
>>
>> also remarkably stupid. So the question from my position has become whether or
>>
>> not you honestly are ignorant, naive and stupid enough to believe no animal
>>
>> products ever involve fewer deaths than any vegetable products, or are you
>>
>> dishonestly pretending to be. Whichever it is, you're being as closed minded as
>>
>> you could be about it and you'll probably never be able to do any better.
>>
>
>Never once have I made the claim tha tno animal products ever involve fewer deaths than any vegetable products, or said anything that would imply that I think that. You have made a specific claim about how the biscuit compares with the deer meat, and I want to know whether you have the least scintilla of evidence to support that claim. Which you obviously don't.

Can you compehend how commercially raised veal could involve more animal
deaths than hunted deer meat? If so, try providing some reason(s) to believe you
can comprehend. Go:

. . .
A death rate of over 15 mice to start with. Go from there:

>> >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).
>>
>>
>>
>> 77% of a single species for only ONE operation!!!
>>
>>
>>
>> >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."
>>
>>
>>
>> Bullshit. According to what you presented the number is greater than that
>>
>> for mice alone, you lying shit.
>>
>
>That was one study of one operation in which the mortality rate was higher than normal. It now seems that you yourself are the one having trouble comprehending that the mortality rate is different for different operations.

LOL!!! All of that is WAAAAAY higher than you've been trying to get people
to believe. More mice alone than you were saying was the entire number of all
different species combined. You only included less than a tiny little fraction
and tried contemptibly to present it as the whole.

>> >One hectare of soy yields about 1000 kilograms of protein.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >So, suppose that you buy enough tofu to obtain 20 grams of protein (which is the average daily requirement for adults). Your expected contribution to the number of collateral deaths that take place will be 0.00002 * 15 * 0.4 = 0.00012.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >> Then they do and you contribute to them, meaning that what I pointed out is
>>
>> >> >> true. Now the question is: Since you have faith in it enough to send your own
>>
>> >> >> money to contribute to it, why are you ashamed to admit it and try to defend it?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I'm not.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Try defending it then. Go:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I believe that the money I contribute will be effective at helping them to do research about how best to reduce animal suffering,
>>
>>
>>
>> How would they reduce suffering for animals that they want to prevent from
>>
>> having any life at all?
>>
>
>Preventing a life containing a lot of suffering from taking place is a form of suffering reduction.
>
>>
>>
>> >and encouraging people to make donations towards those organizations that are effective at doing so, such that Vegan Outreach and the Humane League for example.
>>
>>
>>
>> So you make donations to an eliminationist organization so they can
>>
>> encourage other people to donate to other eliminationist organizations, the
>>
>> whole time idiotically trying to pretend these people want to reduce suffering
>>
>> for potential future animals they want to prevent from ever having any life at
>>
>> all. LOL...your position is pathetic, though it's funny to think about what it
>>
>> actually is.
>>
>
>I've told you before that EAA has no specific position on whether the elimination of animal agriculture is a desirable ultimate goal. I doubt that Vegan Outreach does either. Yes, the goal is suffering reduction, by means of preventing farm animals from coming into existence.

That's less than meaningless imo. Promoting that is like promoting hoof and
mouth disease from my pov. It only destroys and does NOTHING to improve anything
for any livestock animals, and it's specifically intended NOT TO. Yet you would
like to give them credit, and take credit yourself, for that which you and they
DO NOT DESERVE! I DO deserve credit for contributing to decent lives for laying
hens for buying cage free eggs. You DO NOT deserve any credit for contributing
to anything at all for laying hens. You would like to get credit you DO NOT
deserve, but you damned sure don't get it from me and should NOT get it from
anyone.

>> >> >> >> As yet you've presented not even one single reason to believe that any farm
>>
>> >> >> >> animals have lives which are that full of suffering. You claim to believe most
>>
>> >> >> >> do, yet you can't produce even one single example of what you want people to
>>
>> >> >> >> think you're trying to talk about.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >Except that I have actually presented information which is relevant which you refuse to read.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> I read what you present, and not what you don't.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >That's false.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> What do you want me to try to think is false about it, don't you have any
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> idea?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >You are saying something stupid like I have to copy and paste the information into the actual post before you will read it. That is stupid.
>>
>>
>>
>> It might seem stupid from your tiny stifled little pov, or you may just be
>>
>> afraid of why it's not stupid. Since I want to think what YOU believe makes life
>>
>> of negative value to them, it's up to YOU to present whatever you think it is.
>>
>
>I do,

You don't even know why YOU don't want them to exist, much less can you
provide any reason(s) why anyone else should join you in wanting them not to
exist. How could you persuade anyone to become vegan when you can't give ANY
reasons why people should believe that no livestock animals should exist? You
have NOTHING!!!!!!!

>by presenting links to relevant information. Also, sometimes I copy and paste large segments from the articles I link to and you still refuse to read them.

Do you keep telling that particular lie just so I'll keep pointing out that
I did read what you presented and NOTHING in any of it appears to make life of
negative value for any livestock animals? Or do you not care about me pointing
that fact out but you just like having your lies pointed out in general? What do
you feel that you gain by repeating lies like that???
Try to pick out from all of that exactly what YOU want people to think makes
life of negative value for which creatures. Go:

. . .
>> >If you had some evidence to back up a specific claim about a specific example, then maybe you could provide it and then maybe I would be in a less clueless, ignorant position.
>>
>>
>>
>> Probably what we're discussing is how an animal product can involve fewer
>>
>> deaths than a vegetable product. Let's say a grass raised dairy cow kills two
>>
>> small animals in her life and produces 8 gallons of milk per day for three
>>
>> years. In the other example, rice milk involves the deaths of 40 animals per
>>
>> hectar including rodents, birds, amphibions and reptiles. Compare the two
>>
>> situations and let's see how it comes out.
>>
>
>Well, you need to know how much rice milk you can get from growing one hectare of rice, don't you.

Figure it out if you care enough.

Rupert

unread,
Jun 11, 2013, 1:41:25 PM6/11/13
to
On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 5:53:46 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 22:40:49 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Friday, June 7, 2013 12:03:06 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 23:08:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 8:34:25 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:48:00 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> You STILL want people to think the number of deaths is the same in every
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> soybean field on the planet every season regardless of the number of animals
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> that are or are not present.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >No.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> How much do you want people to think it varies by, and why?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I don't know how much it varies.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Try answering why then.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Why it varies? Well, there would be various factors having an effect on the wildlife population in a given area. An ecologist would be able to tell you what the most important ones were.
>
>
>
> How about the influence of the surrounding area?
>

It's possible, I suppose.

>
>
> >> >This was of course precisely the point of my asking you "What's the standard deviation?"
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> That's your department. You're the one with Davis' 15 deaths per hectare, so
>
> >>
>
> >> you need to fill in the rest of it too. You can't but it's still on you since
>
> >>
>
> >> you stepped in it to begin with.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >No. I don't need to give an estimate for the standard deviation.
>
>
>
> Yes you do but you can't do it. You might if you could, but you can't and
>
> couldn't if you did try.
>

I don't have any idea what the standard deviation is, no. But none of the claims I have made require a knowledge of the standard deviation, as I explained.

>
>
> >None of the claims I have made require any knowledge of the standard deviation. On the other hand, when you claim that sometimes the death toll associated with tofu would be larger than that for grass-fed beef by a factor of hundreds, you do need to know something about the distribution of the data in order to justify that claim.
>
>
>
> Maybe I should just change it to pointing out that the production of tofu
>
> results in the death of over 50% of the population for a number of creatures
>
> that inhabit soy fields, while nowhere near that many are killed by cattle
>
> eating grass in their pastures.
>

But the cows are eventually killed. So you need to have some kind of basis for comparing the death rates for each serving of food.

>
>
> >> >The standard deviation is a measure of how much it varies.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> To me it sound like the standard deviation should be some sort of standard
>
> >>
>
> >> variation, not how much it sometimes CAN and DOES vary.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Well, I gave you the definition.
>
>
>
> What was it?
>

I've given it to you once. Look it up on Wikipedia.

>
>
> >There's really nothing more I can do.
>
>
>
> Do it now. Go:
>

No. I explained it to you once. I'm not going to waste my time explaining it again. Look it up on Wikipedia.

>
>
> >> >> >> I believe that magic number is 15 per hectar in
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> every field, every year, regardless of anything and everything.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >That is absolutely not what I have been saying. Apparently you still do not understand the concept of a mean value despite my very patient efforts to explain.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> How much do you want people to think it varies by, and why?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I don't know. I have an estimate for the mean but not the standard deviation.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You don't know if you have the mean or not. You're just saying it is because
>
> >>
>
> >> you apparently like the number, but there's no reason to believe it's correct
>
> >>
>
> >> and you don't even know how he got it or what area of the planet it's supposedly
>
> >>
>
> >> the mean for or anything like that.
>
> >
>
> >I copied and pasted the relevant quote from the Steven Davis paper, twice, explaining how he got the estimate.
>
> >
>
> >> You don't even know what types of animals it
>
> >>
>
> >> supposedly represents.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I copied and pasted the relevant quote from the Steven Davis paper, twice, explaining what types of animals are involved.
>
>
>
> Maybe, but you didn't say what you think they are.

I copied and pasted the quote. He says what he thinks they are.

> There's no reason to
>
> believe he mentioned all the animals that are killed in soy fields either. Far
>
> from it, imo.

No reason to believe it's not an accurate estimate? Why not?

> So they have to be included in addition to the ones he did
>
> mention. You just have nothing, as I keep pointing out for you.

Actually, I have a quote from Steven Davis explaining how he attempted to do a reasonable empirical estimate for the mean collateral death rate for soybean production. That's something, not nothing. And you've done nothing whatsoever meaningful by way of engaging with it.

> And don't forget
>
> that the number of total deaths is more than 15 for just one species, not 15
>
> total as you dishonestly tried to get me to believe.
>

In one particular field the number of total deaths was more than 15 for just one species. On average, the death rate for field mice is about 15 per hectare.

The total death rate could be a bit more. But it's absurd to think that it would be as high as 3000 per hectare, which is what would be needed to justify your claim that the death rate for tofu is higher than that for grass-fed beef by a factor of "hundreds".

>
>
> >> >> >Yes, to be more exact a factor of 10,000, or as the case may be, 1,000,000.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >So buying just one slice of cheese would still have a measurable impact. And you've given no good reason to think that my estimate for the impact was wrong.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> You've given no reason to believe buying a slice of cheese would have any
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> impact at all, which isn't surprising since it would have none.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I did.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You did not and can not because it has NO influence.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >That's false. I gave my reasoning. Here it is again.
>
> >
>
> >"It takes 10 kg of milk to produce 1 kg of cheese. The cumulative elasticity factor for milk products is 0.45. So buying one 20-gram slice of cheese will lead to an expected increase of 90 grams in the total amount of milk produced.
>
>
>
> How exactly would it do that, and what would be different if that one slice
>
> were not bought?
>

An increase in the demand for milk products leads to an increase in the supply. The cumulative elasticity factor gives you the ratio. If that one slice were not bought, the total profitability of the dairy industry would be slightly smaller and dairy farmers would have less incentive to produce.

>
>
> >The average lifespan of a dairy cow is 2000 days and she will produce about 50,000 kg of milk during her lifetime. So buying one 20-gram slice of cheese, means, overage, an extra six minutes of life experienced by dairy cows."
>
> >
>
> >That is all based on publicly available information.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >I gave you my calculations and the data that I used.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >And if buying 10,000 slices of cheese would have some impact then it is simply not possible that buying one slice of cheese would have literally zero impact. I have a PhD in maths; I know that zero multiplied by 10,000 is not greater then zero.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> That doesn't matter in this case.
>
> >
>
> >Why not?
>
> >
>
> >> Where are you imagining buying this single
>
> >>
>
> >> slice of cheese anyway? Wherever it is it won't have any impact on any livestock
>
> >>
>
> >> anywhere.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I can buy a slice of cheese on a bread roll at my local cafe. The probability is high that there will be no impact on livestock.
>
>
>
> Or anything at all, as I pointed out from the start.
>
>
>
> >But there is a small probability that it will have some effect.
>
>
>
> No there isn't.

Of course there is. There has to be. Otherwise you could buy 10,000 of these slices of cheese and the probability would still be zero that it would have any effect, which is absurd.

> Not even if you bought it directly from the farmer, much
>
> less after it gets filtered through all the hands it would take to get on a
>
> sandwich.
>
>
>
> >As a result, there is a positive expected contribution to the amount of life experienced by dairy cows.
>
>
>
> Nope.
>

You're a fool.

>
>
> >> Goo would disagree with you on this I feel sure, and he likes to pretend he
>
> >>
>
> >> knows something about economics. He might agree with you, but I doubt even the
>
> >>
>
> >> Goober would go along with such an absurd idea, doc.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Well, anyone can agree or disagree with me as they see fit,
>
>
>
> Damn few would be fool enough to agree and none should, imo.
>
>
>
> >what I am interested in is some evidence that I am wrong.
>
>
>
> The fact that there's no way buying a slice of cheese COULD have impact on
>
> anything is some very strong evidence, now that you mention it.
>

Why is there no way that could happen?

>
>
> >I have provided the reasoning,
>
>
>
> HOW exactly could a slice of cheese influence anything at any farm anywhere?
>

By providing economic incentives for further activity to take place.

> What particular set of conditions must exist around the slice you're imagining
>
> in order to make it possible that it have some influence? Do you believe all
>
> slices of cheese in the world have equal potential to have influence, or that
>
> some have much more potential than others do?
>

The more slices of cheese are bought, the more incentive there is for dairy farmers to engage in further activity. Most purchases don't have any impact whatever, but some purchases are "threshold purchases" which lead to a substantial increase in the amount of future dairy production activity.

>
>
> >now it needs to be engaged with in some way.
>
>
>
> Then try answering my questions. Go:
>
>
>
> >You have not engaged with it at all.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >Do you have any kind of sensible estimate of the number of deaths required for the biscuit?
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> We don't.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >Right, so how is it that you are in a position to know that it is larger than the number of deaths associated with the deer meat?
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >> It's associated with all the cds associated with growing the grain while the
>
> >>
>
> >> >> deer meat is associated with none. It's understandable why you want it not to be
>
> >>
>
> >> >> true, but it's also idiotic of you to try pretending it isn't.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I find your thick-skulledness extraordinary. The deer meat may not have required any CD's, but it requires some deaths, namely the death of the deer. You have to work out what fraction of a death is associated with a serving of deer meat and compare that with the numbers of CD's associated with the biscuit. And you seem to have admitted that you have absolutely no basis for doing so.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Why are you so opposed to seeing the comparison made?
>
> >
>
> >Dear Lord in Heaven. I have been trying to get you to make the comparison throughout this entire thread. The point is you obviously do not have the necessary data.
>
>
>
> Commercially grown products contribute to many wildlife deaths while
>
> consuming hunted deer meat contributes to none. Can you comprehend how pork that
>
> was bought in a supermarket could contribute to more deaths than hunted deer
>
> meat? If so, try providing some reason(s) to believe you are able to comprehend.
>

Well, for one thing, the pig was probably fed with grains whose production caused cd's.

> Go:
>
>
>
> >> ONLY because you know
>
> >>
>
> >> the veggies involve more cds than the deer meat. If you honestly believed the
>
> >>
>
> >> veggies do not, then you'd try to support that instead of complaining that the
>
> >>
>
> >> comparison is being made.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >But I'm not complaining that the comparison has been made. I simply want you to provide one scintilla of evidence to back up your claim. Which you obviously can't do.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >There are some deaths caused by grain production, and there are some deaths caused by deer meat production.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Like what?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >In order to produce some meat, an animal must die in order to become meat.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> That's one death. It's the veggies that involve some deaths, not the deer
>
> >>
>
> >> meat. That's why the deer meat is in a different class. The fact that it is
>
> >>
>
> >> works against your imagined ethical superiority to all vegetable products over
>
> >>
>
> >> all animal products which is absurd to the point of a form of insanity from my
>
> >>
>
> >> pov, and it makes you very uncomfortable.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Producing one hectare of whatever grain would be required to produce the biscuit would probably involve more than one death. Producing enough deer meat to be calorically equivalent to however many biscuits could be made from that much grain would probably involve more than one death, too. If you want to make the comparison, it has to be between calorically equivalent servings of food. You don't have any idea how the comparison would turn out.
>
>
>
> We'd certainly have to consider the fact that meat is a lot more nutritious
>
> and therefore it would take less meat than it would biscuit to provide the
>
> nutrition. We'd also have to take more than just calories into consideration but
>
> also protein, so you'd have to include enough biscuit to provide an amount of
>
> protein equal to that of the deer meat. That would probably take a LOT of
>
> biscuit, if it would be possible at all.
>

Well, have you changed your mind about what you're comparing? I thought you were comparing the biscuit and the deer meat. Now you're saying you want to compare a serving of biscuit that has the same amount of protein. Make up your mind.

>
>
> >> >(Unbelievable, simply unbelievable.)
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The discomfort is caused by your cognitive dissonance. Your cognitive
>
> >>
>
> >> dissonance is caused by the fact that hunted meat involving fewer deaths than
>
> >>
>
> >> commercially grown vegetable products works against what you WANT TO believe.
>
> >>
>
> >> That's how that works.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I don't care one way or the other. If you could actually produce some evidence to support your claim, I'd simply say "Fine, you have supported your claim". I was just curious to know whether you actually had any evidence at all. Which you obviously don't.
>
>
>
> Can you comprehend how commercially raised chicken could involve more animal
>
> deaths than deer meat that has been hunted? If so, provide some reason(s) to
>
> believe you can comprehend. Go:
>

The animals are smaller, and they would be fed grains that would involve cd's.

>
>
> >> >> >You've provided no sensible basis for a comparison between the two.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> The comparison is between the vegetable parts and the animal parts of a meal
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> a friend and I were discussing.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Yes, and you haven't got any sensible basis on which to make that comparison.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I've got cds vs no cds on which to make it.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >That is not a sufficient basis for making the comparison.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >False. I gave you the reasoning by which the estimate was arrived at, including a quote from Steven Davis explaning where he got his data. You haven't engaged with this reasoning or with this data.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> I don't believe you presented it, or that you can present it at all.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >You know that I copied and pasted a quote from the Steven Davis paper elsewhere, explaining the basis for the estimate of the collateral death rate associated with soybean production. You also saw my calculations where I worked out the number of deaths associated with one cup of tofu. You have not engaged with any of this in any way.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> There's nothing really there and you haven't been able to trick me into
>
> >>
>
> >> believing there is. I did notice his estimate of killing over 50% of the
>
> >>
>
> >> populations of various types of animals though. That's higher than I had thought
>
> >>
>
> >> when I first started pointing out the distinctions between beef and tofu, so the
>
> >>
>
> >> info you presented makes me feel that the beef would involve an even smaller
>
> >>
>
> >> amount of deaths compared with the soy than I'd thought to begin with, IF Davis
>
> >>
>
> >> is right. So the info you presented makes me more confident that I'm right, not
>
> >>
>
> >> less.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I've presented the evidence for my claim. You haven't told me what's wrong with the argument.
>
>
>
> What have I told you, and asked you about?
>

Can't remember. You've been talking complete bollocks, from what I can recall.

>
>
> >There's nothing I can do if you refuse to engage with the evidence.
>
>
>
> LOL... You can't do anything when I do either, from my pov.
>

Well, we wouldn't know, because you never do engage with the evidence.

>
>
> >> >> >> Such as?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >Animals have to die to become meat.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> No cds associated with the deer meat. Lots of cds associated with the
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> vegetable products.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >So what?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Well at least that's a step up for you. You can't get as far as so what
>
> >>
>
> >> though. The so what is for people who are far more open minded than you. It's
>
> >>
>
> >> for people who are willing to accept facts like these and take them into
>
> >>
>
> >> consideration, not for people like you who desperately try to deny them because
>
> >>
>
> >> they work against what you WANT TO believe.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I never once tried to deny the claim you made above.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >I'm not aware of anyone having a sensible basis for making such a comparison, no.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> A person would be interested if he/she had an open mind about it instead of
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> closed and trying to put all faith in the misnomer being ethically supreme. A
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> more open minded person is in a position to consider a number of things misnomer
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> addicts can't afford to take into consideration because they work against what
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> eliminationists want to believe.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Consider what things? I'm perfectly happy to consider anything you say as long as you are willing to provide the least scintilla of evidence for it.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Probably the most basic thing is that some livestock experience lives of
>
> >>
>
> >> positive value. You say you can't comprehend what that means, while I've
>
> >>
>
> >> provided links to many photos of animals who appear to be enjoying that very
>
> >>
>
> >> thing.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >When you speak of "lives of positive value", does that mean that you believe in intrinsic value?
>
>
>
> To what? The value has to be to something, not to nothing. So value to what?
>

It sounds as though you don't believe in intrinsic value.

So you believe that life itself is of value to living organisms? Or is it the pleasurable experiences that they have which is of value to them?

>
>
> >> Another is that some animal products involve fewer deaths than some
>
> >>
>
> >> vegetable products. To think that none do is not only ignorant and naive, but
>
> >>
>
> >> also remarkably stupid. So the question from my position has become whether or
>
> >>
>
> >> not you honestly are ignorant, naive and stupid enough to believe no animal
>
> >>
>
> >> products ever involve fewer deaths than any vegetable products, or are you
>
> >>
>
> >> dishonestly pretending to be. Whichever it is, you're being as closed minded as
>
> >>
>
> >> you could be about it and you'll probably never be able to do any better.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Never once have I made the claim tha tno animal products ever involve fewer deaths than any vegetable products, or said anything that would imply that I think that. You have made a specific claim about how the biscuit compares with the deer meat, and I want to know whether you have the least scintilla of evidence to support that claim. Which you obviously don't.
>
>
>
> Can you compehend how commercially raised veal could involve more animal
>
> deaths than hunted deer meat? If so, try providing some reason(s) to believe you
>
> can comprehend. Go:
>

Well, it would depend what the veal calves were being fed.
That's in the abnormal situation of an 80% death rate. The mean death rate is about 60%. We're talking about the mean here.

>
>
> >> >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).
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> 77% of a single species for only ONE operation!!!
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >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."
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Bullshit. According to what you presented the number is greater than that
>
> >>
>
> >> for mice alone, you lying shit.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >That was one study of one operation in which the mortality rate was higher than normal. It now seems that you yourself are the one having trouble comprehending that the mortality rate is different for different operations.
>
>
>
> LOL!!! All of that is WAAAAAY higher than you've been trying to get people
>
> to believe. More mice alone than you were saying was the entire number of all
>
> different species combined. You only included less than a tiny little fraction
>
> and tried contemptibly to present it as the whole.
>

Well, what do you think the mortality rate is, then, for heaven's sake? You think it's 3000 per hectare, do you?

>
>
> >> >One hectare of soy yields about 1000 kilograms of protein.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >So, suppose that you buy enough tofu to obtain 20 grams of protein (which is the average daily requirement for adults). Your expected contribution to the number of collateral deaths that take place will be 0.00002 * 15 * 0.4 = 0.00012.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> Then they do and you contribute to them, meaning that what I pointed out is
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> true. Now the question is: Since you have faith in it enough to send your own
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> money to contribute to it, why are you ashamed to admit it and try to defend it?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >I'm not.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Try defending it then. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I believe that the money I contribute will be effective at helping them to do research about how best to reduce animal suffering,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> How would they reduce suffering for animals that they want to prevent from
>
> >>
>
> >> having any life at all?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Preventing a life containing a lot of suffering from taking place is a form of suffering reduction.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >and encouraging people to make donations towards those organizations that are effective at doing so, such that Vegan Outreach and the Humane League for example.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> So you make donations to an eliminationist organization so they can
>
> >>
>
> >> encourage other people to donate to other eliminationist organizations, the
>
> >>
>
> >> whole time idiotically trying to pretend these people want to reduce suffering
>
> >>
>
> >> for potential future animals they want to prevent from ever having any life at
>
> >>
>
> >> all. LOL...your position is pathetic, though it's funny to think about what it
>
> >>
>
> >> actually is.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I've told you before that EAA has no specific position on whether the elimination of animal agriculture is a desirable ultimate goal. I doubt that Vegan Outreach does either. Yes, the goal is suffering reduction, by means of preventing farm animals from coming into existence.
>
>
>
> That's less than meaningless imo.

And why, pray tell, do you think that?

> Promoting that is like promoting hoof and
>
> mouth disease from my pov. It only destroys and does NOTHING to improve anything
>
> for any livestock animals, and it's specifically intended NOT TO. Yet you would
>
> like to give them credit, and take credit yourself, for that which you and they
>
> DO NOT DESERVE! I DO deserve credit for contributing to decent lives for laying
>
> hens for buying cage free eggs. You DO NOT deserve any credit for contributing
>
> to anything at all for laying hens. You would like to get credit you DO NOT
>
> deserve,

No, I wouldn't.

> but you damned sure don't get it from me and should NOT get it from
>
> anyone.
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> As yet you've presented not even one single reason to believe that any farm
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >> animals have lives which are that full of suffering. You claim to believe most
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >> do, yet you can't produce even one single example of what you want people to
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >> think you're trying to talk about.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> >Except that I have actually presented information which is relevant which you refuse to read.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >> I read what you present, and not what you don't.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >That's false.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> What do you want me to try to think is false about it, don't you have any
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> idea?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >You are saying something stupid like I have to copy and paste the information into the actual post before you will read it. That is stupid.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> It might seem stupid from your tiny stifled little pov, or you may just be
>
> >>
>
> >> afraid of why it's not stupid. Since I want to think what YOU believe makes life
>
> >>
>
> >> of negative value to them, it's up to YOU to present whatever you think it is.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I do,
>
>
>
> You don't even know why YOU don't want them to exist, much less can you
>
> provide any reason(s) why anyone else should join you in wanting them not to
>
> exist. How could you persuade anyone to become vegan when you can't give ANY
>
> reasons why people should believe that no livestock animals should exist? You
>
> have NOTHING!!!!!!!
>

I have presented some reasons. You refuse to read them.

>
>
> >by presenting links to relevant information. Also, sometimes I copy and paste large segments from the articles I link to and you still refuse to read them.
>
>
>
> Do you keep telling that particular lie just so I'll keep pointing out that
>
> I did read what you presented and NOTHING in any of it appears to make life of
>
> negative value for any livestock animals?

Do you think it is fair to say that the information I presented demonstrates that broiler chicken farming causes a lot of suffering?
All of it. For broiler chickens.

>
>
> . . .
>
> >> >If you had some evidence to back up a specific claim about a specific example, then maybe you could provide it and then maybe I would be in a less clueless, ignorant position.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Probably what we're discussing is how an animal product can involve fewer
>
> >>
>
> >> deaths than a vegetable product. Let's say a grass raised dairy cow kills two
>
> >>
>
> >> small animals in her life and produces 8 gallons of milk per day for three
>
> >>
>
> >> years. In the other example, rice milk involves the deaths of 40 animals per
>
> >>
>
> >> hectar including rodents, birds, amphibions and reptiles. Compare the two
>
> >>
>
> >> situations and let's see how it comes out.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Well, you need to know how much rice milk you can get from growing one hectare of rice, don't you.
>
>
>
> Figure it out if you care enough.

I don't care all that much, no.

dh

unread,
Jun 13, 2013, 3:59:51 PM6/13/13
to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:41:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 5:53:46 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 22:40:49 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Friday, June 7, 2013 12:03:06 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 23:08:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 8:34:25 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:48:00 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> You STILL want people to think the number of deaths is the same in every
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> soybean field on the planet every season regardless of the number of animals
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> that are or are not present.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >No.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> How much do you want people to think it varies by, and why?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I don't know how much it varies.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Try answering why then.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Why it varies? Well, there would be various factors having an effect on the wildlife population in a given area. An ecologist would be able to tell you what the most important ones were.
>>
>>
>>
>> How about the influence of the surrounding area?
>>
>
>It's possible, I suppose.

How could it? Try to think of some ways, and about how MUCH influence. Also
in the case of rice...even more so in fact. See what you come up with yourself
even just thinking about it, if you can.

>> >> >This was of course precisely the point of my asking you "What's the standard deviation?"
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> That's your department. You're the one with Davis' 15 deaths per hectare, so
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you need to fill in the rest of it too. You can't but it's still on you since
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you stepped in it to begin with.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >No. I don't need to give an estimate for the standard deviation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes you do but you can't do it. You might if you could, but you can't and
>>
>> couldn't if you did try.
>>
>
>I don't have any idea what the standard deviation is, no.

You don't know what any of it is, including the standard deviation. You
don't know what the mean is, or if there even is one. If there is don't you
think it changes every day to some extent, especially during popular harvest
periods?

>But none of the claims I have made require a knowledge of the standard deviation, as I explained.

LOL! YOU brought it up.

>> >None of the claims I have made require any knowledge of the standard deviation. On the other hand, when you claim that sometimes the death toll associated with tofu would be larger than that for grass-fed beef by a factor of hundreds, you do need to know something about the distribution of the data in order to justify that claim.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe I should just change it to pointing out that the production of tofu
>>
>> results in the death of over 50% of the population for a number of creatures
>>
>> that inhabit soy fields, while nowhere near that many are killed by cattle
>>
>> eating grass in their pastures.
>>
>
>But the cows are eventually killed. So you need to have some kind of basis for comparing the death rates for each serving of food.

It would be on a case by case basis. But we can consider the processes.

In one situation we have cattle eating grass, and however many wild animals
sharing the area and sometimes the grass with them. Once in a while some of the
cattle will surely kill something by stepping on it, but by FAR the vast
majority of the wildlife living in the pastures don't get killed by the cattle.

In the other situation we have land that is untouched for several months, giving
wildlife from surrounding areas (when they exist) the opportunity to populate
the land we're discussing. Heavy tractors and farm machinery enter the area and
turn the ground inside out, killing however many of the animals living in the
area. It is then done again killing more of whatever are left. Then it's entered
by machines that plant the seed. Then it's left alone for a while giving the
seed time to grow and wildlife from the surrounding areas time again to
repopulate the land we're discussing. After a period of however long (probably
months) the area is often treated with chemicals which will killl whatever
percentage of the populations of wildlife. If heavy machinery is used to apply
the chemicals to the area instead of planes flying above it, that many more
deaths will result. The aree may be treated with chemicals more than once per
growing season. After a period of time (probably months) the crop is harvested.
Heavy farm machinery enters the are harvesting the crop and killing whatever
percentage of wildlife. Also after harvest a certain percentage of the surviving
wildlife will be killed because they don't have the shelter they did have to
hide them from predators. According to the info you presented ONE of the various
operations kills more than 50% of the wildlife. Sometimes ONE operation kills as
much as 80% of some populations! There are several operations! And you really
want me to believe that you can't figure out how these processes kill
significantly more wildlife than cattle do by eating grass? That you can't
figure out how it EVER does??? LOL...and that you have a PhD in math too! LOL!

>> >> >The standard deviation is a measure of how much it varies.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> To me it sound like the standard deviation should be some sort of standard
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> variation, not how much it sometimes CAN and DOES vary.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Well, I gave you the definition.
>>
>>
>>
>> What was it?
>>
>
>I've given it to you once. Look it up on Wikipedia.

You've let me know that it doesn't matter.

>> >There's really nothing more I can do.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do it now. Go:
>>
>
>No.

Then don't bring it up any more, especially since it doesn't matter.

>I explained it to you once. I'm not going to waste my time explaining it again. Look it up on Wikipedia.

LOL. I'm not going to waste my time looking into it especially now that
you've shown that it doesn't matter.

>> >> >> >> I believe that magic number is 15 per hectar in
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> every field, every year, regardless of anything and everything.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >That is absolutely not what I have been saying. Apparently you still do not understand the concept of a mean value despite my very patient efforts to explain.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> How much do you want people to think it varies by, and why?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I don't know. I have an estimate for the mean but not the standard deviation.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You don't know if you have the mean or not. You're just saying it is because
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you apparently like the number, but there's no reason to believe it's correct
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> and you don't even know how he got it or what area of the planet it's supposedly
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> the mean for or anything like that.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I copied and pasted the relevant quote from the Steven Davis paper, twice, explaining how he got the estimate.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> You don't even know what types of animals it
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> supposedly represents.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I copied and pasted the relevant quote from the Steven Davis paper, twice, explaining what types of animals are involved.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe, but you didn't say what you think they are.
>
>I copied and pasted the quote. He says what he thinks they are.

He did NOT list all the animals that die in soybean production.

>> There's no reason to
>>
>> believe he mentioned all the animals that are killed in soy fields either. Far
>>
>> from it, imo.
>
>No reason to believe it's not an accurate estimate? Why not?

Because I have no reason to believe it is, and reason to believe he didn't
list some species that are killed. He didn't even say that he mentioned all of
them.

>> So they have to be included in addition to the ones he did
>>
>> mention. You just have nothing, as I keep pointing out for you.
>
>Actually, I have a quote from Steven Davis explaining how he attempted to do a reasonable empirical estimate for the mean collateral death rate for soybean production. That's something, not nothing. And you've done nothing whatsoever meaningful by way of engaging with it.
>
>> And don't forget
>>
>> that the number of total deaths is more than 15 for just one species, not 15
>>
>> total as you dishonestly tried to get me to believe.
>>
>
>In one particular field the number of total deaths was more than 15 for just one species. On average, the death rate for field mice is about 15 per hectare.

That's just ONE type of animal, but you dishonestly tried to pretend it was
the total number of deaths for all animals killed until I caught you at it and
pointed it out.

>The total death rate could be a bit more.

LOL!!! It could also be a LOT more.

>But it's absurd to think that it would be as high as 3000 per hectare, which is what would be needed to justify your claim that the death rate for tofu is higher than that for grass-fed beef by a factor of "hundreds".

What is the death rate per hectare of wildlife killed by cattle eating
grass?

>> >> >> >Yes, to be more exact a factor of 10,000, or as the case may be, 1,000,000.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >So buying just one slice of cheese would still have a measurable impact. And you've given no good reason to think that my estimate for the impact was wrong.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> You've given no reason to believe buying a slice of cheese would have any
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> impact at all, which isn't surprising since it would have none.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I did.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You did not and can not because it has NO influence.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >That's false. I gave my reasoning. Here it is again.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >"It takes 10 kg of milk to produce 1 kg of cheese. The cumulative elasticity factor for milk products is 0.45. So buying one 20-gram slice of cheese will lead to an expected increase of 90 grams in the total amount of milk produced.
>>
>>
>>
>> How exactly would it do that, and what would be different if that one slice
>>
>> were not bought?
>>
>
>An increase in the demand for milk products leads to an increase in the supply. The cumulative elasticity factor gives you the ratio. If that one slice were not bought, the total profitability of the dairy industry would be slightly smaller and dairy farmers would have less incentive to produce.

LOL!!!! You certainly live in an imaginary world that does not exist on this
planet, and probably doesn't exist anywhere in the universe imo.

>> >The average lifespan of a dairy cow is 2000 days and she will produce about 50,000 kg of milk during her lifetime. So buying one 20-gram slice of cheese, means, overage, an extra six minutes of life experienced by dairy cows."
>>
>> >
>>
>> >That is all based on publicly available information.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I gave you my calculations and the data that I used.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >And if buying 10,000 slices of cheese would have some impact then it is simply not possible that buying one slice of cheese would have literally zero impact. I have a PhD in maths; I know that zero multiplied by 10,000 is not greater then zero.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> That doesn't matter in this case.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Why not?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> Where are you imagining buying this single
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> slice of cheese anyway? Wherever it is it won't have any impact on any livestock
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> anywhere.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I can buy a slice of cheese on a bread roll at my local cafe. The probability is high that there will be no impact on livestock.
>>
>>
>>
>> Or anything at all, as I pointed out from the start.
>>
>>
>>
>> >But there is a small probability that it will have some effect.
>>
>>
>>
>> No there isn't.
>
>Of course there is. There has to be. Otherwise you could buy 10,000 of these slices of cheese and the probability would still be zero that it would have any effect, which is absurd.

You honestly believe the sale of 10K slices of cheese would have an impact
on the entire dairy industry?

>> Not even if you bought it directly from the farmer, much
>>
>> less after it gets filtered through all the hands it would take to get on a
>>
>> sandwich.
>>
>>
>>
>> >As a result, there is a positive expected contribution to the amount of life experienced by dairy cows.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>
>You're a fool.

Maybe, but you're a bigger fool however much a fool I am.

>> >> Goo would disagree with you on this I feel sure, and he likes to pretend he
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> knows something about economics. He might agree with you, but I doubt even the
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Goober would go along with such an absurd idea, doc.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Well, anyone can agree or disagree with me as they see fit,
>>
>>
>>
>> Damn few would be fool enough to agree and none should, imo.
>>
>>
>>
>> >what I am interested in is some evidence that I am wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> The fact that there's no way buying a slice of cheese COULD have impact on
>>
>> anything is some very strong evidence, now that you mention it.
>>
>
>Why is there no way that could happen?

Because farmers invest enough time, effort and money in their business that
the sale or not of a single slice of cheese is not enough to be significant to
them. Even a guy with a PhD in math should be able to figure that out, so if you
honestly can't figure it out ask someone else who has a PhD in math, and please
let me know what they tell you. Don't change it for them either. Ask them why
the sale of ONE SLICE of cheese won't do anything to influence the entire dairy
industry or even one farmer that's involved in it, and let us know here what
they tell you. Oh, and just for fun, ask your dad too. I'm curious what he would
think if he knew you were in here acting so stupid that you think the sale of
one slice of cheese could be significant, that you can't figure out how the
processes of growing soy kill more than cattle do by eating grass, and that you:
"don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of
negative value" means anything."

>> >I have provided the reasoning,
>>
>>
>>
>> HOW exactly could a slice of cheese influence anything at any farm anywhere?
>>
>
>By providing economic incentives for further activity to take place.
>
>> What particular set of conditions must exist around the slice you're imagining
>>
>> in order to make it possible that it have some influence? Do you believe all
>>
>> slices of cheese in the world have equal potential to have influence, or that
>>
>> some have much more potential than others do?
>>
>
>The more slices of cheese are bought, the more incentive there is for dairy farmers to engage in further activity. Most purchases don't have any impact whatever, but some purchases are "threshold purchases"

All of a sudden you're throwing in a distinction since I questioned you
about it. So what do you want us to think distinguishes between threshold
purchases and non threshold purchases of single slices of cheese?

>which lead to a substantial increase in the amount of future dairy production activity.
>
>>
>>
>> >now it needs to be engaged with in some way.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then try answering my questions. Go:
>>
>>
>>
>> >You have not engaged with it at all.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> >Do you have any kind of sensible estimate of the number of deaths required for the biscuit?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> We don't.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >Right, so how is it that you are in a position to know that it is larger than the number of deaths associated with the deer meat?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> It's associated with all the cds associated with growing the grain while the
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> deer meat is associated with none. It's understandable why you want it not to be
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> true, but it's also idiotic of you to try pretending it isn't.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I find your thick-skulledness extraordinary. The deer meat may not have required any CD's, but it requires some deaths, namely the death of the deer. You have to work out what fraction of a death is associated with a serving of deer meat and compare that with the numbers of CD's associated with the biscuit. And you seem to have admitted that you have absolutely no basis for doing so.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Why are you so opposed to seeing the comparison made?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Dear Lord in Heaven. I have been trying to get you to make the comparison throughout this entire thread. The point is you obviously do not have the necessary data.
>>
>>
>>
>> Commercially grown products contribute to many wildlife deaths while
>>
>> consuming hunted deer meat contributes to none. Can you comprehend how pork that
>>
>> was bought in a supermarket could contribute to more deaths than hunted deer
>>
>> meat? If so, try providing some reason(s) to believe you are able to comprehend.
>>
>
>Well, for one thing, the pig was probably fed with grains whose production caused cd's.

Why can you appreciate that in regards to grain eaten by livestock but not
grain eaten by humans?

>> Go:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> ONLY because you know
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> the veggies involve more cds than the deer meat. If you honestly believed the
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> veggies do not, then you'd try to support that instead of complaining that the
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> comparison is being made.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >But I'm not complaining that the comparison has been made. I simply want you to provide one scintilla of evidence to back up your claim. Which you obviously can't do.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >There are some deaths caused by grain production, and there are some deaths caused by deer meat production.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> Like what?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >In order to produce some meat, an animal must die in order to become meat.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> That's one death. It's the veggies that involve some deaths, not the deer
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> meat. That's why the deer meat is in a different class. The fact that it is
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> works against your imagined ethical superiority to all vegetable products over
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> all animal products which is absurd to the point of a form of insanity from my
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> pov, and it makes you very uncomfortable.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Producing one hectare of whatever grain would be required to produce the biscuit would probably involve more than one death. Producing enough deer meat to be calorically equivalent to however many biscuits could be made from that much grain would probably involve more than one death, too. If you want to make the comparison, it has to be between calorically equivalent servings of food. You don't have any idea how the comparison would turn out.
>>
>>
>>
>> We'd certainly have to consider the fact that meat is a lot more nutritious
>>
>> and therefore it would take less meat than it would biscuit to provide the
>>
>> nutrition. We'd also have to take more than just calories into consideration but
>>
>> also protein, so you'd have to include enough biscuit to provide an amount of
>>
>> protein equal to that of the deer meat. That would probably take a LOT of
>>
>> biscuit, if it would be possible at all.
>>
>
>Well, have you changed your mind about what you're comparing?

YOU are the one who suggested comparing the nutritional value. Did you
forget about YOU wanting to do that? You said "it has to be between calorically
equivalent servings of food". I'm saying that since you want to include calories
we should also include protein.

>I thought you were comparing the biscuit and the deer meat. Now you're saying you want to compare a serving of biscuit that has the same amount of protein. Make up your mind.

Since you want to compare nutritional value we must include calories and
protein.

>> >> >(Unbelievable, simply unbelievable.)
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> The discomfort is caused by your cognitive dissonance. Your cognitive
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> dissonance is caused by the fact that hunted meat involving fewer deaths than
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> commercially grown vegetable products works against what you WANT TO believe.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> That's how that works.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I don't care one way or the other. If you could actually produce some evidence to support your claim, I'd simply say "Fine, you have supported your claim". I was just curious to know whether you actually had any evidence at all. Which you obviously don't.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you comprehend how commercially raised chicken could involve more animal
>>
>> deaths than deer meat that has been hunted? If so, provide some reason(s) to
>>
>> believe you can comprehend. Go:
>>
>
>The animals are smaller, and they would be fed grains that would involve cd's.

Why can you appreciate that in regards to grain eaten by livestock but not
grain eaten by humans?

>> >> >> >You've provided no sensible basis for a comparison between the two.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> The comparison is between the vegetable parts and the animal parts of a meal
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> a friend and I were discussing.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Yes, and you haven't got any sensible basis on which to make that comparison.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> I've got cds vs no cds on which to make it.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >That is not a sufficient basis for making the comparison.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >False. I gave you the reasoning by which the estimate was arrived at, including a quote from Steven Davis explaning where he got his data. You haven't engaged with this reasoning or with this data.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> I don't believe you presented it, or that you can present it at all.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >You know that I copied and pasted a quote from the Steven Davis paper elsewhere, explaining the basis for the estimate of the collateral death rate associated with soybean production. You also saw my calculations where I worked out the number of deaths associated with one cup of tofu. You have not engaged with any of this in any way.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> There's nothing really there and you haven't been able to trick me into
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> believing there is. I did notice his estimate of killing over 50% of the
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> populations of various types of animals though. That's higher than I had thought
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> when I first started pointing out the distinctions between beef and tofu, so the
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> info you presented makes me feel that the beef would involve an even smaller
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> amount of deaths compared with the soy than I'd thought to begin with, IF Davis
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> is right. So the info you presented makes me more confident that I'm right, not
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> less.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I've presented the evidence for my claim. You haven't told me what's wrong with the argument.
>>
>>
>>
>> What have I told you, and asked you about?
>>
>
>Can't remember. You've been talking complete bollocks, from what I can recall.

I pointed out that the number of wildlife living in an area has an influence
on the number of wildlife that are killed. There was a time you pretended that
you could appreciate that aspect, but now you reveal the truth that to YOU that
aspect is "complete bollocks". I wonder what your dad would think if he knew you
were in here acting too stupid to comprehend THIS aspect of the situation TOO.

>> >There's nothing I can do if you refuse to engage with the evidence.
>>
>>
>>
>> LOL... You can't do anything when I do either, from my pov.
>>
>
>Well, we wouldn't know, because you never do engage with the evidence.

That's a blatant lie. So you see you ARE a liar so I am VERY justified in
considering you to be one. How MUCH lying you do is all that's in some question,
but whether you lie or not is NOT in question since this is another blatant one.
You also lied and lied and lied that I didn't give you any kind of explanation
about lives of positive value. That's only ONE other example of your blatant
lying. Oh yeah, another VERY blatant lie was you lying that Davis said
...LOL!... only 15 deaths per hectare total for soy production, when the truth
is he said over 15 deaths of a single type of animal, and I believe that was
also only in ONE operation.
Unless you can say what it's TOO, you don't either. Even if you would like
to think that you do, you prove that you do NOT.

>So you believe that life itself is of value to living organisms?

It's necessary in order to benefit from anything else otherwise things could
continue to benefit after they're dead. Were you somehow unaware of that?

>Or is it the pleasurable experiences that they have which is of value to them?

Not "or". What could give you the impression it could be one "or" the other,
but not both?
So far I've no reason to think it's abnormal for one thing. And for another
thing if I remember correctly that was for just ONE operation, not the entire
growing season.
Admit that you live your lifestyle in a specific attempt NOT TO contribute
to anything or in any way to livestock then.

>> but you damned sure don't get it from me and should NOT get it from
>>
>> anyone.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> >> As yet you've presented not even one single reason to believe that any farm
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> >> animals have lives which are that full of suffering. You claim to believe most
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> >> do, yet you can't produce even one single example of what you want people to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> >> think you're trying to talk about.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> >Except that I have actually presented information which is relevant which you refuse to read.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >> I read what you present, and not what you don't.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >That's false.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> What do you want me to try to think is false about it, don't you have any
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> idea?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >You are saying something stupid like I have to copy and paste the information into the actual post before you will read it. That is stupid.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> It might seem stupid from your tiny stifled little pov, or you may just be
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> afraid of why it's not stupid. Since I want to think what YOU believe makes life
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> of negative value to them, it's up to YOU to present whatever you think it is.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I do,
>>
>>
>>
>> You don't even know why YOU don't want them to exist, much less can you
>>
>> provide any reason(s) why anyone else should join you in wanting them not to
>>
>> exist. How could you persuade anyone to become vegan when you can't give ANY
>>
>> reasons why people should believe that no livestock animals should exist? You
>>
>> have NOTHING!!!!!!!
>>
>
>I have presented some reasons. You refuse to read them.

Like the holding back of feed to the parents of broiler chickens? YES!
Another one of your blatant lies is that I haven't read the things I've already
discussed with you because I did read them. Damn you are a dishonest person. I
wonder what your dad would think if he knew that not only are you acting too
stupid to comprehend simple and obvious things, but also that you lie and lie
and lie... Or maybe he wouldn't be suprised because you do the same sort of
things in your real life.

>> >by presenting links to relevant information. Also, sometimes I copy and paste large segments from the articles I link to and you still refuse to read them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you keep telling that particular lie just so I'll keep pointing out that
>>
>> I did read what you presented and NOTHING in any of it appears to make life of
>>
>> negative value for any livestock animals?
>
>Do you think it is fair to say that the information I presented demonstrates that broiler chicken farming causes a lot of suffering?

You said I didn't read it. Retract that particular lie and I'll answer your
question, though I already have told you.
Try to find photos backing up the claims. We need to see photos of broiler
houses where the birds appear to be suffering from the things metioned. Go:

>> . . .
>>
>> >> >If you had some evidence to back up a specific claim about a specific example, then maybe you could provide it and then maybe I would be in a less clueless, ignorant position.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Probably what we're discussing is how an animal product can involve fewer
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> deaths than a vegetable product. Let's say a grass raised dairy cow kills two
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> small animals in her life and produces 8 gallons of milk per day for three
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> years. In the other example, rice milk involves the deaths of 40 animals per
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> hectar including rodents, birds, amphibions and reptiles. Compare the two
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> situations and let's see how it comes out.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Well, you need to know how much rice milk you can get from growing one hectare of rice, don't you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Figure it out if you care enough.
>
>I don't care all that much, no.

You don't care that soy is worse than grass raised cow milk, and you don't
care that rice is worse than both. You can't afford to. What could you eat if
you gave up eating grains because they involve more deaths than some animal
products?

Rupert

unread,
Jun 14, 2013, 5:18:09 AM6/14/13
to
On Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:59:51 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:41:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> >It's possible, I suppose.
>
>
>
> How could it? Try to think of some ways, and about how MUCH influence. Also
>
> in the case of rice...even more so in fact. See what you come up with yourself
>
> even just thinking about it, if you can.
>

I suggest you ask an ecologist about it, if the topic interests you.

> >I don't have any idea what the standard deviation is, no.
>
>
>
> You don't know what any of it is, including the standard deviation. You
>
> don't know what the mean is, or if there even is one. If there is don't you
>
> think it changes every day to some extent, especially during popular harvest
>
> periods?
>

The mean would not vary that much over time, and as far as variation with the harvest period goes you would be taking the mean across the different harvest periods. I have a reasonable estimate for the mean. No-one is claiming it's an estimate with a high degree of precision, but it's reasonable to suppose that it would at least be the correct order of magnitude.

>
>
> >But none of the claims I have made require a knowledge of the standard deviation, as I explained.
>
>
>
> LOL! YOU brought it up.
>

Yes, because *you* have made claims which would require a knowledge of the standard deviation. I have explained this before, you know. You're pretty slow on the uptake.

> >But the cows are eventually killed. So you need to have some kind of basis for comparing the death rates for each serving of food.
>
>
>
> It would be on a case by case basis. But we can consider the processes.
>
>
>
> In one situation we have cattle eating grass, and however many wild animals
>
> sharing the area and sometimes the grass with them. Once in a while some of the
>
> cattle will surely kill something by stepping on it, but by FAR the vast
>
> majority of the wildlife living in the pastures don't get killed by the cattle.
>

We just keep going back to the same point over and over again. You have to compare the collateral death rates from soybean production with the death rates from slaughter for beef production. I've already done this calculation, and you haven't engaged with my reasoning in any meaningful way.

>
>
> In the other situation we have land that is untouched for several months, giving
>
> wildlife from surrounding areas (when they exist) the opportunity to populate
>
> the land we're discussing. Heavy tractors and farm machinery enter the area and
>
> turn the ground inside out, killing however many of the animals living in the
>
> area. It is then done again killing more of whatever are left. Then it's entered
>
> by machines that plant the seed. Then it's left alone for a while giving the
>
> seed time to grow and wildlife from the surrounding areas time again to
>
> repopulate the land we're discussing. After a period of however long (probably
>
> months) the area is often treated with chemicals which will killl whatever
>
> percentage of the populations of wildlife. If heavy machinery is used to apply
>
> the chemicals to the area instead of planes flying above it, that many more
>
> deaths will result. The aree may be treated with chemicals more than once per
>
> growing season. After a period of time (probably months) the crop is harvested.
>
> Heavy farm machinery enters the are harvesting the crop and killing whatever
>
> percentage of wildlife. Also after harvest a certain percentage of the surviving
>
> wildlife will be killed because they don't have the shelter they did have to
>
> hide them from predators. According to the info you presented ONE of the various
>
> operations kills more than 50% of the wildlife. Sometimes ONE operation kills as
>
> much as 80% of some populations! There are several operations! And you really
>
> want me to believe that you can't figure out how these processes kill
>
> significantly more wildlife than cattle do by eating grass? That you can't
>
> figure out how it EVER does??? LOL...and that you have a PhD in math too! LOL!
>

Why exactly is it that you are so stupid that you cannot realize that I am not making any comparison between the death rates from crop production and the deaths caused by cattle eating grass? It should be obvious right from the start anyway, and I've also repeatedly explained it to you. Why do you keep on bringing up the same stupid straw man over and over again? What's wrong with you?

> >I've given it to you once. Look it up on Wikipedia.
>
>
>
> You've let me know that it doesn't matter.
>

That is false.

> >No.
>
>
>
> Then don't bring it up any more, especially since it doesn't matter.
>

I don't take orders from you. I will bring up what I feel like bringing up, and I will not provide you with free tutoring in statistics on demand when I have already given you the definition and you can easily look it up on Wikipedia. The standard deviation is relevant to some of the claims that you have made. You would do well to educate yourself about it. If you can't be bothered doing that, then it's no skin off my nose, but I will bring up whatever I feel like bringing up.

> >I explained it to you once. I'm not going to waste my time explaining it again. Look it up on Wikipedia.
>
>
>
> LOL. I'm not going to waste my time looking into it especially now that
>
> you've shown that it doesn't matter.
>

It would not be a waste of your time to educate yourself about basic statistical concepts which every numerate citizen of the modern age should know. I have not shown that it doesn't matter.

> >I copied and pasted the quote. He says what he thinks they are.
>
>
>
> He did NOT list all the animals that die in soybean production.
>

How do you know?

> >No reason to believe it's not an accurate estimate? Why not?
>
>
>
> Because I have no reason to believe it is,

He presented some reason to believe that it is. You don't have to agree, but you should at least engage with what he wrote, instead of pretending you've been given no reason.

> and reason to believe he didn't
>
> list some species that are killed.

What reason would that be?

> He didn't even say that he mentioned all of
>
> them.
>

Well, he might not have; so what?

> >In one particular field the number of total deaths was more than 15 for just one species. On average, the death rate for field mice is about 15 per hectare.
>
>
>
> That's just ONE type of animal, but you dishonestly tried to pretend it was
>
> the total number of deaths for all animals killed until I caught you at it and
>
> pointed it out.
>

It looks as though he's assuming that field mice will represent the majority of animals killed. Perhaps we should email him and ask him about it. I was not dishonest in any way. I presented you with the quotation explaining his reasoning, I was completely upfront about what the claim was and the reasoning behind it. You shouldn't accuse people of dishonesty when you have no grounds for doing so. It's unethical.

>
>
> >The total death rate could be a bit more.
>
>
>
> LOL!!! It could also be a LOT more.
>

Could be. I've presented you with one reasonable attempt to estimate the mean death rate from soybean production, and I've claimed that it's likely to be at least the correct order of magnitude. You've presented me with no data of your own about the matter whatsoever. So where does that leave us?

You made a claim about how the death rate for biscuit production compares with the death rate for deer meat production. You've shown yourself to be completely incapable of substantiating this claim in any way.

>
>
> >But it's absurd to think that it would be as high as 3000 per hectare, which is what would be needed to justify your claim that the death rate for tofu is higher than that for grass-fed beef by a factor of "hundreds".
>
>
>
> What is the death rate per hectare of wildlife killed by cattle eating
>
> grass?
>

No idea. For the purposes of my calculations, I've been assuming it's zero. What's that got to do with the price of fish?

> >> >"It takes 10 kg of milk to produce 1 kg of cheese. The cumulative elasticity factor for milk products is 0.45. So buying one 20-gram slice of cheese will lead to an expected increase of 90 grams in the total amount of milk produced.
>
> >> How exactly would it do that, and what would be different if that one slice
> >> were not bought?
>
> >An increase in the demand for milk products leads to an increase in the supply. The cumulative elasticity factor gives you the ratio. If that one slice were not bought, the total profitability of the dairy industry would be slightly smaller and dairy farmers would have less incentive to produce.
>
>
> LOL!!!! You certainly live in an imaginary world that does not exist on this
>
> planet, and probably doesn't exist anywhere in the universe imo.
>

You've agreed that if the slices of cheese are bought in sufficient quantity then that will have an effect on the dairy farmers' incentive to produce, right?

Well then, you can't consistently claim that one slice of cheese has no effect whatsoever. If buying one slice of cheese had absolutely zero probability of having an impact, then buying 10,000 slices of cheese would also have zero probability of having an impact, and you've agreed that's not so.

What I am saying is just basic common sense.

> >> >But there is a small probability that it will have some effect.
>
> >> No there isn't.
>
> >Of course there is. There has to be. Otherwise you could buy 10,000 of these slices of cheese and the probability would still be zero that it would have any effect, which is absurd.
>
>
>
> You honestly believe the sale of 10K slices of cheese would have an impact
>
> on the entire dairy industry?
>

At some point, there will be an impact. If people stopped buying dairy products altogether, the dairy industry would cease to exist. There's a relationship between the amount demanded and the amount supplied, given by the cumulative elasticity factor. If you focus on any individual small purchase then the probability that there will be any impact is very small, but there's still an expected impact. There has to be, because we know that a sufficiently large number of purchases has an impact.

I find this conversation tedious.

> >You're a fool.
>
>
>
> Maybe, but you're a bigger fool however much a fool I am.
>

You are entitled to your opinion.

> >> >Well, anyone can agree or disagree with me as they see fit,
> >> >what I am interested in is some evidence that I am wrong.
>
> >> The fact that there's no way buying a slice of cheese COULD have impact on
> >> anything is some very strong evidence, now that you mention it.
>
> >Why is there no way that could happen?
>
>
>
> Because farmers invest enough time, effort and money in their business that
>
> the sale or not of a single slice of cheese is not enough to be significant to
>
> them.

For some sufficient large number N, the sale of N slices of cheese will be significant to them. When you buy one slice of cheese, there is a probability of 1/N that this is a "threshold purchase" that makes a difference to the amount of activity in the dairy industry that takes place.

> Even a guy with a PhD in math should be able to figure that out, so if you
>
> honestly can't figure it out ask someone else who has a PhD in math, and please
>
> let me know what they tell you. Don't change it for them either. Ask them why
>
> the sale of ONE SLICE of cheese won't do anything to influence the entire dairy
>
> industry or even one farmer that's involved in it, and let us know here what
>
> they tell you. Oh, and just for fun, ask your dad too. I'm curious what he would
>
> think if he knew you were in here acting so stupid that you think the sale of
>
> one slice of cheese could be significant, that you can't figure out how the
>
> processes of growing soy kill more than cattle do by eating grass,

I wish you'd stop repeating that tiresome straw man over and over again. I've told you many times that I never said any such thing, and it should have been obvious from the start.

> and that you:
>
> "don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of
>
> negative value" means anything."
>
>
> >The more slices of cheese are bought, the more incentive there is for dairy farmers to engage in further activity. Most purchases don't have any impact whatever, but some purchases are "threshold purchases"
>
>
>
> All of a sudden you're throwing in a distinction since I questioned you
>
> about it. So what do you want us to think distinguishes between threshold
>
> purchases and non threshold purchases of single slices of cheese?
>

Whether or not the increment in profability from the purchase makes a difference to the decisions the farmers make. It has to happen eventually, after sufficiently many small increments.

> >Well, for one thing, the pig was probably fed with grains whose production caused cd's.
>
>
>
> Why can you appreciate that in regards to grain eaten by livestock but not
>
> grain eaten by humans?
>

I know that when humans buy grains and eat them, they are giving financial incentives for processes that cause collateral deaths. That is well-established. My point is that you have no basis whatsoever for doing your comparison of the death rate for the biscuit and the death rate for the deer meat. You simply don't have any data that bear on the question.

> >> We'd certainly have to consider the fact that meat is a lot more nutritious
> >> and therefore it would take less meat than it would biscuit to provide the
> >> nutrition. We'd also have to take more than just calories into consideration but
> >> also protein, so you'd have to include enough biscuit to provide an amount of
> >> protein equal to that of the deer meat. That would probably take a LOT of
> >> biscuit, if it would be possible at all.
>
> >Well, have you changed your mind about what you're comparing?
>
>
>
> YOU are the one who suggested comparing the nutritional value. Did you
>
> forget about YOU wanting to do that? You said "it has to be between calorically
>
> equivalent servings of food". I'm saying that since you want to include calories
>
> we should also include protein.
>

We can do whatever comparison you like. This is about your claim. It's the claim that you made. You said there were more deaths associated with the biscuit than with the deer meat. Feel free to explain what you mean by that in whatever way you like. I simply want to be presented with the least scintilla of evidence for the claim. Which you very obviously can't do.

Yawn.

>
>
> >I thought you were comparing the biscuit and the deer meat. Now you're saying you want to compare a serving of biscuit that has the same amount of protein. Make up your mind.
>
>
>
> Since you want to compare nutritional value we must include calories and
>
> protein.
>

Well, that's fine with me. All I want you to do is provide some kind of evidence for your claim.

> >Can't remember. You've been talking complete bollocks, from what I can recall.
>
>
>
> I pointed out that the number of wildlife living in an area has an influence
>
> on the number of wildlife that are killed. There was a time you pretended that
>
> you could appreciate that aspect, but now you reveal the truth that to YOU that
>
> aspect is "complete bollocks".

No. I have no argument with that claim.

> >Well, we wouldn't know, because you never do engage with the evidence.
>
>
>
> That's a blatant lie.

Actually, it's the truth.

> So you see you ARE a liar so I am VERY justified in
>
> considering you to be one. How MUCH lying you do is all that's in some question,
>
> but whether you lie or not is NOT in question since this is another blatant one.
>
> You also lied and lied and lied that I didn't give you any kind of explanation
>
> about lives of positive value. That's only ONE other example of your blatant
>
> lying. Oh yeah, another VERY blatant lie was you lying that Davis said
>
> ...LOL!... only 15 deaths per hectare total for soy production,

He did say that. Presumably the claim is that the field mice represent the lion's share of the total, and so are a reasonable approximation to the total figure.

> when the truth
>
> is he said over 15 deaths of a single type of animal, and I believe that was
>
> also only in ONE operation.
>

Which is not representative of the mean figure.

> >It sounds as though you don't believe in intrinsic value.
>
>
>
> Unless you can say what it's TOO, you don't either. Even if you would like
>
> to think that you do, you prove that you do NOT.
>

I don't believe in intrinsic value, actually. I was just curious about whether you did or not. I'm sorry that you don't know what it is. I don't know if I have the energy to bother explaining. If you don't believe in it that's fine.

>
>
> >So you believe that life itself is of value to living organisms?
>
>
>
> It's necessary in order to benefit from anything else otherwise things could
>
> continue to benefit after they're dead. Were you somehow unaware of that?
>

Of course not. That's a different question. Life is a necessary prerequisite for the organism to be able to benefit from anything at all. But that's different to the question of whether the organism benefits from having come into existence.

>
>
> >Or is it the pleasurable experiences that they have which is of value to them?
>
>
>
> Not "or". What could give you the impression it could be one "or" the other,
>
> but not both?
>

I never said it couldn't be both. It wasn't an exclusive "or".

> So far I've no reason to think it's abnormal for one thing.

Yes, you do. You have been presented with reasons for thinking that the mean figure is about 60%.

> >No, I wouldn't.
>
>
>
> Admit that you live your lifestyle in a specific attempt NOT TO contribute
>
> to anything or in any way to livestock then.
>

The reason why I am vegan is that I believe that it reduces the amount of suffering that takes place. I've said this often enough.

> >I have presented some reasons. You refuse to read them.
>
>
>
> Like the holding back of feed to the parents of broiler chickens? YES!
>

That would be one example, yes, but I've presented other information as well. You may possibly have read it, but you certainly refuse to engage with it in any meaningful way.

> Another one of your blatant lies is that I haven't read the things I've already
>
> discussed with you because I did read them.

I wasn't talking about the quote about the withholding of feed. I was talking about the other quotes that I have pasted which you have completely ignored.

> Damn you are a dishonest person.

Not at all. What I said is absolutely correct. You shouldn't accuse people of dishonesty when you have no grounds for doing so. It's unethical.

> >> Do you keep telling that particular lie just so I'll keep pointing out that
> >> I did read what you presented and NOTHING in any of it appears to make life of
> >> negative value for any livestock animals?
>
> >
>
> >Do you think it is fair to say that the information I presented demonstrates that broiler chicken farming causes a lot of suffering?
>
>
>
> You said I didn't read it. Retract that particular lie and I'll answer your
>
> question, though I already have told you.
>

I have no way of knowing whether you have read it or not. You haven't engaged with it in any meaningful way.

> >> Try to pick out from all of that exactly what YOU want people to think makes
> >> life of negative value for which creatures. Go:
>
> >All of it. For broiler chickens.
>
>
>
> Try to find photos backing up the claims. We need to see photos of broiler
>
> houses where the birds appear to be suffering from the things metioned. Go:
>

No, we don't. The report is factual. You have no grounds for doubting its factual accuracy. We probably could find photos of operations where broiler chickens are not doing well, but that is neither here nor there. You have no photos of the collateral deaths from soybean production, but that is not a rational ground for doubting that they take place.

> >> >Well, you need to know how much rice milk you can get from growing one hectare of rice, don't you.
>
> >> Figure it out if you care enough.
>
> >I don't care all that much, no.
>
>
>
> You don't care that soy is worse than grass raised cow milk, and you don't
>
> care that rice is worse than both.

If I had some reliable information which gave me grounds for believing those things, then I'd care. I don't have very much ground for caring all that much about how harmful rice milk is because I don't buy rice milk. I would grant you that since I do eat rice on occasion I have some grounds for caring about how harmful rice production is. If you have some reliable data about that matter I'll happily examine it.

> You can't afford to. What could you eat if
>
> you gave up eating grains because they involve more deaths than some animal
>
> products?

If I want to try and eat a diet which causes as little suffering as possible, I should investigate the best evidence about what is most rational with respect to that goal. If you have some evidence that actually bears on the matter I will happily examine it.

dh

unread,
Jun 18, 2013, 6:26:50 PM6/18/13
to
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 02:18:09 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:59:51 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:41:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >It's possible, I suppose.
>>
>>
>>
>> How could it? Try to think of some ways, and about how MUCH influence. Also
>>
>> in the case of rice...even more so in fact. See what you come up with yourself
>>
>> even just thinking about it, if you can.
>>
>
>I suggest you ask

You've let me know that you have no idea at all. You can't comprehend how
any domestic animals could have lives of positive vallue. You claim you can't
comprehend any distinction between lives of positive and negative value. And you
can't comprehend how the surrounding areas could have influence on the number of
animals who die in crop fields. You are truly a horribly clueless person IF
you're being honest about how much you can't comprehend.

>an ecologist about it, if the topic interests you.

I have a casual interest in it and can comprehend WAY better than you who
should have a strong interest in it IF!!! you cared at all. You don't care as we
have seen by YOUR demonstrations, like this one.

>> >I don't have any idea what the standard deviation is, no.
>>
>>
>>
>> You don't know what any of it is, including the standard deviation. You
>>
>> don't know what the mean is, or if there even is one. If there is don't you
>>
>> think it changes every day to some extent, especially during popular harvest
>>
>> periods?
>>
>
>The mean would not vary that much over time, and as far as variation with the harvest period goes you would be taking the mean across the different harvest periods. I have a reasonable estimate for the mean. No-one is claiming it's an estimate with a high degree of precision, but it's reasonable to suppose that it would at least be the correct order of magnitude.

You haven't come anywhere near it yet. You tried to pretend it is 15 total
deaths when the guy said there are over 15 deaths of ONE species from a single
operation, and there are a number of different operations and even more
different species.

>> >But none of the claims I have made require a knowledge of the standard deviation, as I explained.
>>
>>
>>
>> LOL! YOU brought it up.
>>
>
>Yes, because *you* have made claims which would require a knowledge of the standard deviation.

Not as much as your lie about 15 total deaths when the reality is more than
15 deaths of ONE species for ONE operation....

>I have explained this before, you know. You're pretty slow on the uptake.
>
>> >But the cows are eventually killed. So you need to have some kind of basis for comparing the death rates for each serving of food.
>>
>>
>>
>> It would be on a case by case basis. But we can consider the processes.
>>
>>
>>
>> In one situation we have cattle eating grass, and however many wild animals
>>
>> sharing the area and sometimes the grass with them. Once in a while some of the
>>
>> cattle will surely kill something by stepping on it, but by FAR the vast
>>
>> majority of the wildlife living in the pastures don't get killed by the cattle.
>>
>
>We just keep going back to the same point over and over again. You have to compare the collateral death rates from soybean production with the death rates from slaughter for beef production.

Far less than 50% of the animals living in grazing areas are killed by the
cattle. Over 50% of the animals living in crop fields are killed by crop
farming. Done.

>I've already done this calculation, and you haven't engaged with my reasoning in any meaningful way.
>
>>
>>
>> In the other situation we have land that is untouched for several months, giving
>>
>> wildlife from surrounding areas (when they exist) the opportunity to populate
>>
>> the land we're discussing. Heavy tractors and farm machinery enter the area and
>>
>> turn the ground inside out, killing however many of the animals living in the
>>
>> area. It is then done again killing more of whatever are left. Then it's entered
>>
>> by machines that plant the seed. Then it's left alone for a while giving the
>>
>> seed time to grow and wildlife from the surrounding areas time again to
>>
>> repopulate the land we're discussing. After a period of however long (probably
>>
>> months) the area is often treated with chemicals which will killl whatever
>>
>> percentage of the populations of wildlife. If heavy machinery is used to apply
>>
>> the chemicals to the area instead of planes flying above it, that many more
>>
>> deaths will result. The aree may be treated with chemicals more than once per
>>
>> growing season. After a period of time (probably months) the crop is harvested.
>>
>> Heavy farm machinery enters the are harvesting the crop and killing whatever
>>
>> percentage of wildlife. Also after harvest a certain percentage of the surviving
>>
>> wildlife will be killed because they don't have the shelter they did have to
>>
>> hide them from predators. According to the info you presented ONE of the various
>>
>> operations kills more than 50% of the wildlife. Sometimes ONE operation kills as
>>
>> much as 80% of some populations! There are several operations! And you really
>>
>> want me to believe that you can't figure out how these processes kill
>>
>> significantly more wildlife than cattle do by eating grass? That you can't
>>
>> figure out how it EVER does??? LOL...and that you have a PhD in math too! LOL!
>>
>
>Why exactly is it that you are so stupid that you cannot realize that I am not making any comparison between the death rates from crop production and the deaths caused by cattle eating grass?

You can't do it because you're either too stupid to comprehend or you
cognitive dissonance is preventing you from doing it or most likely it's a
combiniation of both. That's because if you were not stupid enough to get in
your position you would never in your life get into the position that cognitive
dissonance prevents you from being able to appreciate aspects of human influence
on animals like this. In contrast to your position I'm not too stupid to
comprehend these aspects, nor do I have cognitive dissonance preventing me from
being able to appreciate them.

>It should be obvious right from the start anyway, and I've also repeatedly explained it to you. Why do you keep on bringing up the same stupid straw man over and over again? What's wrong with you?
>
>> >I've given it to you once. Look it up on Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>>
>> You've let me know that it doesn't matter.
>>
>
>That is false.
>
>> >No.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then don't bring it up any more, especially since it doesn't matter.
>>
>
>I don't take orders from you. I will bring up what I feel like bringing up,

Yet you can't apply it to my position or yours, in part because you have no
clue at all what it is.

>and I will not provide you with free tutoring in statistics on demand when I have already given you the definition and you can easily look it up on Wikipedia. The standard deviation is relevant to some of the claims that you have made. You would do well to educate yourself about it. If you can't be bothered doing that, then it's no skin off my nose, but I will bring up whatever I feel like bringing up.
>
>> >I explained it to you once. I'm not going to waste my time explaining it again. Look it up on Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>>
>> LOL. I'm not going to waste my time looking into it especially now that
>>
>> you've shown that it doesn't matter.
>>
>
>It would not be a waste of your time

Yes it would.

>to educate yourself about basic statistical concepts which every numerate citizen of the modern age should know. I have not shown that it doesn't matter.

Yes you have.

>> >I copied and pasted the quote. He says what he thinks they are.
>>
>>
>>
>> He did NOT list all the animals that die in soybean production.
>>
>
>How do you know?

Because he didn't mention some that do. If you think he did then you list
the ones he mentioned and if I can't point out any that aren't on his list then
and only then can we consider that he possibly did mention them all. Go:

>> >No reason to believe it's not an accurate estimate? Why not?
>>
>>
>>
>> Because I have no reason to believe it is,
>
>He presented some reason to believe that it is. You don't have to agree, but you should at least engage with what he wrote, instead of pretending you've been given no reason.

I have been given no reason. Try giving one, if you think it exists. Go:
. . .
>> That's just ONE type of animal, but you dishonestly tried to pretend it was
>>
>> the total number of deaths for all animals killed until I caught you at it and
>>
>> pointed it out.
>>
>
>It looks as though he's assuming that field mice will represent the majority of animals killed. Perhaps we should email him and ask him about it. I was not dishonest in any way.

You sure were, and now you're lying about that too.

>I presented you with the quotation explaining his reasoning, I was completely upfront about what the claim was and the reasoning behind it. You shouldn't accuse people of dishonesty when you have no grounds for doing so. It's unethical.

You lie to me frequently and that's unethical from my pov. Then you lie
about your lies, and then you bitch because I point out your lies. ALL of that
is unethical.

>> >The total death rate could be a bit more.
>>
>>
>>
>> LOL!!! It could also be a LOT more.
>>
>
>Could be. I've presented you with one reasonable attempt to estimate the mean death rate from soybean production,

No you haven't. You couldn't have because you can't do it at all, and I feel
confident you never will be able to. I do challenge you to try though. Go:

>and I've claimed that it's likely to be at least the correct order of magnitude.

The number you tried to get me to believe was the total far less than half.
You should be ashamed.

>You've presented me with no data of your own about the matter whatsoever. So where does that leave us?
>
>You made a claim about how the death rate for biscuit production compares with the death rate for deer meat production. You've shown yourself to be completely incapable of substantiating this claim in any way.
>
>>
>>
>> >But it's absurd to think that it would be as high as 3000 per hectare, which is what would be needed to justify your claim that the death rate for tofu is higher than that for grass-fed beef by a factor of "hundreds".
>>
>>
>>
>> What is the death rate per hectare of wildlife killed by cattle eating
>>
>> grass?
>>
>
>No idea. For the purposes of my calculations, I've been assuming it's zero. What's that got to do with the price of fish?

That means zero deaths compared with over 50% of entire populations killed.

>> >> >"It takes 10 kg of milk to produce 1 kg of cheese. The cumulative elasticity factor for milk products is 0.45. So buying one 20-gram slice of cheese will lead to an expected increase of 90 grams in the total amount of milk produced.
>>
>> >> How exactly would it do that, and what would be different if that one slice
>> >> were not bought?
>>
>> >An increase in the demand for milk products leads to an increase in the supply. The cumulative elasticity factor gives you the ratio. If that one slice were not bought, the total profitability of the dairy industry would be slightly smaller and dairy farmers would have less incentive to produce.
>>
>>
>> LOL!!!! You certainly live in an imaginary world that does not exist on this
>>
>> planet, and probably doesn't exist anywhere in the universe imo.
>>
>
>You've agreed that if the slices of cheese are bought in sufficient quantity then that will have an effect on the dairy farmers' incentive to produce, right?

Now you're HORRIBLY dishonestly trying to pretend that a single slice of
cheese and a "sufficient quantity" of cheese are the same thing when they are
NOT. That's very similar to you HORRIBLY dishonestly pretending that the death
rate of a single species in a single operation is the same as the combined death
rates of all species in a number of operations.

>Well then, you can't consistently claim that one slice of cheese has no effect whatsoever.

So far I can still make the claim and you can't even pretend to make it
appear untrue.

>If buying one slice of cheese had absolutely zero probability of having an impact,

Try to explain exactly WHAT impact you want people to think buying one slice
of cheese could possibly have. Go:

>then buying 10,000 slices of cheese would also have zero probability of having an impact, and you've agreed that's not so.
>
>What I am saying is just basic common sense.
>
>> >> >But there is a small probability that it will have some effect.
>>
>> >> No there isn't.
>>
>> >Of course there is. There has to be. Otherwise you could buy 10,000 of these slices of cheese and the probability would still be zero that it would have any effect, which is absurd.
>>
>>
>>
>> You honestly believe the sale of 10K slices of cheese would have an impact
>>
>> on the entire dairy industry?
>>
>
>At some point, there will be an impact.

Not with one slice, as you have dishonestly been trying to pretend.

>If people stopped buying dairy products altogether, the dairy industry would cease to exist. There's a relationship between the amount demanded and the amount supplied, given by the cumulative elasticity factor. If you focus on any individual small purchase then the probability that there will be any impact is very small, but there's still an expected impact. There has to be, because we know that a sufficiently large number of purchases has an impact.
>
>I find this conversation tedious.

You're trying to get me to believe something I know isn't true, and I'm not
stupid enough to fall for it.

>> >You're a fool.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe, but you're a bigger fool however much a fool I am.
>>
>
>You are entitled to your opinion.
>
>> >> >Well, anyone can agree or disagree with me as they see fit,
>> >> >what I am interested in is some evidence that I am wrong.
>>
>> >> The fact that there's no way buying a slice of cheese COULD have impact on
>> >> anything is some very strong evidence, now that you mention it.
>>
>> >Why is there no way that could happen?
>>
>>
>>
>> Because farmers invest enough time, effort and money in their business that
>>
>> the sale or not of a single slice of cheese is not enough to be significant to
>>
>> them.
>
>For some sufficient large number N,

You're dishonestly trying to change it from a single slice to as many as you
want again. You really are a horribly dishonest person. Consistently.

>the sale of N slices of cheese will be significant to them. When you buy one slice of cheese, there is a probability of 1/N that this is a "threshold purchase" that makes a difference to the amount of activity in the dairy industry that takes place.
>
>> Even a guy with a PhD in math should be able to figure that out, so if you
>>
>> honestly can't figure it out ask someone else who has a PhD in math, and please
>>
>> let me know what they tell you. Don't change it for them either. Ask them why
>>
>> the sale of ONE SLICE of cheese won't do anything to influence the entire dairy
>>
>> industry or even one farmer that's involved in it, and let us know here what
>>
>> they tell you. Oh, and just for fun, ask your dad too. I'm curious what he would
>>
>> think if he knew you were in here acting so stupid that you think the sale of
>>
>> one slice of cheese could be significant, that you can't figure out how the
>>
>> processes of growing soy kill more than cattle do by eating grass,
>
>I wish you'd stop repeating that tiresome

You hate that aspect of human influence on animals. I like it and you hate
it.

>straw man over and over again. I've told you many times that I never said any such thing, and it should have been obvious from the start.
>
>> and that you:
>>
>> "don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of
>>
>> negative value" means anything."
>>
>>
>> >The more slices of cheese are bought, the more incentive there is for dairy farmers to engage in further activity. Most purchases don't have any impact whatever, but some purchases are "threshold purchases"
>>
>>
>>
>> All of a sudden you're throwing in a distinction since I questioned you
>>
>> about it. So what do you want us to think distinguishes between threshold
>>
>> purchases and non threshold purchases of single slices of cheese?
>>
>
>Whether or not the increment in profability from the purchase makes a difference to the decisions the farmers make. It has to happen eventually, after sufficiently many small increments.

A single slice of cheese has no impact as I've pointed out from the start
but you've dishonestly tried to claim. Now you're dishonestly moving from your
position of one slice to tens of thousands of slices. Very VERY dishonest of
you!

>> >Well, for one thing, the pig was probably fed with grains whose production caused cd's.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why can you appreciate that in regards to grain eaten by livestock but not
>>
>> grain eaten by humans?
>>
>
>I know that when humans buy grains and eat them, they are giving financial incentives for processes that cause collateral deaths. That is well-established. My point is that you have no basis whatsoever for doing your comparison of the death rate for the biscuit and the death rate for the deer meat. You simply don't have any data that bear on the question.

The no cds associated with the deer meat and many associated with
comercially grown veggies does bear on the question.

>> >> We'd certainly have to consider the fact that meat is a lot more nutritious
>> >> and therefore it would take less meat than it would biscuit to provide the
>> >> nutrition. We'd also have to take more than just calories into consideration but
>> >> also protein, so you'd have to include enough biscuit to provide an amount of
>> >> protein equal to that of the deer meat. That would probably take a LOT of
>> >> biscuit, if it would be possible at all.
>>
>> >Well, have you changed your mind about what you're comparing?
>>
>>
>>
>> YOU are the one who suggested comparing the nutritional value. Did you
>>
>> forget about YOU wanting to do that? You said "it has to be between calorically
>>
>> equivalent servings of food". I'm saying that since you want to include calories
>>
>> we should also include protein.
>>
>
>We can do whatever comparison you like. This is about your claim. It's the claim that you made. You said there were more deaths associated with the biscuit than with the deer meat. Feel free to explain what you mean by that in whatever way you like. I simply want to be presented with the least scintilla of evidence for the claim. Which you very obviously can't do.

How do you want people to think a single deer causes as many deaths as a
farmer does by growing fields of wheat?

>Yawn.
>
>>
>>
>> >I thought you were comparing the biscuit and the deer meat. Now you're saying you want to compare a serving of biscuit that has the same amount of protein. Make up your mind.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since you want to compare nutritional value we must include calories and
>>
>> protein.
>>
>
>Well, that's fine with me.

Try doing it then. Go:

>All I want you to do is provide some kind of evidence for your claim.
>
>> >Can't remember. You've been talking complete bollocks, from what I can recall.
>>
>>
>>
>> I pointed out that the number of wildlife living in an area has an influence
>>
>> on the number of wildlife that are killed. There was a time you pretended that
>>
>> you could appreciate that aspect, but now you reveal the truth that to YOU that
>>
>> aspect is "complete bollocks".
>
>No. I have no argument with that claim.

Then you lied that I've been talking complete bollocks, as well as lying
about the mean and lying about whatever all else...

>> >Well, we wouldn't know, because you never do engage with the evidence.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's a blatant lie.
>
>Actually, it's the truth.
>
>> So you see you ARE a liar so I am VERY justified in
>>
>> considering you to be one. How MUCH lying you do is all that's in some question,
>>
>> but whether you lie or not is NOT in question since this is another blatant one.
>>
>> You also lied and lied and lied that I didn't give you any kind of explanation
>>
>> about lives of positive value. That's only ONE other example of your blatant
>>
>> lying. Oh yeah, another VERY blatant lie was you lying that Davis said
>>
>> ...LOL!... only 15 deaths per hectare total for soy production,
>
>He did say that.

Prove it.

>Presumably the claim is that the field mice represent the lion's share of the total, and so are a reasonable approximation to the total figure.
>
>> when the truth
>>
>> is he said over 15 deaths of a single type of animal, and I believe that was
>>
>> also only in ONE operation.
>>
>
>Which is not representative of the mean figure.

You can't figure out the mean figure. You can't even attempt to.

>> >It sounds as though you don't believe in intrinsic value.
>>
>>
>>
>> Unless you can say what it's TOO, you don't either. Even if you would like
>>
>> to think that you do, you prove that you do NOT.
>>
>
>I don't believe in intrinsic value, actually. I was just curious about whether you did or not. I'm sorry that you don't know what it is. I don't know if I have the energy to bother explaining.

You have no idea what it even COULD be and can't pretend that you do.

>If you don't believe in it that's fine.
>
>>
>>
>> >So you believe that life itself is of value to living organisms?
>>
>>
>>
>> It's necessary in order to benefit from anything else otherwise things could
>>
>> continue to benefit after they're dead. Were you somehow unaware of that?
>>
>
>Of course not. That's a different question. Life is a necessary prerequisite for the organism to be able to benefit from anything at all. But that's different to the question of whether the organism benefits from having come into existence.

Existence and life are both necessary benefits in order to benefit from
anything else, afaWk.

>> >Or is it the pleasurable experiences that they have which is of value to them?
>>
>>
>>
>> Not "or". What could give you the impression it could be one "or" the other,
>>
>> but not both?
>>
>
>I never said it couldn't be both. It wasn't an exclusive "or".

Then why do YOU say OR?

>> So far I've no reason to think it's abnormal for one thing.
>
>Yes, you do. You have been presented with reasons for thinking that the mean figure is about 60%.
>
>> >No, I wouldn't.
>>
>>
>>
>> Admit that you live your lifestyle in a specific attempt NOT TO contribute
>>
>> to anything or in any way to livestock then.
>>
>
>The reason why I am vegan is that I believe that it reduces the amount of suffering that takes place. I've said this often enough.

You deserve credit for nothing. At least I deserve credit for contributing
to cage free egg production instead of nothing.

>> >I have presented some reasons. You refuse to read them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Like the holding back of feed to the parents of broiler chickens? YES!
>>
>
>That would be one example, yes,

Then another of the things you lied about was your lie that I didn't read
what I read and we had already discussed. What do you think you gain by telling
such blatant lies? WHAT?????

>but I've presented other information as well. You may possibly have read it, but you certainly refuse to engage with it in any meaningful way.

That's another lie since not only have I told you none of it makes life seem
of negative value to them for me, but I've also challenged YOU to present what
YOU DO think makes it of negative value TO YOU. You can't even do that much, as
I've also pointed out a number of times. You STILL have NOTHING!!!

>> Another one of your blatant lies is that I haven't read the things I've already
>>
>> discussed with you because I did read them.
>
>I wasn't talking about the quote about the withholding of feed. I was talking about the other quotes that I have pasted which you have completely ignored.
>
>> Damn you are a dishonest person.
>
>Not at all.

That's another lie.

>What I said is absolutely correct. You shouldn't accuse people of dishonesty when you have no grounds for doing so. It's unethical.
>
>> >> Do you keep telling that particular lie just so I'll keep pointing out that
>> >> I did read what you presented and NOTHING in any of it appears to make life of
>> >> negative value for any livestock animals?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Do you think it is fair to say that the information I presented demonstrates that broiler chicken farming causes a lot of suffering?
>>
>>
>>
>> You said I didn't read it. Retract that particular lie and I'll answer your
>>
>> question, though I already have told you.
>>
>
>I have no way of knowing whether you have read it or not.

You lied that I didn't after I'd already discussed it with you because I had
read it. So you're lying YET AGAIN.

>You haven't engaged with it in any meaningful way.

That's a repeat of a lie I pointed out and commented on above by saying:

That's another lie since not only have I told you none of it makes life seem of
negative value to them for me, but I've also challenged YOU to present what YOU
DO think makes it of negative value TO YOU. You can't even do that much, as I've
also pointed out a number of times. You STILL have NOTHING!!!

>> >> Try to pick out from all of that exactly what YOU want people to think makes
>> >> life of negative value for which creatures. Go:
>>
>> >All of it. For broiler chickens.
>>
>>
>>
>> Try to find photos backing up the claims. We need to see photos of broiler
>>
>> houses where the birds appear to be suffering from the things metioned. Go:
>>
>
>No, we don't.

Yes we would but since it's a lie there are none.

>The report is factual. You have no grounds for doubting its factual accuracy. We probably could find photos of operations where broiler chickens are not doing well, but that is neither here nor there. You have no photos of the collateral deaths from soybean production, but that is not a rational ground for doubting that they take place.
>
>> >> >Well, you need to know how much rice milk you can get from growing one hectare of rice, don't you.
>>
>> >> Figure it out if you care enough.
>>
>> >I don't care all that much, no.
>>
>>
>>
>> You don't care that soy is worse than grass raised cow milk, and you don't
>>
>> care that rice is worse than both.
>
>If I had some reliable information which gave me grounds for believing those things, then I'd care.

That's another lie since I've given you grounds for understanding why cattle
don't kill as much as farm machinery and chemicals, and flooding and draining of
course.

>I don't have very much ground for caring all that much about how harmful rice milk is because I don't buy rice milk. I would grant you that since I do eat rice on occasion I have some grounds for caring about how harmful rice production is. If you have some reliable data about that matter I'll happily examine it.

"rice is cut twice, and those are numbers from two cuttings. even the
most jaundiced onserver would agree, 'damn that is a *lot* of frogs
hopping around out there.' i was not specific on the types of frogs,
and therein might be part of the wide-eyed problem. there are either 2
or 3 varieties of tree frogs - little bitty boogers, and we have leopard
frogs and grass frogs larger and fewer, but still plentiful. by count,
i would guess there are 10x the number of tree frogs as all others
total, and there are plenty of leopards and grass. in one pool of
water, there were seven varieties of frog & toad eggs. we have a *lot*
of frogs in the gulf coastal plains.

> Elsewhere, diderot says that he can, "...easily see 10-20-30+ frogs and
> several anoles within the top few inches of a foot stand of rice." He
> is tempting us with a volume of amphibians, but he doesn't tell us over
> what surface area the top few inches of frogs is spread.

a square foot of rice, of the variety we plant, has about 75 stems.
walking around the test patches (calibrated patches we cut to get the
header length and ground-speed worked out before harvest), and paying
only half-ass attention, it is not at all unusual to see one or two tree
frogs on just about every stem. tree frogs eat mosquitos and leaf
hoppers midges and similar, and we have plenty of those, too. in the
afternoon, when the dragon flies hatch and whip mosquito ass flying just
abouve the grain heads, you can see leopard and grass frogs nearly
knee-to-knee on the grain-head mat hoping one fly will come just a
little bit closer. all this activity takes place in the top foot or so.

on the understory, are the toads bullfrogs, snakes and plenty of rats,
and, i would presume, some mice, too.

not only do we have a *lot* of frogs in our part of the world, it is a
pretty interesting cycle of life, also.

> diderot could
> count the number of individual frogs in a sample area of this size and
> so could we, but instead he continues to rely on "eyeball estimates"
> and, perhaps, a little Texas folk wisdom.

ok, get your calculator out, we'll be numerate here:

it takes 7 passes with a 30' combine to cut an acre (208' x 208'). to
digest 7,000 frogs in that acre (7,000 1st cutting + 3,000 2nd cutting
for a total of 10,000 - hard shower), that means 1000 unlucky (slow, bad
jumpers, ...) frogs in the 6240 sq.ft. that constitutes *one* pass, or
one per 6+ sq.ft. or 5 per lineal foot of travel.

i *did* say these numbers were conservative, didn't i?

for the 'deluge' (i used 35,000 in the faq, divided 25k & 10k per
cutting), the numbers are ~3500 per pass; one for every 1� sq.ft.; and
~17 per lineal foot of travel.

[...]

> The closest diderot comes to providing us with evidence we could
> possibly remeasure is his "500 yard long, foot-wide windrows of drowned
> grey and brown (rats)". You and I could layout rats in a matching
> configuration and do a head count, but there wouldn't be much point
> since diderot goes on to say that this mass drowning occurs "whenever
> the rice is flooded". Then he neglects to tell us how often he floods
> his fields.

rice has to grow in water, so it is flooded in april, drained for
harvest in july/august, reflooded and drained in october. we flood in
mid-december for waterfowl, and drain in february. in february and
march, the land is disced and planed."

Message-ID: <379569...@wcnet.net>
From: diderot <tam...@wcnet.net>
Reply-To: tam...@wcnet.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,rec.food.veg
Subject: dead-frog numbers [was: faq collateral included deaths in organic rice
production]
References: <379084...@wcnet.net>
<epastoreSP-17...@207-172-41-229.s229.tnt10.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com>
<37912C...@wcnet.net> <37925357...@news.earthlink.net>
<379281...@albany.net> <37937c9d...@news.earthlink.net>
<3793b0da...@news.telenet.net> <3794a884...@news.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 193
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.88.248.31
X-Trace: typ42b.nn.bcandid.com 932538531 216.88.248.31 (Wed, 21 Jul 1999
02:28:51 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 02:28:51 EDT
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 01:33:40 -0500
Xref: mindspring alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:17658
talk.politics.animals:197083 rec.food.veg:129905

frlpwr wrote:
>
> > > Maybe you would like to explain why, when I counter claims of feral > > cat depradation with observations gathered
over twelve+ years of
> > > daily interaction with feral cats, the members of the peanut gallery
> > > boo, hiss and throw rotten tomatoes?

actually, feral, your thrown-away cat dissertation(s) was the catalyst
(intended) for this faq. it is no secret i think you have the reasoning
ability of a juvenile turnip, and your philosophy is dumber still, but:
you are consistent, your philosophy is coherent if silly, and what you
wrote had the ring of truth - you knew your subject and it was pretty
obvious you were not cooking the books with your observations and
anecdotes.

it was a good case study and it made me examine my cats' behaviours more
closely. my well-fed (but outdoors-living) house cats still kill a lot
of stuff, but far, far more rodents and amphibians (we have a *lot* of
frogs and anoles in this part of the world) than birds. before you
wrote what you did, i would have bet on birds.

you were constantly whining for numbers that gave some idea of deaths in
agriculture, and here some are: 2x - 3x - 5x - 10x - 100x beyond your
wildest dread, but there they are. and ... they are incredibly
conservative, still. life is an incredibly bloody business, itsownself.

are they 'accurate'?, meaning 'accurate' in the scientific sense? no,
of course not. the numbers i used describe easily observable, reliable,
repeatable ranges, and within the range of conditions i describe, they
are valid. they are conservative, reasonable estimates by an
experienced observer backfilling populations from incomplete information
and years of observing. you, yourself, are familiar with the
methodology.

> Right off the bat we have a problem; there is no methodology. diderot
> does not claim to collect, count, measure, weigh, sort, reconstruct or
> otherwise quantify the animals in his fields, living or dead.

the single 'accurate' count i can ever recall was of insectivores (no
rodents in this instance) in a meter. it was at a short course i
attended, and some grad students picked a random square meter of
short-grass prarie and deconstructed it. that was the first time i had
ever seen a short-nosed shrew, or a long-tailed one for that matter, or
a vole of any variety and there were 20 of those tiny boogers in the
show.

that is where i heard the 9-35 *on average* and i believe that is
probably conservative for an annual population considering the fertility
of soft-soil ag lands, the fecunditity of shrews and mice and the
gestation periods.

> There is an implied high density of amphibians in the "green waterfall"
> de the phantom or unseen deaths of rodents
> which he declares,"...have to be substantial in number." Without an
> explanation of the number, he decides to include another, "...3/4th of
> one collateral death per sq ft...", or an additional 33,000 deaths per
> acre.

again, v. v. conservative. considering both floods and all the activity
with machinery and disturbance (invisible deaths by the score in
cultivation actities), i regarded .75/ft as an elegant number, which
*should* be 3x, 4x that, don't you agree?

> I got the impression that diderot had grown weary towards the end of his
> essay, maybe all the talk of killing made him miss his dear-departed
> vertebrate friends, but, I doubt it. Just so he didn't slight the
> larger vertebrates, birds, snakes, turtles and such, he packed all their
> deaths in a tidy little bundle of 2,000 which, coincidentally, made his
> total number of deaths easily divisible by weight of his harvested rice.

i hope you didn't put your calculator up since our last excercise, but
we'll let you fully participate and do this one differently. there are
two tires on each side of the combine and they are 42" wide, each
(actually there are 2 more on the back, but they track with the inside
front tire). using the same seven passes per acre, calculate the total
square footage tamped gently down by the 19,000 lb combine.

if you don't like my round number of 2,000, supply one from your
calculations from the number of escaped frogs, plus the toads, snakes,
rats, ....

-------

someplace in here (and it *will* be included in the 2nd iteration of the
faq) several insecapable facts/conclusions should be noted:

- there is not only death in agriculture, there is a lot of death, and
the number of deaths (particularly *visible* deaths) are related to
populations more than farming practices.

- conventional agriculture results in many more, but more 'invisible'
deaths. our conventional plot is across the road from our organic plot,
it started out with the same millions and billions of amphibian eggs.
only a few thousand frogs are harvested on the conventional side - they
were all killed off as eggs or tadpoles by agricultural chemicals.

- we manage the whole area (larger than just the farms) is a pretty
natural fashion and we have a lot of wildlife. the number of deaths is,
at least, partially a function of total area population. we could
reduce the number of visible deaths by flogging the ecology, but we
prefer life and cycle-of-life over a sterile monoculture.

- every farming environment has a different mix of animals and the
largest number and largest variety, both, will be found in
semi-tropical, mixed ecology lands like we have. monocultures will have
the smallest numbers and the smallest numbers of species. the numbers i
have presented hold true in the gulf-coastal plains for machine-farmed
organic rice and may well vary in california and arkansas.

- if one desires to 'eat organic', i strongly urge research into what
your state considers' organic.' it is very likely not as chemical-free
as you might like to believe.

cordially,
diderot"

Rupert

unread,
Jun 19, 2013, 4:25:28 AM6/19/13
to
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:26:50 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 02:18:09 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:59:51 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:41:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >It's possible, I suppose.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> How could it? Try to think of some ways, and about how MUCH influence. Also
>
> >>
>
> >> in the case of rice...even more so in fact. See what you come up with yourself
>
> >>
>
> >> even just thinking about it, if you can.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I suggest you ask
>
>
>
> You've let me know that you have no idea at all.

I wouldn't have thought that I'm qualified to comment on the matter, no. (I also doubt that you are.)

> You can't comprehend how
>
> any domestic animals could have lives of positive vallue.

I believe that there are some domestic animals which have lives such that I wouldn't choose to try to prevent such lives from happening, and I've made this clear to you many times.

> You claim you can't
>
> comprehend any distinction between lives of positive and negative value.

I think that you need to be clearer about what the distinction means for you. I'm able to draw a distinction between those lives which I personally would choose to try to prevent from happening and those lives which I wouldn't try to prevent from happening. That may be some kind of approximation to what you mean.

> And you
>
> can't comprehend how the surrounding areas could have influence on the number of
>
> animals who die in crop fields.

I told you I thought it was possible that there might be some influence. As for the details of the mechanisms by which that would happen, I think it would be better to ask an ecologist.

> You are truly a horribly clueless person IF
>
> you're being honest about how much you can't comprehend.
>

You are entitled to your opinion.

>
>
> >an ecologist about it, if the topic interests you.
>
>
>
> I have a casual interest in it and can comprehend WAY better than you who
>
> should have a strong interest in it IF!!! you cared at all. You don't care as we
>
> have seen by YOUR demonstrations, like this one.
>

If you think that you can comprehend the topic better than me, then I am happy to listen to any efforts you wish to make to explain your superior understanding. I am not really clear on why I ought to care strongly about this topic. But that doesn't mean I'm not interested in it, and I don't see why you think that I've demonstrated that I don't care. I've simply disavowed competence to speak about it.

>
>
> >> >I don't have any idea what the standard deviation is, no.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You don't know what any of it is, including the standard deviation. You
>
> >>
>
> >> don't know what the mean is, or if there even is one. If there is don't you
>
> >>
>
> >> think it changes every day to some extent, especially during popular harvest
>
> >>
>
> >> periods?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >The mean would not vary that much over time, and as far as variation with the harvest period goes you would be taking the mean across the different harvest periods. I have a reasonable estimate for the mean. No-one is claiming it's an estimate with a high degree of precision, but it's reasonable to suppose that it would at least be the correct order of magnitude.
>
>
>
> You haven't come anywhere near it yet. You tried to pretend it is 15 total
>
> deaths when the guy said there are over 15 deaths of ONE species from a single
>
> operation, and there are a number of different operations and even more
>
> different species.
>

Let's focus on the claim that the mean mortality rate is about 60% (over the course of an entire year). Do you think that that is a reasonable claim? If so, then we just need to try to get a reasonable estimate of the mean total wildlife population per hectare.

>
>
> >> >But none of the claims I have made require a knowledge of the standard deviation, as I explained.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> LOL! YOU brought it up.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Yes, because *you* have made claims which would require a knowledge of the standard deviation.
>
>
>
> Not as much as your lie about 15 total deaths when the reality is more than
>
> 15 deaths of ONE species for ONE operation....
>

Whatever the merits of that claim, the standard deviation has absolutely nothing to do with it, as anyone with the least competence in basic statistics would know.

>
>
> >I have explained this before, you know. You're pretty slow on the uptake.
>
> >
>
> >> >But the cows are eventually killed. So you need to have some kind of basis for comparing the death rates for each serving of food.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> It would be on a case by case basis. But we can consider the processes.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> In one situation we have cattle eating grass, and however many wild animals
>
> >>
>
> >> sharing the area and sometimes the grass with them. Once in a while some of the
>
> >>
>
> >> cattle will surely kill something by stepping on it, but by FAR the vast
>
> >>
>
> >> majority of the wildlife living in the pastures don't get killed by the cattle.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >We just keep going back to the same point over and over again. You have to compare the collateral death rates from soybean production with the death rates from slaughter for beef production.
>
>
>
> Far less than 50% of the animals living in grazing areas are killed by the
>
> cattle. Over 50% of the animals living in crop fields are killed by crop
>
> farming. Done.
>

I find it unfathomable why you keep returning to this issue of how many animals the cattle kill while eating grass. I've tried to explain to you time and time again, as patiently as I can, why that is *very obviously* completely irrelevant. I find your failure to grasp this point quite incredible.
It's not a question of whether or not I would be able to do it. I haven't made the attempt, because I can grasp the very obvious point that that comparison is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is how the collateral death rate from soybean production compares with the death rate from the slaughter of the cattle. I've made this extremely obvious point time and time again. It's extraordinary that you keep ignoring it.

> That's because if you were not stupid enough to get in
>
> your position you would never in your life get into the position that cognitive
>
> dissonance prevents you from being able to appreciate aspects of human influence
>
> on animals like this. In contrast to your position I'm not too stupid to
>
> comprehend these aspects, nor do I have cognitive dissonance preventing me from
>
> being able to appreciate them.
>

Which aspects would these be?

>
>
> >It should be obvious right from the start anyway, and I've also repeatedly explained it to you. Why do you keep on bringing up the same stupid straw man over and over again? What's wrong with you?
>
> >
>
> >> >I've given it to you once. Look it up on Wikipedia.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You've let me know that it doesn't matter.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >That is false.
>
> >
>
> >> >No.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Then don't bring it up any more, especially since it doesn't matter.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I don't take orders from you. I will bring up what I feel like bringing up,
>
>
>
> Yet you can't apply it to my position or yours, in part because you have no
>
> clue at all what it is.
>

There are some claims which you have made for which a knowledge of the standard deviation would be relevant. If you have no idea what it is, then you should refrain from making claims that would require a knowledge of it.

>
>
> >and I will not provide you with free tutoring in statistics on demand when I have already given you the definition and you can easily look it up on Wikipedia. The standard deviation is relevant to some of the claims that you have made. You would do well to educate yourself about it. If you can't be bothered doing that, then it's no skin off my nose, but I will bring up whatever I feel like bringing up.
>
> >
>
> >> >I explained it to you once. I'm not going to waste my time explaining it again. Look it up on Wikipedia.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> LOL. I'm not going to waste my time looking into it especially now that
>
> >>
>
> >> you've shown that it doesn't matter.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >It would not be a waste of your time
>
>
>
> Yes it would.
>

You are mistaken. It would be well worth your while to do something about your profound ignorance of basic statistical concepts.

>
>
> >to educate yourself about basic statistical concepts which every numerate citizen of the modern age should know. I have not shown that it doesn't matter.
>
>
>
> Yes you have.
>

I wonder why you think that.

>
>
> >> >I copied and pasted the quote. He says what he thinks they are.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> He did NOT list all the animals that die in soybean production.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >How do you know?
>
>
>
> Because he didn't mention some that do.

Which ones?

> If you think he did then you list
>
> the ones he mentioned and if I can't point out any that aren't on his list then
>
> and only then can we consider that he possibly did mention them all. Go:
>

Stop giving me orders and trying to waste my time. I've copied and pasted the quote more than once. Go and find it yourself, and then tell me which animals die in soybean production that aren't on his list.

>
>
> >> >No reason to believe it's not an accurate estimate? Why not?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Because I have no reason to believe it is,
>
> >
>
> >He presented some reason to believe that it is. You don't have to agree, but you should at least engage with what he wrote, instead of pretending you've been given no reason.
>
>
>
> I have been given no reason. Try giving one, if you think it exists. Go:
>
> . . .
>

I've copied and pasted the quote for you. That presents his reasoning. It is not sufficient merely to assert that it is "no reason". You need to engage with what he wrote in some meaningful way.

> >> That's just ONE type of animal, but you dishonestly tried to pretend it was
>
> >>
>
> >> the total number of deaths for all animals killed until I caught you at it and
>
> >>
>
> >> pointed it out.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >It looks as though he's assuming that field mice will represent the majority of animals killed. Perhaps we should email him and ask him about it. I was not dishonest in any way.
>
>
>
> You sure were, and now you're lying about that too.
>

No, I was not, I made a good faith effort to have a serious discussion of the topic. You have no rational grounds for thinking that I was in any way dishonest. You shouldn't accuse people of dishonesty when you have no rational grounds for doing so. It's rude. I've told you this many times before.

>
>
> >I presented you with the quotation explaining his reasoning, I was completely upfront about what the claim was and the reasoning behind it. You shouldn't accuse people of dishonesty when you have no grounds for doing so. It's unethical.
>
>
>
> You lie to me frequently and that's unethical from my pov.

That is false. I have never told a single lie throughout my entire history of posting to usenet, and you also have no rational grounds for thinking that I ever have.

> Then you lie
>
> about your lies, and then you bitch because I point out your lies. ALL of that
>
> is unethical.
>
>
>
> >> >The total death rate could be a bit more.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> LOL!!! It could also be a LOT more.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Could be. I've presented you with one reasonable attempt to estimate the mean death rate from soybean production,
>
>
>
> No you haven't. You couldn't have because you can't do it at all, and I feel
>
> confident you never will be able to. I do challenge you to try though. Go:
>

I've presented you with Steven Davis' estimate and the reasoning behind it. If you don't believe that it's a "reasonable attempt" at estimating the mean death rate from soybean production, you should explain why not. That would involve engaging with what he wrote in some meaningful way.

The worst-case scenario would be that you are correct and that we have no reasonable attempt available at estimating the mean death rate. Where would that leave us? My argument has been that you have insufficient data to back up your claims. If we have no data bearing on the matter at all, that would rather strengthen my case, don't you think?

>
>
> >and I've claimed that it's likely to be at least the correct order of magnitude.
>
>
>
> The number you tried to get me to believe was the total far less than half.
>
> You should be ashamed.
>

Actually, I have no good reason to be ashamed at all.

You haven't given any reasons why you think that the figure is too small by a factor of at least two. But suppose that it is, so what? I'm quite open to the possibility that it's too small by a factor of two, I've only said that it's probably the correct order of magnitude (i.e., not too small by a factor of 10). You've repeatedly made the claim that the death rate associated with one cup of tofu is larger than that for a nutritionally equivalent serving of grass-fed beef by a factor of hundreds. That would require that the figure be too small by a factor of 200. You've never given the least evidence that this is the case. That means that your claim is unsupported by the evidence, and you should stop making it.

>
>
> >You've presented me with no data of your own about the matter whatsoever. So where does that leave us?
>
> >
>
> >You made a claim about how the death rate for biscuit production compares with the death rate for deer meat production. You've shown yourself to be completely incapable of substantiating this claim in any way.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >But it's absurd to think that it would be as high as 3000 per hectare, which is what would be needed to justify your claim that the death rate for tofu is higher than that for grass-fed beef by a factor of "hundreds".
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> What is the death rate per hectare of wildlife killed by cattle eating
>
> >>
>
> >> grass?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >No idea. For the purposes of my calculations, I've been assuming it's zero. What's that got to do with the price of fish?
>
>
>
> That means zero deaths compared with over 50% of entire populations killed.
>

If you stupidly chose to focus only on the animals that were killed by the cattle eating grass, when as I've been repeatedly pointing out it's completely obvious that you have to also consider the deaths caused by the slaughter of the cattle.

>
>
> >> >> >"It takes 10 kg of milk to produce 1 kg of cheese. The cumulative elasticity factor for milk products is 0.45. So buying one 20-gram slice of cheese will lead to an expected increase of 90 grams in the total amount of milk produced.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> How exactly would it do that, and what would be different if that one slice
>
> >> >> were not bought?
>
> >>
>
> >> >An increase in the demand for milk products leads to an increase in the supply. The cumulative elasticity factor gives you the ratio. If that one slice were not bought, the total profitability of the dairy industry would be slightly smaller and dairy farmers would have less incentive to produce.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> LOL!!!! You certainly live in an imaginary world that does not exist on this
>
> >>
>
> >> planet, and probably doesn't exist anywhere in the universe imo.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >You've agreed that if the slices of cheese are bought in sufficient quantity then that will have an effect on the dairy farmers' incentive to produce, right?
>
>
>
> Now you're HORRIBLY dishonestly trying to pretend that a single slice of
>
> cheese and a "sufficient quantity" of cheese are the same thing when they are
>
> NOT.

Actually, that is obvious nonsense. I quite obviously never said any such thing, that is a stupid straw man on your part.

The argument is that if a sufficient quantity of cheese will have some impact, then you must conclude that that just one slice of cheese will have at least some expected impact ("expected impact" refers to the size of the impact multiplied by the probability that it will take place).

> That's very similar to you HORRIBLY dishonestly pretending that the death
>
> rate of a single species in a single operation is the same as the combined death
>
> rates of all species in a number of operations.
>

I didn't pretend that. Steven Davis claimed that the mean total mortality rate over the course of a year is about 60%, I haven't seen you give any reason to doubt that. Then for some reason he took the total population of field mice and multiplied it by that figure. I don't know why he used the total population of field mice, perhaps he thought that it would be a reasonable approximation to the total population.

You're talking about one operation where the reduction in population was 80%. Not all of that reduction would be accounted for by mortality, some of it would be migration out of the field.

>
>
> >Well then, you can't consistently claim that one slice of cheese has no effect whatsoever.
>
>
>
> So far I can still make the claim and you can't even pretend to make it
>
> appear untrue.
>

It's obviously untrue to any reasonably intelligent person. If you're not yet able to see why it's untrue, so be it. I'm not sure there's anything I can do to help you.

>
>
> >If buying one slice of cheese had absolutely zero probability of having an impact,
>
>
>
> Try to explain exactly WHAT impact you want people to think buying one slice
>
> of cheese could possibly have. Go:
>

Each purchase marginally increases the total profit that dairy farmers make from their operations. At some point there must come a "threshold purchase" which makes a difference to the number of dairy cows that the farmers buy in order to produce milk. Any given individual purchase has a small probability of being such a "threshold purchase".

>
>
> >then buying 10,000 slices of cheese would also have zero probability of having an impact, and you've agreed that's not so.
>
> >
>
> >What I am saying is just basic common sense.
>
> >
>
> >> >> >But there is a small probability that it will have some effect.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> No there isn't.
>
> >>
>
> >> >Of course there is. There has to be. Otherwise you could buy 10,000 of these slices of cheese and the probability would still be zero that it would have any effect, which is absurd.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You honestly believe the sale of 10K slices of cheese would have an impact
>
> >>
>
> >> on the entire dairy industry?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >At some point, there will be an impact.
>
>
>
> Not with one slice, as you have dishonestly been trying to pretend.
>

But that is not consistent. Buying just one slice would have a very small probability of having any impact at all. But the probability still has to be greater than zero. Otherwise there would be no impact at all no matter how many slices of cheese you buy, which is obviously absurd.

So there is a probability greater than zero that there will be some impact. Hence there is an expected impact greater than zero (the expected impact refers to the impact multiplied by the probability that it will take place). My claim has been that the expected impact is about an additional six minutes of life for dairy cattle. That is a small expected impact, and the probability that any impact would take place at all would be very close to zero. But it would still be greater than zero.


>
>
> >If people stopped buying dairy products altogether, the dairy industry would cease to exist. There's a relationship between the amount demanded and the amount supplied, given by the cumulative elasticity factor. If you focus on any individual small purchase then the probability that there will be any impact is very small, but there's still an expected impact. There has to be, because we know that a sufficiently large number of purchases has an impact.
>
> >
>
> >I find this conversation tedious.
>
>
>
> You're trying to get me to believe something I know isn't true, and I'm not
>
> stupid enough to fall for it.
>

You are entitled to take that perspective if you wish. I do not understand why you do not find my arguments compelling. You have not pointed out any shortcoming in them.

>
>
> >> >You're a fool.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Maybe, but you're a bigger fool however much a fool I am.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >You are entitled to your opinion.
>
> >
>
> >> >> >Well, anyone can agree or disagree with me as they see fit,
>
> >> >> >what I am interested in is some evidence that I am wrong.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> The fact that there's no way buying a slice of cheese COULD have impact on
>
> >> >> anything is some very strong evidence, now that you mention it.
>
> >>
>
> >> >Why is there no way that could happen?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Because farmers invest enough time, effort and money in their business that
>
> >>
>
> >> the sale or not of a single slice of cheese is not enough to be significant to
>
> >>
>
> >> them.
>
> >
>
> >For some sufficient large number N,
>
>
>
> You're dishonestly trying to change it from a single slice to as many as you
>
> want again. You really are a horribly dishonest person. Consistently.
>

It is not dishonest in the least. There is some sufficiently large number N such that the purchase of N slices of cheeses will have an impact. We are agreed on that. The claim is that this leads you to the inference that the purchase of just one slice of cheese will have an expected impact greater than zero. (Expected impact, again, means the impact multiplied by the probability that it will take place.) For some reason, you are unable to see why this is a valid inference. Probably because you are extraordinarily stupid and ignorant, I guess.

>
>
> >the sale of N slices of cheese will be significant to them. When you buy one slice of cheese, there is a probability of 1/N that this is a "threshold purchase" that makes a difference to the amount of activity in the dairy industry that takes place.
>
> >
>
> >> Even a guy with a PhD in math should be able to figure that out, so if you
>
> >>
>
> >> honestly can't figure it out ask someone else who has a PhD in math, and please
>
> >>
>
> >> let me know what they tell you. Don't change it for them either. Ask them why
>
> >>
>
> >> the sale of ONE SLICE of cheese won't do anything to influence the entire dairy
>
> >>
>
> >> industry or even one farmer that's involved in it, and let us know here what
>
> >>
>
> >> they tell you. Oh, and just for fun, ask your dad too. I'm curious what he would
>
> >>
>
> >> think if he knew you were in here acting so stupid that you think the sale of
>
> >>
>
> >> one slice of cheese could be significant, that you can't figure out how the
>
> >>
>
> >> processes of growing soy kill more than cattle do by eating grass,
>
> >
>
> >I wish you'd stop repeating that tiresome
>
>
>
> You hate that aspect of human influence on animals. I like it and you hate
>
> it.
>

What is it that you like? The fact that cattle don't kill very many animals by eating grass? I don't hate that at all. I've repeatedly explained, as patiently as I possibly can, why the number of animals that cattle kill by eating grass is *very obviously* not the only relevant factor to the discussions we've been having, and I've also pointed out that I never drew any comparison at all between the collateral death rate for soybean production and the number of animals killed by cattle eating grass, as you repeatedly claim I did, either through dishonesty or quite unfathomable stupidity.

>
>
> >straw man over and over again. I've told you many times that I never said any such thing, and it should have been obvious from the start.
>
> >
>
> >> and that you:
>
> >>
>
> >> "don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of
>
> >>
>
> >> negative value" means anything."
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >The more slices of cheese are bought, the more incentive there is for dairy farmers to engage in further activity. Most purchases don't have any impact whatever, but some purchases are "threshold purchases"
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> All of a sudden you're throwing in a distinction since I questioned you
>
> >>
>
> >> about it. So what do you want us to think distinguishes between threshold
>
> >>
>
> >> purchases and non threshold purchases of single slices of cheese?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Whether or not the increment in profability from the purchase makes a difference to the decisions the farmers make. It has to happen eventually, after sufficiently many small increments.
>
>
>
> A single slice of cheese has no impact as I've pointed out from the start
>
> but you've dishonestly tried to claim.

The probability that it will have an impact is small. But there is a probability greater than zero that there will be some impact. There has to be, otherwise you would have to conclude that no matter how many slices of cheese were bought, there would be no impact at all. Which is obviously absurd.

> Now you're dishonestly moving from your
>
> position of one slice to tens of thousands of slices. Very VERY dishonest of
>
> you!
>

I'm not being dishonest in the least. I'm trying to explain basic mathematics to someone who appears to be cognitively impaired.

>
>
> >> >Well, for one thing, the pig was probably fed with grains whose production caused cd's.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Why can you appreciate that in regards to grain eaten by livestock but not
>
> >>
>
> >> grain eaten by humans?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I know that when humans buy grains and eat them, they are giving financial incentives for processes that cause collateral deaths. That is well-established. My point is that you have no basis whatsoever for doing your comparison of the death rate for the biscuit and the death rate for the deer meat. You simply don't have any data that bear on the question.
>
>
>
> The no cds associated with the deer meat and many associated with
>
> comercially grown veggies does bear on the question.
>

But it is not the only thing that bears on the question, there is also the death of the deer to be taken into account, and you don't have enough data to be able to judge how the comparison would turn out.

>
>
> >> >> We'd certainly have to consider the fact that meat is a lot more nutritious
>
> >> >> and therefore it would take less meat than it would biscuit to provide the
>
> >> >> nutrition. We'd also have to take more than just calories into consideration but
>
> >> >> also protein, so you'd have to include enough biscuit to provide an amount of
>
> >> >> protein equal to that of the deer meat. That would probably take a LOT of
>
> >> >> biscuit, if it would be possible at all.
>
> >>
>
> >> >Well, have you changed your mind about what you're comparing?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> YOU are the one who suggested comparing the nutritional value. Did you
>
> >>
>
> >> forget about YOU wanting to do that? You said "it has to be between calorically
>
> >>
>
> >> equivalent servings of food". I'm saying that since you want to include calories
>
> >>
>
> >> we should also include protein.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >We can do whatever comparison you like. This is about your claim. It's the claim that you made. You said there were more deaths associated with the biscuit than with the deer meat. Feel free to explain what you mean by that in whatever way you like. I simply want to be presented with the least scintilla of evidence for the claim. Which you very obviously can't do.
>
>
>
> How do you want people to think a single deer causes as many deaths as a
>
> farmer does by growing fields of wheat?
>

But the relevant comparison has to be with the number of deaths associated with whatever quantity of wheat is nutritionally equivalent to the amount of deer meat you get from killing just one deer.

>
>
> >Yawn.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >I thought you were comparing the biscuit and the deer meat. Now you're saying you want to compare a serving of biscuit that has the same amount of protein. Make up your mind.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Since you want to compare nutritional value we must include calories and
>
> >>
>
> >> protein.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Well, that's fine with me.
>
>
>
> Try doing it then. Go:
>

I really don't understand why you think it's my job to do your work for you. You are the one who made the claim. It's your job.

We can give it a go, I guess. What were the ingredients of the biscuit, what grains were required as input for the production of the biscuit and how much?

>
>
> >All I want you to do is provide some kind of evidence for your claim.
>
> >
>
> >> >Can't remember. You've been talking complete bollocks, from what I can recall.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I pointed out that the number of wildlife living in an area has an influence
>
> >>
>
> >> on the number of wildlife that are killed. There was a time you pretended that
>
> >>
>
> >> you could appreciate that aspect, but now you reveal the truth that to YOU that
>
> >>
>
> >> aspect is "complete bollocks".
>
> >
>
> >No. I have no argument with that claim.
>
>
>
> Then you lied that I've been talking complete bollocks, as well as lying
>
> about the mean and lying about whatever all else...
>

No, that does not follow. And I haven't told any lies.

>
>
> >> >Well, we wouldn't know, because you never do engage with the evidence.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> That's a blatant lie.
>
> >
>
> >Actually, it's the truth.
>
> >
>
> >> So you see you ARE a liar so I am VERY justified in
>
> >>
>
> >> considering you to be one. How MUCH lying you do is all that's in some question,
>
> >>
>
> >> but whether you lie or not is NOT in question since this is another blatant one.
>
> >>
>
> >> You also lied and lied and lied that I didn't give you any kind of explanation
>
> >>
>
> >> about lives of positive value. That's only ONE other example of your blatant
>
> >>
>
> >> lying. Oh yeah, another VERY blatant lie was you lying that Davis said
>
> >>
>
> >> ...LOL!... only 15 deaths per hectare total for soy production,
>
> >
>
> >He did say that.
>
>
>
> Prove it.
>

I've already given you the quote.

>
>
> >Presumably the claim is that the field mice represent the lion's share of the total, and so are a reasonable approximation to the total figure.
>
> >
>
> >> when the truth
>
> >>
>
> >> is he said over 15 deaths of a single type of animal, and I believe that was
>
> >>
>
> >> also only in ONE operation.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Which is not representative of the mean figure.
>
>
>
> You can't figure out the mean figure. You can't even attempt to.
>

I've presented you with Davis' estimate of the mean figure and the reasoning behind it, and you haven't engaged with this reasoning in any meaningful way. In any event, you yourself quite obviously do not have the least idea what the mean figure is.

>
>
> >> >It sounds as though you don't believe in intrinsic value.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Unless you can say what it's TOO, you don't either. Even if you would like
>
> >>
>
> >> to think that you do, you prove that you do NOT.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I don't believe in intrinsic value, actually. I was just curious about whether you did or not. I'm sorry that you don't know what it is. I don't know if I have the energy to bother explaining.
>
>
>
> You have no idea what it even COULD be and can't pretend that you do.
>

I do know what it is. But I lack the inclination to make the effort to explain, since it is not really relevant and you would be unlikely to understand. There is a chapter in Tara Smith's book "Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality" which discusses the concept of intrinsic value (critically, arguing that intrinsic value does not in fact exist). If you are interested, you can look it up.

>
>
> >If you don't believe in it that's fine.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >So you believe that life itself is of value to living organisms?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> It's necessary in order to benefit from anything else otherwise things could
>
> >>
>
> >> continue to benefit after they're dead. Were you somehow unaware of that?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Of course not. That's a different question. Life is a necessary prerequisite for the organism to be able to benefit from anything at all. But that's different to the question of whether the organism benefits from having come into existence.
>
>
>
> Existence and life are both necessary benefits in order to benefit from
>
> anything else, afaWk.
>

They are necessary *prerequisites* for obtaining any benefit. But to claim that they are themselves benefits is something that requires defence.

>
>
> >> >Or is it the pleasurable experiences that they have which is of value to them?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Not "or". What could give you the impression it could be one "or" the other,
>
> >>
>
> >> but not both?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I never said it couldn't be both. It wasn't an exclusive "or".
>
>
>
> Then why do YOU say OR?
>

Why shouldn't I? Are you aware of the distinction between inclusive or and exclusive or? Silly question, really.

>
>
> >> So far I've no reason to think it's abnormal for one thing.
>
> >
>
> >Yes, you do. You have been presented with reasons for thinking that the mean figure is about 60%.
>
> >
>
> >> >No, I wouldn't.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Admit that you live your lifestyle in a specific attempt NOT TO contribute
>
> >>
>
> >> to anything or in any way to livestock then.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >The reason why I am vegan is that I believe that it reduces the amount of suffering that takes place. I've said this often enough.
>
>
>
> You deserve credit for nothing. At least I deserve credit for contributing
>
> to cage free egg production instead of nothing.
>

Why is it that I do not deserve credit for making an effort to reduce the amount of suffering that takes place?

>
>
> >> >I have presented some reasons. You refuse to read them.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Like the holding back of feed to the parents of broiler chickens? YES!
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >That would be one example, yes,
>
>
>
> Then another of the things you lied about was your lie that I didn't read
>
> what I read and we had already discussed. What do you think you gain by telling
>
> such blatant lies? WHAT?????
>

I didn't tell any lies. I never made the claim that you hadn't read the passage about the withholding of feed from the parents of the broiler chickens. I thought that you probably hadn't read the other passages that I copied and pasted. You may have read them by now for all I know, I don't know. But you certainly haven't engaged with them in any meaningful way.

>
>
> >but I've presented other information as well. You may possibly have read it, but you certainly refuse to engage with it in any meaningful way.
>
>
>
> That's another lie since not only have I told you none of it makes life seem
>
> of negative value to them for me,

That's not engaging with it in any meaningful way.

I didn't tell any lies. You should stop accusing me of telling lies when you have no rational foundation for doing so. It's unethical.

> but I've also challenged YOU to present what
>
> YOU DO think makes it of negative value TO YOU.

So you're claiming that you've actually read the passages that I copied and pasted, right? Would you say that it's fair to say that they describe certain respects in which broiler chickens are seriously harmed by being farmed? Or not?

> You can't even do that much, as
>
> I've also pointed out a number of times. You STILL have NOTHING!!!
>

No. I've presented you with some detailed factual information about how broiler chickens are harmed by being farmed. That is not "nothing".

>
>
> >> Another one of your blatant lies is that I haven't read the things I've already
>
> >>
>
> >> discussed with you because I did read them.
>
> >
>
> >I wasn't talking about the quote about the withholding of feed. I was talking about the other quotes that I have pasted which you have completely ignored.
>
> >
>
> >> Damn you are a dishonest person.
>
> >
>
> >Not at all.
>
>
>
> That's another lie.
>

No, it's not, and you very obviously do not have the least reason to believe that it is. You shouldn't accuse people of lying when you have no rational foundation for doing so. It's unethical.

>
>
> >What I said is absolutely correct. You shouldn't accuse people of dishonesty when you have no grounds for doing so. It's unethical.
>
> >
>
> >> >> Do you keep telling that particular lie just so I'll keep pointing out that
>
> >> >> I did read what you presented and NOTHING in any of it appears to make life of
>
> >> >> negative value for any livestock animals?
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Do you think it is fair to say that the information I presented demonstrates that broiler chicken farming causes a lot of suffering?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You said I didn't read it. Retract that particular lie and I'll answer your
>
> >>
>
> >> question, though I already have told you.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I have no way of knowing whether you have read it or not.
>
>
>
> You lied that I didn't after I'd already discussed it with you because I had
>
> read it. So you're lying YET AGAIN.
>

What I am referring to is the sections that I copied and pasted after I copied and pasted the quote about the withholding of feed. I am, indeed, absolutely correct when I say that I have no way of knowing whether you have read these sections or not. So I am telling the truth, not lying. You shouldn't accuse people of lying when you have no rational foundation for doing so. It's unethical.

>
>
> >You haven't engaged with it in any meaningful way.
>
>
>
> That's a repeat of a lie I pointed out and commented on above by saying:
>
>
>
> That's another lie since not only have I told you none of it makes life seem of
>
> negative value to them for me, but I've also challenged YOU to present what YOU
>
> DO think makes it of negative value TO YOU. You can't even do that much, as I've
>
> also pointed out a number of times. You STILL have NOTHING!!!
>

It's not a lie. Saying that there's nothing in the sections I copied and pasted which seems to you to make the lives of broiler chickens of negative value to them, is not engaging with them in any meaningful way. I did not tell a lie, I told the truth.

>
>
> >> >> Try to pick out from all of that exactly what YOU want people to think makes
>
> >> >> life of negative value for which creatures. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >> >All of it. For broiler chickens.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Try to find photos backing up the claims. We need to see photos of broiler
>
> >>
>
> >> houses where the birds appear to be suffering from the things metioned. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >No, we don't.
>
>
>
> Yes we would but since it's a lie there are none.
>

Right. So you are claiming that the information given in the CIWF report is false? Do you have any rational foundation for this opinion of yours?

>
>
> >The report is factual. You have no grounds for doubting its factual accuracy. We probably could find photos of operations where broiler chickens are not doing well, but that is neither here nor there. You have no photos of the collateral deaths from soybean production, but that is not a rational ground for doubting that they take place.
>
> >
>
> >> >> >Well, you need to know how much rice milk you can get from growing one hectare of rice, don't you.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Figure it out if you care enough.
>
> >>
>
> >> >I don't care all that much, no.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You don't care that soy is worse than grass raised cow milk, and you don't
>
> >>
>
> >> care that rice is worse than both.
>
> >
>
> >If I had some reliable information which gave me grounds for believing those things, then I'd care.
>
>
>
> That's another lie since I've given you grounds for understanding why cattle
>
> don't kill as much as farm machinery and chemicals, and flooding and draining of
>
> course.
>

The information that you have given me is not a sufficient basis for making a comparison between the amount of harm caused by soybean production and that caused by beef production. Or for a comparison between the amount of harm caused by rice production and that caused by beef production. There just isn't enough information available on the basis of which to make the comparison. If it was within my power to acquire sufficient information then I would care. As it is, my limited resources and capacity to do research about how to effectively reduce animal suffering is best invested elsewhere.
Okay, great, so do we know how much rice can be produced by one acre?

dh

unread,
Jun 20, 2013, 6:22:45 PM6/20/13
to
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:25:28 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
.
>On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:26:50 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 02:18:09 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:59:51 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:41:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >It's possible, I suppose.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> How could it? Try to think of some ways, and about how MUCH influence. Also
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> in the case of rice...even more so in fact. See what you come up with yourself
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> even just thinking about it, if you can.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I suggest you ask
>>
>>
>>
>> You've let me know that you have no idea at all.
>
>I wouldn't have thought that I'm qualified to comment on the matter, no. (I also doubt that you are.)

I've pointed out things that influence it, though you MIGHT honestly be too
clueless to comprehend.

>> You can't comprehend how
>>
>> any domestic animals could have lives of positive vallue.
>
>I believe that there are some domestic animals which have lives such that I wouldn't choose to try to prevent such lives from happening, and I've made this clear to you many times.

The ONLY creatures on the planet, wild or domestic, you claimed to feel that
way about for probably a year or more was some grass raised cattle. After a long
period of time of me asking you if that's ALL you would allow and you wussing
horribly about it you finally said you would also allow some free range chickens
and some humans. Then later you retracted both the cattle and the chickens. Do
you want to add them again? Would you like to add some other type(s) of
creature(s)? Maybe some wildlife? Maybe some pets???

>> You claim you can't
>>
>> comprehend any distinction between lives of positive and negative value.
>
>I think that you need to be clearer about what the distinction means for you.

I don't. I believe life has positive value unless it involves enough
suffering to make it of negative value to the individual experiencing it. You
can try to make something else out of it, but you can't do it without changing
what it means to me, imo. Try if you think you can though.

>I'm able to draw a distinction between those lives which I personally would choose to try to prevent from happening

What is it about those particular lives that would make you want to prevent
them from happening?

>and those lives which I wouldn't try to prevent from happening. That may be some kind of approximation to what you mean.
>
>> And you
>>
>> can't comprehend how the surrounding areas could have influence on the number of
>>
>> animals who die in crop fields.
>
>I told you I thought it was possible that there might be some influence.

LOL!!! So, do you think that maybe if there is no wildlife in the area
significantly less wildlife might be killed than if there was a lot of it? Can
you really get that "far" with this, finally?

>As for the details of the mechanisms by which that would happen, I think it would be better to ask an ecologist.

You SHOULD not only try to think about it yourself, but should have been
doing so for years without me ever having to point it out for you IF you really
care anything about the amount of suffering that goes on. You don't care much as
we can plainly see, but maybe you could improve in that direction even if you
never learn to appreciate anything good for any livestock animals.

>> You are truly a horribly clueless person IF
>>
>> you're being honest about how much you can't comprehend.
>>
>
>You are entitled to your opinion.
>
>>
>>
>> >an ecologist about it, if the topic interests you.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a casual interest in it and can comprehend WAY better than you who
>>
>> should have a strong interest in it IF!!! you cared at all. You don't care as we
>>
>> have seen by YOUR demonstrations, like this one.
>>
>
>If you think that you can comprehend the topic better than me, then I am happy to listen to any efforts you wish to make to explain your superior understanding. I am not really clear on why I ought to care strongly about this topic.

Because the suffering associated with veggie production is as real as that
associated with raising livestock and you claim to care about suffering, for one
thing.

>But that doesn't mean I'm not interested in it, and I don't see why you think that I've demonstrated that I don't care.

Because of the lack of interest you've had up until now for one thing.

>I've simply disavowed competence to speak about it.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >I don't have any idea what the standard deviation is, no.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You don't know what any of it is, including the standard deviation. You
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> don't know what the mean is, or if there even is one. If there is don't you
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> think it changes every day to some extent, especially during popular harvest
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> periods?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >The mean would not vary that much over time, and as far as variation with the harvest period goes you would be taking the mean across the different harvest periods. I have a reasonable estimate for the mean. No-one is claiming it's an estimate with a high degree of precision, but it's reasonable to suppose that it would at least be the correct order of magnitude.
>>
>>
>>
>> You haven't come anywhere near it yet. You tried to pretend it is 15 total
>>
>> deaths when the guy said there are over 15 deaths of ONE species from a single
>>
>> operation, and there are a number of different operations and even more
>>
>> different species.
>>
>
>Let's focus on the claim that the mean mortality rate is about 60% (over the course of an entire year).

No. He mentioned several examples where a single operation caused 60% OR
MORE, and there are always several operations. You're trying that dishonest
thing again because you think I'm so stupid I won't notice. I noticed.

>Do you think that that is a reasonable claim?

Maybe 75%. And that's low from the material you presented, imo.
. . .
>> Far less than 50% of the animals living in grazing areas are killed by the
>>
>> cattle. Over 50% of the animals living in crop fields are killed by crop
>>
>> farming. Done.
>>
>
>I find it unfathomable why you keep returning to this issue of how many animals the cattle kill while eating grass. I've tried to explain to you time and time again, as patiently as I can, why that is *very obviously* completely irrelevant.

It's very significant so you COULD NOT have done what you claim, but I
challenge you to try doing it now. Go:
I very strongly disbelieve you. Does that help your understanding any?

>> That's because if you were not stupid enough to get in
>>
>> your position you would never in your life get into the position that cognitive
>>
>> dissonance prevents you from being able to appreciate aspects of human influence
>>
>> on animals like this. In contrast to your position I'm not too stupid to
>>
>> comprehend these aspects, nor do I have cognitive dissonance preventing me from
>>
>> being able to appreciate them.
>>
>
>Which aspects would these be?

Any and all that reveal the fact that animal products ever involve fewer
deaths than vegetable products, afawk.

>> >It should be obvious right from the start anyway, and I've also repeatedly explained it to you. Why do you keep on bringing up the same stupid straw man over and over again? What's wrong with you?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >I've given it to you once. Look it up on Wikipedia.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You've let me know that it doesn't matter.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >That is false.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >No.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Then don't bring it up any more, especially since it doesn't matter.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I don't take orders from you. I will bring up what I feel like bringing up,
>>
>>
>>
>> Yet you can't apply it to my position or yours, in part because you have no
>>
>> clue at all what it is.
>>
>
>There are some claims which you have made for which a knowledge of the standard deviation would be relevant. If you have no idea what it is, then you should refrain from making claims that would require a knowledge of it.
>
>>
>>
>> >and I will not provide you with free tutoring in statistics on demand when I have already given you the definition and you can easily look it up on Wikipedia. The standard deviation is relevant to some of the claims that you have made. You would do well to educate yourself about it. If you can't be bothered doing that, then it's no skin off my nose, but I will bring up whatever I feel like bringing up.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >I explained it to you once. I'm not going to waste my time explaining it again. Look it up on Wikipedia.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> LOL. I'm not going to waste my time looking into it especially now that
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you've shown that it doesn't matter.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >It would not be a waste of your time
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes it would.
>>
>
>You are mistaken. It would be well worth your while to do something about your profound ignorance of basic statistical concepts.
>
>>
>>
>> >to educate yourself about basic statistical concepts which every numerate citizen of the modern age should know. I have not shown that it doesn't matter.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes you have.
>>
>
>I wonder why you think that.

Because you have, and even now you can't pretend that it does matter in any
significant way.

>> >> >I copied and pasted the quote. He says what he thinks they are.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> He did NOT list all the animals that die in soybean production.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >How do you know?
>>
>>
>>
>> Because he didn't mention some that do.
>
>Which ones?
>
>> If you think he did then you list
>>
>> the ones he mentioned and if I can't point out any that aren't on his list then
>>
>> and only then can we consider that he possibly did mention them all. Go:
>>
>
>Stop giving me orders and trying to waste my time. I've copied and pasted the quote more than once. Go and find it yourself, and then tell me which animals die in soybean production that aren't on his list.

No. If you won't do your part then I'm not going to do it for you.

>> >> >No reason to believe it's not an accurate estimate? Why not?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Because I have no reason to believe it is,
>>
>> >
>>
>> >He presented some reason to believe that it is. You don't have to agree, but you should at least engage with what he wrote, instead of pretending you've been given no reason.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have been given no reason. Try giving one, if you think it exists. Go:
>>
>> . . .
>>
>
>I've copied and pasted the quote for you. That presents his reasoning. It is not sufficient merely to assert that it is "no reason".

LOL!!! Yes it is, you fool.

>You need to engage with what he wrote in some meaningful way.
>
>> >> That's just ONE type of animal, but you dishonestly tried to pretend it was
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> the total number of deaths for all animals killed until I caught you at it and
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> pointed it out.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >It looks as though he's assuming that field mice will represent the majority of animals killed. Perhaps we should email him and ask him about it. I was not dishonest in any way.
>>
>>
>>
>> You sure were, and now you're lying about that too.
>>
>
>No, I was not, I made a good faith effort to have a serious discussion of the topic. You have no rational grounds for thinking that I was in any way dishonest. You shouldn't accuse people of dishonesty when you have no rational grounds for doing so. It's rude. I've told you this many times before.
>
>>
>>
>> >I presented you with the quotation explaining his reasoning, I was completely upfront about what the claim was and the reasoning behind it. You shouldn't accuse people of dishonesty when you have no grounds for doing so. It's unethical.
>>
>>
>>
>> You lie to me frequently and that's unethical from my pov.
>
>That is false. I have never told a single lie throughout my entire history of posting to usenet,

I consider that to be a huge lie that you don't believe.

>and you also have no rational grounds for thinking that I ever have.
>
>> Then you lie
>>
>> about your lies, and then you bitch because I point out your lies. ALL of that
>>
>> is unethical.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >The total death rate could be a bit more.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> LOL!!! It could also be a LOT more.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Could be. I've presented you with one reasonable attempt to estimate the mean death rate from soybean production,
>>
>>
>>
>> No you haven't. You couldn't have because you can't do it at all, and I feel
>>
>> confident you never will be able to. I do challenge you to try though. Go:
>>
>
>I've presented you with Steven Davis' estimate and the reasoning behind it. If you don't believe that it's a "reasonable attempt" at estimating the mean death rate from soybean production, you should explain why not.

I did.

>That would involve engaging with what he wrote in some meaningful way.

List the animals that are on his list and I will. Don't list them and I
won't do it for you.

>The worst-case scenario would be that you are correct and that we have no reasonable attempt available at estimating the mean death rate. Where would that leave us?

With me understanding that some animal products involve fewer deaths than
some vegetable products which is the way things are, and you not being able to
understand it so you claim.

>My argument has been that you have insufficient data to back up your claims. If we have no data bearing on the matter at all, that would rather strengthen my case, don't you think?
>
>>
>>
>> >and I've claimed that it's likely to be at least the correct order of magnitude.
>>
>>
>>
>> The number you tried to get me to believe was the total far less than half.
>>
>> You should be ashamed.
>>
>
>Actually, I have no good reason to be ashamed at all.
>
>You haven't given any reasons why you think that the figure is too small by a factor of at least two. But suppose that it is, so what? I'm quite open to the possibility that it's too small by a factor of two, I've only said that it's probably the correct order of magnitude (i.e., not too small by a factor of 10).

He might have listed 10 species each of which contributes 10 or 15 or more
deaths.

>You've repeatedly made the claim that the death rate associated with one cup of tofu is larger than that for a nutritionally equivalent serving of grass-fed beef by a factor of hundreds. That would require that the figure be too small by a factor of 200. You've never given the least evidence that this is the case. That means that your claim is unsupported by the evidence, and you should stop making it.
>
>>
>>
>> >You've presented me with no data of your own about the matter whatsoever. So where does that leave us?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >You made a claim about how the death rate for biscuit production compares with the death rate for deer meat production. You've shown yourself to be completely incapable of substantiating this claim in any way.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >But it's absurd to think that it would be as high as 3000 per hectare, which is what would be needed to justify your claim that the death rate for tofu is higher than that for grass-fed beef by a factor of "hundreds".
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> What is the death rate per hectare of wildlife killed by cattle eating
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> grass?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >No idea. For the purposes of my calculations, I've been assuming it's zero. What's that got to do with the price of fish?
>>
>>
>>
>> That means zero deaths compared with over 50% of entire populations killed.
>>
>
>If you stupidly chose to focus only on the animals that were killed by the cattle eating grass, when as I've been repeatedly pointing out it's completely obvious that you have to also consider the deaths caused by the slaughter of the cattle.

We went through that a long time ago and it's less than 1/1000 death per
serving for a 1000 pound animal, and that's of HUMAN grade meat. Then the figure
drops WAAAAY more if we include all byproducts which I remember that YOU wanted
to do. Maybe it's 1/10000 or less when we consider byproducts, but I'll be
generous and go with 1/10000 for the time being if you want.

>> >> >> >"It takes 10 kg of milk to produce 1 kg of cheese. The cumulative elasticity factor for milk products is 0.45. So buying one 20-gram slice of cheese will lead to an expected increase of 90 grams in the total amount of milk produced.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> How exactly would it do that, and what would be different if that one slice
>>
>> >> >> were not bought?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >An increase in the demand for milk products leads to an increase in the supply. The cumulative elasticity factor gives you the ratio. If that one slice were not bought, the total profitability of the dairy industry would be slightly smaller and dairy farmers would have less incentive to produce.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> LOL!!!! You certainly live in an imaginary world that does not exist on this
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> planet, and probably doesn't exist anywhere in the universe imo.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >You've agreed that if the slices of cheese are bought in sufficient quantity then that will have an effect on the dairy farmers' incentive to produce, right?
>>
>>
>>
>> Now you're HORRIBLY dishonestly trying to pretend that a single slice of
>>
>> cheese and a "sufficient quantity" of cheese are the same thing when they are
>>
>> NOT.
>
>Actually, that is obvious nonsense. I quite obviously never said any such thing, that is a stupid straw man on your part.
>
>The argument is that if a sufficient quantity of cheese will have some impact, then you must conclude that that just one slice of cheese will have at least some expected impact

There's no reason to believe it would. None. You can't give any.

>("expected impact" refers to the size of the impact multiplied by the probability that it will take place).
>
>> That's very similar to you HORRIBLY dishonestly pretending that the death
>>
>> rate of a single species in a single operation is the same as the combined death
>>
>> rates of all species in a number of operations.
>>
>
>I didn't pretend that. Steven Davis claimed that the mean total mortality rate over the course of a year is about 60%,

Present the quote if you want me to believe that, and a link to the site.
If/When you don't I'll suspect you of dishonesty again.
. . .
>> >> you can't figure out how the
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> processes of growing soy kill more than cattle do by eating grass,
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I wish you'd stop repeating that tiresome
>>
>>
>>
>> You hate that aspect of human influence on animals. I like it and you hate
>>
>> it.
>>
>
>What is it that you like? The fact that cattle don't kill very many animals by eating grass?

That's the one I was referring to.

. . .
>> >I know that when humans buy grains and eat them, they are giving financial incentives for processes that cause collateral deaths. That is well-established. My point is that you have no basis whatsoever for doing your comparison of the death rate for the biscuit and the death rate for the deer meat. You simply don't have any data that bear on the question.
>>
>>
>>
>> The no cds associated with the deer meat and many associated with
>>
>> comercially grown veggies does bear on the question.
>>
>
>But it is not the only thing that bears on the question, there is also the death of the deer to be taken into account,

Less than 1/100 per serving for a hundred pound deer, probably.

>and you don't have enough data to be able to judge how the comparison would turn out.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >> We'd certainly have to consider the fact that meat is a lot more nutritious
>>
>> >> >> and therefore it would take less meat than it would biscuit to provide the
>>
>> >> >> nutrition. We'd also have to take more than just calories into consideration but
>>
>> >> >> also protein, so you'd have to include enough biscuit to provide an amount of
>>
>> >> >> protein equal to that of the deer meat. That would probably take a LOT of
>>
>> >> >> biscuit, if it would be possible at all.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Well, have you changed your mind about what you're comparing?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> YOU are the one who suggested comparing the nutritional value. Did you
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> forget about YOU wanting to do that? You said "it has to be between calorically
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> equivalent servings of food". I'm saying that since you want to include calories
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> we should also include protein.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >We can do whatever comparison you like. This is about your claim. It's the claim that you made. You said there were more deaths associated with the biscuit than with the deer meat. Feel free to explain what you mean by that in whatever way you like. I simply want to be presented with the least scintilla of evidence for the claim. Which you very obviously can't do.
>>
>>
>>
>> How do you want people to think a single deer causes as many deaths as a
>>
>> farmer does by growing fields of wheat?
>>
>
>But the relevant comparison has to be with the number of deaths associated with whatever quantity of wheat is nutritionally equivalent to the amount of deer meat you get from killing just one deer.

Try figuring it out since you're the math guy. Don't forget to include
calories AND protein.

>> >Yawn.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I thought you were comparing the biscuit and the deer meat. Now you're saying you want to compare a serving of biscuit that has the same amount of protein. Make up your mind.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Since you want to compare nutritional value we must include calories and
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> protein.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Well, that's fine with me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Try doing it then. Go:
>>
>
>I really don't understand why you think it's my job to do your work for you. You are the one who made the claim. It's your job.
>
>We can give it a go, I guess. What were the ingredients of the biscuit, what grains were required as input for the production of the biscuit and how much?

Wheat and whatever else. I don't know how much goes in a biscuit. Yeast.
Maybe even egg whites...
. . .
>> >> another VERY blatant lie was you lying that Davis said
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> ...LOL!... only 15 deaths per hectare total for soy production,
>>
>> >
>>
>> >He did say that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Prove it.
>>
>
>I've already given you the quote.

I disbelieve you.

>> >Presumably the claim is that the field mice represent the lion's share of the total, and so are a reasonable approximation to the total figure.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> when the truth
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> is he said over 15 deaths of a single type of animal, and I believe that was
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> also only in ONE operation.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Which is not representative of the mean figure.
>>
>>
>>
>> You can't figure out the mean figure. You can't even attempt to.
>>
>
>I've presented you with Davis' estimate of the mean figure and the reasoning behind it, and you haven't engaged with this reasoning in any meaningful way. In any event, you yourself quite obviously do not have the least idea what the mean figure is.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >It sounds as though you don't believe in intrinsic value.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Unless you can say what it's TOO, you don't either. Even if you would like
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> to think that you do, you prove that you do NOT.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I don't believe in intrinsic value, actually. I was just curious about whether you did or not. I'm sorry that you don't know what it is. I don't know if I have the energy to bother explaining.
>>
>>
>>
>> You have no idea what it even COULD be and can't pretend that you do.
>>
>
>I do know what it is. But I lack the inclination to make the effort to explain, since it is not really relevant and you would be unlikely to understand. There is a chapter in Tara Smith's book "Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality" which discusses the concept of intrinsic value (critically, arguing that intrinsic value does not in fact exist). If you are interested, you can look it up.

I told YOU it doesn't exist from the start.

. . .
>Saying that there's nothing in the sections I copied and pasted which seems to you to make the lives of broiler chickens of negative value to them, is not engaging with them in any meaningful way.

Yes it is. I've done so even more specifically by pointing out that so far
you still have nothing.
It's probably in there somewhere.

Rupert

unread,
Jun 20, 2013, 10:46:59 PM6/20/13
to
On Friday, June 21, 2013 12:22:45 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:25:28 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> >I believe that there are some domestic animals which have lives such that I wouldn't choose to try to prevent such lives from happening, and I've made this clear to you many times.
>
>
>
> The ONLY creatures on the planet, wild or domestic, you claimed to feel that
>
> way about for probably a year or more was some grass raised cattle.

Never once did I suggest that grass-raised cattle are the only examples. There are many animals and humans on the planet who lead lives such that I wouldn't have wished to prevent their lives from happening. It wouldn't be possible for me to give an exhaustive list, and I don't see what the point would be.

> After a long
>
> period of time of me asking you if that's ALL you would allow and you wussing
>
> horribly about it you finally said you would also allow some free range chickens
>
> and some humans. Then later you retracted both the cattle and the chickens.

No, I didn't.

> Do
>
> you want to add them again? Would you like to add some other type(s) of
>
> creature(s)? Maybe some wildlife? Maybe some pets???
>
>
>
> >I think that you need to be clearer about what the distinction means for you.
>
>
>
> I don't. I believe life has positive value unless it involves enough
>
> suffering to make it of negative value to the individual experiencing it. You
>
> can try to make something else out of it, but you can't do it without changing
>
> what it means to me, imo. Try if you think you can though.
>
>
>
> >I'm able to draw a distinction between those lives which I personally would choose to try to prevent from happening
>
>
>
> What is it about those particular lives that would make you want to prevent
>
> them from happening?
>

The fact that they contain a lot of suffering.

>
>
> >and those lives which I wouldn't try to prevent from happening. That may be some kind of approximation to what you mean.
>
> >I told you I thought it was possible that there might be some influence.
>
>
>
> LOL!!! So, do you think that maybe if there is no wildlife in the area
>
> significantly less wildlife might be killed than if there was a lot of it? Can
>
> you really get that "far" with this, finally?
>

I was always perfectly well aware of that, you buffoon.

>
>
> >If you think that you can comprehend the topic better than me, then I am happy to listen to any efforts you wish to make to explain your superior understanding. I am not really clear on why I ought to care strongly about this topic.
>
>
>
> Because the suffering associated with veggie production is as real as that
>
> associated with raising livestock and you claim to care about suffering, for one
>
> thing.
>

Well, I'm interested in finding out by what means I can reduce suffering, sure.

> >Let's focus on the claim that the mean mortality rate is about 60% (over the course of an entire year).
>
>
>
> No. He mentioned several examples where a single operation caused 60% OR
>
> MORE, and there are always several operations. You're trying that dishonest
>
> thing again because you think I'm so stupid I won't notice. I noticed.
>

Once again you reveal that you have no idea what "mean" means.

I give up. I can't be bothered going through the rest of this post. See you.

dh

unread,
Jun 24, 2013, 1:13:03 PM6/24/13
to
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:46:59 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
.
>On Friday, June 21, 2013 12:22:45 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:25:28 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I believe that there are some domestic animals which have lives such that I wouldn't choose to try to prevent such lives from happening, and I've made this clear to you many times.
>>
>>
>>
>> The ONLY creatures on the planet, wild or domestic, you claimed to feel that
>>
>> way about for probably a year or more was some grass raised cattle.
>
>Never once did I suggest that grass-raised cattle are the only examples.

They are the only animals you said you would allow to exist for several
months and possibly for as much as a year. That's YOU, not me.

>There are many animals and humans on the planet who lead lives such that I wouldn't have wished to prevent their lives from happening.

So far the only animals you've said you would allow are the cattle and
chickens and you backed away from them.

>It wouldn't be possible for me to give an exhaustive list, and I don't see what the point would be.

You don't see much. So far you've still only said the two and then you later
dropped them. STILL, right now, there's NOTHING on the list of creatures you
would allow except some humans.

>> After a long
>>
>> period of time of me asking you if that's ALL you would allow and you wussing
>>
>> horribly about it you finally said you would also allow some free range chickens
>>
>> and some humans. Then later you retracted both the cattle and the chickens.
>
>No, I didn't.

Yes you did and you still haven't added them back yet, so right now the only
thing on your "list" is some humans.

>> Do
>>
>> you want to add them again? Would you like to add some other type(s) of
>>
>> creature(s)? Maybe some wildlife? Maybe some pets???
>>
>>
>>
>> >I think that you need to be clearer about what the distinction means for you.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't. I believe life has positive value unless it involves enough
>>
>> suffering to make it of negative value to the individual experiencing it. You
>>
>> can try to make something else out of it, but you can't do it without changing
>>
>> what it means to me, imo. Try if you think you can though.
>>
>>
>>
>> >I'm able to draw a distinction between those lives which I personally would choose to try to prevent from happening
>>
>>
>>
>> What is it about those particular lives that would make you want to prevent
>>
>> them from happening?
>>
>
>The fact that they contain a lot of suffering.

Obviously you don't consider that to be a good enough explanation since when
I gave it to you, YOU said it doesn't contain any information. Unless you can
try to explain why it should be good enough when YOU give that explanation, but
not when I do. Try explaining that. Go:

>> >and those lives which I wouldn't try to prevent from happening. That may be some kind of approximation to what you mean.
>>
>> >I told you I thought it was possible that there might be some influence.
>>
>>
>>
>> LOL!!! So, do you think that maybe if there is no wildlife in the area
>>
>> significantly less wildlife might be killed than if there was a lot of it? Can
>>
>> you really get that "far" with this, finally?
>>
>
>I was always perfectly well aware of that,

You had no clue about it until I told you about it. That aspect hadn't even
entered your mind until then, and it still means between little and nothing to
you.

>you buffoon.
>
>>
>>
>> >If you think that you can comprehend the topic better than me, then I am happy to listen to any efforts you wish to make to explain your superior understanding. I am not really clear on why I ought to care strongly about this topic.
>>
>>
>>
>> Because the suffering associated with veggie production is as real as that
>>
>> associated with raising livestock and you claim to care about suffering, for one
>>
>> thing.
>>
>
>Well, I'm interested in finding out by what means I can reduce suffering, sure.
>
>> >Let's focus on the claim that the mean mortality rate is about 60% (over the course of an entire year).
>>
>>
>>
>> No. He mentioned several examples where a single operation caused 60% OR
>>
>> MORE, and there are always several operations. You're trying that dishonest
>>
>> thing again because you think I'm so stupid I won't notice. I noticed.
>>
>
>Once again you reveal that you have no idea what "mean" means.
>
>I give up. I can't be bothered going through the rest of this post. See you.

I've revealed so much of your dishonesty so consistently that you can't
pretend you're not lying any more. It was bound to happen eventually, and
apparently it did. People like you enjoy lying for whatever reason but you hate
it when your lies are pointed out.

Rupert

unread,
Jun 24, 2013, 2:42:02 PM6/24/13
to
On Monday, June 24, 2013 7:13:03 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:46:59 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> .
>
> >On Friday, June 21, 2013 12:22:45 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:25:28 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >I believe that there are some domestic animals which have lives such that I wouldn't choose to try to prevent such lives from happening, and I've made this clear to you many times.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The ONLY creatures on the planet, wild or domestic, you claimed to feel that
>
> >>
>
> >> way about for probably a year or more was some grass raised cattle.
>
> >
>
> >Never once did I suggest that grass-raised cattle are the only examples.
>
>
>
> They are the only animals you said you would allow to exist for several
>
> months and possibly for as much as a year. That's YOU, not me.
>

What I said was absolutely correct. Never once did I in any way imply that those were the only examples.

>
>
> >There are many animals and humans on the planet who lead lives such that I wouldn't have wished to prevent their lives from happening.
>
>
>
> So far the only animals you've said you would allow are the cattle and
>
> chickens and you backed away from them.
>

No, I didn't.

>
>
> >It wouldn't be possible for me to give an exhaustive list, and I don't see what the point would be.
>
>
>
> You don't see much. So far you've still only said the two and then you later
>
> dropped them.

No, I didn't.

> STILL, right now, there's NOTHING on the list of creatures you
>
> would allow except some humans.
>

I don't have any interest in making a list.

>
>
> >> After a long
>
> >>
>
> >> period of time of me asking you if that's ALL you would allow and you wussing
>
> >>
>
> >> horribly about it you finally said you would also allow some free range chickens
>
> >>
>
> >> and some humans. Then later you retracted both the cattle and the chickens.
>
> >
>
> >No, I didn't.
>
>
>
> Yes you did and you still haven't added them back yet, so right now the only
>
> thing on your "list" is some humans.
>

I didn't.

>
>
> >> Do
>
> >>
>
> >> you want to add them again? Would you like to add some other type(s) of
>
> >>
>
> >> creature(s)? Maybe some wildlife? Maybe some pets???
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >I think that you need to be clearer about what the distinction means for you.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I don't. I believe life has positive value unless it involves enough
>
> >>
>
> >> suffering to make it of negative value to the individual experiencing it. You
>
> >>
>
> >> can try to make something else out of it, but you can't do it without changing
>
> >>
>
> >> what it means to me, imo. Try if you think you can though.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >I'm able to draw a distinction between those lives which I personally would choose to try to prevent from happening
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> What is it about those particular lives that would make you want to prevent
>
> >>
>
> >> them from happening?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >The fact that they contain a lot of suffering.
>
>
>
> Obviously you don't consider that to be a good enough explanation since when
>
> I gave it to you, YOU said it doesn't contain any information.

When you said that a life of positive value was one which was not so full of suffering as to be of negative value, I said that was uninformative and circular, which it obviously is. I am not making any claim to have precise criteria for when I would or would not wish to prevent a life from happening. When you use the phrase "life of positive value", that suggests that you have some precise criteria for distinguishing between those lives that do have positive value and those that don't. If you don't, you should just say so (thereby coming into agreement with me).

> Unless you can
>
> try to explain why it should be good enough when YOU give that explanation, but
>
> not when I do. Try explaining that. Go:
>
>
>
> >> >and those lives which I wouldn't try to prevent from happening. That may be some kind of approximation to what you mean.
>
> >>
>
> >> >I told you I thought it was possible that there might be some influence.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> LOL!!! So, do you think that maybe if there is no wildlife in the area
>
> >>
>
> >> significantly less wildlife might be killed than if there was a lot of it? Can
>
> >>
>
> >> you really get that "far" with this, finally?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I was always perfectly well aware of that,
>
>
>
> You had no clue about it until I told you about it.

You're delusional.

> That aspect hadn't even
>
> entered your mind until then, and it still means between little and nothing to
>
> you.
>
>
>
> >you buffoon.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >If you think that you can comprehend the topic better than me, then I am happy to listen to any efforts you wish to make to explain your superior understanding. I am not really clear on why I ought to care strongly about this topic.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Because the suffering associated with veggie production is as real as that
>
> >>
>
> >> associated with raising livestock and you claim to care about suffering, for one
>
> >>
>
> >> thing.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Well, I'm interested in finding out by what means I can reduce suffering, sure.
>
> >
>
> >> >Let's focus on the claim that the mean mortality rate is about 60% (over the course of an entire year).
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> No. He mentioned several examples where a single operation caused 60% OR
>
> >>
>
> >> MORE, and there are always several operations. You're trying that dishonest
>
> >>
>
> >> thing again because you think I'm so stupid I won't notice. I noticed.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Once again you reveal that you have no idea what "mean" means.
>
> >
>
> >I give up. I can't be bothered going through the rest of this post. See you.
>
>
>
> I've revealed so much of your dishonesty so consistently that you can't
>
> pretend you're not lying any more.

That's false.

> It was bound to happen eventually, and
>
> apparently it did. People like you enjoy lying for whatever reason but you hate
>
> it when your lies are pointed out.

You've never pointed out a single lie I've told, because I've never told a lie in the entire history of my usenet activity. When I stated the Steven Davis made the claim which I attributed to him above, I was telling the truth. You can confirm this by examining the quote which I provided.

dh

unread,
Jun 25, 2013, 4:15:31 PM6/25/13
to
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:42:02 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
.
>On Monday, June 24, 2013 7:13:03 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:46:59 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> .
>>
>> >On Friday, June 21, 2013 12:22:45 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:25:28 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I believe that there are some domestic animals which have lives such that I wouldn't choose to try to prevent such lives from happening, and I've made this clear to you many times.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> The ONLY creatures on the planet, wild or domestic, you claimed to feel that
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> way about for probably a year or more was some grass raised cattle.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Never once did I suggest that grass-raised cattle are the only examples.
>>
>>
>>
>> They are the only animals you said you would allow to exist for several
>>
>> months and possibly for as much as a year. That's YOU, not me.
>>
>
>What I said was absolutely correct. Never once did I in any way imply that those were the only examples.

You don't even have them any more since you retracted them and never added
them back. At this point it seems very clear that the only creatures you would
allow to exist on this planet are "some humans", and nothing else.

>> >There are many animals and humans on the planet who lead lives such that I wouldn't have wished to prevent their lives from happening.
>>
>>
>>
>> So far the only animals you've said you would allow are the cattle and
>>
>> chickens and you backed away from them.
>>
>
>No, I didn't.

Not only did you, but you haven't added them back again even though I've
been mentioning it to you time after time.

>> >It wouldn't be possible for me to give an exhaustive list, and I don't see what the point would be.
>>
>>
>>
>> You don't see much. So far you've still only said the two and then you later
>>
>> dropped them.
>
>No, I didn't.

You did and STILL haven't added them back.

>> STILL, right now, there's NOTHING on the list of creatures you
>>
>> would allow except some humans.
>>
>
>I don't have any interest in making a list.

Here's a clue for you: "some humans" is not a list. That being the case, you
wouldn't allow enough creatures to exist for there to be a list.

. . .
>> >> >I'm able to draw a distinction between those lives which I personally would choose to try to prevent from happening
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> What is it about those particular lives that would make you want to prevent
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> them from happening?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >The fact that they contain a lot of suffering.
>>
>>
>>
>> Obviously you don't consider that to be a good enough explanation since when
>>
>> I gave it to you, YOU said it doesn't contain any information.
>
>When you said that a life of positive value was one which was not so full of suffering as to be of negative value, I said that was uninformative and circular,

Then according to YOU the answer you gave me is uninformative and circular.

>which it obviously is. I am not making any claim to have precise criteria for when I would or would not wish to prevent a life from happening. When you use the phrase "life of positive value", that suggests that you have some precise criteria for distinguishing between those lives that do have positive value and those that don't. If you don't, you should just say so (thereby coming into agreement with me).

The criteria is the same you gave me, so you're in the same position I am
and not the least bit better.

>> Unless you can
>>
>> try to explain why it should be good enough when YOU give that explanation, but
>>
>> not when I do. Try explaining that. Go:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >and those lives which I wouldn't try to prevent from happening. That may be some kind of approximation to what you mean.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I told you I thought it was possible that there might be some influence.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> LOL!!! So, do you think that maybe if there is no wildlife in the area
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> significantly less wildlife might be killed than if there was a lot of it? Can
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you really get that "far" with this, finally?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I was always perfectly well aware of that,
>>
>>
>>
>> You had no clue about it until I told you about it.
>
>You're delusional.

I would be if I believed that you thought about it before I told you about
it, but of course I can't believe that. Especially since you still can't really
appreciate it yet and probably never will be able to.

>> That aspect hadn't even
>>
>> entered your mind until then, and it still means between little and nothing to
>>
>> you.
>>
>>
>>
>> >you buffoon.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >If you think that you can comprehend the topic better than me, then I am happy to listen to any efforts you wish to make to explain your superior understanding. I am not really clear on why I ought to care strongly about this topic.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Because the suffering associated with veggie production is as real as that
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> associated with raising livestock and you claim to care about suffering, for one
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> thing.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Well, I'm interested in finding out by what means I can reduce suffering, sure.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> >Let's focus on the claim that the mean mortality rate is about 60% (over the course of an entire year).
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> No. He mentioned several examples where a single operation caused 60% OR
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> MORE, and there are always several operations. You're trying that dishonest
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> thing again because you think I'm so stupid I won't notice. I noticed.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Once again you reveal that you have no idea what "mean" means.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I give up. I can't be bothered going through the rest of this post. See you.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've revealed so much of your dishonesty so consistently that you can't
>>
>> pretend you're not lying any more.
>
>That's false.
>
>> It was bound to happen eventually, and
>>
>> apparently it did. People like you enjoy lying for whatever reason but you hate
>>
>> it when your lies are pointed out.
>
>You've never pointed out a single lie I've told,

That's a lie right there.

>because I've never told a lie

That's another one, since I've pointed out more than one blatant lie you've
told.

>in the entire history of my usenet activity. When I stated the Steven Davis made the claim which I attributed to him above, I was telling the truth.

I believe you're lying again.

>You can confirm this by examining the quote which I provided.

No I can't so that's another lie, and you can't do it either obviously.

Rupert

unread,
Jun 25, 2013, 11:38:08 PM6/25/13
to
On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:15:31 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:42:02 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> .
>
> >On Monday, June 24, 2013 7:13:03 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:46:59 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> .
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Friday, June 21, 2013 12:22:45 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:25:28 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >I believe that there are some domestic animals which have lives such that I wouldn't choose to try to prevent such lives from happening, and I've made this clear to you many times.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> The ONLY creatures on the planet, wild or domestic, you claimed to feel that
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> way about for probably a year or more was some grass raised cattle.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Never once did I suggest that grass-raised cattle are the only examples.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> They are the only animals you said you would allow to exist for several
>
> >>
>
> >> months and possibly for as much as a year. That's YOU, not me.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >What I said was absolutely correct. Never once did I in any way imply that those were the only examples.
>
>
>
> You don't even have them any more since you retracted them and never added
>
> them back.

You keep on saying I "retracted" them. When did I do this?

> At this point it seems very clear that the only creatures you would
>
> allow to exist on this planet are "some humans", and nothing else.
>

No. That is false.

>
>
> >> >There are many animals and humans on the planet who lead lives such that I wouldn't have wished to prevent their lives from happening.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> So far the only animals you've said you would allow are the cattle and
>
> >>
>
> >> chickens and you backed away from them.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >No, I didn't.
>
>
>
> Not only did you, but you haven't added them back again even though I've
>
> been mentioning it to you time after time.
>

I believe that there are some grass-raised cattle and free-range chickens which have lives such that I wouldn't wish to prevent them from happening. You claim that at one point I retracted this claim, but I don't believe that you are telling the truth.

>
>
> >> >It wouldn't be possible for me to give an exhaustive list, and I don't see what the point would be.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You don't see much. So far you've still only said the two and then you later
>
> >>
>
> >> dropped them.
>
> >
>
> >No, I didn't.
>
>
>
> You did and STILL haven't added them back.
>
>
>
> >> STILL, right now, there's NOTHING on the list of creatures you
>
> >>
>
> >> would allow except some humans.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I don't have any interest in making a list.
>
>
>
> Here's a clue for you: "some humans" is not a list. That being the case, you
>
> wouldn't allow enough creatures to exist for there to be a list.
>
>
>
> . . .
>
> >> >> >I'm able to draw a distinction between those lives which I personally would choose to try to prevent from happening
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> What is it about those particular lives that would make you want to prevent
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> them from happening?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >The fact that they contain a lot of suffering.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Obviously you don't consider that to be a good enough explanation since when
>
> >>
>
> >> I gave it to you, YOU said it doesn't contain any information.
>
> >
>
> >When you said that a life of positive value was one which was not so full of suffering as to be of negative value, I said that was uninformative and circular,
>
>
>
> Then according to YOU the answer you gave me is uninformative and circular.
>

No. That obviously does not follow at all. Because I was not trying to give criteria for where I would draw the line. And I don't claim to have any precise criteria for where I would draw the line.

>
>
> >which it obviously is. I am not making any claim to have precise criteria for when I would or would not wish to prevent a life from happening. When you use the phrase "life of positive value", that suggests that you have some precise criteria for distinguishing between those lives that do have positive value and those that don't. If you don't, you should just say so (thereby coming into agreement with me).
>
>
>
> The criteria is the same you gave me, so you're in the same position I am
>
> and not the least bit better.
>

I'm not claiming to be doing better than you when it comes to giving precise criteria for where to draw the line.

>
>
> >> Unless you can
>
> >>
>
> >> try to explain why it should be good enough when YOU give that explanation, but
>
> >>
>
> >> not when I do. Try explaining that. Go:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >and those lives which I wouldn't try to prevent from happening. That may be some kind of approximation to what you mean.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >I told you I thought it was possible that there might be some influence.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> LOL!!! So, do you think that maybe if there is no wildlife in the area
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> significantly less wildlife might be killed than if there was a lot of it? Can
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> you really get that "far" with this, finally?
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I was always perfectly well aware of that,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You had no clue about it until I told you about it.
>
> >
>
> >You're delusional.
>
>
>
> I would be if I believed that you thought about it before I told you about
>
> it, but of course I can't believe that. Especially since you still can't really
>
> appreciate it yet and probably never will be able to.
>

There would appear to be no hope that you will ever get back in touch with reality.

>
>
> >> That aspect hadn't even
>
> >>
>
> >> entered your mind until then, and it still means between little and nothing to
>
> >>
>
> >> you.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >you buffoon.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >If you think that you can comprehend the topic better than me, then I am happy to listen to any efforts you wish to make to explain your superior understanding. I am not really clear on why I ought to care strongly about this topic.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Because the suffering associated with veggie production is as real as that
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> associated with raising livestock and you claim to care about suffering, for one
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> thing.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Well, I'm interested in finding out by what means I can reduce suffering, sure.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >> >Let's focus on the claim that the mean mortality rate is about 60% (over the course of an entire year).
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> No. He mentioned several examples where a single operation caused 60% OR
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> MORE, and there are always several operations. You're trying that dishonest
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> thing again because you think I'm so stupid I won't notice. I noticed.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Once again you reveal that you have no idea what "mean" means.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >I give up. I can't be bothered going through the rest of this post. See you.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I've revealed so much of your dishonesty so consistently that you can't
>
> >>
>
> >> pretend you're not lying any more.
>
> >
>
> >That's false.
>
> >
>
> >> It was bound to happen eventually, and
>
> >>
>
> >> apparently it did. People like you enjoy lying for whatever reason but you hate
>
> >>
>
> >> it when your lies are pointed out.
>
> >
>
> >You've never pointed out a single lie I've told,
>
>
>
> That's a lie right there.
>

No, it is not. I sincerely believe it to be the truth. So it is not a lie.

>
>
> >because I've never told a lie
>
>
>
> That's another one, since I've pointed out more than one blatant lie you've
>
> told.
>

Name one.

>
>
> >in the entire history of my usenet activity. When I stated the Steven Davis made the claim which I attributed to him above, I was telling the truth.
>
>
>
> I believe you're lying again.
>
>
>
> >You can confirm this by examining the quote which I provided.
>
>
>
> No I can't so that's another lie, and you can't do it either obviously.

It is not my fault if you can't read.

dh

unread,
Jun 27, 2013, 5:54:30 PM6/27/13
to
On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
.
>On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:15:31 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:42:02 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> .
>>
>> >On Monday, June 24, 2013 7:13:03 PM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:46:59 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> .
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >On Friday, June 21, 2013 12:22:45 AM UTC+2, d...@. wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:25:28 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >I believe that there are some domestic animals which have lives such that I wouldn't choose to try to prevent such lives from happening, and I've made this clear to you many times.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> The ONLY creatures on the planet, wild or domestic, you claimed to feel that
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> way about for probably a year or more was some grass raised cattle.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Never once did I suggest that grass-raised cattle are the only examples.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> They are the only animals you said you would allow to exist for several
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> months and possibly for as much as a year. That's YOU, not me.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >What I said was absolutely correct. Never once did I in any way imply that those were the only examples.
>>
>>
>>
>> You don't even have them any more since you retracted them and never added
>>
>> them back.
>
>You keep on saying I "retracted" them. When did I do this?

Why don't you keep up with it? It's the creatures that you supposedly would
allow to exist on this planet. We KNOW you want to prevent domestic animals.
What about wildlife? I have suspected and of course still do suspect that you
wouldn't allow any animal life on Earth at all, though you still seem to be
claiming you would allow some humans. You've never said you would allow any
wildlife. You've never said you would allow any domestic animals except the two
types I mentioned. Later you asked when you said you would allow them, meaning
that you were challenging them being on your "list" which instantly removed
them. You would have to again say specifically that you would allow them before
they go back on, and maybe not even if you do that since you've been refusing to
do it for weeks now.

>> At this point it seems very clear that the only creatures you would
>>
>> allow to exist on this planet are "some humans", and nothing else.
>>
>
>No. That is false.

In fact IF you ever do want to add the two types of livestock back, to begin
with we should say they're in a pending condition or some such thing, not to be
fully included unless you don't remove them again for a certain period of time.
How about a month? You've added and removed then added back the cattle at least
once before this, so of course from my position it appears you don't want them
on there at all.

>> >> >There are many animals and humans on the planet who lead lives such that I wouldn't have wished to prevent their lives from happening.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> So far the only animals you've said you would allow are the cattle and
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> chickens and you backed away from them.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >No, I didn't.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not only did you, but you haven't added them back again even though I've
>>
>> been mentioning it to you time after time.
>>
>
>I believe that there are some grass-raised cattle and free-range chickens which have lives such that I wouldn't wish to prevent them from happening.

OK. They're back on your list in a temprory state. If you don't remove them
again by 7/26 we can say they're back on. But if you ask me when you said you'd
allow them again between now and then they're back off.

>You claim that at one point I retracted this claim, but I don't believe that you are telling the truth.

You questioned when you said you'd allow them which was enough. I'm not
going to try to convince you that you want anything to exist, especially since I
still doubt that you do. Except maybe some humans, and hopefully some plants too
unless you think it would be cool to have a planet full of nothing living except
humans who eat each other. Is that what you think would be best?

>> >> >It wouldn't be possible for me to give an exhaustive list, and I don't see what the point would be.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You don't see much. So far you've still only said the two and then you later
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> dropped them.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >No, I didn't.
>>
>>
>>
>> You did and STILL haven't added them back.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> STILL, right now, there's NOTHING on the list of creatures you
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> would allow except some humans.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I don't have any interest in making a list.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here's a clue for you: "some humans" is not a list. That being the case, you
>>
>> wouldn't allow enough creatures to exist for there to be a list.
>>
>>
>>
>> . . .
>>
>> >> >> >I'm able to draw a distinction between those lives which I personally would choose to try to prevent from happening
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> What is it about those particular lives that would make you want to prevent
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> them from happening?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >The fact that they contain a lot of suffering.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Obviously you don't consider that to be a good enough explanation since when
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> I gave it to you, YOU said it doesn't contain any information.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >When you said that a life of positive value was one which was not so full of suffering as to be of negative value, I said that was uninformative and circular,
>>
>>
>>
>> Then according to YOU the answer you gave me is uninformative and circular.
>>
>
>No.

It's what you said.

>That obviously does not follow at all.

It obviously does.

>Because I was not trying to give criteria for where I would draw the line.

What are you trying to pretend you were doing if not that, do you have any
idea?

>And I don't claim to have any precise criteria for where I would draw the line.

Neither do I. You want things to be extremely different for you than other
people. I'm beginning to wonder if you're some sort of retard or something, and
becoming more and more convinced that there's no way a person like yourself
could ever obtain a PhD.

>> >which it obviously is. I am not making any claim to have precise criteria for when I would or would not wish to prevent a life from happening. When you use the phrase "life of positive value", that suggests that you have some precise criteria for distinguishing between those lives that do have positive value and those that don't. If you don't, you should just say so (thereby coming into agreement with me).
>>
>>
>>
>> The criteria is the same you gave me, so you're in the same position I am
>>
>> and not the least bit better.
>>
>
>I'm not claiming to be doing better than you when it comes to giving precise criteria for where to draw the line.

So you've decided that what you think about it and what I think about it is
uninformative and circular. To me though it does accomplish something even
without any precise criteria, while to you it's uninformative and circular. So
you say. Of course from my pov there's an EXCELLENT chance that you're lying
about it. But if it honestly is uninformative and circular to your poor feeble
little mind, that's probably again because of your cognitive dissonance.
Considering the fact that many livestock animals experience lives that are not
so filled with suffering that they should have been prevented from ever existing
works against what you want to believe. So any attempt to consider those
particular types of lives for livestock works against what you want to believe,
engaging your cd as a self defence for your overly challenged feverish little
brain.

>> >> Unless you can
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> try to explain why it should be good enough when YOU give that explanation, but
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> not when I do. Try explaining that. Go:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >and those lives which I wouldn't try to prevent from happening. That may be some kind of approximation to what you mean.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >I told you I thought it was possible that there might be some influence.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> LOL!!! So, do you think that maybe if there is no wildlife in the area
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> significantly less wildlife might be killed than if there was a lot of it? Can
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> you really get that "far" with this, finally?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I was always perfectly well aware of that,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You had no clue about it until I told you about it.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >You're delusional.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would be if I believed that you thought about it before I told you about
>>
>> it, but of course I can't believe that. Especially since you still can't really
>>
>> appreciate it yet and probably never will be able to.
>>
>
>There would appear to be no hope that you will ever get back in touch with reality.

If you were aware of it and cared about reducing suffering you would long
ago have found out what sort of areas different companies get their crop
products from and would have learned some things about how much suffering is
involved, but you don't care even after having the significance pointed out to
you. If I were to do it here in the US I'd try to get products from crops grown
out west where there are huge areas in which the vast majority of wildlife was
killed off years ago.

>> >> That aspect hadn't even
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> entered your mind until then, and it still means between little and nothing to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> you.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >you buffoon.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >If you think that you can comprehend the topic better than me, then I am happy to listen to any efforts you wish to make to explain your superior understanding. I am not really clear on why I ought to care strongly about this topic.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> Because the suffering associated with veggie production is as real as that
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> associated with raising livestock and you claim to care about suffering, for one
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> thing.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Well, I'm interested in finding out by what means I can reduce suffering, sure.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> >Let's focus on the claim that the mean mortality rate is about 60% (over the course of an entire year).
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> No. He mentioned several examples where a single operation caused 60% OR
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> MORE, and there are always several operations. You're trying that dishonest
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> thing again because you think I'm so stupid I won't notice. I noticed.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Once again you reveal that you have no idea what "mean" means.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >I give up. I can't be bothered going through the rest of this post. See you.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> I've revealed so much of your dishonesty so consistently that you can't
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> pretend you're not lying any more.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >That's false.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> It was bound to happen eventually, and
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> apparently it did. People like you enjoy lying for whatever reason but you hate
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> it when your lies are pointed out.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >You've never pointed out a single lie I've told,
>>
>>
>>
>> That's a lie right there.
>>
>
>No, it is not. I sincerely believe it to be the truth.

I can't quite believe that either, though you've shown that you want things
to be a whole lot different for you than for other people.

>So it is not a lie.

That's probably another lie, from my pov.

>> >because I've never told a lie
>>
>>
>>
>> That's another one, since I've pointed out more than one blatant lie you've
>>
>> told.
>>
>
>Name one.

That I hadn't read things you posted, yet we had already discussed them
because I had read them. That's one.

>> >in the entire history of my usenet activity. When I stated the Steven Davis made the claim which I attributed to him above, I was telling the truth.
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe you're lying again.
>>
>>
>>
>> >You can confirm this by examining the quote which I provided.
>>
>>
>>
>> No I can't so that's another lie, and you can't do it either obviously.
>
>It is not my fault if you can't read.

It is your fault that you refer to a quote you can't present. Since you
can't present what you pretend you're talking about, it certainly seems like
you're lying again. So unless you present the quote now and I recognise it from
you having posted it in the past, or you provide a link to where you did, I'll
continue considering this to be another lie. I have no other option.

George Plimpton

unread,
Aug 8, 2013, 1:35:57 AM8/8/13
to
On 3/11/2005 9:55 AM, dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 George Plimpton wrote:
>
>>>> Until that entity
>>>> *already* exists, nothing can be a benefit to it.
>
> Everyone knows that

*YOU* don't, you stupid Fuckwit.


> What some of us understand but
> you are too stupid to grasp, is that life can be a benefit--to farm
> animals as well as other animals--while they are alive.

That's not what you're arguing, Fuckwit. You're arguing that *coming*
into existence - "getting to experience life", as you put it in your
wretchedly shitty cracker-speak way - is a benefit. Your irrational,
stupid, fuckwitted and utterly cracker belief is that the very instant
of coming into existence is a "benefit." It is *NOT*, Fuckwit. An
entity must already exist, with a welfare, in order for *anything* to be
a benefit to it.


>> SAY something next time
>
> We've been through it before.

You've lost 10,000 times before - *every* time.

0 new messages