This post is mostly for my favorite meat-eating asshole, who has made it his goal to match the obnoxiousness of militant vegans. I actually bothered to look stuff up and put together a fairly thought out response; so... hey, YOU... please, pay attention.
(
Read more... )
Comments 7
Reply
I will stipulate the the numbers of animals killed is virtually unprovable. Since it would require a tremendous effort to count the number of animals killed in the planting a harvesting of crops. Just as it is all but impossible to get an accurate account of the mortality rates in a forest fire.
Consider however that habitat destruction is total. Most of the creatures in question are borrowers. When a field is tilled any underground dwellings will be collapsed. Any young in the dwell will suffer a near 100% mortality rate. Bear in mind that when danger threatens this is the most likely place to flee. While the actual mortality rate at the time of the harvest may be quite low, the resulting exposure to airborne predators will be very high due to a total lack of ground cover.
The reason I am so on the offensive about this is due to the first stone principle. I resent some vegan tree hugger acting all holier than thou because he thinks that his hands are clean and that he is without sin.
Reply
Reply
And you're right. I'm not really an aggressive anything, unless someone cuts into my nap time. Being militant requires time and energy that I'd rather devote to more important things. Like art appreciation.
Reply
I do understand that in the winter in some places is necessary to feed livestock on hay. Hay production is much less destructive to the habitat of the animals in question. There is no tilling in hay production and while a great deal of ground cover is removed there is a certain amount left for the next crop to grow from.
Reply
And again, I didn't see where Davis subtracted the land that is harvested for animal feed. That's a substantial amount of land to not take into account. His findings, even as a vague projections, look pretty flawed to me.
Davis made some valuable points about environment and the minimization of suffering, and even the animal rights people have acknowledged that. You could find that a specific omnivore causes less harm than a specific vegan. But how could any blanket statement on the moral superiority of either group be made?
And that was the point, as I see it. To plant doubt. Certainty is a luxury of the ignorant.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment