"googlesux" wrote
"Dutch" wrote
"googlesux" wrote

Jonathan Ball wrote


Who are "they"?

You and the one other person who posts bizarre rants laced with
profanity.

Jonathan Ball made a coherent argument, as follows..

----
On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is fundamentally
hypocritical. The reason is that animals are killed gruesomely and in
large
numbers in the course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,
but
smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals aren't
eaten.
"vegans", or so-called "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic
logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
---

How is that a bizarre rant? You didn't even attempt to reply, preferring
the
following rhetorical question..

Can someone please post a link(s) to source material regarding animal
deaths caused by vegetable production, including the number of animal
deaths caused INTENTIONALLY during vegetable production?

All the wildlife destroyed by herbicides and pesticides are killed without
regard for any right to life you may imagine exists in your lifestyle.
Nobody counts them or even takes much notice of them, including vegans.
They're just pests. The latest trend in grain farming is "conservation
farming" where the field is soaked with Roundup to suppress weeds instead of
being tilled. That's REAL animal friendly.

This info
should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
farmers markets.

Or what, you'll pretend they don't exist?

Nobody is going to

"C. James Strutz" wrote in message
...

"googlesux" wrote in message
om...
"Dutch" wrote in message
...
"googlesux" wrote

Jonathan Ball wrote


Who are "they"?

You and the one other person who posts bizarre rants laced with
profanity.

Jonathan Ball made a coherent argument, as follows..

----
On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is fundamentally
hypocritical. The reason is that animals are killed gruesomely and in
large
numbers in the course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,
but
smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals aren't
eaten.
"vegans", or so-called "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic
logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
---

How is that a bizarre rant? You didn't even attempt to reply,
preferring
the
following rhetorical question..

Can someone please post a link(s) to source material regarding animal
deaths caused by vegetable production, including the number of animal
deaths caused INTENTIONALLY during vegetable production? This info
should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
farmers markets.

Intentionally? The big discussion here are the unintentional animal
deaths.

No, you won't get anyone here to post links on that subject because they
can't.

Rick Etter regularly posts a list of links.

Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site article
that was questionable at best.

Because you're an animal rights advocate who only believes what feathers
your nest..

Aside from that, the rabid discourse here
about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
production cannot be supported with any credible information. Anytime you
ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul language, and
evasion. It's all pretty stupid....

Do a google search for "pest control".

"Ipse dixit" wrote in message
.. .

"C. James Strutz" wrote in message
...

"googlesux" wrote in message
om...
"Dutch" wrote in message
...
"googlesux" wrote

Jonathan Ball wrote


Who are "they"?

You and the one other person who posts bizarre rants laced with
profanity.

Jonathan Ball made a coherent argument, as follows..

----
On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
fundamentally
hypocritical. The reason is that animals are killed gruesomely and
in
large
numbers in the course of growing, storing and distributing
vegetables,
but
smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals aren't
eaten.
"vegans", or so-called "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic
logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
---

How is that a bizarre rant? You didn't even attempt to reply,
preferring
the
following rhetorical question..

Can someone please post a link(s) to source material regarding animal
deaths caused by vegetable production, including the number of animal
deaths caused INTENTIONALLY during vegetable production? This info
should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
farmers markets.

Intentionally? The big discussion here are the unintentional animal
deaths.

No, you won't get anyone here to post links on that subject because they
can't. Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site
article
that was questionable at best. Aside from that, the rabid discourse here
about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
production cannot be supported with any credible information. Anytime
you
ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul language,
and
evasion. It's all pretty stupid....

I think it's fair to assume they do exist. Pesticides alone must cause
plenty,

Don't forget herbicides like Roundup, they're used even more than
pesticides.

but I don't think they exist in the exaggerated estimates I've seen here
over the last few weeks.

Do some reading on pest control..

usual suspect wrote:

C. James Strutz wrote:
...


[...]


Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site article
that was questionable at best.


The story came from an honest researcher named Steven Davis who wanted
to see if the claims of AR proponent Tom Regan's "Least Harm Principle"
were valid. Davis found Regan's claim that a vegan diet caused the least
harm to animals to be wholly unsupported in practice. Professor Davis'
work was done in the context of "integrating ethics and moral reasoning
into the work and study of agriculture" -- something you should laud
since you take a side that diet can be moral. Davis concluded that a
diet based on plants and grazing (i.e., grass-fed or game) ruminants,
and not veganism, would cause the fewest CDs.

http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/otw/...2002/mar14.pdf

Don't shoot the messenger when you learn that your position has been
thoroughly debunked. What specifically do you find "questionable at
best" about the work of Davis?

Oh, that's easy: he doesn't like the conclusion.
See-jimmy has made the easy slide into lazy moral
complacency based on something he *doesn't* do: eat
most animal parts. It's especially funny with
See-jimmy, because he admits to not being "vegan", but
he can't say why he isn't, nor can he say why he headed
in that direction in the first place. "vegans" are
already hugely inconsistent, but See-jimmy somehow
manages to be even more inconsistent.

See-jimmy, like all "vegans", is a morally and
intellectually LAZY ass who wants to be "more ethical"
on the cheap, and he sees semi-"veganism" as just the
ticket. Along comes a scholar who demolishes the
fatuous, unwarranted basic assumption of "veganism",
and now See-jimmy is just ****ed. So quite naturally,
he tries casually to dismiss the conclusion, just as he
quite casually became semi-"vegan" in the first place.

There isn't a shred of rigor to anything a "vegan" or
"ara" has ever said or written on the topic.


Aside from that, the rabid discourse here
about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
production cannot be supported with any credible information.


Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the claims
of CDs incredible. The burden of evidence is wanting on both sides of
the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a vegan diet
causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard diet which is
at issue.

Exactly so. The claim was made by intellectual slugs
who never had either the ability or the inclinination
to support the claim. It is the nature of the claim,
combined with the glaringly obvious bad character and
bad faith of its proponents, that makes "vegans" the
objects of such loathing. Of course, because "vegans"
are demonstrably mentally ill, they obtain a perverse
reward from the loathing.

The burden is on vegans who make such claims, since nearly
everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the course of
agriculture.

It's a burden that they will always shirk.


Pesticides are quite lethal, and nobody requires counts of species
except when domestic animals are inadvertantly killed (I just attempted
a search on pesticides and animal deaths and found out that many states
and counties report such figures); deaths of domestic animals are
significant, but how many uncounted birds and rodents and insects are
killed as well? Add the issues of the use of machinery and irrigation
and it's quite easy to see that animals die and/or are injured as a
matter of routine.

Anytime you
ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul language, and
evasion. It's all pretty stupid....


It goes both ways, in case you've yet to notice. And you're as foul and
nasty as anyone else in these groups. Stop whining or lead by example.

"C. James Strutz" wrote in message
...

"Ipse dixit" wrote in message
.. .

"C. James Strutz" wrote in message
...

"googlesux" wrote in message
om...
"Dutch" wrote in message
...
"googlesux" wrote

Jonathan Ball wrote


Who are "they"?

You and the one other person who posts bizarre rants laced with
profanity.

Jonathan Ball made a coherent argument, as follows..

----
On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
fundamentally
hypocritical. The reason is that animals are killed gruesomely
and
in
large
numbers in the course of growing, storing and distributing
vegetables,
but
smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals
aren't
eaten.
"vegans", or so-called "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic
logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
---

How is that a bizarre rant? You didn't even attempt to reply,
preferring
the
following rhetorical question..

Can someone please post a link(s) to source material regarding
animal
deaths caused by vegetable production, including the number of
animal
deaths caused INTENTIONALLY during vegetable production? This info
should include the types of animals and also the types of
vegetables,
including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold
at
farmers markets.

Intentionally? The big discussion here are the unintentional animal
deaths.

No, you won't get anyone here to post links on that subject because
they
can't. Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site
article
that was questionable at best. Aside from that, the rabid discourse
here
about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
production cannot be supported with any credible information. Anytime
you
ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul language,
and
evasion. It's all pretty stupid....

I think it's fair to assume they do exist. Pesticides alone must cause
plenty, but I don't think they exist in the exaggerated estimates I've
seen here over the last few weeks.

Oh, I agree with you. I think the underlying issue here is that several
people in this ng take exception to some vegans who they accuse of being
overly idealistic and emphatic about animal rights. They criticize
so-called
"ethical vegans" with even MORE emphasis and bad behavior than that which
they accuse and criticize vegans. It defines hypocracy...

Your perceptions are blurred. The underlying issue here is the way vegans
attack non-believers, as if consuming meat were a capital crime. The fact
that YOUR food rountinely costs animal lives, regardless of how many, makes
*that* attack the definition of hypocrisy.

"frlpwr" wrote
Dutch wrote:

(snip)

----
On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is fundamentally
hypocritical. The reason is that animals are killed gruesomely

Proof?

Denial?

Chickens, turkeys and other birds are mechanically slaughtered without
any requirement for pre-slaughter stunning.

I never denied that livestock are killed, sometimes gruesomely, but thanks
for reminding me.

http://www.factoryfarming.com/gallery/turkey1.htm

and in large numbers

Proof?

Nobody gathers statistics, but talk to any old-timer from the midwest, ask
him about wildlife on the prairies. Look at the number of songbird species
that exist there now compared to 60 years ago.

9 billion birds were slaughtered in the US in 2001.

For good reason, people have to eat.

in the course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,

Which vegetables? I harvested greens from my garden plots last night;
they're in my refrigerator and I plan on giving several bunches to my
neighbors.

What's the death toll for these?

Not relevant. Animals don't suffer on "The Polyface Farm" either, but my
food doesn't come from there.

I bought a bag of organic walnuts and grapes at Rainbow Co-op
yesterday. What's the death toll for these?

I don't know, do you?

but smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals aren't
eaten.

You're a filthy liar. Every vegan and every vegetarian who is currently
posting to tpa or aaev thinks about collateral deaths.

Only because we won't let them forget about them. Note the new participants
like James Strutz and googlesux are still in denial.

"vegans", or so-called "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic
logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
---

No, it goes like this:

If I eat meat, I cause food animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause food animals to suffer and die.

That would be like saying I only rob liquor stores therefore I have the
moral authority to condemn people who rob convenience stores.

How is that a bizarre rant?

"Bizzare" is too strong a word for an ordinary, little man like Bawl.
However, his mistaken idea about vegan beliefs has a stranglehold on
him and that is... well, peculiar.

His ideas about vegan beliefs are quite correct.

You didn't even attempt to reply, preferring the
following rhetorical question..

Is that any worse than replying with vaccuous claims about "large
numbers' and "gruesome deaths".

Denial.

"Is this guy a major shareholder in ConAgra or something?"

When he followed up, you snipped the relevant part

Ball has nothing relevant to say about vegan beliefs. He's tilting at
windmills.

His ideas about vegan beliefs are quite correct.

(without noting) and
responded to the irrelevent portion below about how long you'll be here.

What do you expect? A new poster comes to afv for receipes and the
first thing he gets is Bawl calling him a "liar". Ball should be kept
tethered in a veal stall.

He made no mention of recipes, his first message said "Is this guy a major
shareholder in ConAgra or something?"

Where is *your* crediblity in this discussion?

The guy wanted receipes, dog-catcher.

He didn't ask for recipes, and you obviously consider "dog-catcher" an
insult despite your earlier lying denials.

Is that too hard for you to
understand?

Pretty hard to understand when he doesn't mention it.

usual suspect wrote:

snip

Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the claims
of CDs incredible. The burden of evidence is wanting on both sides of
the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a vegan diet
causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard diet which is
at issue. The burden is on vegans who make such claims, since nearly
everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the course of
agriculture.

Which, as ethical vegans have noted many times, is the issue. The
ethical vegetarians and vegans ARE the only ones who care about
such deaths as a matter of philosophical principle, and until their
point of view bcomes more common, there will be no reason for those
who accept the collateral deaths to change their methods. I am
convinced that veganism is a more ethical position, since it rejects
such animal deaths in principle, and if the vegan position is
accepted, collateral deaths will decrease as a result of the awareness
of farmers. But CDs will be invisible to society as a whole until
a moral stance against the intentional deaths of animals in production
of food and other products is seen as unacceptable. Then society can
and will advance to the consideration of unintentional deaths as well.

snip

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:



usual suspect wrote:

snip

Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the
claims of CDs incredible. The burden of evidence is wanting on both
sides of the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a
vegan diet causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard
diet which is at issue. The burden is on vegans who make such claims,
since nearly everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the
course of agriculture.


Which, as ethical vegans have noted many times, is the issue. The
ethical vegetarians and vegans ARE the only ones who care about
such deaths as a matter of philosophical principle, and until their
point of view bcomes more common, there will be no reason for those
who accept the collateral deaths to change their methods. I am
convinced that veganism is a more ethical position, since it rejects
such animal deaths in principle, and if the vegan position is
accepted, collateral deaths will decrease as a result of the awareness
of farmers. But CDs will be invisible to society as a whole until
a moral stance against the intentional deaths of animals in production
of food and other products is seen as unacceptable.

Sorry, I meant "is seen as obligatory."

Then society can
and will advance to the consideration of unintentional deaths as well.

snip

Rat

"Ipse dixit" wrote

[..]

I've been criticised for my vegan diet and rants about the rights
of animals,

Rightfully so, sanctimonious shit.

but I've never been criticised for someone else's use
of pesticides yet.

YOU patronize an agricultural system that routinely uses herbicides,
pesticides, plows and harvests fields without regard for wildlife, and
poisons mice that dare to get near produce. In Saskatchewan this year the
grasshoppers were 1000/m² in places. Pesticide was used in record amounts to
try to save the crops, how do you think that affected birds who eat
grasshoppers? You have enough blood on your hands that you should reconsider
your self-serving rants.

"C. James Strutz" wrote

[..]

They'll say that buying produce (which may be grown using pesticides)

IS grown using pesticides and herbicides...

contradicts your ethical beliefs and call you a hypocrite and killer among
other things. Stupid.

I realize that you've become accustomed to a self-image based on the idea
that *others* are killers, not you, but If you live off the commercial food
production system, you *are* supporting the routine killing of animals. The
good news is that there IS life after self-righteousness.

"Ipse dixit" wrote

"They" would have a point if vegans were laying down the
poisons, but I can't see how buying produce from people
who do use pesticides contradicts that vegan's beliefs.
You're right, it's stupid.

Got tired of using the "Jane" nym eh Derek? You can shift your nym, you may
disguise your style for a while, you can change your news server, but the
same old lame arguments give you away.

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
C. James Strutz wrote:
...
Can someone please post a link(s) to source material regarding animal
deaths caused by vegetable production, including the number of animal
deaths caused INTENTIONALLY during vegetable production? This info
should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
farmers markets.

Intentionally? The big discussion here are the unintentional animal
deaths.

No, you won't get anyone here to post links on that subject because they
can't.

Are you familiar with any formal studies which actually counted the
number of animals snuffed out for *any* particular farm crop?

No.

I doubt it
since such deaths are considered normal, even acceptable, in the course
of agriculture. It's only become an issue in the last half century or so
with the advent of the animal rights movement and veganISM.

I agree that very little information is available on this subject. That's
why I question why some people here attribute SO many more animal deaths to
veg*nism. I don't think the numbers can be substantiated either way. So why
do people so vehemently support a position that they can't back up? And why
do they evade, ridicule, and chastise when pressed to produce any sort of
proof?

The
professor named in the article to which you allude below did attempt to
do such a count in the course of mowing alfalfa; 50% of one species was
killed off during harvest.

Regrettable if true.

Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site article
that was questionable at best.

The story came from an honest researcher named Steven Davis who wanted
to see if the claims of AR proponent Tom Regan's "Least Harm Principle"
were valid. Davis found Regan's claim that a vegan diet caused the least
harm to animals to be wholly unsupported in practice. Professor Davis'
work was done in the context of "integrating ethics and moral reasoning
into the work and study of agriculture" -- something you should laud
since you take a side that diet can be moral.

Okay...

Davis concluded that a
diet based on plants and grazing (i.e., grass-fed or game) ruminants,
and not veganism, would cause the fewest CDs.

http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/otw/...2002/mar14.pdf

Great, thanks for posting the link. I hope the guy who was asking for links
is reading.

Don't shoot the messenger when you learn that your position has been
thoroughly debunked. What specifically do you find "questionable at
best" about the work of Davis?

My position has been thoroughly debunked? I don't think so. The "messenger"
animalrights.net is dedicated to "debunking the animal rights movement".
Getting useful information from sites like that is akin to listening to Rush
Limbaugh for unbiased political opinion. Furthermore, no information was
given who funded Professor Davis' work or how/where he collected data.
Credible information comes from independent and unbiased sources.

Aside from that, the rabid discourse here
about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
production cannot be supported with any credible information.

Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the claims
of CDs incredible.

Slight difference in context. I didn't mean to imply that claims of CDs are
incredible. I question claims that there are more CDs involved in vegetable
production than there are in meat production.

The burden of evidence is wanting on both sides of
the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a vegan diet
causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard diet which is
at issue. The burden is on vegans who make such claims, since nearly
everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the course of
agriculture.

I don't think that anyone disputes that there are animal deaths and
suffering in the course of agriculture. The issue should be where there are
fewer animal deaths and suffering.

Pesticides are quite lethal, and nobody requires counts of species
except when domestic animals are inadvertantly killed (I just attempted
a search on pesticides and animal deaths and found out that many states
and counties report such figures); deaths of domestic animals are
significant, but how many uncounted birds and rodents and insects are
killed as well? Add the issues of the use of machinery and irrigation
and it's quite easy to see that animals die and/or are injured as a
matter of routine.

Again, no argument that there are animal casualties in agriculture. In fact,
I tried (apparently in vain) to make the point that the cattle industry is
supported in no small way by agriculture. Nobody seems to have considered
that there are many, many CDs involved in food production for cattle. It
tilts the scale back towards the veg*n position.

Anytime you
ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul language,
and
evasion. It's all pretty stupid....

It goes both ways, in case you've yet to notice. And you're as foul and
nasty as anyone else in these groups. Stop whining or lead by example.

I don't rely as much on foul language for emphasis as you or other people
here, but I'll be under anyone's skin mercilessly if provoked to it. I'm
tired of trying to debate claims with in-your-face morons. If people can't
back up claims with real information then let's just agree that we don't
know and go back to posting recipes.

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
C. James Strutz wrote:
They'll say that buying produce (which may be grown using pesticides)
contradicts your ethical beliefs and call you a hypocrite and killer
among
other things. Stupid.

Strawman. You should know better.

I see it all the time in this newsgroup. I'm just writing the truth...

Rat & Swan wrote:



usual suspect wrote:

snip

Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the
claims of CDs incredible. The burden of evidence is wanting on both
sides of the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a
vegan diet causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard
diet which is at issue. The burden is on vegans who make such claims,
since nearly everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the
course of agriculture.


Which, as ethical vegans have noted many times, is the issue. The
ethical vegetarians and vegans ARE the only ones who care about
such deaths as a matter of philosophical principle,

No, they don't. They *claim*, self-servingly as
always, to care about them, but their behavior
indicates they do not care.

and until their
point of view bcomes more common, there will be no reason for those
who accept the collateral deaths to change their methods.

No. Emphatically, no. This is why I genuinely don't
understand why you are back here. You advanced this
smarmy, self-serving line of nonsense when you were
here before, and you were skewered for it. You aren't
saying anything new.

Refraining from eating meat, and refraining from eating
CD-causing vegetables, BOTH are purely symbolic
gestures. What distinguishes them? Cost. You can
easily and cheaply refrain from eating meat.
Refraining from eating blood-drenched vegetables is
much more costly and difficult and inconvenient.

That you engage in one symbolic and extremely passive
gesture but not in the equally symbolic but, today at
least, more active gesture, is a mark of your moral
inconsistency at best, and bad character in the more
likely worst case. It illustrates why "veganism" is
not based on any principle, unless "pleasure-seeking
lazy self indulgence" may be called a "principle".

I am
convinced that veganism is a more ethical position, since it rejects
such animal deaths in principle,

No, it most definitely does NOT reject deaths in
principle. It rejects them as a matter of your
convenience and enjoyment of a hedonistic "lifestyle".

and if the vegan position is
accepted, collateral deaths will decrease as a result of the awareness
of farmers.

As the "vegan" position is seen to be a lie, from start
to finish, and as good people don't knowingly embrace
lies, the "vegan" position is destined to remain the
"lifestyle" of self-marginalized, self-alienated,
mentally ill blowhards like you.

But CDs will be invisible to society as a whole until
a moral stance against the intentional deaths of animals in production
of food and other products is seen as unacceptable.

You have been asked to explain the mechanics of this
linkage a couple of years ago, and you failed; failed
utterly. Once again, you haven't brought anything new
to the, er, "debate".

Why are you here?

Then society can
and will advance to the consideration of unintentional deaths as well.

Yes, and the lion shall lay down with the lamb. Why
don't you sing a little bit of "Aquarius", too, and
tell us about peace guiding the planets and love
steering the stars.


Why ARE you back here?

Rat & Swan wrote:
Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the
claims of CDs incredible. The burden of evidence is wanting on both
sides of the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a
vegan diet causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard
diet which is at issue. The burden is on vegans who make such claims,
since nearly everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the
course of agriculture.

Which, as ethical vegans have noted many times, is the issue. The
ethical vegetarians and vegans ARE the only ones who care about
such deaths as a matter of philosophical principle, and until their
point of view bcomes more common, there will be no reason for those
who accept the collateral deaths to change their methods.

I cannot agree with you about any point you have made above. Vegans love
to *talk* about compassion, but seldom if ever *engage* in it when given
appropriate options. The extreme act of abstaining from meat itself
doesn't make one ethical, it only means one isn't consuming animal
flesh. Animals continue to die because most vegans -- even self-heralded
"ethical" vegans -- refuse to grow their own food on a small enough
scale to prevent animal deaths.

Vegans are not part of the solution, they remain part of the "problem"
-- at least insofar as some weak people consider it one (most people don't).

I am
convinced that veganism is a more ethical position, since it rejects
such animal deaths in principle, and if the vegan position is
accepted, collateral deaths will decrease as a result of the awareness
of farmers.

Hollow words unless you grow your own food and are conscientious about
not killing animals. Veganism is no more ethical than any other position
-- it's only hypocritical.

But CDs will be invisible to society as a whole until
a moral stance against the intentional deaths of animals in production
of food and other products is seen as unacceptable.

Most people seem to accept that animals die in the course of producing
and transporting food, whether those deaths are intentional (how many of
our brave citizens spray for bugs or leave traps for rodents?) or
collateral. You're waiting for the rest of society to devolve to your
level; perhaps you should face reality and accept that your views are
far, far out of the mainstream.

Then society can
and will advance to the consideration of unintentional deaths as well.

Do such childish, utopian delusions help you cope with reality, or is it
a just an attempt to avoid it?