David Gest's bitch wrote:
>>No, ASSHOLE, it isn't important at all. The only
>>importance of collateral animal deaths in fruit and
>>vegetable agriculture is to show that "vegans" ignore
>>them, which invalidates their position.
>
> Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal casualties
> in products they buy and use.

They wouldn't make outlandish moral claims if they knew and accepted
that. Many veg-ns are shocked and stunned to learn their diet does
*nothing* to eliminate animal suffering and death.

> The idea is to minimize animal casualties
> through the choices they make.

No, the idea is to assume a moralistic posture and make judgmental
assessments of the dietary choices of others. If each and every animal
has a soul or some amount of sentience, how many voles, rats, mice,
birds, fish, deer, rabbits, skunks, etc., does it take to consider the
balance tilted toward harm? IOW, how many animal casualties do you
justify before meat consumption is morally acceptable?

If the goal is minimization, they needn't go to the extreme of veganism.
Plenty of humane alternatives are available which would allow them to
have their steak and eat it, too. Those alternatives include hunting,
grass-fed beef, and home-grown livestock.

You must get over your confusion about the minimization issue. The
solution offered is radical, and has very little, if any, bearing on
markets that could be affected were more moderate steps taken.

> Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc.
> because it contributes less to animal casualties.

Please justify your claim that veganism contributes less to animal
casualties.

> The cattle industry is
> responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties than
> vegan's collective contribution.

Strawman since cattle ranching in and of itself needn't rely on grain
for feed.

> You don't want vegans to know that because
> it discredits your wild accusations.

You're the one engaging in deceit.