> wrote in message
...
> On 10 Nov 2003 21:43:04 -0800, (googlesux) wrote:
>
> >"Ray" > wrote in message
>...
> >> "googlesux" > wrote in message
> >> om...
> >> > Can I just ask what KIND of animals are the victims of animal
> >> > collateral deaths in agriculture? Are we talking about insects? Mice?
> >> > Rabbits? Groundhogs? I'd just like to know what people are talking
> >> > about when they refer to this.
> >>
> >> Yes, mostely these type of poor unfortunate animals are subject to
> >> 'accidental' deaths. It is impossible to live without killing other
animals,
> >> a regrettable fact. Anyone who differs is a liar.
> >
> >Are there people who claim this? I suppose there must be some on this
> >list who do. But I don't think the majority of vegetarians or vegans
> >believe their lives are 100% cruelty free,
>
> Let's not forget that veg*ns contribute to animal deaths in *most* of
> the same ways that everyone else does--their diet only being one of
> those ways. All they try to avoid are the deaths of animals who wouldn't
> have had any life at all if it were not for meat consumers, though they
> still contribute to their deaths by using *many* products which contain
> animal by-products. Considering things like that shows that veg*nism
> doesn't do anything to help any animals.
>
> >so I don't understand why
> >this topic comes up here so much. If vegetarians and vegans are
> >causing less suffering than meat/dairy/fish eaters, I don't really see
> >why there are people here trying to remind the vegetarians and vegans
> >that they are still causing some collateral deaths.
>
If we consider the conditions for being ethical as concerns killing animals,
how much death to animals shall be allowed for, and beyond which, we can
determine that someone is offensive or out of line?
> Don't you think that people who are *truely* interested in human
> influence on animals, should not only be aware that they can contribute
> to fewer animal deaths by eating some types of meat and dairy products
> than they can with a strictly veg*n diet, but they should also point it
out
> to other people who are considering becoming veg*n for ethical reasons?
> I certainly believe they should, and also have noticed that the only
> people who care enough to point it out are omnivores. That certainly tells
> us something about where veg*ns are coming from. Not only do veg*ns
> not point it out, but they are *opposed* to seeing such things pointed
out.
> You are your own best example in this, since you seem to be an example
> and you can examen your own thinking in as much detail as you want to.
>
> >This is like
> >reminding firemen that some people still die in fires.
>
> LOL. Maybe you should examen your thinking and how it relates to
> reality. To begin with this example: firemen *do* put out fires, but
veg*ns
> do *not* help or save any animals.
Isn't the superior clarity of mind and concentration that comes with
vegetarianism and undernutrition enough alone to participate? The ethics of
clear mindedness and detoxification are a treat for those who must
experience through them its beauty.