"Jonathan Ball" > wrote
> oh brother wrote:


> > And, btw, although there are collateral deaths in the production of non-
> > animal based foods, the number of collateral deaths involved in the
> > production of animal based foods is magnitudes higher, due to the simple
> > fact that it takes significantly more agricultural resources (farmland,
> > etc.) to support animals that feed people than it takes agricultural
> > resources to feed people directly.
>
> This, of course, is false. As a lot of meat is
> currently produced, more agricultural resources are
> used. There is, of course, no requirement that meat be
> produced in that way. In particular, there is no
> requirement that YOU consume meat that is produced in
> that way. You could eat grass-fed beef, wild game, and
> wild line- or net-caught fish, and in so doing, you
> could collaterally kill fewer animals than you do at
> present with your strictly vegetarian diet.
>
> The fundamental flaw with "veganism" as an ethical
> response to a perceived ethical problem is manifold:
>
> - no persuasive elaboration of a *real* ethical problem
> requiring a response
> - doesn't solve the alleged problem, even in terms of a
> personal response to it, let alone societally -->
> "vegans"
> continue to cause animal death
> - is predicated on an invalid *comparative* morality

Good post. Speaking of requiring a response, since you have left very little
room for equivocation, I predict that "oh brother" will not be responding.