On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:49:48 -0800, dh@. wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:22:12 +0000, Nemo (heh heh heh) > wrote:
>>On 10/01/2012 23:13, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 22:31:27 +0000, Nemo (heh heh heh) > wrote:
>>>> On 08/01/2012 20:32, Dutch wrote:
>>>>> > (heh heh heh) wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why Veganism?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For compassion,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's my reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you considered the collateral impact of those vegan alternatives? For
>>>>> example leather is a by-product of the meat industry,
>>>>
>>>> No it is not a by-product. More animals are slaughtered than would
>>>> otherwise be for their meat for leather.
>>>
>>> How do you figure that?
>>
>>Leather is a co-product of the meat industry, not a by-product of
>>it. It's an economically dependent product of meat production made
>>simultaneously with it to make each affordable to the consumer and
>>thereby increases the demand for slaughtered animals. A by-product
>>is something produced incidentally to another product that isn't
>>economically dependent on it for its production.
>
> Leather is.

[Most consumers mistakenly assume that leather is merely
a by-product of the meat industry, and that buying leather
clothing does not increase the number of animals slaughtered.
However, this belief ignores the economic interdependence
of factory farming and the leather trade. In reality, leather is
a co-product of the meat industry, generating significant
profits for both factory farms and the leather trade itself. In
fact, without the lucrative sale of animal skins for leather,
factory farms would not even be able to turn a profit by
selling meat alone. Ultimately, buying leather products
subsidizes factory farms while providing financial incentive
for them to produce more leather.]
http://www.idausa.org/facts/leatherfacts.html

co-product
something produced jointly with another product.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/co-product

by-product
1. a secondary or incidental product, as in a process of manufacture.
2. the result of another action, often unforeseen or unintended.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/by-product

Unlike leather, a co-product economically dependent upon
the meat industry, the collateral deaths accrued during vegetable
production are merely a secondary incidental by-product of it
that goes to waste. Vegans cannot in good conscience buy
co-products economically dependent upon the meat industry, and
that's why they avoid buying leather. But if you're going to insist
leather is merely a by-product of the meat industry you would
have no argument against vegans if they buy it, or any other items
on your list that contains them, because they are merely an incidental
by-product, often unforeseen and unintended. Way to go Harrison,
you stupid ****wit; categorising leather as merely an unforeseen
unintended by-product lets vegans off the hook.

>If no cattle were raised for beef or dairy some might be raised
>for leather, but as it is no cattle need to be raised for leather so they
>aren't.

The very high prices of alligator and mink are just two examples
which prove how the meat industry subsidises cow hides and
increases the number of their slaughter. If alligators and mink
where slaughtered for their meat the price for their hides would
fall dramatically and the numbers slaughtered would increase
accordingly.

>>>>> the alternatives come
>>>>> from the petro-chemical industry. The extraction of petroleum causes harm to
>>>>> animals, the processes release chemicals that are harmful to animals. These
>>>>> decisions are not quite as simple as you might think.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You're not seriously suggesting that I should start eating meat and
>>>> wearing animal skins because non-animal alternatives might kill wild
>>>> animals anyway, are you?
>>>
>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
>>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
>>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
>>> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
>>> in order to be successful:
>>>
>>> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
>>> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
>>> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
>>> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
>>> gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
>>> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
>>> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings

Like you say, Harrison, all those items contain incidental unforeseen
by-products of the meat industry. They certainly aren't co-products
of it that must be avoided.

>>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
>>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
>>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
>>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
>>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
>>> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
>>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
>>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
>>> being vegan.
>>> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>>> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
>>> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>>> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>>
>>Children raised in third world countries on other children from third
>>world countries for their tender meat and young organ replacements
>>would contribute to fewer human deaths in first world countries. I
>>still wouldn't buy their meat or use their organs.
>
> That's not similar enough to even try comparing, so why did you try do you
>have any idea?

You want to ignore the similarity because it defeats your logic
of the larder argument for the use of animals, but it's there all
the same whether you reject it or not.