"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > 1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of animals
in
> > veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans or
> > not,
> > then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop such
> > practices
>
> Perhaps so, however the fact remains that "veganism" as expressed in the
> real world does NOT deal with this issue, therefore the moral conclusions
> based on "veganism" are fundamentally flawed.

It does, it asks people to go vegan, so can farmers! It promotes veganic
farming. If others fail to take up these ideas, that is their fault, not
veganisms.

> > 2) veganism isn't a numbers game,
>
> "Objecting to the 1001st Death" is simply an expression, it does not
intend
> to reflect a specific number of deaths.

It absolutely implies a numbers game, yet it provides no credible or
authoitative numerical facts.

> I agree it's about that, but to be valid it must also address the issue of
> animal_death in an honest and forthright manner, which translates to an
> acknowledgement that reducing _animal exploitation_ is not necessarily
> synonymous with reducing _animal deaths_.

This is not a point. Reducing animal exploitation is also not synonymous
with increasing animal death. Veganism is based on the idea of compassion
for animals irrespective of the scenario, diet is only 1 facet.

> This is the big loophole in "veganism", _practical and possible_ are
> flexible terms, therefore if a "vegan" decides that it is not practical to
> always purchase animal-friendly produce, or indeed if it's not practical
or
> possible to even discover what those are, than as long as he obeys the
basic
> rule of non-consumption of animal *products, he can declare himself
morally
> upright. This is the real fallacy in all this, the "vegan's" belief that
> being "vegan" is necessary and sufficient to be a morally upright person.

Veganism starts with not eating animal products as a basic, and it does
indeed leave much to ones own judgement. I do not regard this as a flaw.
Veganism is inclusive and tries not to be too dogmatic.

> It is also practical and possible NOT to eat rice, a crop notorious for
> being high in collateral animal deaths.

Sure, vegans can choose not to eat rice if they want to and still be vegans.
However collateral death is acknowledged as unavoidable in all human
activity. Where possible it should be reduced. It is hard to establish
numbers, hence the lack of rules.

> That may have the outcome of increasing animal deaths, depending on the
> sources of the meat and the plant food used to replace it.

where are the numbers?

> Humans do not need to eat anything close to the amount of food of any type
> that most of us do, so anyone who eats more than that minimal amount is
> guilty of the exact same sin as you accuse meat-eaters of.

I agree, over eating is unvegan. No one is accused of any "sin" in veganism.

> Eliminating it altogether courts all forms of disasters as well.

How?

> 90% of the plant energy they ingest would be unavailable to humans any
other
> way.

Plant trees. Much pastureland used to be forest.

> It is completely unsubstantiated that "veganic" farming would be a
workable
> solution to feeding the human population.

There is no reason it would not work for most.

> That's a strawman, certain animal products can easily be shown to cause
> fewer animal deaths than certain plant based products.
> http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm

Exceptions mislead!

> animal products <full stop> If I offer a vegan a moose steak that is known
> to have caused 1/1000th of an animal death in place of a
rice/soy/carrot/pea
> concoction that has caused some unknown amount of death, he would never
> choose the moose.

This is hypothetical, no such numbers exist.

> It has never been established that the death toll in agriculture is
> avoidable.

I agree, agriculture should be abandoned as much as it can. Where we can we
should plant trees and grow fruit and nuts, and grow veg that is picked
carefully by hand. Through most of time there was no agriculture.

> In fact the whole idea of veganism is pie-in-the-sky twaddle.

It is quiet practical and achievable with commendable results. We can put
men on the moon, build cities and easily have more compassion for other
beings.

John