John Coleman wrote:

>>Such an argument, which I now call "Objecting to the 1001st Death," relies
>>ENTIRELY on moral relativism. It avoids personal culpability for one's
>>actions and ultimately becomes a diversion from the issue vegans and ARAs
>>raise about animal cruelty.
>
>
> I'm not sure who wrote this nonsense, I have already pointed out the
> fallacies.

No, you haven't.

>
> 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

There is no "need" for farmers to "go 'vegan'", except
in your warped ideology.

You can't escape the fact that you are blaming the
farmer for YOUR failure to live as you claim to live:
"cruelty free". Your claim is false, and you know it;
when you stand by the claim, you become a liar.

>
> 2) veganism isn't a numbers game

As I've demonstrated numerous times, it very much IS a
numbers game. First, "vegans" begin by believing the
classic Denying the Antecedent fallacy:

if I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of
animals

I do not eat meat;

therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death
of animals

Don't bother denying it; ALL "vegans" begin by
believing this fallacy. When it is pointed out to them
that it IS a fallacy, leading to the inescapable
conclusion that refraining from consuming animal
products does NOT mean one leads a "cruelty free"
lifestyle, they ALL retreat to a numbers game: they
begin claiming, without support, that they cause fewer
instances of animal death and suffering.

>
> 3) pasture ranging cattle do not tiptoe through the meadows, they trample
> other creatures

Prove it.

>
> 4) vegans advocate veganic agriculture, free of any pesticides and dangerous
> machinery

Their "advocacy" is ineffectual and does not absolve
them of responsibility for being cheerful accomplices
in the non-"veganic" (that's not even a word) slaughter
of animals in agriculture.

>
> 5) all of the above points are factual

No, they aren't. They're spin; blatant propagandizing
based on half truths at best.

>
> 6) "moral relativism" is a nonsense concept

It certainly is! That's why you should stop embracing it.