Dutch wrote:
> "John Deere" > wrote
>
> [..]
> >> In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
> >> "veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
> >> they don't really believe their absolute claim that
> >> killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
> >> effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
> >> see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.
> >
> > You are putting forth a very contrived logical position.
>
> What is contrived about counting the deaths of animals killed in the
> production of food? That is essentially the vegan complaint against
> meat-eaters

One is direct killing, one is incidental killing.

Moreover, the original argument is biased nonsense, because
it assumes cattle are raised on water and air.

In fact, every single animal-based meal is derived
from hundreds of "vegan" meals fed to the animal, so
whatever a vegan does, it's multiplied by several
hundred for a non-vegan.

But the point which you had trouble getting,
is all about "intentions". Think about it
a bit, and it might get clear.

> > It's possible that every time I drive north in the night, the
> > light from my headlights ultimately ends up proving
> > fatal to certain life-forms on an alien planet.
> > That does not make me a killer.
>
> Talk about contrived logical positions!

Well, you are certainly getting a bit of it. This was an
example, to show how contrived the original poster's position.
You are absolutely right about it, it's a very
contrived logical position. Good job, now just do
a little more thinking, and the rest might make sense too.