"John Deere" > wrote
> 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.

False, both are killed as a direct result of the production of food.

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

It assumes no such thing.

> In fact, every single animal-based meal is derived
> from hundreds of "vegan" meals fed to the animal,

Can you eat grass, silage, waste and by-products? Every pound of meat
produced from those plentiful sources is food that would be unavailable
otherwise. That food would likely be replaced by commercially produced,
inferior tofu/rice/vegetable substitutes causing the deaths of yet more
animals.

> so
> whatever a vegan does, it's multiplied by several
> hundred for a non-vegan.

If I catch one salmon I can replace the protein content of a large amount of
commercially produced alternative such as tofu burgers, which resulted in an
unknown but considerable amount of animal harm.

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

OK, my intention is to nourish myself, the vegan's intention is to nourish
himself. What am I missing?

>> > 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.

It fails to address the original poster's points in any way.

> You are absolutely right about it, it's a very
> contrived logical position.

Then you should stick to substance instead of inventing fantasies about
aliens.

> Good job, now just do
> a little more thinking, and the rest might make sense too.

Right now I am noticing your snipping of so many of my comments without
noting or responding. Could it be that you feel hopelessly stuck defending
an indefensible position?