In article >,
Jon > wrote:

> He already has, and according to him "If such deaths are
> intentional, they aren't also collateral." That being so, when
> he asserts that vegans are responsible for collateral deaths
> he contradicts himself, because according to his view, the
> intentional deaths caused by farmers aren't collateral deaths
> in the first place if they're intentional. What part in that don't
> you understand, and how many times must I repeat it before
> you finally grasp it?

This is also the fallacy of insignificant cause. (The human need to
special, important or signficant.)

A more accurate determination could be accomplished by graphing all of
those involved and determining the percentage of
responsibility/contributed to the outcome

50% The farmer (person who kills the animal)
10% The consumer (demand -- one of many who wants the animal)
10% Other consumers (demand -- the others who want the animal)
10% Other farmers (competition)
10% Personal needs of the farmer (economic forces on the farmer)
10% All the others associated with the
growing, production, sale and purchase.

In this instance, there are six causes related to the death of a farm
animal and the most significant cause is the farmer who kills it.