In article >,
Derek > wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:37:55 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >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.)
>
> You're missing the point entirely. This thread concerns
> itself with 'usual suspects' view on what qualifies a
> collateral death and the implications of such a view.

Just sloppiness on my part. Both perspectives are based on the notion of
responsibility. Both perspectives are a dichotomy of the same phenomena
of exclusive responsibility versus shared responsibility. A discussion
of direct or indirect death requires an accurate assessment of who is
responsible for what part of the outcome.

> >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.