"Sprang" > wrote
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> It's equally obvious to me that regular consumers of free-range or hunted
>> meat, or freshly caught fish cause fewer animal deaths than most urban
>> vegans.
>
> So that's the point of that post? Well, that is simply a straw man.
> Vegetarianism is generally a secondary ethical choice, not a primary one.
> Comparing a urban vegan to a rancher is not realistic.

What do you mean "not realistic"?

> If one's sole moral priority were to kill fewer things, one would
> immediately commit suicide.

No, one would do that if one's goal were to stop killing things completely.

> Barring that, one would eat a vegetarian diet
> of carefully harvested plant materials.

That's one possibility. What proportion of vegans do that?

> But one certainly wouldn't kill
> some animals to prevent killing others;

Why not, if the net result were fewer deaths? I thought that was
the goal of veganism.

> not if one could just pick one's
> own fruit and vegetables and such.

And if one could not?

> Who says people have to be completely absolutist about every thing they
> think might do some good?

Vegans tend to think that way, very simplistically.

> Many pacifists agree with American involvement in
> WWII. The name of the site, lessmeat.com, kinda indicates that it is not
> about absolutism, no?

The name implies that, but the content of the site is same-old trite
vegan dogma.

> Vegetarianism is simply a non-action, not a basic ethical principle of
> life.

It's not a non-action, vegans substitute other food for the nutrient dense
food they abstain from, *and* they never calculate the cost of that
exchange fairly and honestly.

> And on another note, if everyone were to stop eating meat, fewer animals
> would die

That may be true, but if instead somewhat fewer people ate meat,
and many people ate less, from different sources, depending on the
availability, the fewest animals of all would die.

(including all the animals killed feeding those meat animals). If
> all six billion of us were to eat free-range or hunted meat, there would
> be
> no wild game, all the ranges would be irreversibly compromised, and all
> life on Earth would probably be in trouble. Which of those is a better
> lifestyle to advocate to others?

Who is being absolutist now?