Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
> > The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, which causes
> > animals to lead miserable lives.
>
> That's a lie, vegans boycott ALL forms of animal products,
> not only "factory farmed" meat.
>

It's not a lie.

Most animal products are the product of factory farming. It is of
course true that by definition vegans boycott all animal products; my
point was simply that the main part of the case for veganism is the
case for boycotting factory-farm produce. That gets you to
near-veganism. A lot of people do go further, yes, whether you accept
the rest of the case for full veganism depends on the individual.

> > The animals who live on factory farms have to be fed with plant
> > products, the production of which will cause the death of wildlife.
>
> That's true, but meat can be obtained that requires little or
> no plant supplementation. Vegans oppose all of it.

True. See this article for one possible defence of that.

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf

> And the
> implication of that position is that it's "plant production" at
> the root of much of the animal killing in agriculture, a fact
> which confounds the moral presumptions of veganism.
>

No, it doesn't. The usual moral defence of veganism is that it is the
best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering. Nothing
you have said disproves that.

> > Animal products are an inefficient use of land,
>
> That depends on the land. A lot of land is not very arable
> but ideal for pasture.
>
> > so their production
> > will cause more death of wildlife than the production of plant products
> > to be fed directly to human beings.
>
> Not using non-arable land as pasture and grasses and raw
> grains as the foundation of the human food chain would mean
> a lot more intensive, (i.e. "factory") farming of plants.
>

So what?

> > As for the argument that ruminant-pasture food production causes fewer
> > deaths than some forms of plant food production, the following article
> > is worth a look:
> >
> > http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf
>
> It's worth a look but not much more, it's full of fallacies,
> diversionary arguments and unsupported assertions.
>

Would you care to elaborate on your critique of it?

> Vegetarian diets are quite good, and efficient, where vegans
> go awry is falling for all the feelgood quasi-political nonsense.

What nonsense? Some vegans claim that following a vegan diet is the
best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering. I don't
see that you've offered me any reason to think otherwise.